Left Flank

"I just hope the Dems, in shooting themselves in the foot yesterday , didn't shoot their chance of victory over the moon." It's a very depressing ditty.

Kudos to Greg Laden for apportioning the blame for the Democratic party's embarrassing leadership squarely where it belongs: Florida and Michigan Democrats. I guess, unlike the big guys, like the think tank and magazine "bloggers", Greg Laden either has a brain, or didn't get a check in the mail. Anyway, big cohunes to go with that brain, too, because American political parties are, I kid you not, right there next to the Christian deity, if not actually written into the Constitution. And, we all know how no mere mortal wants to shake up the status quo, or screw up their resumes, by tempting the angels!

What should they have done instead? Two things, in my opinion:

1) Punish the Florida and Michigan leadership severely. This kind of bûllšhìt cannot be tolerated. Selfish behavior on the part of these states could have caused the party this election, and it still could. Chop off some heads, then get on with it.

2) Give all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan their votes, but not the votes that came through these bogus elections. The best solution is to do the election again. If that is not possible (and it turned out to be difficult, though not impossible) simply apportion the delegates on the basis of a grass roots straw poll or a formal scientific poll.

Ditch #2! The Democrats have rules, and the heretics flouted them. For #1, how about the rack, or the iron maiden? The Democrats have to use some of their divine powers to stem this insurrection.

Seriously, though, why was it necessary to penalize Florida and Michigan in the first place?

There were good reasons for the DNC to add the states it added to the January primary calendar. In addition to the mostly white populations of Iowa and New Hampshire, labor unions and Hispanics in Nevada and blacks in South Carolina were included among the voters in the first four primaries. Including these states added to the diversity of the process.

The DNC also made a good move in excluding large states in the early contests. Large states are particularly expensive to compete in, and too many of them too early would turn the primary into a fundraising contest. As it was, comparatively underfunded candidates like John Edwards were able to seriously compete in early states and shape the debate.

Most importantly, keeping any other states from jumping in line was essential to keep the primary calendar from collapsing. What was to stop Vermont from deciding in summer 2007 to move their primary to December, and California from one-upping them into November, and New Mexico from giving their governor a boost by holding a surprise primary in mid-October? That kind of chaos wouldn't allow voters in the early states to seriously consider their vote.

This is wholly more convincing than Instapundit's fascination with eliminating messy electoral technicalities by limiting democracy altogether.

Surrounded by such wisdom, I have to wonder: why is the DNC (and mainstream media and "bloggers) so corrupt (?), spineless, and stupid?

Welcome to the Do-Over Democrats! Not content with waffling about its own by-laws or allowing Florida and Michigan legislators to run roughshod over it, now there's talk in the "Wishy-Washy" DNC of new primaries (or caucuses, whatever!) in the two detestable states, and only the faintest whisper about who or what will pay for this extravagance. This is not a computer game!

I agree with TalkLeft's Jeralyn on do-overs, until she talks about seating delegates. "I say no new election, seat Florida and Michigan. The delegate allotment should reflect the views of the voters on the date the vote was held." No, both states broke the DNC rules, so let them suffer! Why is this concept so hard for pundits (and Dems) to accept?

Mark Schmidt is a perfect example of this limp-wristed opportunism.

My first reaction is, nothing. Support the rules. The Florida and Michigan parties made their choice and have to live with the consequences. But what if that's untenable -- because  it seems potentially damaging to the Democratic nominee in November to have two large states disenfranchised, or if you assume that something is going to happen eventually?

Well, Mark, I'm sorry, the damage is done, and now you're insulting me, one of the disenfranchised, even more! Just fûçk me, Mark, don't tell me you love me, too! I didn't expect erectile dysfunction and lies from the Dems!

The Economist is very generous.

We support the idea of new primaries in both states, assuming no clear victor emerges from the other, previously scheduled primaries (highly unlikely). They could serve as a sort of «sudden death» tie-breaker, and would be far better than leaving the decision to superdelegates. The options to pay for new primaries are a) the DNC, b) the state parties, c) the campaigns (which are both touting their record hauls in February) or d) a combination of the above. We advocate «d», but welcome your thoughts.

Of course, The Economist doesn't have to pay. Hand the bill to Howard Dean and the Florida and Michigan legislatures—out of their own pockets. There's no need for the taxpayers to get double-stuffed!

Only Matt at 2008 Dem Con Watch and Chris Bowers can make sense (and deliver informative posts).

There are a number of ways this could play out, and they are all "within the rules"

• Status Quo. No delegates from Florida or Michigan.
• The Credentials Committee seats one or both delegations as is. Totally within the rules. The Credentials Committee has the total power within the rules to seat or not seat any delegate as they choose, regardless of any previous DNC rules.
• The Credentials Committee seats the delegates, but makes each delegate worth half a vote, essentially restoring the originally proposed 50% penalty. Totally within the rules.
• The Credentials Committee seats the delegations, but makes sure they are split 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Totally within the rules
• Either state submits a new delegate selection plan to the DNC. It is approved, and new delegates are selected. Totally within the rules. (And Delaware supposedly did this in a previous election year).

Put me down for #1!

Even more than the original debacle, what infuriates me now is the naked opportunism displayed by Democrats. Forgive me if I wax Mr. Smith-like, but what about selecting the best president in the fairest way? before January 29, I believed that process began with the Democratic primary, but now I have lost all faith in either party—in the two party system entirely! There needs to be more competition, and less corporate cash, in the electoral process.

Yes, Ralph Nader makes sense!

I'm sorry, Dr. Dean, voters are looking at the entire package, party and candidate. You can't do-over, because who will a Democratic president scapegoat the next time he/she screws up from the Oval Office? The Dems (and GOP) can't run a primary, so can a Dem run the country? If only we could do-over, and add a few more choices to the ballot!

  Finally! TNR writes an editorial with gravity and perspicacity. And, yes, the Clinton campaign is desperate, but not enough that I would condone this transparent stunt.

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton has said.

There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately.

The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct.

Keep up the good work, TNR! Twenty or more such good editorials might just keep my money flowing to you! However, nice try, but Tad Devine is dead on:

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and their campaigns, are pressuring superdelegates to pledge support to them before Democratic voters in the remaining primaries and caucuses have made their decisions. But Democratic leaders need to let the voters sort out which one of these two remarkable people will lead our party and, we hope, the nation.

After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party's rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.

The Democratic party needs to restrain its fractious impulses before it sullies its democratic reputation and tosses the general election to the GOP. I've expressed my displeasure here often, and again on Lawyers, Guns, and Money's "The Superdelegate Question".

So, as a compromise, instead of executing the FL delegation (just joking!), as a penalty, why not compel the FL superdelegates to announce their pledges publicly and soon based on the results of the election mess they caused held last month. I know the elections were faulty, but as an expat I'm worried about being disenfranchised (again!). I doubt anything can be cobbled together in a short period of time to allow me to vote in absentia. And, I say this, too as an Obama supporter.

I'm astounded the DNC has not replied!

I'm just as concerned about the message that the Democratic party's rules about delegates and proportional representation sends to the broader electorate, but wait! What about the spectacle of a party that can't even follow its own rules because of its own ambition? What was so egregious about Florida's and Michigan's actions that necessitated this debacle? Floridians and Michiganders can deal with their own elected officials. Democrats are after all, democratic! With respect, Florida doesn't need Ezra Klein (or any other self-interested power-brokers) to tell us what's wrong with the Democratic party. Even more so, we're not flip-floppers and rule-breakers! It's the accretion of waffling and fractious behavior that will undo the Democratic party, not the behavior of any one member, however popular, in the end.

So, just stop, and let sleeping dogs lie! The Florida and Michigan delegations have already ruined my 2008 elections. Let's not provoke Democrats and independents to vote Republican! Or, change parties!