DNC kills Texas Two-Step
(Sorry if this duplicates; I looked but didn't see one.)
Seven years after Barack Obama earned the majority of Texas' delegates despite losing the primary to Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic National Committee has put an end to the state's hybrid presidential nominating process, saying it "had the potential to confuse voters."
Under the two-step process, two-thirds of a candidate's convention delegates are awarded on the basis of the primary election results. The remaining third are chosen at caucuses, which are held after the polls closed on primary night.
Now, at the direction of the national party, delegates will be based solely on the primary results, a shift some party members lamented Tuesday.
"It's not the way we would prefer to do it," said Harris County Democratic Party Chair Lane Lewis. "I still think that there is plenty of opportunity for individuals who want to participate in the delegate process to be able to participate."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Democrats-drop-Texas-two-step-for-2016-6359278.php?t=a91df1a643c4b9aa9c&cmpid=twitter-premium
My humble O is that this was done in order to prevent HRC from being Obama'd again, as she was in 2008. The Frontloading blog agrees...
As a side note, it hard to resist viewing the denied waiver request as a signal of if not the Clinton campaign's pull on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, then the reality that there are folks on the committee (Harold Ickes comes to mind) that are or have in the past been aligned with the Clintons. That comment is not meant as some form of conspiracy theory. That is how the Democratic process has worked: Surrogates of the various campaigns get involved in the rules process. Given that Clinton folks were not fans of the two-step (and for arguably legitimate reasons) after 2008, it is not a real shock that it would meet its end now.
But why now and not four years ago? Parties holding the White House tend not to tinker as much with their delegate selection rules. And by extension, those in the White House at the head of their parties often prefer to maintain the same combination of rules that got them to the White House in the first place. The denied Texas request is as much about the DNC transitioning to life after Obama as it is about Clinton (and company) not liking the two-step because of 2008.
This reinforces my POV that Bernie Sanders has a more difficult road to the nomination than even many of his supporters may be aware of: the institutional Democrats (party officials, super-delegates, elected officials, and DNCers like these) will bend the rules to the benefit of Clinton and the detriment of Sanders should he gain even more traction.
Does anyone disagree with the premise that the rules were changed to protect Clinton and thwart Sanders? I'd like to hear your argument if you think that wasn't the intention here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
There was the primary, and then the gathering in the evening, where delegates were elected and assigned, in my precinct's case in 2004, 8 for Clinton, 7 for Obama, and an alternate for each one. Then a week or two later was the convention, when the delegates actually cast those votes. The Obama team captain held a training before the convention (at the local favorite restaurant, "Chicken Fried Steak as Big as Your Face"
and was clearly ordered to do so. The training was this: Show up. No matter how far down the alternate line you are (and my husband and I were the last 2), show up. Because the precinct is entitled to 15 votes, one way or another.
I do not think the Clinton group got the same instruction, because on the day of the convention (2 hours to drive there, 2 hours to check in, the biggest attended local convention ever). Team Obama had 12 of their 14 people there. (One guy had a heart attack the day before, and his wife was at the hospital with him.) No problem; all our alternates were there.
Team Clinton had a total of 4 of their 16.
In such a case, the alternates from the other side can vote--for their own candidate. So Clinton should have received 8 votes from our precinct, but received 4. Obama should have received 7 and received 11 votes because THEY SHOWED UP, a scenario that played out the same through all the precincts.
I was really impressed that the Obama team had (1) bothered to find out the rules, (2) made sure all their delegates knew them, and (3) made each one feel like they had an important part to play, which turned out to be true, the most exciting primary ever.
I can understand how the powers that be might want the system changed. It was supposed to put a little bit more decision power in the hands of local "party leaders," but here was a candidate who came in and subverted it back to the people.
