Caucuses would solve Democrats’ problem
If they’re smart enough to admit they were wrong, the leaders of Michigan’s Democratic Party have a way out of their presidential primary mess.
The national party apparently is pressuring Michigan Democrats to hold caucuses this spring to choose new delegates to the national convention in August.
Makes sense to me.
The Jan. 15 primary was a fiasco. The results are meaningless, because only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot (among serious candidates). The national Democratic committee told Michigan’s party leaders the state would lose its delegates if the primary was moved before Feb. 5, and it pressured candidates to stay off the ballot.
Now Michigan doesn’t have a voice in the selection of a Democratic presidential candidate, and that’s just plain wrong - especially since it appears to be a historic choice (see previous blog post).
Enter the caucus idea. Why not? Compared to running a statewide election, it’s a relatively inexpensive way to select a candidate. Every Democrat in the state would have a chance to participate. Michigan would get its delegates seated at the national convention. It’s a win-win.
Hillary Clinton supporters may think they can convince the national committee to seat the Michigan delegates based on the Jan. 15 primary election. But that’s not likely, especially if the result remains in doubt.
It would simply be unfair to let Michigan’s unbalanced primary - where Barack Obama wasn’t even on the ballot - play a role in deciding the party’s candidate.
It’s not a matter of supporting Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. It’s a matter of doing the right thing. As it stands, Michigan Democrats didn’t get a chance to choose between the first serious woman presidential candidate in history and the first serious black presidential candidate in history.
That’s just plain not right
A statewide system of caucuses would give the state’s Democrats a chance to participate in the process.
And that would be a good thing.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
This is a really complicated issue.
The exit polls and other phone polls from the time of the Michigan primary concluded that Clinton would have won the state handily - maybe with a percentage similar to what she actually received.
And I have to question whether Obama and Edwards would have participated in the primary if they thought they would have won it, or at least had a chance at winning it. It seems at least possible to me that they pulled out because they weren’t going to win anyway.
Obama does very well in caucus states. Clinton tends to do much better in primary states. A caucus at this point would be playing on home turf for Obama.
But, really, at this point I think the Democrats need to find a way for one of the two candidates to win a clear victory. Both get 70%+ approval from Democrat Party voters.
For the sake of November, it doesn’t really matter who wins.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:58 am
The other aspect of this is the fact that Hillary paid a price to support Michigan’s decision to go early. Some of the candidates pulled out of Michigan because they thought that Iowa and New Hampshire voters would penalize them for choosing to participate in Michigan.
Well, did Hillary’s decision to participate here cost her votes in Iowa? I know that it’s impossible to determine, but it might have cost her delegates.
So, holding a caucus would penalize her.
Note, I am not against a caucus. I just think it’s a complicated issue.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Mike, you make two very good points. And you’re right, it’s complicated. But neither point changes the fact that Michigan Democrats didn’t get to choose between the leading candidates, because of insider party shenanigans.
If either candidate goes on to win the nomination, without the Michigan delegates, no harm will be done - other than my sense of righteous indignation. But if it comes down to a split convention and the Michigan delegates become critical, I’d rather depend on a caucus where everyone had a chance to vote than a one-sided primary.