Howard Dean: The Savior of the Democratic Party?

Source

Is Howard Dean's strategy going to lead to a Dem resurgence? I guess we'll be able to tell whether he's had a tangible impact in the next 2 election cycles. But early signs seem to indicate it's working to me...look no further than TX, which Dems have a chance to take back the Congress and some offices in '10.

The Michigan and Florida issue is going to have a debilitating effect on the party no matter what they do about it. There's really no way to solve it without pissing a lot of people off. The only difference is which people.

But this article has nothing to do with that...

But I agree, that Dean will have to show leadership in regards to the issue of those 2 states. However, given his relationship with Washington, I think he will do something favorable to those states over appeasing Dem fatcats in Washington...

Sure it does. Far from being the savior of the party, Howard Dean is the patient zero of its demise, if it comes to that.

It has everything to do with it. He buckled and appeased Iowa and New Hampshire and now we're going to punch him in the kidneys for it.

Meh. States have the right to do whatever they want with the primary calendar, but that doesn't mean the party doesn't have the right to put consequences on those actions. The RNC punished both of these states as well, albeit with a less severe measure. Would you be complaining if the DNC adopted the same punishment as the RNC? It would still make a difference in such a close primary race, so I'll bet the issue would have been raised anyway.

I don't care. I care about being snubbed for a bunch of do-nothing states.

You have the same attitude as the Dem fatcats in Washington that only want the Dems to focus on battleground states instead of all 50 states. No wonder Dean snubbed you guys.

Which is why the problem is virtually unsolvable.

They can either...

[1] Seat the delegates by the January results. Probably the most unacceptable, especially in Michigan since Obama didn't even appear. Many voters didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count (Michiganders couldn't even vote for Obama directly, and by the African-American vote trends that have emerged, Detroit and Flint, among other Michigan cities, would heavily), which is why those are among the few states where Republican turnout exceeded Democratic. If it ends up counting, those people are disenfranchised. Someone might argue that they're choice not to vote is their own fault, but under the rules of the time, whether they were "proper" or not, their vote was not to count, and you can't change the rules midgame, and still use the old results.

[2] Hold a new contest in those States. That takes money, and nobody wants to pay. Primaries, though the fairest way to redo it (since that was the way the first time), are the most expensive of all methods. Caucuses, all-mail vote, and internet vote have all been suggested, but each of those would tend to favor one candidate over the other, and thus piss off the other side.

[3] Not seat Michigan and Florida. Opposition to that is the root of the current conflict.

[4] Split the delegates of Michigan and Florida 50/50. Probably the most arbitrary way to do it, but perhaps the only compromise possible. The result is that the States would still be essentially meaningless to the outcome.

Like I said, I don't see any solution to the problem.

They interviewed Debbie Dingle last night, and she pretty much had it spot on. Michigan and Florida (rightly) rebelled against the same pair of small (egomaniacal) States always getting to be the pacesetters in Presidential elections. As such, a little civil disobedience on their part was entirely appropriate.

That it is now threatening to be a possibly insurmountable problem serves the national Democratic Party right for interfering in State matters.

Nevada and South Carolina were early primaries as well. Are they egomaniacal, inconsequential states as well?

It's simple. Have Obama and Clinton foot the bill for primaries and/or caucuses in both states. They both have more than enough money from donations to do so, and it's in both their best interests to do so...

No, they were doing the same thing as Michigan and Florida. The only difference is that they weren't punished for it.

Were you trying to make my point for me? :flow2:

No, the DNC wanted to move 2 more states up in the calendar and they selected NV and SC, among several states that were possible choices.

Why should Obama? He followed the rules, such as they were. He isn't calling for them to be changed now; Clinton is.

So, to summarize...not simple.

Neither candidate will have enough delegates now to capture the nomination. So yes, it's in both their interests to do so, unless they want an ugly convention...

Tell me why the calendar should be their jurisdiction.

There's no avoiding an ugly convention anymore.

Because it's their party? Are you saying a political party shouldn't be deciding how candidates are selected for their own party?

They're the national party. There are also State Democratic Parties. That's their business.

I think it's possible, from the math, for at least one candidate to capture the nomination with the 300+ delegates that MI and FL have combined. Of course, that depends on how the vote breaks out, but I'm pretty sure it's possible.

But this is a selection for a national candidate...

You're absolutely right. That's why I propose that the Michigan Democratic Party give Hillary Clinton the ballot spot in November, regardless of the other 49 states.

Each State's choice chosen in fifty separate elections.

Here we go again. The DNC is doing a courtesy in letting the state parties have any say at all. They don't have to. They could just have a backroom deal. The only elections that must be democratically decided are the 50 general elections. Anything else is a courtesy, not a right.

So why do you think your scanario hasn't been threatened, or at the least, why hasn't Howie reminded all concerned that their participation in the process is nothing more than a revokable courtesy?

I thought Jeebus al O-bama was the savior of the Democratic Party.

Rebellion is trying to overthrow a corrupt system. Trying to put yourself at the head of it is a coup.

A coup seeks to replace. These States just wanted joinder.

Because Howie knows, unlike apparently some people in this thread, that he could easily have fifty states tell him to fuck off and the states go their own way. Which of course would result in the complete destruction of the Democratic party.

Not to mention the fact it would infuriate the public to come out and say that the primaries are a courtesy. That would really hammer home to people how it doesn't matter what they do that the party "bosses" are rigging the system. Again the Democrat party would implode. The Republicans would make sure to say that the states participation is a good thing.