Because of the issues I raised in today's earlier article on super delegates determining the nominee, like Matt I jumped on a conference call with the Clinton campaign. I prepared myself by typing out the following question:
Do you think there is a meaningful difference in the democratic, lower d, quality of super delegates and pledged delegates, or that there could be a crisis of legitimacy in the Democratic nominee if he or she wins the nomination without the support of the majority of pledged delegates?
To my surprise, the campaign actually took my question, along with those from he likes of Ron Brownstein and Judy Woodruff (that was pretty cool--my zero years of journalist training are finally paying off). Although I lack sophisticated recording techniques, I did manage to take down most of their response. The basic gist of their response was as follows:
The rules the party has put in place to choose its nominee are not the rules of the Clinton campaign and, just like the Obama campaign, we are doing what we can under those rules to secure the requisite number of delegates for the nomination. One way to avoid the situation described above is to figure out some way to honor the votes of Michigan and Florida, where there was record turnout. Counting the delegates in Florida and Michigan is a civil rights issue, and a solution needs to be figured out before the convention. (Note: italicized text should not be considered a direct quote, just my quick transcription.)
Fascinating stuff. If Florida was counted, a crude estimate from Florida results would indicate that Clinton would receive about 111 delegates to Obama's 74, minus some from both totals based on Edwards receiving 14% (and thus more than 15% in many congressional districts). In Michigan, the situation is a lot trickier, since neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot. Still, based on the Michigan results and using the same crude math, Michigan pledged delegate seating would break 74 for Clinton, and 54 for uncommitted. Overall, between the two states, Clinton nets a delegate advantage of 57, plus or minus how support breaks among Edwards delegates.
Personally, after Super Tuesday, I think the Obama campaign should agree to some sort of compromise solution, where they agree to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations as listed above, but with two caveats. First, Obama receives all of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan (although that could be a negotiating point). Second, both campaigns agree that whoever wins the most pledged delegates after the final primaries and caucuses on June 3rd will receive the endorsement of the other candidate at the convention. It is an equitable solution that would not really alter the state of the campaign while solving a whole range of potential disputes. It would preserving voting rights, preventing a brokered convention, avoiding strained relations with two large swing states, and guaranteeing the nominee is the popular choice of the primary electorate. Simply the process, and just get it done before we have a real disaster on our hands.
Also, the Clinton campaign promised to be ahead in total delegates after Super Tuesday, but did not make the same guarantee about being ahead in pledged delegates. Further, the talk among the press corps was entirely about delegates, not winning states. As such, it seems that delegates are going to be the main storyline coming out of Super Tuesday, not who won what state. That makes coming to an agreement such as the one outlined above all the more important.
Update: Yeah, wiping out 2.3 million votes because they didn't follow the strictures of the almighty DNC rules and bylaws committee sounds really fair and democratic to me. It sounds about as fair and democratic as allowing 796 people to have 20% of the vote in determining the presidential nominee of a political party with fifty million members.
Denying the partisan franchise to Michigan and Florida voters is just as undemocratic as elevating super delegates. As per my suggested compromise agreement above, I say seat Florida and Michigan, but also take super delegates out of the equation. |
