MI and FL broke the rules; but only because they were swimming in IA and NH's pool
When the DNC primary commission met in 2005 to discuss changing the nomination calendar they anticipated a great number of problems, but today's current situation was the last thing they could have envisioned. The concerns they had three years ago are, in fact, notable today only for how irrelevant they seem. They worried that the nominee would be chosen too early, by too few states, and that he or she would emerge untested from a short battle.
In their defense, no one saw this coming. And it's hard to look into a crystal ball, especially when you're still in a bunker.
For Democrats at the time, the pendulum had yet to shift and the wounds of 2004 were still fresh in their minds. When the committee met for the third time on July 16, 2005, they heard from party activists on ways to increase diversity in the nominating process. DNC veteran Harold Ickes questioned almost every witness asking whether the preference given to Iowa and New Hampshire "hurts the quality" of the Democrat candidates. Yes, they all said in one way or another.
One particularly convincing panelist that day, turn out guru Curtis Gans argued that since the McGovern-Fraser commission Democrats had yet to create a system that is durable. "What we have created is the worst of both worlds," Gans said. "We emerge with a candidate who hasn't been tested."
In other words, you end up with John Kerry.
Despite this frightening prospect, a slew of alternative options, and evidence supporting more wide scale changes, the committee was hesitant to support any drastic measures that would alter New Hampshire and Iowa's first-in-the-nation roles. And so they decided on the most moderate option -- they would add Nevada and South Carolina to the early voting "window," increasing diversity but still preserving their traditional lifeguards.
And so it went. Like children on a beach, the DNC feared straying too far from Iowa and New Hampshire, who had dominated the primary process since the late 1960s, in part by arguing that their small states give candidates more personal contact with voters. Sitting high on their proverbial lifeguard stands; the states convinced the party that they would continue to keep the electoral process safe through their retail-politicking eyes. And like any good lifeguards, they had whistles and obscure state laws to prove their entitlement.
Whether it was out of fear or a Baywatch-like awe, Howard Dean and the DNC rules committee were so hell-bent on preserving the status of Iowa and New Hampshire that they would later punish Florida and Michigan for defying the rules set in 2005. In the same breath, however, they would ignore Iowa and New Hampshire, who also violated these "rules" by disregarding the time frame the committee had set for their contests.
The campaigns also shoulder some blame for never envisioning a world beyond New Hampshire and Iowa. In a move that solidified the importance of the traditional early-voting states, the campaigns all signed a written pledge not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, lest they take away attention from Iowa's time in the sun.
Stripped of their delegates and access to candidates, Florida and Michigan held their primaries anyway. Barack Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot -- an argument his campaign will no doubt make this weekend in contending the election was invalid. But this was a strategic, albeit shortsighted, decision his campaign made.
As it turns out, Michigan was not only punished, it was also pawned. According to several sources, Hillary Clinton was literally tricked into staying on the Michigan ballot by a last minute effort to embarrass the then-frontrunner before Iowa.
Sources with Edwards, Dodd and Biden's campaigns -- speaking on the condition of anonymity -- said they discussed a plan, apparently floated by the Obama campaign, to privately tell Clinton's team they would remain on the ballot and at the last minute remove their names. Thus, Clinton would be the sole name on a renegade state's ballot. The lifeguards, of course, would not be pleased.
No thanks to the rules committee or the campaigns, the primary process as a whole has been marked by record-shattering voter turnout, creating a burst of interest in states typically ignored in an election year. The extended primary galvanized a new class of voters, and resulted in what analysts by and large predict will be permanent gains for Democrats in November.
It's nothing short of a classic coming-of age-tale. The same young children, who have carried over-inflated idea of lifeguards, eventually grow up and realize 16-year-olds with CPR certificates and a few YMCA classes can do water safety too. Hopefully, the Democrats grew up a little during these last few months and have seen that states, when given the opportunity and access, can handle the responsibility of getting to pick a nominee. And of course, the party is better off when they do.
Tomorrow, when the DNC rules committee meets to determine the status of the votes cast in Florida and Michigan, we'll see just how much they've grown. Part of righting the wrongs in Florida and Michigan will require the DNC realizing the role they played in the flawed process. They were wrong to adhere to a schedule tailor-made to benefit the past and not the future. They were wrong to react with such haste and harshness in punishing Michigan and Florida. And most importantly, they were wrong to protect the interest of two states, at the expense of two others.
What exactly is your recommendation? That the DNC fess up to errors and take responsibility to find and redress key problems with the primary process in time for 2012?
Or that the DNC and the Obama campaign rend their garments, cry "Peccavi!" and give Clinton whatever her little heart desires right this minute?
--- --- that said, I believe Iowa's and New Hampshire's rolls may be questioned and possibly changed over the next four years.
I am only hoping that there is a big enough coalition that can be built to strip Iowa and New Hamsphire of their undeserved and unwarranted power and influence over the Presidential selection process. No state deserves the ability to winnow down the choices for any other.
To invoke a Hamlet simile: "....Something is rotten in Denmark!"
Your statement ignores that the Obama campaign had an early, post-Super Tuesday strategy, which lead to a 12-state winning streak, so your insinuation that they were kissing up to Iowa is incorrect.
I agree with the concept of having certain smaller states go first. Iowa and New Hampshire only have 45 and 22 delegates, respectively, while Florida and Michigan have 185 and 128, respectively. By having a few weeks where only a few, smaller states vote, it keeps the race competitive while giving people a chance to know the candidates. By doing well in Iowa, a lesser known candidate has the chance to distinguish themselves. Most people had not even heard of Obama, but after he came to the spotlight in Iowa, people learned more about him and began voting for him. One might argue that this gives Iowa an unfair advantage, but since larger states have so many more delegates (like Cali, with 370), they can easily take the race in a different direction. It's like the balance between the Senate (2 reps per state) and House (reps according to population).
If the rules were completely different she would have won!
Here is a quote of a statement by Wolfson on the date that the event took place.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/09/403850.aspx
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-09-mich-primary_N.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313306,00.html
Please do fact checks on these stories before you spread more myths and raise anger where none is merited.
Susan
The long primary season has been helpful to Obama. He's a much stronger candidate for it. The part I don't get is why rank and file Democrats allowed a system where 'pledged' delegates are not really pledged and 'super' delegates can overturn the entire process.
This article is very informative. I wish the author had made suggestions for solutions as well. Apparently, at one time the nominee was chosen in smoke filled back rooms. At some point, this wasn't viewed well so the current system was devised. The Party elders still wanted control of the outcome so they hatched this delegate plan.
Why have delegates? If they're supposed to reflect the will of the people, why not just count the people? Why have 'super' delegates? Does the party not trust voters to choose? That's certainly the implication. The long primary season seems to solve the weak-candidate problem of yore. If you must have the supers, how about 100 of them? But almost 800??
With this process , I think the Party has thrown away a rare opportunity to bring a lot of independents on board permanently.
I will vote in November for my candidate (Obama) but I don't see myself changing my party affiliation anytime soon. I'm just one small person (and one of those awful prior Republicans, to boot) but how many people might I represent?
I heard somewhere that Hillary conspired with the Republicans to move the primary dates in Florida and Michigan to mess up the Democratic Party. Bill worked very hard on that and got pissed when he didn't get the credit.
Those are the facfs ma'm. HILLARY AND BILL LOST. They ring has been taken by Obama and the Clintons are on their way down the road of irrelevance. Geez, I almost hope she will not go on the campaign trail to campaign for Obama. She and Bill, encapsulated in their revenge for losing to him, would not be good advocates of Obama. Of that I am sure. They are aging and stuck on an era gone by and it is obvious in the way their campaign was run,
She is so despicable, along with her running mate, Bill, who cannot seem to give up the notion that he is entitled to a third term.
Obama is going to be the nominee, but in the meantime everyone gets to do a lot of shouting.
For unity sake, seat the delegation at "half-value" for punishment.
For this year, Florida is really easy. The Florida primate decision was due, in part, due to Republican party shenanigans and both names were on the ballot. Simply seat the Florida delegation, but give every delegate half-a-vote as punishment for moving the primary forward.
Michigan is the real mess. Give Clinton her delegates for 55% of the vote she received. The Obama and Edwards supporters knew to vote uncommitted. Since Edwards voted Obama, give Obama the other 45% of the delegates. With proportional representation, and with both delegations at half-value, the outcome won't change and everyone can go home.
But ultimately this all means nothing. I'd rather the Rules Committee focus on creating a better system in 2012 where these small and unrepresentative states don't inflict their decisions on the overwhelming majority of Americans who live in Metropolitan areas.