::::::::
Last year the state legislatures in both Michigan and Florida regrettably moved the dates of their presidential primaries in order to, like so many other states, outsize the influence of their primary elections.
The rules that govern presidential primaries are determined by the Rules Committees of the Republican National (RNC) and Democratic National Committees (DNC).
When Florida and Michigan switched their primary dates to preempt early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire they did so knowing that the new dates would (1.) violate the national party rules, and (2.) disqualify the results of any primary election held on those new dates.
Both states went ahead with the new primary election date schedules in full awareness of the consequences of doing so.
Some have said that the conventional thinking at the time among many political experts was that an early Clinton Establishment Coronation would discount the results of Michigan and Florida anyway.
What the Clinton campaign, in particular, did not bank on was the possibility that there would be no coronation, in fact, and that Sen. Clinton would need to mightily compete in competitive primaries to win the confidence, trust, and votes of ordinary Democratic and, in the cases of open primaries, either Independent or Republican, voters , or both, in order to earn the nomination.
Arguments now advanced about "unfairness" or "disenfranchisement" or being "undemocratic" are neither reasonable, fair-minded, or accurate. These states chose to violate the rules knowing that the consequences of their decision would be disenfranchising voters in their own states. For Clinton to claim she "won" any or all of these two primaries is bogus, fraudulent, and dishonest; particularly, after she pledged not to campaign in the states and suggested she would not contest the results of any outcomes held on the early dates.
The whole coronation premise explains not just the fallacious arguments out of the Clinton camp of "unfairness" with respect to the primaries in Michigan and Florida, but also helps explain Sen. Clinton's sharp turn in tone and rhetoric following her early and frequent defeats leaving the candidate in second place throughout the balance of the primary season.
If Sen. Clinton intends to secure the Democratic election, she needs to do so on the merits of her positions and the voters' assessment of her character, not by attempting to disingenously steal votes.
It is in the interest of any Democratic Party candidate, Clinton or Obama, to be sure to take extra efforts to reassure the voters of both Michigan and Florida that their interests are being heard, valued, and represented. It is not in the interests of the Democratic or any other party to allow the questionable tallies of illegitimate primary elections to sway the outcome of the party's nomination. Out of a sense of fairness, both Florida and Michigan's delegations should be seated at the convention in Denver. The delegation of each state, however, should be balanced with equal numbers of delegates for each candidate, thereby providing state representation without delegitimizing the primary elections in states that did not break the rules.
