To no one’s surprise, I disagree with Harrogate’s post on Florida and Michigan. While I think that the DNC messed up mightily, I do not think that there should be a revote in either of the states. All is not lost though as I believe that the delegates will be seated at the convention but this will occur only after the Super Delegates decide who the nominee will be. Of course, I could be wrong as law-makers in Florida believe that there will be a revote and Michigan attempted to reach consensus on a revote.
Situation:
If you are unaware, please read this article from The New York Review of Books.
Motivation:
Because the DNC attempted to increase the voice of minority voices in Nevada and South Carolina, as well as respect tradition and small states, the DNC argued that these four states were the only states that could hold contests before the monster of Super Tuesday. If the Democrats did not believe in fairness or attempt to achieve fairness in its electoral process, this would not be an issue. However, there is some merit in allowing Democrats in small states some say in their party. Also, the DNC holds the power to make decisions and to deliver punishments.
Why would the candidates agree to do this? Remember, the goal of any campaign is to win, unless you are Ron Paul or Ralph Nader where you run to make a point or provide presence for an issue. But here are the motives of the important players:
(1)The candidates were pandering to the early states and possessed the strength of the DNC to allow them to pander at the expense of Florida and Michigan. If you lose the first states, then Florida and Michigan, let alone Super Tuesday, means a lot less. Ask Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson or anyone else not named Obama or Clinton. Though, former President Bill Clinton lost the first two and still won. So I shall rephrase this: falling to win or gain a point in an overtime/shootout loss puts you at a strategic disadvantage unless your next game is a home game.
(2)Because of Republican incompetence, the DNC thought a democratic would win the 2008 election no matter who ran. Even Dodd had a chance. Well, maybe.
(3)Senator Clinton agreed because she was “inevitable”—this would all work out in the end as she would win Florida and then Super Tuesday and the race would be over. Once it was over, there would be no concern about seating or not seating the delegates.
(4)It allowed Senators Obama and Edwards to focus their time and money on the first four states and then the Super Tuesday states. Both of these Senators faced an uphill climb because of Senator Clinton. Anything to take away the pressure, they would gladly accepted. If one of them won Iowa or New Hampshire or both, then one had a chance, especially if the victor were Senator Obama who would win South Carolina and possibly Nevada.
(5)Unfortunately, things like the "Rule of Law" matter. If candidates, or presidents, choose not to follow this, many problems develop- witness the last seven years under the Bush Administration. It seems, unfortunately, that crying out against the "Rule of Law" and then not following the "Rule of Law" is a tad hypocritical and dangerous.
Please note: Florida matters more to Senator Clinton than it does to Senator Obama. In order for her to win the nomination and the Presidency, she will need to win Florida. However, Senator Obama has other means to win the presidency, such as Virginia and Colorado, to compensate for Florida while Senator Clinton does not.
Also, as I have stated elsewhere, I do not think that Florida will be in play for the Democrats in November as it will stay red while Michigan will stay blue, though the presence of Romney on the Republican ticket may switch Florida and Michigan as people in Florida do not like him while people in Michigan do because of his family connections.
6 comments:
At this point, given his switch in endorsements, Harrogate also disagrees with Harrogate's previous posts on Michigan and Florida. That is, Harrogate is no longer pushing for revotes in Florida and Michigan.
Everyone discussing this issue, every single voice Harrogate has seen on television and on the net, including people he knows personally, has voiced an opinion coincidentally geared to the benefit of the candidate they are endorsing. Every single one. Why should Harrogate be any different?
Now, it is true that Harrogate has been making fun of these idiotic Rules since well before he knew who Barack Obama was. But what does that matter now? The point is, Harrogate is supporting Obama now, so his new position is, either do not seat any delegates at all, or split them 50/50.
The only deviation Harrogate retains is his recently expressed appreciation for the possibility that the two states governors would, on principle, decertify the Democratic nominee, whomever that turns out to be. Now, the possibility that this could happen is remote. But then, all great Art begins as a remote possibility.
But if they did it, hearts would palpitate with the sheer Righteous Spectacle of it all.
Though, for it to be Artistic, both Crist and Especially Granholm would need to promise this is what they are going to get their legislatures to do, Before the nominee is named.
While writing this, I attempted to remain as impartial as I could be.
I liked the intro about disagreeing when I only disagree with a few points.
Solon, your prose is very linear and logical, and in places highly Persuasive, and throughout definitely comes across as disinterested. But then, there are more than a handful of linear, logical, persuasive, disinterested arguments floating around when it comes to: Michigan and Florida; the way the Math works and how Supers should regard it; the meaning of the popular vote; etc.; etc.; etc.
But to noone's surprise, when you tally these arguments, they align perfectly with the preferences of the Rhetors in question. It may be that it is all coincidence in your own distinct case. It may well be that, were Clinton your preference, your posts this evening would read the same way as they are Reading.
Harrogate however is not so intellectually consistent, nor nearly at the end of the day as rigorous, as all that.
He cannot, in short, bear the discursive loneliness that supporting Obama on the One hand, and supporting revotes on the Other, would incur.
As for your final statement, all Harrogate can say is, in the Before Time, we disagreed on every single with respect to Michigan and Florida excepting the Common Thesis that the votes as they are, Ought not to stand.
But at this point, the Only thing we disagree on is, Harrogate would love to see the Democratic nominee, whomever it may be, Straight-Up Decertified in Michigan and Florida.
For the Governors and Legislators in Those States to to something Brett Ashley (_Sun Also Rises_) would have called "brilliant."
And the Only reason Harrogate retains this position has to do with the Oscar Wilde principle of Art for Art's Sake.
Harrogate means, can you imagine the Sheer Bravado of such a Move by Jennifer Granholm, a rspected Democrat?
It is one thing for the well-tanned, Snake-Souled Charlie Crist to be sending out constitutional feelers for bringing down the Big Hammer. Although, snaky-souled people have made great Art before. Witness Diego Rivera.
But for God's sake!!! Granholm is a Dem's Dem, a Politician of impeccable credentials, and what's more, as Henry James might perhaps have put it, a Lady of the Highest Order. For her to trainwreck her own Party in her Own State, to throw the Nation on the Lethal Electoral Sword of Republican Victory: As A Matter of Sheer Principle!
Now THAT would be some freakin New Politics. And it set in motion the putting to bed of the Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina/Nevada (thanks for reminding Harrogate) Narrative.
In my defense, while my arguments do support Senator Obama and I do support Senator Obama, I would argue that you should read this in light of my position on free speech: "Congress shall make no law."
If the roles were reversed and Senator Obama needed these states, I would like it less but make the same argument. "Congress shall make no law" even applies to the terrible speech in society.
The actors in this case (the DNC, Florida, Michigan, the candidates, and even the voters) knew what was at stake before they agreed to compromise their future. If this costs the Dems the presidency, so be it. Maybe this would lead us back to a constitutional standard where Congress, not the President were in charge.
And, I have been wondering if elections matter. I do not think that the Dems. will pick up Florida but neither will they lose Michigan. A revote will not change this. Other states may be in play but I think these are not.
Harrogate has every confidence thay Ye will find 10,000,000 Americans who support a hate-monger's right to speech unimpeded by Congress, before Ye will find 50 Obama supporters who, critical of what the DNC and the candidates have done, support revotes as the somewhat flawed but only plausible solution to the problem.
Ye will also find 10,000,000 Americans who support a hate-monger's right to speech unimpeded by Congress before Ye will find 50 Clinton supporters who, fully on Board with the Rhetorical Situation, think Michigan & Florida should either not be seated at all, split 50/50, or tallied only after the nominee has been decided.
Harrogate's point of course being, it is a considerably easier task to come out in support of an objectifiably identifiable clause in the United States Constitution, than it is to Rhetoricize past the end of one's own nose. As it were.
Post a Comment