Michigan Defies Dean, Moves Up
Is Granholm the Goose or the Gander?
By Mark I Posted in 2008 — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) signed a law yesterday moving both parties' presidential primaries up to January 15th.
"While political maneuvering will no doubt continue, our move to January 15 is final," Granholm said in a statement.
Although the Associated Press editor headlined the article "States Poised to Flout GOP Primary Rules," it is DNC Chairman Howard Dean that has been using a heavy hand trying to keep the states in formation.
Dean recently declared Florida a no-go zone for the Democratic presidential candidates and said that its primary "essentially won't count," after that state moved its contests up to January 29.
Read on...
Florida is a red state, with a Republican governor and legislature that voted for President Bush in both 2000 and 2004. In fact, after 2000's disputed election, the state went comfortably for the president in 2004. No thanks to the Florida Democratic Party, which was supposed to be motivated as ever to right the perceived wrongs of the recount. Since then, Democrats have bestowed the title of Most Valuable Swing State on Ohio, which went for Bush in both elections but has been trending Democratic after recent scandals in the GOP run Ohio state house and governor's mansion.
With Republicans firmly in charge of state government, dwindling hopes of capturing the state for the Democrat nominee, and a ready and waiting pickup opportunity in Ohio, it must've been comparatively easy for Dean to write off Florida. Michigan, however, is no such easy call.
Michigan is a blue state, vital to the success of any Democratic ticket. Since 1948, only one Democrat has been elected president without winning Michigan. In 1976, eventual winner Jimmy Carter lost Michigan to incumbent president and Michigan athletic and political legend Gerald Ford. Michigan Democrats are not exactly the kind Dean wants to alienate and demoralize.
Moreover, Michigan is a huge industrial and union base for the Democrats. Many if not most of these voters lean Democrat. But the state's economy has been lagging behind the rest of the nation under Democratic leadership. Declaring Michigan's primary dead could be the final straw that drives these voters into the arms of the Republican nominee.
Will Howard Dean have the courage of his convictions and declare the Michigan primary advisory only? One wonders how a Democratic held House of Representatives and a Democratic governor could have conspired to defy the chairman of the national party after the big public display of cancelling Florida's delegates. Look for Michigan to get a pass from the DNC. The state is just too important to the party's hopes of capturing the White House.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The 2008 Fields: A Taxonomy — Comments (36) »
Michigan Defies Dean, Moves Up 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
... what precisely do you think should be the role of a state (or federal, or local) government in determining a political party's nominee for whatever office?
I would say, in a perfect world, precisely none.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I agree.
But, unless I am seriously mistaken, the dates for state primaries are set by the state govt, passed by the various legislatures and signed by governors. So it seems from a google search.
If the states can set their own dates, how is it suddenly a problem if the states change their dates? Legally, I mean. If the states can legally set any date for the primary, how does Dean or anyone else presume to override that decision?
If I have totally missed the boat on how primary dates have been established in the past, please let me know.
But I would also point out that politicians at the state level have been making political decisions about who gets elected. This is nothing new.
... nominate their candidates for office. Should a political party chose to use the results of a state-run election (primary) to chose their nominees, then I suppose said party is completely at the mercy of said state.
If however the party choses a different mechanism to select its candidates - say, a convention or a private (as in, not state-run) primary election - then I'm not sure said state has any right to gripe about being cut out of the process. Savvy?
My answer to the parties is simple - if you want your party to have sole control over who is your nominee for (fill-in-the-blank-office), then you need to stop using state-run primaries (at no cost to the party, of course) as your vehicle for delegate/candidate selection.
In other words, I've never been kosher with the concept that state (taxpayer) money was being used to select the candidates for (private) political parties. I may not precisely agree with how Howerid Dean is going about his strong-arming of the states, but I completely agree with the principal.
Oh, and you're quite correct as to the process as it currently happens. I wasn't questioning your lay of the land in that regard and apologize for any confusion.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
This whole moving up of presidential primaries is ridiculous. Here's my idea:
1. Have all the primaries on the same day just as the presidential election is done.
2. The presidential election as well as the primary day should both be national holidays.
3. These days should be on a wednesday, thus trying to cut down on the number of people who would use these days for four day holidays.
I mean really, if there is going to be no campaign finance referm, then why not just make the whole process a bit simpler for the voters?
Actually, this would be like Chapter 2 of McCain-Feingold. Only the candidates with large bank accounts would be able to compete. Smaller candidates, who now use a victory in a state primary to increase contributions for the next primary, would be cut out of the loop completely. The money people would be selecting all of our candidates.
is to tell the states "It's your primary, have it when you want to."
WT...H are the parties going to do if the states really have their primaries when they want to? Actually disallow the delegates? That's got to be the stupidest threat ever.
If the Republicans can stop acting like Democrats, they might gather a few more votes in the general election. It will make an interesting campaign. Thompson can show the benefits of federalism, for real, and Hillary can explain why the delegates from Florida, Michigan and everywhere else don't matter.
If everyone is really concerned about the campaign cycle, tell Hillary and John Edwards to end the Perpetual Campaign®. And Republicans cans stop kvetching about how long it took for Fred to declare.