DEMOCRATS FOR MCCAIN

FYI, folks.  I received information this morning that a prominent Democrat was urging Michiganders to vote for Senator John McCain in yesterday's Republican presidential primary.  Campaigners on behalf of erstwhile presidential hopeful Joe Biden, the Democratic senator from Delaware, phoned local citizens late in the day asking them to vote for his aisle-crossing colleague McCain.  Whether Biden's eleventh-hour endorsement was a peculiarity limited to Michigan because of the meaninglessness of the Democratic presidential primary or heralds something more ala Joe Lieberman, I haven't any idea.  But it was an odd thing nevertheless.

Comments

[Brandon]

Such odd occurences seem a natural result of the entirely nonsensical primary election we just had (especially if one attempted to vote on the Democratic side).

After planning for weeks not to vote (out of a sense of protest, I guess), my conscience got the better of me, literally at the last minute, and I made it to the precinct before it closed. But I walked out of there feeling more powerless, angry and confused than ever before ("Uncommitted"? Give me a break).

I can certainly buy the basic argument that someone, somewhere had to stand up and try to put a stop to the tremendously unfair and arbitray duopoly that Iowa and New Hampshire get to foist on the rest of us every four years, but it seems Michigan has paid a price for our defiance of national party rules (regardless of how one feels about them).

All I know is that I walked out of the voting booth with a horrible taste in my mouth. There is something manifestly undemocratic (small 'd') about what happened here on Tuesday.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Brandon.

I don't think you would've displayed any lack of civic virtue if you had skipped the Dem primary. After all, it was nothing more than a beauty contest after the national party stripped Michigan of its delegates.

As for Iowa-New Hampshire duopoly and how the Democrats and Republicans penalized Michigan for its early primary, I both agree and disagree with your sentiments. Here goes:

[1] I do think political parties should be free to choose their nominees anyway they see fit. First Amendment and all that.

[2] Even so, the major political parties would be prudent to organize primaries more sensibly than the current arrangement IF they want voters to have a large say in the selection of presidential nominees. For example, no state should have a permanent lock on going first, the primaries should be spread out over a few months to allow for more substance to brought into campaigns, and the primaries shouldn't be the end-all in the nomination process so that the first ones don't have the effect of making the last ones nugatory in the event of a surge of enthusiasm.

[3] Even if the Iowa-New Hampshire duopoly were kept in place, it is still the responsibility of later voters to think for themselves than to follow the lead of a couple of small and peculiar electorates.

[4] The issue of money to stay in the game for dark horse candidates (and so give later primaries more of choice and more meaning in the event of an early surge for one candidate) would disappear if undemocratic restrictions on campaign contributions were removed. The idea that too much money is spent on promoting candidates and issues is ridiculous. The sum is tiny campaign to what companies spend on promoting mundane products like margarine and detergent. Why shouldn't a relatively unknown candidate be allowed to raise a war chest from a few wealthy contributors? So long as contributions are publicly disclosed, come only from U.S. persons, and are made with checks, the voters can decide if they think a candidate has been bought.

[5] It is likely that the pattern of the past of the past quarter-century of a major party candidate wrapping up the nomination in early primaries is anomalous rather than a permanent change in our politics. As late as 1976 an incumbent president (i.e., Ford) had to battle for the nomination throughout the entire primary season. I think we have entered a period of polarization that will make politics much more contentious for the next couple of decades. Plus the internet may have the effect of negating the adverse effects of campaign financing restrictions on dark horse candidates. These things may well change the conventional wisdom on how the nomination process will play out, as we are already seeing this year.

Thanks for the comments, Brandon. Good food for thought.

Regards, Bill

[Brandon]

I guess it boils down to a simple difference of opinion, and maybe it's worth pursuing at another time, in another context. But with regard to your point number 4, it's beyond my [admittedly lacking] logical ability to comprehend how infusing yet more money into an already obscene process can possibly be a good thing. But hey, different strokes, I reckon. I just think that any reasonable discussion of true campaign finance reform ought to start from the basic premise that we need less money, not more.

Anyway, it's nice to have the LAW back after what's been somewhat of a drought. Looking forward to your upcoming pieces and the opinions they will undoubtedly bring out from readers.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Brandon.

Around this time of year, L.A.W. slows down a bit as far as posting articles. But it will pick up again soon. Thanks for the interest.

As for money in political campaigning, I say the more political speech the better. Getting out that speech costs money. So long as the sources of that money are promptly disclosed to the voters, I'm happy to let the voters decide whether or not those sources pass the smell test.

Regards, Bill