The DEMOCRATIC PARTY has made a mockery of DEMOCRACY and I live in a Banana Republic here in Michigan. The Michigan Dems and the DNC took my vote and assigned it to Obama, who dissed the voters of Michigan and the Party Bosses by REMOVING his name from the Ballot. Obama blocked re-votes in Florida and Michigan but the Party, in their wisdom, decided to give votes to Obama from people that voted for Hillary. Hillary took 55% of the votes, "not committed" got 40% and 5% went to Kucinich and Dodd. The 40% not committed were votes from the supporters of Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson but the DEMS gave all those votes to Obama plus another 10% of Hillary's votes. This is the same group that was crying in 2000, telling America we should count every vote, what a Hoax. I can no longer support this Party and I hope they change their name, they should strike any reference to DEMOCRATIC or DEMOCRACY though, they no longer support that idea.
How the Democratic Party Blew the Communications Part of Its Florida/Michigan Decisions
There were a number of reasons why the Rules Committee made the decisions it did on Saturday, some of them easier to understand than others. But this weekend it continued to use words like "penalty" and "punish," which has been its tactical error all along. When people hear words like these, they don't make fine distinctions between "punishing" delegations and punishing voters. That's a mistake.
The real issue -- the one that everyone should be talking about -- is fairness: Fairness to all those who voted or didn't vote in those two states, fairness to the candidate and their supporters, and fairness to everyone that wants a honest nomination process.
The Party created this problem last year with its lack of vision and discipline. That's a problem for its leaders, not voters, to fix. Its failure to frame this issue effectively opened the door for some campaign demagoguery, which led in turn to the bitter demonstrations this weekend -- and to disgruntled marchers like the Clinton supporter who called Obama an "inadequate black male" (video here).
While campaigns aren't responsible for the words of their supporters, this kind of reaction was the predictable result of Clinton's inflammatory and misleading speeches regarding Florida and Michigan. They're also the result of the party's failure to explain its procedures, and the reasoning behind them, in a more effective manner.
So how should the party communicate its decisions? How about a statement like this:
"We made this decision to be fair to the people who voted, and to be fair to the people who didn't vote because they thought their vote wouldn't count. We made this to be fair to the supporters of both candidates across the country - they all want an outcome that respects the values of democracy, fair play, and keeping your promises.
It would be unfortunate if any candidate - or his/her supporters - tried to exploit this difficult and emotional situation in hopes of gaining unfair advantage. We trust that won't happen, because we trust that our candidates will put fair play and the good of the party above their selfish interests.Any questions?"
Ultimately, it will also be incumbent on Sen. Clinton to come out and say forcefully that she agrees with these decisions- - and that she takes full responsibility for having supporting the sanctions last year.
Without statements like these, we'll continue to see confrontations like the one described here, and comments like the one below it which reads "I hope Hillary burns this party to the ground."
Longer-term, the Democratic Party needs to find a better way to schedule its primaries -- one that's fair to all the states, not just the few that have come to dominate the process. How about a lottery system before every presidential campaign? States could draw lots to determine the order in which states will vote, and it would be different every year.
Just a thought.
RJ Eskow blogs:
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Problem here is that far too many Americans, including you, don't understand how democracy works. Commentators notwithstanding, this was the most energized, interesting and engaging political event in modern American history, bar none! Even the Bush v. Gore didn't invite this many people to participate actively and often and directly and emotionally for the better part of two years! This is huge. People feel as if they have a stake in the outcome and will do whatever they can to make it happen. in the past, people have been nonchalant at best and apathetic at most about American politics. This race has taken on the fervor of the South African Presidential race with Nelson Mandela. Now, the particular issues that you raise add verve and vigor to the process. But when you allow yourself to get angry and threaten to go over to the other side, then you understand democracy the way Benedict Arnold understood loyalty. Don't despair, Hillary will survive. Dust off your ego and join the fight for what we all believe in, an America that allows that we can battle hard and not loose our sense of purpose.
Everybody concerned, and I mean EVERYBODY INCLUDING HILLARY CLINTON, agreed that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules, and that the votes wouldn't count. If Hillary or any other candidate felt that this was the wrong decision, they certainly didn't fight for any alternatives at the time. Florida and Michigan broke the rules. I thought it was the Republicans who felt they didn't have to play by the rules. Are Democrats really just like Republicans after all? Too special to play by the rules? Debating the rules is one thing, and trying to reform them is great. But in the middle of a race? When the rules are agreed upon at the outset? How arrogant!
The reality is, in Michigan there was only one name on the ballot. This does not represent democracy! How absurd! Didn't Saddam Hussein hold elections with only his name on the ballot? And you lynched him! Doesn't Fidel Castro hold elections with just his name on the ballot. You think of him as the Great Satan! Didn't the USSR hold elections with only one party on the ballot? The Communist Party!!! And now bitter Hillary supports think that having a ballot in Michigan with just one name on it is democracy? Good grief! How many registered Democrats are there in Michigan? How many registered Democrats DIDN'T vote for Hillary Clinton?
The Democrats deserve to lose in November for being so inept. The DNC penalizes the 2 states that moved their primaries ahead and the party leaders whined and complained about ending the process 2 months ago knowing full well it was on the calender till June 3rd. Talk about stupid. They should have penalized the states that went later than February if they were in such a hurry. I'm waiting for the same people to want the election to be called way before November cause they can't wait. They'll probably change the rules for the 2012 primary process and MAKE THEM WORSE THAN EVER knowing the Democrats.
I agree completely with hank48188. I completely disagree with Mr. Eskow.
Obama's spokesperson, Rep. Wexler, at the "rules committee" was a disgrace. Obama refused to allow the votes in Florida and Michigan to be fully counted because it would be to Hillary's advantage. He only agreed to seating the delegation wih half-votes.
The DNC RULES states that "Uncommitted" is just as powerful a "category" as a real person's name! Giving all of the Uncommitted votes to Obama in Michigan is a disgrace. The "rules committee" even awarded Obama 4 of Hllary Clinton's WON delegates. That is not only a disgrace, it will PREVENT me from ever voting for Obama. This is a precedent that should not be allowed to stand.
The ONLY way I could possibly vote for him is for him to beg Hillary to join his ticket, and she would accept.
I will never give another penny to the Democratic Party until Howard Dean and the "rules committee" who voted to give Obama the Michigan delegates is replaced.
Mr. Eskow, your suggested statement about being "fair" is ludicrous. There was nothing fair about disenfranchising half the votes in Florida and Michigan. There was nothing fair about giving Obama 59 delegates in Michigan when he earned ZERO delegates. There was nothing fair about stealing 4 of Hillary Clilnton's delegates and giving them to Obama. There is nothing fair about the media covererage of this race.
Don't blame Hlllary when Obama loses. She had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Eskow,
Brilliant insight, as always. I'm sickened--albeit not surprised--by Hillary's need to act like a neocon and convince her supporters that obama is the 'enemy' and not john mccain. And I don't use the word 'neocon' lightly
Moral of the story, even the rules of a Democratic primary are political and subject to change while the contest is in progress.
The Clinton's have made a mockery of the party, DNC and their leaders because there was not one leader who had the ba___'s to stand up to them or their surrogates. In effect, there are many to blame for allowing Clinton to continue her facade at the expense of the party and the nation. This should have ended after the results of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, instead she was allowed to go on and build up popular votes, knowing they did not count, to use against all members of the party to build her false case, at the expense of those who voted for her, that the popular votes should count and now she is misrepresenting the truth to her supporters by leading them to believe the party is responsible for taking it away from her. Those who allowed this charade to continue after NC and Indiana are the ones who are culpable, with the Clinton's, for dividing the party and threatening Obama's chances in November. I am a disgusted former democrat who is now an independent!!!!
After dragging those folks on an emotional rollercoaster for weeks, what do you want to bet she drops out tomorrow and leaves them all hanging? It really wasn't fair to play psychological games with her supporters.
Both parties definitely need instant run-off primaries nationwide, or at least in the early voting states.
Instead of voting for one person, rank your top 3 or 4 candidates. Then if someone has less than 50% of the vote after the first count, add in the second/third/fourth choice votes until someone is over 50%, then whoever has the highest total over 50% wins the district or state.
How about you start by reforming the ridiculous apportionment scheme?
At the very least, make it so that every district has an odd number of delegates, so that their votes actually matter in a close race.
There is so much wrong with this entire situation that it isn't even funny.
1) In Florida, the Republicans were responsible for that state moving up its primary.
2) Women shouldn't be voting for a candidate simply because of her gender.
3) Clinton is a crappy candidate for president IF YOU ARE A PROGRESSIVE because she has voted for going to war in Iraq, for the Patriot Act (didn't bother to read it), for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran and is basically a corporate candidate. Obama isn't much better.
4) How on earth does one reconcile voting for McCain is a better decision than voting for a progressive candidate if you are a feminist. Someone who has called his own wife the c-word, will appoint supreme ct justices that will overturn roe v wade and will perpetuate war.
5) If you are a feminist and will ONLY vote for a female candidate, then why not vote for Cynthia McKinney? Aren't her positions on the issues MUCH better than McCain's?
6) If you are just protesting against the Democrats than for pete's sake, why not vote for Nader?
I just don't get the logic of these people at ALL. I am not personally supporting a Democrat this time around, but I most certainly won't be voting Republican either. (And, no, I'm not a McKinney supporter either).
I think everyone has gone nuts.
Sometimes when you are simply putting on a sham, committee meeting (40-page legal document in advance?) is like putting lipstick on a pig. No amount of rhetoric, Framing, PR (BS?) can cover-up the fact that people got screwed and disenfranchised due to these pathologically mind-bending contrived and embarrassing set of rules and subjective penalties and rewards the DNC made up in a obvious attempt to keep power.
"...like putting lipstick on a pig."
perhaps... but the big pig turned out to be none other than the Spinning Harry Ickes. I would submit that no DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Member be allowed to join an candidate's political campaign, without first resigning that committee position... or better yet, sign a contract that excludes a committee member from joining a campaign in the election cycle... talk about a conflict of interest... he ended up essentially spinning his own position about three or four different times on the rules that he helped devise.... what a pig... and you're right... he doesn't look good in lipstick... any color of lipstick.
Again, I see garbage spewing from ntmessage. These were the penalties Hillary agreed to when she thought she was going to win. Your argument is hollow and doesn't agree with the Hillary Clinton of 2007.
If Hillary Clinton had the slightest interest in truth, or justice, she wouldn't have turned this issue into another divisive "cause celebre". Her determination to stop at nothing short of ultimate victory, though admired by the few, has ultimately been her undoing. For many voters, peering through the veneer has been an unnerving experience.
The best idea for Primary order is by inverse electoral vote size. The states with the fewest electoral votes go first, ending with the largest states.
That's a good idea. It would keep advertising costs low, and allow lots of people to compete in the early states.
The one exception should be the overseas votes. I don't think Guam and Puerto Rico should be given a prominent position in choosing the nominee.
The point here is two states broke the rules and should have been punished. Punishment is the word used when you deliberately break a rule, as these two states did, and you have a consequence for it.. Who in their right ming thinks there should not be punishment for breaking rules? What should be done with people who crash red lights? They have reasons why, but if we don't PUNISH people for running red lights chaos will follow. This is a no-brainer.
The only reason this entire Rules Committee thing happened was because Hillary Clinton cheated. She insisted on getting the votes in elections which she had sworn not to accept votes from. Now, by trying to "appease" her, as one would a child, the DNC and the Rules Committee have created a scandal, by allowing her to have her way. Because of this the DNC, the Rules Committee and Hillary Clinton have shown a face of the United States to the world of a country that has phony, cheating elections, where votes that shouldn't get counted do get counted is you cry enough. George Bush stole the Presidency, and now, because of Hillary Clinton, it almost happened again, and the worse part is the world is watching again. The world is watching people and Hillary Clinton we allowed Hillary Clinton to made us look like idiots. The idiots we proved we were by fixing the Bush election and fixing this election to catering to Hillary Clinton.
When the rules themselves are unfair, who punishes the rulemakers?
"When the rules themselves are unfair, who punishes the rulemakers?"
We punish the rulemakers by leaving the party.
Armchair Socrates, I don't know why she swallowed a fly.
Her loss wasn't inevitable. With time, it just became more and more and more and more likely.
The republicans did exactly what the RBC committee did this weekend. It allowed only 1/2 the votes of Fl and MI to count. They did it because the states broke the rules of the republican party. So the Democrats are not acting like ogres when they enforce the rules of the party. It's the way things work. If you don't like it, work to get yourself on the DNC or the RNC and change the rules.
Excellent post but I'm not sure how much it would have helped. Team Clinton's demagogue division framed it early and often; using the low ground to seize the high ground. With snipers and suicide bombers like the "inadequate black man bag lady" they lured the media with shiny trash.
How about starting with the two states with the highest percentage Democratic turnout in the previous presidential election and two states drawn randomly? Then the next set of contests will be #3 and #4 in Democratic turnout and two more random states and so on until we're done.
Or you could mix it up by going with the highest Democratic turnout among primary states, the highest among caucus states, and then two random states and continue that way until you start running out of caucus or primary states.
Just to keep things fair New Hampshire and Iowa will be the last two contests for at least 20 or 30 years and if they don't like it they can live with having no delegates for the next few decades.
ynp7: At least the confusion and discord wrought by state Dem and GOP party leaders in this election will result in changes (hopefully for the better) for the next election cycle. Perhaps even, FINALLY, a serious re-evaluation of electoral college votes vs. popular votes as the determinant for electing POTUS will result.
Many of your suggestions seem to have validity. Hopefully, they will be offered for public consideration and debate. However, voters in different states have different preferences for how they want their states to proceed. We should be careful about criticizing decisions by citizens in other states. I would not particularly appreciate outsiders dissing the way that we conduct our nomination process here-- that's up to us Virginians to screw that up. (LOL)
However, it does seem as if a shorter window for campaigning and closer primaries and/ or caucuses would save millions of dollars and allow nominees to spend more time in the actual GE contest. That presents a problem for utilizing the 50-state campaign strategy, but, all party candidates/nominees would be equally handicapped.
"How about starting with the two states with the highest percentage Democratic turnout in the previous presidential election and two states drawn randomly? "
I am not sure but, you would probably end up with California and New York as 1 & 2, and a nominee that wins both of those states.
note on changes a wrote a couple months back:
Some of the problem is due to the nature of the beast, but I can easily think of a half dozen constructs that have a chance of being more democratically fair than the present system. Although I would urge a single *type* of primary election, I personally don't believe that implementing a single national primary would be a fair solution for the candidates, voters or states, in that it would sacrifice too many important objectives of the primary campaign.
As a start, one proposal that might merit serious consideration would be to structure a fixed number of primaries, with a division of states for each... for instance: 11 primaries with about 5 in each (includes possessions). These primaries would have a fixed sequence (2-3 week interval perhaps), with a debate between each. To insure fairness, relevancy, planning and execution, the states participating in each primary would be chosen by a single televised lottery... well in advance of the primary season (no trading).
Granted, some possibility of some residual inequity would remain, but it would mostly stem from "chance" and not some designed or historical discrimination. If you have some desire to see advances implemented in your lifetime, encourage your party to initiate real change. What we have now borders on travesty. It shouldn't take a nation of rocket scientists to devise a solution to this recurring problem.
Loading comments…
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
Joe Lieberman is being vetted as a Vice Presidential...
Calm yourselves, mes amis! Yes, yes, I understand how exciting all this veep stuff...
John McCain said in an interview with Politico on Wednesday "that he was uncertain how many houses he and his...
Posted June 2, 2008 | 12:43 PM (EST)