And the hilarity continues:
Michigan appears poised to crash the party of early states seeking to influence the 2008 presidential nominating process, leapfrogging the other interlopers, Florida and South Carolina, and further scrambling the electoral calendar. If leaders of Michigan’s political parties reach agreement, as early as tomorrow, on joint Jan. 15 primaries, New Hampshire and Iowa, the traditional leadoff states, would be forced to set earlier contests to preserve their coveted status. New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary would be moved to Jan. 8 at the latest because state law says that Secretary of State William M. Gardner must set the contest at least seven days ahead of the next primary.
Now, here’s the part of the story that is a bit puzzling to those like me who are not steeped in the intricacies of party by-laws:
Looming over the moves to elbow into the early-contest spotlight are the Democratic and Republican national committees, which have established penalties for states that jump ahead of Feb. 5, when about 20 states could hold primaries or caucuses. The Democratic presidential campaigns, in particular, will be watching their national committee response as they plot strategies to adapt to the shifting schedule of contests. Under party rules, candidates could forfeit all delegates earned in states that violate the party calendar if they campaign there.
Delegate-rich Florida will be on the agenda Saturday when the DNC’s rules and bylaws committee is scheduled to meet in Washington, DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton said. In May, the state legislature and governor set Jan. 29 primaries for both parties in violation of the calendar set by the party. If Florida is found in noncompliance, under the rules it would lose 118 of its projected 210 delegates to the party’s national convention next year. Michigan, if it changes its schedule, could face similar sanctions, losing 93 of its 157 delegates. Combined, the two big states are allocated one-twelfth of the projected 4,362 delegates for the convention in Denver next August….
But the threat of sanctions has not stopped states from moving up in the schedule to gain more clout.
So, apparently, if the DNC sticks to its rules, any candidate campaigning in Michigan (assuming Michigan goes ahead with its move) will lose all delegates gained by winning the primary there. Furthermore, Michigan loses a bunch of its delegates to the convention. So … how does this play out in terms of the nomination? Presumably, whichever candidate campaigns for and wins a Jan. 15 Michigan primary gets a big PR boost and a lot of “momentum” — Michigan is, after all, a big and important state, and no Democrat can expect to win the presidency without carrying it. But what meaning does that have in terms of actually becoming the party’s nominee, if the candidate forfeits the delegates by campaigning in a scofflaw state?
What value is there in going first? Clearly New Hampshire takes enormous pride in going first, to the point of putting it into law. But does Michigan (or California) really lose out by not going first?
<
p>
I need that answered before I support yanking first in the nation status from New Hampshire, because my gut is that we need to do that, and rotate first in the nation primaries.
It’s every four years, so with 50 states that would make your state’s primary come around every how many years?
Good point, but how else do you do it? Lottery?
By way of FairVote.org
<
p>
I particularly like the “California Plan” which is described thusly:
<
p>
Same problem though — small states going first.
If they view your web site? Send donations? If you’ve set foot in the state? If they read a newspaper ad in a paper from an adjacent state?
<
p>
This is the goofiest and most unenforceable rule I’ve ever heard of. PLEASE tell me this is JUST the Democrats….
<
p>
The nominee has control of the convention, and would “forgive” his/her delegates from such states before the event began.
<
p>
If we do not have a clear nominee at convention time, though, then things could get interesting…
That would be something to see!
<
p>
But we won’t, not this year. I guess my bottom line here is, if Levin or whoever doesn’t like the schedule, they ought to start work on changing it after the primaries, not five (four?) months before the primaries.
The more this stuff plays out, the likelier a brokered convention will be in my opinion. If there is no clear leader by Megatuesday, and those states go in different directions, it’s not hard to see any of the big 2/3/4 getting to a majority. That’s when the superdelegates (mainly Hillary’s) come into play.
<
p>
Really, the only people who can rein in this foolishness are the presidential campaigns. The Democrats don’t have much sanction, and I don’t see what levers Howard Dean has to get these fools in line. Not seating delegates doesn’t seem to have an effect, and most anything else (cutting funding, for example) would hurt the party. I don’t imagine any given governor, senator, or rep. can do much either. Frankly, the best way out may be to bypass ridiculousness into utter slapstick by having California, Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania threaten to move their events to January 5th until everyone involved grows up.
We won’t have a brokered convention because no one will be close enough behind the nominee to hurt the nominee, which is what it would take to force some brokering.
<
p>
Re: the primaries, I think they only seem to be a problem as New Hampshire approaches, and perhaps only to people whose favored candidate isn’t winning there. But, if the question were somehow nationalized, then everything changes, because nobody outside New Hampshire thinks New Hampshire should always go first.
<
p>
…one comment. I don’t know how it is now, but in years past a state can hold a primary to elect a slate of delegates, but the political convention was not required to seat the delegation. The convention could, instead, choose to seat a different delegation.
<
p>
The interpretation would be that states can hold their party primaries, but it is the parties that determine who the states’ delegates are.
Because McCain had won Mass. in the primary, but the elected delegates were Bush supporters, McCain was worried about a second ballot, and had different delegates seated.
<
p>
It’s why we went to apportionment over winner-take-all this year, so if you are elected as a delegate, you’ll be seated.
I can’t stomach these hideous sausage-making details, but I just want Iowa and NH to lose the first spots. If I have to hear one more party strategerist or hick town grandma crow about “retail politics” I’m going to write in Larouche.
It’s “Wolverines”! đŸ˜‰
Only if you went to that other university. đŸ˜‰
To avoid controversy, I’ll change it to the (Wayne State) Warriors. Detroit would make the first primary a thousand times more interesting, anyway.
<
p>
Not to mention huge college towns, farming, forestry, light and heavy manufacturing, diversity on several levels. Attention Dem bigwigs: my position has now shifted from anti-NH to pro-Michigan.
This must be the new world …
Michigan also has an auto industry that seems to be opposed to any sensible policies on greenhouse gasses. If the people of Michigan are smarter than that, I have no problem with them being first. If doing well in Michigan requires toning down the global warming policies, I think they should go last.
could willard’s people have anything to do with MI jockeying for 1st? it is his natal state, and he has a lump of support there. a good showing in the 1st primary could really boost his campaign.
<
p>
or is it just those danged moonbad dems again pushing the calendrical envelope?
is polling better in NH and Iowa than he is in Michigan.
<
p>
My hunch is that the candidates are getting really frustrated by the jockying for primary calendar position. It screws up their schedules and forces them to spread themselves incredibly thin to spend time in the early states. Of course, they’d never come out and say that because then they piss off the very states they’re trying to win.
you are undoubtedly right about frustration. now that you mention iowa, i do recall that willard has spent an iraqi war ransom there. but am i correct in thinking that iowa is seen as important in it’s won right as a bellwether, and not as a 1st state? having good showings in iowa (whenever it happens) and the 1st primary (wherever that happens) = every candidate’s dream?
As I said upthread, the only candidates who could tell these states to knock it off are the Big 2/3/4 on either side. The Nat’l Committees are powerless. I remember that Gephardt, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards all skipped the “unauthorized” primary that Washington DC held in January. Without major participation, the media essentially ignored the Dean-Sharpton 1-2 finish.
<
p>
So if these campaigns refuse to use the power they have to get some people to grow up, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for their troubles.
I was referring to the January 2004 DC primary.
Maybe we should move the MA primary up, so the rest of the country can see what the MA GOP thinks of Romney. At last check, he was polling 7% in his “home” state (source http://www.electoral-vote.com).
I love this site … I was wondering when it would start covering the presidential race.
The description “party-line” indicates that the Democrats of Michigan don’t want to move their primary up. Given that primaries are ostensibly run by the parties (though some news in Michigan suggests that the state pays for them for some reason), why can’t the GOP and Dems have them on separate days?
on separate days. this article says that high-ranking dems (gov. granholm for starters) want the repub and dem primaries on the same day. so the dems apparently want them on the same day, but not such an early date.