What Should Be Done About Michigan?
Let me see if I can talk about the current primary mess in Michigan in a way that even I can understand.
Phase 1: Following a trend, Michigan Democrats decided to move their primary up to earlier than the 5 Feb "Super Tuesday." So did Florida. But the Democratic National Committee (the DNC) said no, no, and as punishment stripped those two "rogue states" of their delegates to the convention
I don't know why the DNC did that. If I had been on the DNC, I would not have gone along. Due especially to the urgency of the times, that decision was bound to cause trouble down the line, even if events hadn't worked out the way they did. Both those states held primaries anyway, on the January days they wanted and so defying the DNC. So, if nothing more was done, were the conventions really going to start with no delegates from two sizable states, and against an opponent as toxic and implacable as the Republican party? Unthinkable!
I don't understand what all the fuss is about anyway, concerning the dates of the primaries. Whenever they fall, it's after way too much has been heard about the campaigning, and they start happening much sooner than they should, and in the winter.
Phase 2. Both Obama and Clinton went along with the DNC to the extent of agreeing not to campaign in Michigan, and Obama went farther by also taking his name off the ballot, but Clinton left hers on. To counter that, Obama people urged Michigan voters to vote "Uncommitted," and that "stand-in" got 44% of the vote. But Clinton got 55%.
Phase 3. Not that much was said about the situation till after the votes of the biggies in February, when, unexpectedly and to some horror, both candidates were left still very much in the running. Also a lot of furore was being stirred up far ahead of time about superdelegates and fights in the convention, and with that suddenly it was deemed desirable to bring the Michigan (and Floridian) delegates onto the stage after all. But in what manner that would mean the least embarrassment to all concerned, and also would not strain the coffers ? And it seems to me that at least in Michigan there was a lot of embarrassment to go around, except to H. Clinton.
It doesn't look as if it was real sharp of the Obama people to take his name off the ballot if his opponent didn't. It reminds me of one man walking away before the whistle to play is blown in a hockey face-off or a basketball tipoff, leaving his opponent to bat the puck or the ball in any direction he pleases. And, to borrow some words spoken by, I think, the Benjamin Franklin character in the trailer to the upcoming "John Adams" series, getting on the ballot, especially for President, is no small thing, by a very long shot. So why jump off it, unless a Greenland-sized asteroid is only minutes away?
Phase 4. So what should be done? In the interest of avoiding extra expenditures in time, money, and effort, the natural impulse is to work with what they already have, and the Clinton camp has good reason to favor doing just that. But the Obama camp can feel themselves to be on higher moral ground, party speaking, since they went along with the DNC all the way, and in the process were agreeable to those eager smaller early birds, notably Iowa and New Hampshire, and they can argue that in any case the will of the Michigan voters can't be really known if there isn't some kind of a revote.
The solution? Last night I thought that H. Clinton should agree to be magnanimous and allow a 51-49 split, in her favor. That would lessen the charge so often levelled against her of being the Iron Lady, plus she would still be the overall winner. And Obama should be satisfied with winding up 5% better than his "stand-in" votes managed.
But I woke up this morning thinking that in the interest of keeping everything clean and free of future regrets and suspicions,, the only way is a revote, preferably in person. The pique of those who have already bothered to vote once and now have to stir themselves again would be outweighed by this new chance that others who didn't take part the first time could seize to get in on the fun after all. The weather would be warmer and it wouldn't be that bad.
As for Ms. Clinton, I think she is in a strong enough position to chance it, and she would come across as being daring and bold. Besides, she would have contributed to the Ultimate Truth.
Who would pay for it? The DNC, being mostly to blame, should shoulder the biggest cost. The Obama camp might throw in something, and H. Clinton lesser still, because she went only partway toward bowing to the DNC's bad judgment, and instead she refused to deny the great honor that she and Obama had been given simply by being placed on the ballot.
I hope that writing this at least gives me a stab at making some sense out of an intensely knotty situation. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see how close either of these two snap judgments comes to the final decision. --The joys of having a weblog, especially one in which there is nothing at stake!
.
Phase 1: Following a trend, Michigan Democrats decided to move their primary up to earlier than the 5 Feb "Super Tuesday." So did Florida. But the Democratic National Committee (the DNC) said no, no, and as punishment stripped those two "rogue states" of their delegates to the convention
I don't know why the DNC did that. If I had been on the DNC, I would not have gone along. Due especially to the urgency of the times, that decision was bound to cause trouble down the line, even if events hadn't worked out the way they did. Both those states held primaries anyway, on the January days they wanted and so defying the DNC. So, if nothing more was done, were the conventions really going to start with no delegates from two sizable states, and against an opponent as toxic and implacable as the Republican party? Unthinkable!
I don't understand what all the fuss is about anyway, concerning the dates of the primaries. Whenever they fall, it's after way too much has been heard about the campaigning, and they start happening much sooner than they should, and in the winter.
Phase 2. Both Obama and Clinton went along with the DNC to the extent of agreeing not to campaign in Michigan, and Obama went farther by also taking his name off the ballot, but Clinton left hers on. To counter that, Obama people urged Michigan voters to vote "Uncommitted," and that "stand-in" got 44% of the vote. But Clinton got 55%.
Phase 3. Not that much was said about the situation till after the votes of the biggies in February, when, unexpectedly and to some horror, both candidates were left still very much in the running. Also a lot of furore was being stirred up far ahead of time about superdelegates and fights in the convention, and with that suddenly it was deemed desirable to bring the Michigan (and Floridian) delegates onto the stage after all. But in what manner that would mean the least embarrassment to all concerned, and also would not strain the coffers ? And it seems to me that at least in Michigan there was a lot of embarrassment to go around, except to H. Clinton.
It doesn't look as if it was real sharp of the Obama people to take his name off the ballot if his opponent didn't. It reminds me of one man walking away before the whistle to play is blown in a hockey face-off or a basketball tipoff, leaving his opponent to bat the puck or the ball in any direction he pleases. And, to borrow some words spoken by, I think, the Benjamin Franklin character in the trailer to the upcoming "John Adams" series, getting on the ballot, especially for President, is no small thing, by a very long shot. So why jump off it, unless a Greenland-sized asteroid is only minutes away?
Phase 4. So what should be done? In the interest of avoiding extra expenditures in time, money, and effort, the natural impulse is to work with what they already have, and the Clinton camp has good reason to favor doing just that. But the Obama camp can feel themselves to be on higher moral ground, party speaking, since they went along with the DNC all the way, and in the process were agreeable to those eager smaller early birds, notably Iowa and New Hampshire, and they can argue that in any case the will of the Michigan voters can't be really known if there isn't some kind of a revote.
The solution? Last night I thought that H. Clinton should agree to be magnanimous and allow a 51-49 split, in her favor. That would lessen the charge so often levelled against her of being the Iron Lady, plus she would still be the overall winner. And Obama should be satisfied with winding up 5% better than his "stand-in" votes managed.
But I woke up this morning thinking that in the interest of keeping everything clean and free of future regrets and suspicions,, the only way is a revote, preferably in person. The pique of those who have already bothered to vote once and now have to stir themselves again would be outweighed by this new chance that others who didn't take part the first time could seize to get in on the fun after all. The weather would be warmer and it wouldn't be that bad.
As for Ms. Clinton, I think she is in a strong enough position to chance it, and she would come across as being daring and bold. Besides, she would have contributed to the Ultimate Truth.
Who would pay for it? The DNC, being mostly to blame, should shoulder the biggest cost. The Obama camp might throw in something, and H. Clinton lesser still, because she went only partway toward bowing to the DNC's bad judgment, and instead she refused to deny the great honor that she and Obama had been given simply by being placed on the ballot.
I hope that writing this at least gives me a stab at making some sense out of an intensely knotty situation. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see how close either of these two snap judgments comes to the final decision. --The joys of having a weblog, especially one in which there is nothing at stake!
.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 5:15 PM
1 Comments:
I don't know the entire story in Michigan as far as WHY the primary was held early & who decided it was going to be that way. I know there were a lot of us in Florida who were not pleased that we did not get to vote in a primary in 2004, because the nominee had already been chosen. Just like with McCain this year. I didn't have anything against John Kerry; he just wasn't my first choice.
Also, this is a state with a Republican controlled Legislature and a Republican governor (not a bad guy really) and they were the ones who picked the 29 Jan date. The Republican party punished them by taking 1/2 their delegates. The only smart thing the Dem party could have done was to NOT punish us at all. Wouldn't that have been a big EFF U to them. But no, let's act like we are some sort of God.
Sorry, this makes me mad and I am babbling.
Bottom line? This is supposed to be America and, allegedly, my vote is supposed to mean something. Either count the one I already cast (for John Edwards) or have another election where I will vote for Hillary, but don't ignore me when I am doing my civic duty as a citizen. And don't punish me for the stupidity of others.
Post a Comment
<< Home