How do we fix this? There is an obvious divide between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. This divide is growing worse by the day, especially between the extreme supporters of each side. First, let me state that while an Obama supporter myself, I do not think that Clinton should drop out unless it is her choice. If she chooses, she has every right to run the whole way to the convention. Were she to obtain the nomination, I would vote for her.
I want to focus on the chasm between the supporters. It is not just a problem for the Obama campaign... were Clinton to become the nominee, it would likely be an issue for her campaign as well. So, how do WE fix this?
Honest question. (And try to keep the sniping back and forth to a minimum)
I think that the beginning of this fix is to look at some of the points of contention from the aspect of an outside observer. To at least acknowledge that both sides of the arguments can be both right and wrong. To that end, let us look at "MI and FL" and "Popular Vote"
First: Florida and Michigan-
Well, the DNC dropped the ball on the initial handling of this one. I personally think that both delegations should be seated in some capacity. The DNC probably should have done what the Republicans did: cut the delegates in half, but allow campaigning. Obviously, we do not want to disenfranchise the voters here. One can argue that not seating "as is" does exactly that. For Florida at least, this is fair at this point. Granted, if the people of Florida had not been repeatedly told that it was not going to count, more would have likely shown up at the polls. Also a fair argument, but unfixable at this point.
Ah, but then there is Michigan. On a personal note, my grandfather was a first-string lineman on the Wolverines. So, go Michigan... unless you are playing Penn State. Sorry, off track there for a minute. We want to seat them "as is", but there is the above point about FL and the "beauty contest" thing. We don't want to disenfranchise any voters, but what do we do with the "uncommited" delegates? Do they become roving SD's? Do they become delegates for anyone of their personal choice? Can they become Biden delegates? Also, since we don't want to disenfranchise any voters, do they become delegates for anyone but Clinton? Her name was on the ballot and these voters went out of the way to go to the polls and chose not to vote for her. All in an election that they were told didn't count. My point being that this is a crazy problem for both sides. Have I even mentioned that any pledged delegate can vote for anyone they want? I may be an Obama supporter, but that guy in MD just pisses me off. If that is all fair and true, why even bother having a primary at all if the "will of the voters" is not respected. Argh! Anyways...
And what happens if these two states aren't sanctioned at all? Does the DNC lose all control of the primary calendar? Do Iowa and New Hampshire deserve the first spots? Does the first primary in for the 2012 election happen in 2010?
Sorry if this is turning out longer that expected. Onwards:
Second: "Will of the Voters" or the "Popular Vote"-
The ways to measure or argue the "Popular Vote" seem to be many. I have seen no less than five different methods for determining the numbers and, within each of those methods, I have seen different counts. You can do it with or without any of the following: Florida, Michigan, Caucus states, Territories, Estimated turnout for caucus states if they were primaries, non-democrats, non-republicans, etc. At a certain point, this becomes somehow worse than cherry-picking polls or taking quotes out of context. In fact, this is the main reason that there are delegates at all. Personally, I think that as time honored as the caucus tradition is, they should all become primaries. Unfortunately, that is too late for this time around. And if it was based on the "Popular Vote", wouldn't both campaigns have campaigned and spent their fundraising in different areas like major population centers and the big states?
But what about the delegates? Do they reflect the "Will of the Voters"? Some states voted early, but might vote differently now. Would Obama have won the California if the vote was today? Would Clinton have won some of the caucus states if they were primaries? And why the hell does Puerto Rico have 55 delegates? I mean really. They have more delegates than either Oregon or Kentucky. Was it fair that they were rewarded with bonus delegates for waiting till the end of the primaries? They aren't even a state.
My point in all of this, if you are even reading at this point, is that this whole process is imperfect to say the least. Both sides have room to argue their points. Rather than getting angry at each other about these things, try a few simple measures of respect. "Fair point." "I disagree with you because of: (insert fact here) but I can see how you would say that." "I guess we will just have to agree to disagree." Try to stop spouting talking points at each other without both a reasoned argument to back it up and an ability to actually absorb what the other person is saying or asking. Other wise, you will just sound like that right-wingnut on "Hardball" last week.
Oh, and any other ideas on how to fix this are welcome.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 64 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
