Chris, have you seen the new compromise proposed for FL? (4.00 / 3)

It essentially says to give 50% weight to the January vote, and then the other 50% can be selected based on national (outside of MI/FL) delegate or popular vote totals.  I think Obama should accept this (using the proportional delegate totals), and also push for it in MI (first giving him the 40% that "Uncommitted" got).  By my calculations, he'd lose a net 18 delegates... but that seems like a fair price to me to avoid a floor fight in August (and one that he can probably afford).

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:54:17 AM CDT

There is one major problem with your analysis... (4.00 / 3)

And that's this: virtually no one outside of the most inside of insiders accepts 2,208 as the magic number.

It's likely that Obama will reach 2,024-2,025 by the end of the primaries in June, at which point he'll declare victory. There's going to be tremendous pressure for Clinton to drop out.

This isn't on Obama - and blaming Obama for blocking Clinton's attempts to change the rules mid-game is beneath your standards.

He has no reason to accept a primary that would allow Clinton to move the goalposts yet again.  

Further Reading

---

by: Dave Sund @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:45 AM CDT

I don't agree (0.00 / 0)

virtually no one outside of the most inside of insiders accepts 2,208 as the magic number.

Do you have evidence for this claim?  2208 is the simpliest 'magic' number because it is an absolute majority of all delegates.  It is the lowest common demoninator of magic numbers and also the one most discussed in the media.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:07:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's most definitely not true.. (4.00 / 3)

You can claim that 2208 is what the number should be, but the media has never claimed it to be the number.  On every website, it says "2024 needed to win".  Every analysis I've seen always sets the number to 2024 (or what used to be 2025).  Sorry, that's just plainly not true... the media is using the 2024 number, and I'm not even sure I've seen the 2208 number used even once either on TV or online from one of the major news outlets.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:10:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok (4.00 / 1)

Checking google news, it seems you are right.

2024 does come up a lot more than 2208.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I always like it (4.00 / 1)

blaming Obama for blocking Clinton's attempts to change the rules mid-game is beneath your standards.

I always like it whenever something I write causes me to lose credibility or is beneath my standards. Perhpas if someone sent me a document detailing my standards and the factors that led to my credibility, I'd understand these comments as something other than an attempt to dismiss my arguments entirely.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:11:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A legitimate critique (4.00 / 4)

It is a legitimate criticism to note that Clinton does seem to be gaming the system by changing the rules midstream.  The players all knew the rules of the game way back when, and they took a risk by violating the DNC rules.  If the DNC doesn't take its own rules seriously, then how are they ever going to deal with the primaries calendar conflicts in the future.

---

by: xtrarich @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The DNC Permitting a re-vote is entirely within the rules... (0.00 / 0)

... as is the DNC modifying the MI and FL penalty from the original 100% loss of delegates to the rule-mandated 50% loss of delegates (which I could support), or even to a more lenient penalty (which I could not support).

The DNC rules are very flexible.

Generalist.

---

by: tbetz @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:47:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How about the DNC shows a little leadership? (4.00 / 1)

Ok, I understand wanting everyone to agree on a way to move forward, but--shock of my life--the two candidates competing against each other don't agree on some stuff.

So, how about the DNC (and Howard Dean) show a little goddamn leadership and decide--with the legislatures in both Michigan and Florida--how to get a fair vote out of those states. Who gives a damn if Obama and Clinton agree with it. Here's Howard Dean's response to complaints from either campaign (and I'm an Obama supporter):

Uh, you are members of the Democratic party. I am the leader of the Democratic party. Put up or shut up.

Yes, the Obama campaign is gaming the system. Clinton is too. I have a little more respect for Obama, because at least he has been semi-consistent in his views. Clinton went from "the primary doesnt count" to "that was a fair vote" (in Michigan) to "lets have a revote" to "its civil rights!" (which, coming after Obama's speech, sounded very small).

Also, I really think the fact that Obama took his name off the ballot should be off the table. He made a promise to the early states (which Clinton made as well). I think the primary process is absolutely bogus. I think it needs to be changed. I don't think NH and IA should have so much weight. But he played by the rules laid out by the party. You really can't fault him for that.

---

by: KimmerDC @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:23:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Michigan pundits are saying Michigan redo (0.00 / 0)

is in deep doo doo.  The MI Senate is controlled by Republicans.  They have stalemated, reneged, and blocked everything for the last 9 years Granholm has been Gov.  They really don't give a damn about "fixing" the Democratic primary.  In fact, they are grinning from ear to ear.  If you offered to repeal every tax in MI in return, they probably would still say "no".  Any redo that requires legislative action is DOA.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 17:01:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not so. (0.00 / 0)

Clinton does seem to be gaming the system by changing the rules midstream

Not anymore.

A firehouse primary or state sponsored primary or a caucus is within the precedent set by the DNC in 2004, 2000, and 1996.  If Michigan can get it together, those delegates must be seated.  It worked for D.C. in 2004, and Delaware in 1996 and 2000.

Obama's agreement would be good, but it is not necessary.  States have always been able to write delegate selection plans late and get them approved.  The problem with Florida and the previous problem with Michigan has been that the local parties have not been willing to write a plan according to the rules at all, not that they are too late.

---

by: Brian Watkins @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:13:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes (4.00 / 1)

It is silly to attack your credibility, but nonetheless, Chris, his point is still valid. If Obama reaches 2,024 by June, EVERY major news station will declare victory for him, and there will be heavy pressure for Clinton to drop out. It is likely that under such a media firestorm, Superdelegates will start endorsing Obama en masse, simply to push him over the 2,208 which Clinton will be trying to push into the CW narrative, thus avoiding a floor fight. Of course, this is just conjecture, but it is a valid point, and he does back it with solid evidence.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

---

by: JewishJake @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:35:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No they won't (0.00 / 0)

Clinton isn't going to quit at the 2,024 mark, as long as some combination of Michigan and Florida can put her over the top. And if she doesn't quit, the media will keep covering it.

If there was going to be a grand media dismissal of Clinton's chances, then why didn't that happen after Obama won the most delegates in Texas? We were told before hand that Clinton needed to win Texas to keep going, but that didn't happen. And yet the media coverage continued apace.

Until Clinton mathematically eliminated, which does not happen at 2,024, the coverage will continue.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:16:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sort of (4.00 / 1)

I think you are correct, but I also think the remaining superdelegates will jump on board with Obama once he hits 2,024, thus crossing the larger number assuming FL and MI (with undecided MI delegates going to Obama) at the same time.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:28:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary's own words (0.00 / 0)

Can't we just run an endless loop of Clinton saying the magic number is 2025??  And that it's all about delegates?

Anyway, get ready for Al's Plan B - deemed the Jericho Caucuses - over on The Field.  He doesn't think it's going to be necessary though.

---

by: tvanniman @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:31:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What about the media narrative if (0.00 / 0)

all the supers come out publicly one way or another after June 10, and Obama is LEADING.  Even if he isn't technically at 2208, he will likely be very close and will have already gotten the nomination by the current rules (the 2024 mark).  He can claim that some of those Michigan uncommitteds should and will go to him and put him over.  Surely the media will report that he has likely won.  At least one major media outlet will be happy to run the story of "Obama Wins!!", and then Clinton will look like a sore loser.  I suppose only a popular vote win might give her any claim at all.

I wish my border collie could run for President.

---

by: svotaw1992 @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:31:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She will if the supers go against her (0.00 / 0)

If Obama has 1664.5 and gets 50% of the remaining pledged delegates (283) and 60% of the remaining supers he has 2114 of the needed 2024.5--he's over the top.

Ok, say he gets 50% of the remaining pledged (283) and the 50 supers he is supposed to have in his pocket, while Hillary gets 50 and the remaining 177 stand aside for the moment.  Obama then has 1947.5 and Hillary has 1535.5, with the outside hope of getting 198 from MI and FL, taking her to 1733.5, but Obama gains at least 72, and probably most of the 55 "other" from MI, putting him somewhere like upwards of 2040, with 2208 now needed.  What are the 177 supers plus the 29 supers from FL-MI and the "others" going to do?  I'd say that enough declare for Obama to put him over the top in June at the latest.

Of course Obama could screw up, Hillary could take 60% of the remaining pledged delegates, and/or Obama's supers could start to get cold feet.  That's why no one is doing much moving before at least PA, of not IN/NC vote.  But if she wins only a few delegates more in PA and he offsets that in IN/NC, then my scenario becomes very likely.

In other words, Clinton is going to drop out at the point when she has to get not only her 198 from FL and MI being seated, but either all of the remaining undeclared supers or almost all plus some defections from Obama.  And we won't know that for another 5+ weeks.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 15:45:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I concur (0.00 / 0)

I did some number crunching myself, and posted my conclusions as a diary:  

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: Jbearlaw @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 16:26:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It isn't just a Clinton decision (0.00 / 0)

about what will be the rule determining the outcome.  I know the Clintons like to make their own rules, but in this game there are other, equally powerful players that together will keep the game honest.

The endgame may very well occur when the "magic" number of 2025 is realized.  At that stage of the game if Obama is leading in delegates and the popular vote (as is likely now that neither MI nor FL votes will be included----do not misconstrue this to mean that if the vote counts of MI and FL were included the results would be different--we simply do not know what those results would be!) then Pelosi and other elected officials will begin to publicly support Obama (remember, we do need to avoid a fight on the convention floor, and this might mean that respected officials endorse the 2025 number).  When/if this begins to happen the fight is truly over.

Right now the game is about politics.  Clinton should have the advantage--by a great margin.  But she doesn't seem to be able to leverage that advantage into meaningful results: delegates.  This portends failure; the smell of defeat is in the air.  And there are visible signs of nervousness on the Clinton's part.  There are equal signs of anxious anticipation on the part of the Obama campaign.  

The next 45 weeks will be very interesting.

---

by: cabresch @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 17:34:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's not what I'm saying... (0.00 / 0)

I'm simply pointing out that your analysis is usually very well-reasoned and fact-based, and this particular analysis ignores a key fact: that the generally-accepted magic number is not 2,208. If it were, then the entire math would change. But since Michigan and Florida are not in the picture right now, that means the magic number is still 2,024.


Further Reading

---

by: Dave Sund @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:52:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Superdelegates (4.00 / 1)

I also don't accept this analysis on the supers.  Many haven't declared yet because their states haven't voted or determined their delegates.  Many may also not want to be seeming to preempt the remaining voting states.  This should continue through PA, BC and IN.  However, if by May 14 Obama has the majority of pledged delegates and still leads in the popular vote, I'd imagine most of the supers would begin to coalesce around him.  Thus, the fact that they have not done so yet does not mean that they will not do so before June (or early June at the latest).  Thus, the floor fight can be avoided because at that point Hillary's got no way to win.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 15:20:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is the key (4.00 / 2)

The Obama campaign apparently considers a Michigan re-vote somehow more damaging to their chances to win the presidency than a credentials fight and a floor fight over the Michigan delegations. That is their calculation to make, but I completely disagree.

I can only guess they think they will lose the popular vote in Michegan and thus lose the media narrative and endure more talk about how Obama doesn't win "big states" or "blue states"

I think they are more concerned about the air war in the media than the ground war in the convention.  

At best it does seem to be a pyhrric victory they are striving for.  With Clinton offering to redo a state she won, and Obama refusing it doesn't look good anyway, particularly to Micheganers if Obama is the nominee.

I think people who wanted a revote would find it easier to vote for the nominee if they don't see the Democratic nominee as personally to blame for the fact that they didn't get a revote and that's how it looks right now.  Obama is the obstacle.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM CDT

A re-vote in Michigan CAN'T happen. (4.00 / 1)

Too many issues.  Is it an open or closed primary?  Are people who voted in the Republican primary in January eligible this time?  How can you build in safeguards in time?  The legislators in Michigan believe it cannot be done fairly in the short time allocated.  

2024, not 2208.  Hillary Clinton is making a public relations appeal.  For four months leading to the Michigan primary, she stood behind the party decision to not count the results.  Now, not so much.  

A change in the rules midstream - apart from being unfair - would create a rift in this party from which it could not recover.  Change the rules and alienate African American  voters not just for this cycle, but for the next forty years.  Try mapping a winning Democratic election plan that does not include the African American Community.

Politically, as a party we need to follow the DNC plan signed off on by all candidates.  Period.

---

by: War Horse @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:57:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i really dont understand what is so hard (0.00 / 0)

don't they just grab the same voter roll database, use the same rules they did for the first vote, go to kinkos and print the ballots, have the same volunteers that work the polls work this one, use a caucus or primary as they did the first time, use the same safeguards they use every time. why on earth is this so frickn hard to figure out? there are chimps at the zoo scratching their heads over the incompetence at work. why do they have to wring their hands over so much? There only seem to be one issue: allowing people to vote who voted in the republican primary. If you voted in the GOP primary you are out. Just as much as indies would help Obama, Rushies would hurt - so its a draw, so you dont get to vote. Tough luck, thats the way it goes, lets move on. all these other issues strike me as non-issues.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:07:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

people can't vote twice (0.00 / 0)

After being told that the MI primary wouldn't count, people who would have voted for Obama voted in the republican primary.  A revote will automatically disqualify a large number of Obama supporters.  There is no way to do it fairly without either a)redoing the republican primary as well or b) breaking some laws and letting people vote in both Republican and Democratic primaries.

A cynical person could even say that this was Hillary's plan all along, to lure Obama supporters into forfeiting their right to vote in the primary.

---

by: Velvet Elvis @ Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:22:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't it really up to the superdelegates? (0.00 / 0)

The revote is irrelevant as far as a convention fight occurs.

It is dealing with a small amount of delegates.

The people responsible would be the superdelegates.  I think that what obama needs to do now is do his best in the rest of the states and get the superdelegates to start lining up behind him.

That is what will prevent a convention fight.  The revote would be good, but not to stop a convention fight.


The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

---

by: TerraFF @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:06:57 PM CDT

Few tears for HRC on Michigan (4.00 / 1)

Michigan is a mess, but HRC pledged not to participate, and did anyway, and now wants to rule out some of the options that would be most feasible or fair.  An offer bankrolled by her supporters bascally means that they are choosing which "solution" they want to pay for.

---

by: Historian @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM CDT

Even if this is true (0.00 / 0)

How does this help the Democratic nominee beat John McCain to have a divisive ugly floor fight and rampant accusations of disenfranchised voters in MI and FL?

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:39:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.00 / 1)

We are stuck in this specific fight over Michigan, and missing how we could lose a much larger fight if we don't resolve the issue. Just saying that we can't change the rules in mid-stream doesn't get us anywhere except closer to defeat in the general election.

We need a resolution, period. And we need people to start realizing that arriving at just such a resolution is more important than the Michigan delegation itself.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:53:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree, Chris (and Scientician). We need a resolution. (4.00 / 1)

You say Obama is better off dealing now, given what he loses in the general. I'm inclined to agree with you. But I'm not sure you've addressed the seemingly legit argument that Obama will claim victory at 2,024 and end it that way.

If it is indeed his plan to end this in June, Obama has all the cards in this MI-related negotiation. To put it in business-wonk talk, he has the far better alternative to a negotiated solution. If MI doesn't get seated, Clinton's chances are virtually nil.

That's why any solution had to give Obama's campaign pretty much everything it wanted. He holds the best cards; he has the delegates; such a solution would not be ideal, but it would be   fairer than not seating the delegates at all. It's cynical but true. An insistence on too much fairness here has guaranteed a dismal outcome.

(And I also think you overestimate the impact of convention theatrics on the general. Recall that Humphrey nearly beat Nixon.)  

---

by: Tom Gilpin Jr @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:23:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Often, when your eye is on the prize (0.00 / 0)

the means to get the prize is squandered.

If you are only looking to beat McCain then you may well lose the opportunity to properly define who you are and the real issues of the campaign.  That is the real risk we are taking; our infighting has us fighting each other, and, thinking only about how to beat McCain.  As an American, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT BEATING MCCAIN--I ONLY CARE ABOUT AMERICANS TAKING BACK OUR GOVERNMENT.  Screw anyone and everyone who just wants to trade one trader for a another trader!

This is about Americans!  Get off you f***ing high horses and start thinking about what REAL Americans think, need and want.

---

by: cabresch @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 17:46:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Credibility of the Pledged Delegates (0.00 / 0)

All the delegate math in the world isn't going to change the fact that a majority of Obama's delegates come from red states that he can't possibly win in November.  Further, it fails to take into account that many of his delegates come from caucuses that were undemocratic and riddled with irregularities.  Nor does it take into account the fact that a good part of Obama's support came from cross over Democrats for a day voters who won't be there for him in November.  And possibly most importantly it does not take into account the damage the Wright issue has done to Obama's support among core Democrats.  All of these factors will weigh in heavily on the super delegates who will ultimately decide the nomination.

Further, no one is reporting on the caucus abuses yet, but when they do it is likely that it will show a consistent pattern of abusive tactics - large numbers of Obama supporters flooding the caucuses creating confusion, no IDs checked, no birthdates checked, no addresses checked to see if the voter even lived in the right precinct.  It is likely that thousands of people voted who were ineligible to vote which will undermine the credibility of the pledged delegate count. And if it turns out that these abuses were somehow orchestrated or encouraged by the Obama campaign, that could be it for Obama.  

---

by: sk @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM CDT

How is this relevant? (4.00 / 2)

A floor fight will hurt Hillary too.  The point is about ensuring the Democratic nominee is not hurt badly right out of the gate.

Remember too, the convention is in september.  Not like there will be a lot of time for voters to forget their anger between convention and election.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your math (0.00 / 0)

is entirely bogus.  Much more than a majority of Obama's pledged delegates come from blue and swing states, not red states.  In fact, Obama has more delegates from blue and swing states than does Clinton.  Try another argument, but if you can get away with this one, more power to you.

Your description of caucus abuses sounds like a line right out of the Republican playbook.  But hey, when your candidate is losing it's worth a try.  

---

by: historyrocks @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:10:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i totally agree with you (4.00 / 1)

but damn I'm tired of hearing the word "playbook". please everyone please stop use of this silly pointless catch-phrase. just be straight up about it and call the candidate in question evil.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:13:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, if you are right McCain is our next president... (0.00 / 0)

I honestly don't see any way Clinton outperforms Obama in the general election.  She has no appeal to Independents and she ensures a higher GOP turnout. She'll have a better chance in the rust belt but probably loses all of the non-coastal West.  She also loses most of the younger voters, who are likely to revert to form and not vote without Obama activists bring them out. Right now the electoral math is looking bleak for the Democrats with Obama's support from Independents seeming to erode.  Add to that the ugly nature of things over the past couple of months and I feel the enthusiasm for voting Democratic flying out the window. In an election no one thought we could lose we ran two candidates with weak policies and enough baggage to allow the horrid McCain to get a shot at winning a close election.

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:18:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Simple solution (4.00 / 4)

Give Clinton the Florida delegation, split Michigan's in half between the two candidates.  A couple weeks ago, it seemed like this was agreeable to all sides.  Perhaps Chairman Dean can push this through.  Seems fair to me.

---

by: BCdem @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:01:42 PM CDT

I agree with the 50/50 split proposal for us in MI (4.00 / 2)

I know the Obama campaign has signaled for this solution.  I am very lukewarm about the re-vote proposal.  I feel like a re-vote rewards the players in this fiasco and gives them an out for their irresponsible behavior.  Myself, and many others on MIliberal and the Edwards campaign called, wrote and urged the MDP to move the primary to an acceptable Feb date.  But the powers that be decided to stick to "their" guns.  Since Granholm has been an early backer of Hillary, I have my own "conspiracy" theory that the leadership colluded to move MI up because the Clinton camp felt it would be a big early pre-super Tuesday win(w/FL) for Hillary that would be a great firewall if there was trouble in Iowa(which there was) and elsewhere.  I think it was hoped Clinton wins in MI and FL would help seal the deal for the closer on super Tuesday.  That's my theory anyway.
I see Chris's serious concern about a floor fight.  A good friend of mine on MIliberal that supported Edwards and now Hillary is pushing for a re-vote.  A fervent Obama supporter I work with favors a re-vote.  Like I said I'm lukewarm and suspicious and angry and very cognitive of the risk of MI tipping to McCain.  Both parties are very weak in the state right now.  The economy here is extremely poor.  The mayor of Detroit is on the news daily with his scandal.  Add in the primary vote mess, the legislature has to approve the plan by 2/3 vote, TODAY.  We have a very serious problem.  The GOP here, as weakened as they are, are licking their chops at the prospect of Democratic convention floor fight.  I will say this, I think that Obama should agree to the re-vote since I cynically believe that the plan will never get the 2/3 vote, TODAY.  But, I bet that they won't agree to this because even if the plan doesn't pass, they will sorta be locked into approving a mail-in plan which they certainly don't want to sign on to.

---

by: gaspare @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:34:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We Democrats are in jeopardy here (0.00 / 0)

"If John McCain ends up as the next President of the United States, his road to victory will have been significantly paved by the inability of the Clinton campaign, Obama campaign, and Michigan Democratic Party to agree on how to seat the Michigan delegation before the end of June."

I agree except you have to remove the Michigan Democratic party and the Clinton campaign from the last sentence.  The DNC has approved the Michigan Democratic plan, the Clinton campaign has given an unequivocal yes ...the only party objecting is the Obama campaign.  

It is a kitchen sink objection. Anything will do...but it seems they are objecting to a DNC rule that you can't vote in 2 party primaries in the same year.  This is a DNC rule...the Obama campaign is a stickler for the rules except when they don't want the rules to apply to them.  They are in there fighting real hard for the right of Republicans to vote in both the Republican primary and the Democratic primary....for the right of Republicans to vote twice....
So since the DNC rules say Republicans can't have their votes counted twice...the Obama campaign is making sure no person's votes should count at all.

Why are they willing to do this to the party?...why are they fearful of a revote in Michigan?...It seems they would rather not chance losing.  They are more willing to place the November election in jeopardy and the party as a whole than to not risk losing in Michigan.  

Hell they could win in Michigan. They could maybe do better in Florida.  Then there would be a clear resolution. What kind of president would he be if he 1. doesn't care about people's votes counting?  and 2. what kind of president elevates timidity over courage?

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:05:52 PM CDT

And why (0.00 / 0)

are you willing to write anything that supports Clinton and detracts from Obama?

---

by: historyrocks @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:14:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because it's true (0.00 / 0)

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:17:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only in your mind (0.00 / 0)

---

by: historyrocks @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 15:48:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bottom line. (0.00 / 0)

Of course the Obama campaign "is more willing to place the November election in jeopardy" than to risk its own defeats in the nomination process.

Likewise, by threatening a brokered convention as the current (and likely future) 2nd place candidate, the Clinton campaign improves its own chances of winning the nomination at the expense of the party's general election chances.

I don't blame either campaign. Both campaigns want to win very badly. Both campaigns will sacrifice Dems' general election chances (in part) to their own ambitions.

That's why there is a need for a strong-armed solution. Said solution will likely favor Obama's interests, since he's currently in first place. An overzealous pursuit of fairness and principle will result in less of both when neither delegation is seated.  

   

---

by: Tom Gilpin Jr @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:26:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am disappointed Obama is fighting a revote, but your bias is too much! (4.00 / 1)

The MI and FL issues only became a problem when team Clinton realized they weren't going to waltz to the nomination and decided they needed these two states if they hoped to squeeze out a win. The DNC set out their punishment long ago and no candidate said anything.  Had Clinton never addressed the issue after the fact, FL and MI would have been basically forgotten until the convention when the winner would have had the credentials committee seat the delegations in some way shape or form.  

From a purely political standpoint she was right to bring it up because otherwise she has little chance to win this without looking like the backdoor candidate.  From a moral standpoint, she agreed to the rules and should have complained in the beginning, now it is just sour grapes.

Obama should have taken the high road and said let's try to get revotes.  I think he should have still insisted the results come with some sort of punishment, either only 50% delegations or no superdelegates but that's only because I really think those states need to be made examples of by the DNC.

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:33:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have been against this fahcockte decision from the beginning (0.00 / 0)

fahcockte ...that's Yiddish for all f****** up.

I have always thought Florida and Michigan should have their votes counted and their delegates seated. I always thooght that the DNC would eventually come to their senses and realize what stupid decision it was and seat the delegation and let them vote. For the very same reasons I have now that they should have their votes counted and their delgates allowed to vote at the convention.  

These are 2 crucially important states in the general election and voters should have the right to vote for whom they want to lead their party.  

The DNC has one overriding purpose...to elect Democrats to office and in particular to elect a Democrat to the Presidency.  The DNC does not exist solely to enforce rules...the rules are to serve the greater purpose and the greater purpose of electing a Democratic presidient is not served by sticking to stupid decisions about rules for the sake of standing by the rules.

Clinton did not bring up Michigan and Florida revoting....the voters of those states and the Democratic party of those state brought it up because they actually thought it was important and  Democratic value that the VOTERS MATTER.  Indeed in my mind she should have fought for it harder and sooner.

You are under a misapprehension about the rules...and what she and the othrs like Obama and Edwards agreed to.  The candidates only made a pledge, not to the DNC, but to the states of Iowa, NH, SC and Nev NOT TO CAMPAIGN.  None of them made a commitment to agree that the delegates shoudn't count.  

Second the rules promulgated 18 months ago...say that yes the Credentials Committee could seat the delegtes but that also there is a part 2....the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties could have a PARTY PROCESS to legitimate their delelgates.

Third the DNC's punishment actually exceeded the initial rules which said 1/2 the delelgation would be disallowed as "punishment".  

And fourth they selectively enforced the rules by not punishing NH for deciding to move their primary and thereby forcing Iowa to move its caucus.  Both those states were in violaton of the rules yet they suffer no punishment.

The Obama campaign has no good arguments, no rationale other than winning by any means necessay...they haven't got a moral leg to stand on in this matter.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 15:43:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm with you on this... (0.00 / 0)

... but the Obama campaign seems to be stuck on stupid, particularly when it comes to Michigan.

It will do Obama no harm to enthusiatically support a Michigan re-vote, especially if he offers to legitimize the private funding by going halvsies with Hillary on it.  In fact, it will disarm the Hillary campaign's talking point and make him look like a hero, whether or not a re-vote happens.  He should likewise enthusiastically support a Florida re-vote, for the same reasons.

Generalist.

---

by: tbetz @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 13:44:09 PM CDT

What you are missing... (4.00 / 2)

...the legitimate argument from the Obama campaign is that there were people that voted in the Republican primary on 1/15 that would have overwhelmingly voted in Obama's favor.  That isn't supposition, that is the reality supported by the voting trends at that time.  In fact, I would argue that any "do-over" election, whether it be in Michigan, Florida, or even Iowa for that matter is likely to have different outcomes than the original one. We can't just go back and insert new results--recall the "Butterfly Effect"?

Yes, you are correct, a compromise must be reached on both Michigan and Florida so both delgations can be seated, but that compromise is going to have to be reached without regard to the previous votes--as they have no validity.  To argue that Obama should accept some conditions that would seat these delegations at a significant disadvantage is just not reality-based as he is likely to "win" any credentials fight.  And any compromise that strays too far from a 50/50 split isn't likely to happen.

---

by: BaseballNumbers @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:01:43 PM CDT

Credentials fight.... (0.00 / 0)

The Michigan Democratic Party violated the rules set by the DNC.  Are they to be rewarded for bad behavior? NO!!

I say seat 1/2 of the delegates, and split them fifty-fifty between Obama & Clinton.  Dean must step up and validate at least 1/2 of their parking permits.  

Same with Florida, irrespective of Republican Party interference in Democratic Primary affairs.  What is a national Democratic Party or a Democratic National Committee for, anyway?

They only call it class war when we fight back.

---

by: ezdidit @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:21:58 PM CDT

They need to null the superdelegates too... (0.00 / 0)

They need to punish those who brought this about by eliminating all superdelegates for these two states, too.  It was the stupid state-level party leadership that caused all this and those people need to get a great big Cheney from the DNC.

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:37:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seat the delegates (0.00 / 0)

I'm still under the impression Obama's goal is to win the nomination via the 2,024 number, have it declared by everyone, then seat the delegates from FL and MI as is, making sure the MI undeclared delegates go to him.

I haven't heard that specifically anywhere, but that seems to be the between-the-lines statement.

Of course, he needs a large enough lead that this can't overturn the actual result, but that still seems like a reasonable possibility, assuming they split the remaining delegates evenly.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:23:18 PM CDT

Indeed (0.00 / 0)

It seems logical.  All of us are just speculating based on what we know.  But Obama knows a hell of a lot more than we do about how this all could play out.  Their silence on this tells me they have a good way out - something that does not include a floor vote and tens of thousands of protesters descending on Denver.

---

by: tvanniman @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:44:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Math (0.00 / 0)

Just did the math and what I suggest (here and in a reply further up) is a bit harder than I thought.  While it is true that the remaining super delegates are enough to push 2,024 to 2,208, it will be very hard for Obama to reach 2,024 without super delegates; he would need 63% of the remaining elected delegates.

But the bottom line remains the same assuming at some point the remaining superdelegates jump on board whoever "wins" the nomination.  After that point the lead will be enough that seating the delegates from FL and MI won't actually help Clinton.

But what will it take for this "victory" to take place and have all the remaining supers fall in line?  I still think that will happen once the final vote has been cast, but Clinton still has a shot.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 15:01:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Respond to Obama's objections (4.00 / 2)

Obama's lawyer put out a letter yesterday with very specific objections. How about responding to them before calling for a vote?

I'd also like to hear from the local election supervisors who would actually have to deal with this. What do they say? What are their issues? It is legitimate to get input from them.

---

by: Semblance @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 14:35:26 PM CDT

It's times like this... (4.00 / 1)

   When I wish the netroots community had succeeded in crossing the threshold to endorse Obama.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 15:02:10 PM CDT

Simplistic Analysis, Chris (0.00 / 0)

I generally admire your work, Chris, but there is a ton of nuance to the Michigan situation that you seem to miss completely.

First of all, you don't know what the Obama campaign knows. (Nor do I, of course.) What kinds of assurances have they heard from superdelegates? Do they know with some certainty that, if they hold firm on the Michigan matter, that they'll get a bloc of superdelegates when they hit 2024 big enough to push them over 2208? If so, it behooves them not to let the 2024 number move before June 3.

Related to that possibility is the simple fact that getting to 2024 applies pressure on the non-Obama supers to commit to him and end it well before any credentials fight can happen. No doubt that will (and should) be the message: any credentials ugliness in August could (and should) have been prevented by the superdelegates honoring the will of Democratic voters and pledging their support en masse to the delegate leader. If the job of the superdelegate is to look out for the greater good of the party as a whole, then clearly this is exactly what they are charged to do.

As much as we may not like it, it is not the job of either candidate to absolve us of our anxiety. It especially is not the job of the presumptive nominee to make concessions to the runner-up long before they're necessary or appropriate. I'd be very surprised -- extremely so -- if the nomination, and along with it the questions about Florida and Michigan, weren't settled long before August. Whatever we may fear, these folks aren't amateurs.

---

by: laserda @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 15:24:08 PM CDT

You're not grasping the incentive structure (4.00 / 2)

It seems to me that many folks here, including Chris, are not getting Obama's moves here because the incentive structure here is murky and complex.

Here's the bottom line (IMO, of course): Obama, by holding out, has just simultaneously all but eliminated his worst-case scenarios and increased the chances of his best case scenarios.

Creating new primaries in MI and FL under sketchy rules and circumstances that would take place toward the end of the race was his worst case scenario. The left in place uncertainty in a race that he's winning; they left in place the certainty that this race would go on through the beginning of June; they left in place the possibility for Clinton to have the momentum going into the convention; all of which removed incentive for the super delegates to move towards him significantly before June (perhaps after NC and IND.)

On the other hand, reaching some kind of delegate compromise with HRC which would allow for half to all of the FL and MI delegates to be seated as part of an agreed upon formula is his best case scenario. It removes uncertainty -- he loses an acceptable, safe chunk of his lead in exchange for finality; he greatly reduces the chances of this thing lasting through June (the key here is the mutually-accepted nature of the agreement); he takes away Clinton's early June momentum possibilities; all of which increase the odds of super delegates endorsing him significantly before June.

He has increased the risk of a great big mess at the convention but you're underestimating the possibilities that they'll go into the credential committee decisions with the agreement already in place and publicized, making a HRC flip extremely problematic.  

---

by: Matt H @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 16:47:58 PM CDT

So Breaking the Rules is Now Progressive Politics? (0.00 / 0)

I agree that Obama--particularly with the Wright controversy still floating around--should support some sort of Michigan revote.  I understand his concerns, though.  If Michigan won't let the people who voted in the Republican primary participate in the democratic primary revote, then this election is a sham to buttress Clinton's argument to the Superdelegates that she's the better candidate.  Lots of democrats voted for Mitt Romney because some leftist bloggers suggested they do that.

But I disagree with you on this:

Had Obama stayed on the Michigan ballot, he would be ahead by about 70 delegates even with Michigan included

First, how do you know he would be ahead 70 delegates?  Are you assuming that the uncommited would've voted for him?

Second, all the democratic candidates signed an agreement saying they would not campaign or participate in the primaries/caucuses of any states that held their elections before Super Tuesday (excluding Iowa, New Hamphire, Nevada, and South Carolina).  What you're saying is that Obama should've broken the rules, too, and stayed on the ballot.  That's not very progressive.

---

by: happycozy @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 17:05:18 PM CDT

I am very disappointed in him (0.00 / 0)

The DNC gave Obama an opportunity to sign off on the proposal when they approved it. Matt H is correct that approving the two elections created risk for Obama especially as far as the popular vote. However a candidate who is proud of his record and proposals on ethics and transparency should at least give his supporters, some of whom voted uncommitted to slow Hillary, a chance to vote for him. The independents may be watching Obama's behavior with regards to the two elections.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 17:55:57 PM CDT

In terms of fairness (0.00 / 0)

it was important for the voters of Michigan to have a real election.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 17:56:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be clear (0.00 / 0)

I did not mean to imply that I support his decision. I would have liked to have had some kind of revote.  

---

by: Matt H @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 18:02:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

MI and FL are albtrosses ... (0.00 / 0)

Sadly, the voting trends strongly suggest that BOTH Michigan and Florida will go republican in the general election.  Not only does this trend take some of the strength out of Clinton's argument, but it also bolsters Obama's position of abiding by the rule of law/rule.

We Democrats must learn to be realists.  The likelihood of winning either state in a GE is remote.  So, why do we expend so much energy on what may be a lost cause?  Or, perhaps, a more insightful question:  Why haven't we learned how to play this game?

---

by: cabresch @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 18:01:28 PM CDT

Clinton should have removed her name... (0.00 / 0)

from the ballot in Michigan as Obama and Edwards both did and as would be consistent with the rules she agreed to.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 18:27:51 PM CDT

Why the super delegates have not coalesced around Obama and will not (4.00 / 1)

The super delegates have not coalesced around Obama and will not for some time. Many have argued that once it is clear that Obama is the clear favorite, the supers will line up behind him.

But, it is already clear that Obama is the favorite. So why haven't the supers lined up behind him?

The answer is that the supers are politicians and want to be re-elected. Well, if the supers want to get re-elected, they honor the vote, right?

Well, the problem is that the vote is really quite close. Hillary has the support of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of voters. And even though it is is true that Obama has more votes (for now), Hillary still has the support of MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of voters.

If the supers do anything that is seen by those voters as cutting this process short, all of those Hillary voters will stay home in November. If that happens, BOOM, the supers are out of a job.

The problem is that while Obama has a vote lead (for now), Hillary and her voters still wield incredible leverage. They (rightly) believe that this race is incredible close (which it is), and that it would be improper not to let the race run its course.

If the supers coalesce behind Obama too soon, they will be signing their own death warrant, as well as Obama's.

Hillary is behind, but only barely, and she and her voters have tremendous leverage.

That is why this process must run its course.

---

by: ThompsonTOT @ Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 23:09:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]