Contributors:

Matt	Oreo
DocJess

This site is not affiliated with the DNC, DNCC, or any campaign.

Email us at

Blog Roll

Frontloading HQ
The Field
MyDD
Swing State Project
DemNotes
DemRulz

DCW in the News

St. Louis Channel 2 News
AP
Politico
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
Wired
US News & World Report

Democratic Change Commision - chartered in a contradiction

by: Matt

Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM EDT

The Democratic Change Commission was formed by the DNC Rules Committee the Saturday before the 2008 Democratic Convention. The next day, the DNC Credentials Committee restored full voting status to the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Which led us to write:

We will only note the contradiction: Yesterday, Democrats agreed to form a commission to look at proposals, which, among others, tries to keep no state other than four from holding a primary before March. Today, they revoked the penalties for those states that violated the rules this year. Which sends what message to states looking to break the rules in 2012?

If a state knows its delgates will be eventually restored in the name of party unity no matter what rules are broken, why should the states worry about breaking the rules in the first place?

Matt :: Democratic Change Commision - chartered in a contradiction

Follow DemConWatch on Facebook and Twitter

Tags: (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Democratic Change Commision - chartered in a contradiction | 1 comments

There's still one thing that would give states pause. (0.00 / 0)

The way the national party deals with sanctioning the candidates for campaigning in any rogue states would still have a bearing. Sure, states would get all their delegates back, but if only a portion of the viable (or no) candidates shows up, the impact of the state decreases. Full slate of delegates or not, that is prohibitive to some states having to move such primary-shifting legislation through the legislature.

Let's compare Florida in both parties from this past presidential cycle. [I'd look at Michigan too, but Romney was employing something of a home-state advantage there. I'll address that in just a moment.] The Sunshine state was hugely consequential to McCain winning the Republican nomination. His win there put him in a far superior position going into Super Tuesday the next week.

And for the Democrats? Yeah, Florida got all its delegates back for the convention, but the impact of the state having moved was nil. Yes, it was a story that reverberated throughout the rest of the campaign, but in terms of impact, Florida had no affect on the outcome of the nomination race. Now, if there had been no restrictions on campaigning in violating states, then Florida could (could), perhaps, have given Clinton the same type of boost it gave McCain. We'll never know.

This is all akin to the home-state advantage for candidates. Think about 1992 for a moment. The Democratic candidates ceded the Iowa caucuses to Tom Harkin, making it a non-event. New Hampshire was the big showdown that year.

It is a contradiction, but the national party still has that one trick up their sleeve.

by: Josh Putnam @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 11:14:11 AM CDT