Why Not Move The Democratic National Convention?

Why is the Democratic Convention in August if August is too late?

Who was sleeping at that switch for so many years? August has always been close to November.

This year, however, it's apparently closer. We've been hearing from Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid that the August Democratic Party convention is too late to bring Democrats together before the election. Democrats, they insist, need to decide on their nominee earlier.

That would mean a shadow or virtual convention in June or early July before the party part in August.

But wait, Florida and Michigan didn't like the schedule they were stuck with yet they couldn't move their primaries without punishment. They weren't allowed to disrupt process. Hmmm. Where's the consistent logic there?

For argument's sake, let's say that most people don't oppose a shadow convention in June. After all, we've been told it gives the Democrats more time to mount an offensive.

Let's move it then! Why not? That way the whole issue concerning whether and how to include Florida and Michigan will be decided while both Obama and Clinton are still running. Now that would be fair. Right?

Then we'd have a single nominee with the Florida and Michigan debacle resolved. People would be pleased to have it done with and the Democratic Party would have the time advantage they want.

But wait, here too the logic is wanting. Let's look at the counterintuitive on this issue. Isn't it possible that not having a nominee yet prevents John McCain from developing a focused strategy? Right now he has to mount two strategies. There's something to be said for that. Isn't there?

Also, lets' go deeper, which is always more interesting than surface analysis. The reasoning provided for an early summer decision is that time is needed to pull party members back together. But this argument comes from many of the same people who couldn't see ahead to how angry Florida and Michigan voters would be and who thought superdelegates should save an election despite the popular vote.

Could it be that they are misjudging again - that indeed time is only one and not the primary factor in persuading Democrats to reunite? Shouldn't we think more deeply about this? How about some new expertise in on this one?

What if time is less important than how satisfied the Clinton supporters are (for example) that she got a fair chance - wasn't forced out of the race prematurely? That requires skillful communication and assurances that are as yet absent from the discussions. We're talking not only of women, but also a lot of men as well, most of them people who regularly vote.

A boomerang effect could easily occur. In persuasion, that's when those intent on influencing don't carefully consider potentially unfavorable consequences. They get blindsided. That would hurt the Party and the nominee as well.

Hastiness, disorganization, poor negotiation skills, and short-term thinking have hurt the Democratic Party. They've made promises they've been unable to keep. Now the Democratic Party's credibility is suffering. If they rush a decision this time, they may need years to recover. And we simply don't have that luxury.

Dr. Reardon also blogs at politicsdoc

Comments

[Valjean]

Along with an earlier convention all the elected delegates should be released from their pledges so they could select a candidate who could unite the party, beyond the reach now of both Obama and Clinton. They have many well qualified to choose from, some far more than O or C who are not cast in stone at this time. Their operations had just gathered more money than the others. What other Democrat leader would you support? I would be courting Powell to run against those who dismissed him before.

[BlueOnBlue]

I thought situational ethics was a Republican trait. Guess not.

[wolfi101]

Actually, I don't mind, if they move the convention up ahead of time ----------- if all of the states waiting to vote still get to have their say and the candidates both agree on doing this. The difference here ( unlike the common Clinton stance with Florida and Michigan ) is that, if they don't agree, I'm not going to lambaste them for not doing it.

If everyone says, "Ok, we're ready. Let's do this." Cool. Otherwise, let's just stick to the scenario and rules set up originally. I will just have to swallow my disgust and continue watching Clinton, twisting in the wind, and doing her best to tear her party apart for no good reason -----

before they ultimately give the nomination to Obama. ;-)

[MrLion]

I have a news flash for you, Ms. Reardon. Florida and Michigan were decided. The DNC agreed to a schedule of primaries and caucuses. The Democratic Party brass in Florida and Michigan thumbed their nose at the DNC, its rules, and the 48 other states that complied. The DNC followed through on its threat and stripped those states of their delegates. End of story.

Next time, I hope the mandarins of the two renegade state parties (full disclosure; I'm a Michigander) will learn that their arrogance and incompetence has consequences.

[DustyRebel]

How about we all play this hand with the rules we started with....

...next round we can talk about different rules.

All players started this race agreeing to what game they were playing. We cannot alter calendars or measurements of a win mid-game. PERIOD.

What part of this don't you get?

woulda shoulda counda....

[FogCityJohn]

You know, you'd think a Harvard professor would actually be smart enough to figure some of this out, but since Reardon's support for Hillary appears to have robbed her of her powers of reason, let me spell one thing out. FL and MI *could* have moved their primaries without penalty -- to any date up to February 5th. What the party told them in advance they COULDN'T do was to pick a date EARLIER than February 5th, which is what they did, knowing full well what the consequences would be. Then, after they did that, the DNC punished them, and Hill's boy Harold Ickes voted to deprive FL and MI of their delegates. Hillary was fine with that until she started LOSING. Suddenly, what Ickes had voted for became a "disenfranchisement" of FL and MI voters. I appreciate Hillary's recent conversion to the virtues of democracy, but it does seem just a teensy, weensy bit self-serving. And it's also very limited, because she thinks it would be fine for the superdelegates to pick her even though she's behind in pledged delegates.

Next time, Prof. Reardon, rather than this sort of ridiculous feigned ignorance, why don't you try honesty? Just say this: "I want Hillary to be the nominee no matter what Democratic primary voters do, no matter how viciously she campaigns, and no matter how much she attacks the party's base voters. Because the most important thing for me is to have a candidate who shares my genitalia."

[jhink465]

Huzzah! Snap! Now Reardon should tuck her tail, have a stiff drink and regret she ever ventured into the real world with this nonsense.

[liberalfan]

The convention was set in August to lower the window in which the candidates would be locked into general election money.

That's why McCain is basically happy he has 85 million for a shorter time period and just has to cover his expenses and rely on 3rd parties to do the heavy ad hitting.

If we weren't wasting resources on a primary fight he'd be a sitting duck.

And why would we change the rules for Hillary Clinton? She has been losing KNOWING the rules; doesn't inspire confidence in her winning the general election with her own baggage. Al Gore didn't get a rule change. He actually won the popular vote AND electoral college.

Life isn't always fair.

And IMO it's a good idea for Obama to choose a female VP.

But it's not a good idea to prolong a campaign HRC lost now because she can never get a pledged delegate lead. Taking this from Obama would kill down ticket races that RELY on AA turnout. Let this play out to June. Let the super delegates declare. Let the winner pivot toward the general election.

And let's stop these ridiculous coulda, shoulda, woulda IF situations. Because frankly, the Obama team planned an insurgency campaign for the long haul given the rules in place. If different rules had been in place they'd have planned a different campaign too. They just have planned better and been better consistently than HRC's team.

That's the fact. And that's why she's lost this nomination.

[JackieW]

You have ZERO credibility on this issue. It was long ago squandered in your repeated attempts to justify anything and everything Hillary does to win the nomination. It went the way of Hillary's when she repeatedly claimed to have dodged sniper fire, when she bellied up to the bar for whiskey shots and beer, when she offered to obliterate Iran. I would assume that there would come a time when women such as you who have fought for women's rights would realize that promoting Hillary does NOT promote the cause. Her main claim to experience is "I was married to the POTUS". That coupled with "I served on the Bd of Directors for Walmart - a corporation known for union busting, NO healthcare and abysmally low wages for their largely female workforce". Or maybe, "I set as a goal destroying the lives of the women my husband had sexual relations with during our marriage". Not exactly laudable accomplishments, but a very signficant part of the 35 years she lays claim to.

[PlantGod72]

Face it Ms. Reardon, if Hillary weren't 'H I L L A R Y', but just another female candidate with any old hubbie in her corner, we would NOT be having this discussion.

She has had EVERY advantage going into this race.

She has managed her advantages piss-poorly.

She has squandered every opportunity to build on her enormous political machine and network of well-connected cronies.

She and her husband have outright lied, distorted the records/words/intentions of her opponent and used every tactic in the book of 'divide and rule' theory and YET she can't knock out the ONE candidate who could stand up to this juggernaut of a campaign and come out the leader!

SHE BLEW IT. PERIOD.

[PioneerKing]

Chuck Todd said "Hillary got an automatic 3% by having the PA political machine support her," politicians in PA used financial resources to support Hillary so there was more money spent on behalf of Hillary than her own campaign money.
Clinton"s supporters have failed to acknowledge that people who are polled after every election are NOT first time voters, voters who changed their party affiliation or voters who where previously inactive and, it is not a given that those voters will support Hillary.
People who say they will not vote for Obama but, will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee were NEVER going to vote for Obama!
If someone wants America out of Iraq and knows that the economy is hurting as a result of war expenditures why would they vote for someone who wants to stay the course?
No one has said to those people "your vote for McCain will mean more dead troops and more of your money going to Iraq while the economy suffers," "is this what you are willing to sacrifice by refusing to vote for Obama?"
Why aren"t you asking "why can"t Hillary close the deal and get the voters that Obama is attracting?"
If Obama was not bringing new voters to the party the dems would have Hillary not being able to garner more than 45% if she draws that many votes, 3% others, and McCain will get 52% because the right wing base will galvanize against anything Clinton.

[eleutheros]

Exactly -- The Clintons are getting every advantage simply because of the Clinton brand. Had this been any other candidate, this thing would have been over months ago. And should the Clintons become the nominees, I dare say that she will lose the general, as Obama supporters will leave the party in droves. On the other hand, I dare the Clinton's female base to leave Obama if he's the nominee. Justice Steven's is "the" vote right now. If the court becomes a 6-3, get out the coat hangers girls. But on the other hand, most of the Clinton base is beyond child bearing age anyway.

[cla62]

McCain doesn't have to form 2 strategies, anyone it seems except the news media knows that the rock star is the dem. nominee. If Clinton impossibly found a way to steal the Dem. nomination, your party would implode and McCain wouldn't even need a strategy for Clinton, he would just have to show up. Good job news media, keep up the good work, we'll find a way for Clinton to steal this thing yet!!!

[Tellmethetruth]

The Republicans have wanted obama because he is the weakest of the two candidates and that is showing up daily. Once he is more locked into the nomination and it is difficult to get rid of him without splitting the party, the the Republicans could unload the dirt. Try a) cocaine use - when did he stop - rumors have it - only 4 or 5 years ago b) sex - charismatic person - we know the rest c) bribes - the Rezko trials d) links to Muslims and arabs - Rezko trial and racketeering e) Rev. Wright - more of this is coming

In fact, the Republicans can't wait until September to dump this stuff on the public - so they are dumping some of it now that one thing is certain - no one will win the Democratic nomination now without splitting the party. Mission accomplished.

It's over... the rush to pick Obama without figuring who he was other than he was not a woman will cause tears to flow from the Democrats for decades to come....

[rebeccaj]

@Tellmethetruth

It is knee-jerk feminists like you who almost destroyed the movement in the 1980s.

And you are doing a good job with making "feminist" a bad word again -- even though I will continue to proudly call myself one no matter what.

Even after bitter, sexist creatures like you do your best to elect the war-mongering McCain this Fall, rather than support your African-American sisters and brothers and fellow Democratic sisters and brothers -- who will be working hard to elect our properly nominated candidate.

[sandiaview]

"Hastiness, disorganization, poor negotiation skills, and short-term thinking have hurt the Democratic Party."
This sentence sounds like Hillary Clinton's campaign. Just substitute Hillary for Democratic Party. This candidate can't manage her staff, money, budget or message. Just a slash and burn strategy. Yeah, just like a Hill Gal, change the rules to fit my needs, Yeah, they are the school yard bullies!

[Raven]

"Could it be that they are misjudging again - that indeed time is only one and not the primary factor in persuading Democrats to reunite?"

Or, Kathleen, could it be that your allegiance is showing.

That's the problem with Hillary's supporters.

They're all for what's best for Hillary.

The party and the country be damned.

Kathleen, I had great respect for you in the past. But I've grown weary of your attempts to justify Hillary's abuse of her country and party.

This one-sided prism that shapes your perception of this election has done much more damage to your reputation than you might think.

[cla62]

The Clintons have always been a black eye, an embarassment to the dems. and the country. They have always been corrupt and always will be. It's funny that half of the dems are finally having to have to admit it. It was all ok in the nineties, now all of a sudden their in the way. Could it be both of them were always slime balls but now half of you have to admit it?

[Burnsey]

Ms Reardon you say:

"But this argument comes from many of the same people who couldn't see ahead to how angry Florida and Michigan voters would be and who thought superdelegates should save an election despite the popular vote.

Could it be that they are misjudging again - that indeed time is only one and not the primary factor in persuading Democrats to reunite? Shouldn't we think more deeply about this? How about some new expertise in on this one?"

But you (and most Clinton supporters) forget to mention that some of those big-wigs who made those decisions are currently serving in Senator Clinton's campaign. They aggreed to the decision when it was made and only decided it was a problem when the numbers didn't add up in their favor. I WILL NEVER vote for Ms Clinton, she is dishonest from the get go in this campaign. And to think I voted for her in the primary here in California. She got my vote once, but if she is the nominee I will not vote for president. Good job Senator Clinton...

[Indepatriot]

"Hastiness, disorganization,poor negotiation skills,and short-term thinking". Sounds like the Clinton "campain" in a nutshell.

[OtayPanky]

I think you meant to say "camp pain"...but you're right anyway.

[RationalDem]

You beat me to it! I don't see why the Clinton supporters need more time. It's been a freakin' year already of campaigning. Michigan and Florida unfortunately learned a hard lesson.

By the way, in Terry McAuliffe's book he described how Carl Levin tried to move up Michigan's primary against party rules in 2004. McAuliffe bragged about his smackdown of Levin, telling him if Michigan moved against the rules there would be chaos and everyone would start jumping around, and if Michigan moved up their primary date the only way their delegates would see the convention in Boston is on TV. Fast forward to today, and see what a hypocrite McAuliffe is, as well as Harold Ickes, who voted on the committee to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S.