« What’s Really Behind Hillary Clinton’s Big Battle Over The Michigan And Florida Delegations?
Madonna of China: Chinese Policewoman Saves Orphan Babies’ Lives by Breastfeeding Them »



What a Trip with Peabody and Sherman Might Say About the Dem Fight Over Michigan and Florida

May 22nd, 2008
By MARK DANIELS

Print Print

Senator Hillary Clinton has a point as it relates to the Michigan and Florida delegate-seating controversy. In fact, she has several points. Among them…

Every vote should count.

Michigan and Florida should be represented at the Democratic National Convention.

Delegates ought to be seated by a formula reflective of the results in their states.

These points reflect principles of the “Mom and apple pie” variety, ones to which most Americans would readily assent. If the senator were pushing them in May, 2007, rather than in May, 2008, she would clearly hold the moral high ground and the political advantage.

But that may not be the case today.

To know why I say that, you’ll need to play Sherman to my Peabody for another trip in the Wayback Machine with me. Our destination is 1972. (A presidential election of year of which this one sometimes reminds me, by the way. But that’s another story best left to another post.)

In June of that year, South Dakota Senator George McGovern apparently clinched the Democratic presidential nomination by winning the California primary. The new delegate-selection process, established by a party commission headed by McGovern himself, stipulated that delegates should be parceled out proportionally no matter what process was employed in their selection, whether primaries, caucuses, state conventions, or some other way.

In spite of this, going into the nominating process, the national party had accepted the winner-take-all rules of California’s primary. The winner of the state’s primary, however thin the margin of victory, would receive all 273 of California’s delegates to the national convention, a bountiful prize, amounting to 18% of the 1509 delegates needed to take the nomination.

But once McGovern had secured what appeared to be a majority of the elected delegates (superdelegates didn’t come along until later in Democratic Party history), the anti-McGovern forces, certain that the South Dakotan wasn’t supported by most Democrats and would lose the fall’s general election, decided to mount a credentials fight against seating the entire California delegation for McGovern. Since the senator’s ultimate delegate total was 1729 and he won California by a mere 5% plurality, his first-ballot nomination–and his ultimate selection by the convention–would have been jeopardized had the proposed rules change been approved. McGovern’s opponents argued that the delegates should be seated proportionately, as in most of the other states’ delegations.

The McGovernites argued that while their adversaries might be right on the principle of proportional representation, they were wrong on a larger one. That larger principle was that, simply put, it isn’t fair to change the rules at the end of the game.

Every candidate had known well before June, 1972 that California was a “winner take all” primary, which is one reason McGovern’s remaining opposition fought so hard to win there. It was under the rules prevailing when the campaign began that McGovern won the California primary and it was under those rules that he was entitled to all 273 delegates.

I well remember that my Dad, never intensely interested in politics, found the McGovern campaign’s argument persuasive. He stayed up into the late hours of the night to watch the Democratic convention wrangle over the issue. (I would have stayed up with him, but I was working a ten-hour a day first-shift job in a factory at the time and had to be up too early to spend the night watching the bickering Dems, some of whom were friends from college.) When the convention decided not to change the rules at the end of the game, Dad felt that right had been vindicated.

Fast forward to 2008. The year before, the Democratic National Committee stripped both Florida and Michigan of their right to send delegates to the national convention because they had the temerity to schedule their primaries on dates the DNC didn’t like. It may, rightly, I think, strike one as odd that a national political party can presume to tell the elected officials of state governments when their states’ elections will be held.

But when the DNC issued its edict regarding the primaries in Florida and Michigan, all of the candidates for the Democratic nomination issued not a sigh of protest. All the campaigns, including that of Senator Clinton, in fact, supported the DNC position. None of the candidates campaigned in the states, effectively nullifying the primaries per the intent of the national committee. The rules of the game were set and all were in accord with them.

In a few days, the DNC will reconvene, their main piece of business to decide what to do regarding Michigan and Florida. Should they seat delegates from the two states? If so, by what formula? Should they accept Senator Clinton’s position that delegates should be seated in accord with the results of the two states’ primary elections, even though no candidates campaigned in Florida or Michigan?

Ordinarily, maybe, the principles on which Clinton is basing her current arguments would be persuasive. But the simple fact is that everybody, including Senator Clinton, agreed to the rules of this game before it began. Is it fair then, for her to insist that the established rules, however ill-advised, be changed just before the final buzzer?

As those celebrated time travelers, Peabody and Sherman can tell you, timing is everything. Although Senator Clinton has many commendable points in her argument regarding Michigan and Florida, the time to protest the DNC’s position on Michigan and Florida probably passed a long time ago, meaning that right about now, the New York senator may be wishing she had that Wayback Machine.

[This is being cross-posted on my personal blog.]

[While I enjoy analyzing current political situations through the prism of a life-long interest in history and politics, I refuse to endorse or deprecate any political candidates. As a pastor, I would deem it wrong to do so, except when Biblical imperatives are plain. Those who claim they can perceive my political sentiments from my “political” posts are almost always wrong.]

[UPDATE: Here’s the NY Times article from last September, in which the Clinton campaign pledged its support of the DNC decision about Michigan and Florida and any other states contemplating moving their primaries or caucuses close enough to steal Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s thunder. Thanks to Simply Skimming for pointing to this article.]



This entry was posted on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Conventions, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    The DNC needs to resolve the election problems we face due to the caucus/popular vote nomination process, potential election fraud in states without easily audited paper ballots, and the current and future effect of Republican-led state legislatures disrupting the Democratic primaries by changing their states’ primary dates.

    This FL & MI mess is a great opportunity to tackle all three of the above problems. If we re-vote by mail in MI & FL in June or July, we automatically bring both states back into compliance with DNC rules on timing of elections. This prevents any future Republican attempts to disrupt the Dem nomination process by moving up the primary dates. A precedent would be established requiring states not in compliance to utilize a future mail-in process. It also helps prevent election fraud because paper ballots are physically available for recounts or audits. Finally, it would create a route for Hillary to establish that she really is more electable without Obama’s side claiming she manipulated the party pledged or Superdelegates.

    The DNC should coordinate the mail-in for FL and MI based on Oregon’s successful 100% mail-in model. We have enough money to pay for these two states if we utilize equipment we already have, especially since it’s much cheaper to do a mail-in than try to repeat the vote through the two states’ election process.

    This is the DNC’s chance to enfranchising voters in MI and FL while mitigating the problems caused by those states’ Republican-led legislatures.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for the Peabody and Sherman reference... Rocky and Bullwinkle was the best show on T.V. when I was a kid... Made going to school easier. Thanks!
    • ^
    • v
    Mark, great post- thanks!
    • ^
    • v
    Newt, If anyone disenfranchised the Florida and Michigan voters, it was the leaders of the respective states. In Florida the vote was unanimous in the state House of Representatives; and only 2 state Senators voted against the measure to abrogate both the Republican and Democrat Rules regarding the primary calendar. In Michigan, the Democrats controlled one of the two houses in the legislature when the vote was passed to violate the party rules. This was not a case of the Republicans trying to disenfranchise Democrats (as the Republicans also sanctioned both states according to their rules). It is a case of Democrats in both of these states willfully working with Republicans in both states to violate the party rules. In fact, in Michigan, there is a Democrat as Governor who signed this into law.

    The sanctions were know prior to the votes by either state legislator and before either governor signed the bills into law. No attempt by the voters of these states was made to protest or overturn this action to avoid the sanction which was widely publicized once the moves by Michigan and Florida were announced.

    Clinton and the voters of thse states have no one to blame but themselves. Clinton is trying to capitalize on the human tendency to try to avoid the consequence for one's actions; but such pandering poorly becomes one who is running to become President of the United States of America among whose duties is the charge to enforce the rule of law in this country.

    Shame on Clinton for her pandering and on being a poor loser. Shame on her for lying to the people of Michigan and Florida for whom she holds only as much affection as she thinks will help her fulfill her personal ambition. Shame on all of these actors for refusing to accept that the primary season is over and Clinton is the loser as their exists no probability that she will achieve the nomination with or without the delegations of Florida or Michigan.
    • ^
    • v
    I'd love a pair of 20/20 hindsight glasses- even if I had to wear them on the back of my head. :)
    • ^
    • v
    Good post, but you have so dated yourself. What's next? A Tennessee Tuxedo reference?
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« What’s Really Behind Hillary Clinton’s Big Battle Over The Michigan And Florida Delegations?
Madonna of China: Chinese Policewoman Saves Orphan Babies’ Lives by Breastfeeding Them »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.