The Battle Over MI and FL
by sarabeth at 5:00 am on March 10th, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, Hillary, Obama Uber AllesSomehow, thinking that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going to play serious hardball when it comes to influencing the superdelegates comes easily. Of course they’ll play serious hardball: Clinton’s the no-holds-barred fighter. Whether that’s the 100% truth or not, it is certainly a carefully cultivated image. And so I, like many other people, carry around in my head the unquestioned belief that the Clintons “will use every trick in the book –- overhanded, evenhanded and underhanded –- to try to wrest the nomination from Obama.”
And somehow it doesn’t come quite as easily to think that so will Barack Obama. And that’s the whole carefully cultivated image thing again. But he will, of course. Nobody gets to be where he is — the putative leading contender for the Democratic nomination — without being one hell of a scrappy fighter.
If you take that as a given, there seems to be only one possible outcome to the battle that Clinton is trying to wage to have Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the convention. Because the simple fact of the matter is that Barack Obama has no incentive whatsoever to change the status quo, and the Democratic party seems to have decided that any decision to change the status quo requires the agreement of both campaigns:
The obstacles to a do-over election to pick Michigan’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention seemed to grow Friday, after Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign officials told the state’s top party official that they wouldn’t accept Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s idea of a party-sponsored primary.
Granholm had suggested a “firehouse primary,” which would allow Democrats to cast their ballots again sometime before June. It would cost about $10 million.
It would be the same procedure Democrats have used in past Michigan presidential caucuses. Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn’t voted in the state’s Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.
Obama’s campaign doesn’t like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer.
“That’s what I’ve been told by his campaign, but it’s not my place to inquire about motivations,” said Brewer, who said he thinks a do-over primary has serious financial and logistical problems.
“And we can’t do anything without the agreement of both the campaigns,” he added.
And that’s the whole ball game, right there in a nutshell.
The two campaigns will argue back and forth, and the DNC and the state units will opine from time to time, but all that will happen eventually is that Clinton will milk this issue for everything she can. We’ll hear a lot of outraged rhetoric about the citizens of these great states being denied a voice in the democratic processes of the Democratic party through no fault of their own. The Obama campaign will be roundly castigated for standing in the way of a do-over, thereby re-disenfranchising the enthusiastic and entirely deserving voters of Michigan and Florida.
The Obama campaign will retaliate with the obvious counter-spin: Clinton is whining ex post about things she had cheerfully agreed to ex ante. It’s just a cold, calculated and thoroughly dishonest attempt to try and come up with a few more delegates by underhand means. And the Obama campaign will nevertheless graciously concede that the citizens of Michigan and Florida do indeed deserve a second vote, but they will keep pushing caucuses as the obvious do-over solution, partly because of the much lower price tag, and the unwillingness and/or inability of the states in question and the DNC to foot the bill for do-over primaries.
But the Clinton campaign is already signaling that they will not leave the Obama campaign with an obvious out. Here’s the Clinton campaign’s brilliant strategy to neutralize the high-cost-of-primaries issue:
Meanwhile, James Carville, a Democratic operative and Clinton supporter, said on CNN that he had been calling deep-pocket Democrats and pledged to come up with $15 million to help pay for primaries in Michigan and Florida. He challenged Obama supporter David Wilhelm, a former DNC chairman, to match it.
“I’ll guarantee $15 million and have the Obama people put up $15 million,” Carville said. “And let’s go to the polls come June 7. I’ve got fund-raisers that are lined up ready to go. I think the Democratic Party is going to look absolutely absurd if they don’t have primaries and let these people in Florida and Michigan vote.”
Wilhelm said the issue needs to be solved but was noncommittal to Carville’s suggestion.
On Sunday, a new proposal started to gather steam: a mail-in ballot. Everybody’s still dancing around it a little. This was Howard Dean’s two-step:
Without endorsing the idea, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean praised a new ballot by mail as a potential resolution to the conflict over providing representation at the party convention to Florida and Michigan…
Clinton supporters naturally think it’s a jolly good idea: “Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), his state’s senior elected Democrat and a Clinton supporter, said a mail-in primary appeared to be the best approach, given logistical constraints.” But the fact remains that even a mail-in ballot costs real money. Not as much as a walk-in ballot certainly, but still real money. (“Nelson estimated a mail-in vote in Florida would cost about $6 million.” As opposed to $20 million for the old-fashioned kind.) And no one is prepared to put up real money (with the notable exception of the Clinton campaign):
State officials in Michigan and Florida have said they will not release more taxpayer money to pay for a do-over of the primary. Dean also has said the national party will not provide funds.
The Obama campaign, of course, has very clear preferences:
The Obama camp, meanwhile, has suggested either a new vote through a less expensive caucus—a format in which Obama has regularly outperformed Clinton—or accepting delegations split evenly between supporters of each candidate.
That translates into: “Sure, let’s re-enfranchise Michigan and Florida, but only as long as it doesn’t cut into our delegate lead.” And that’s why this whole situation has “ugly stalemate” written all over it.
And the mail-in ballot proposal has its detractors too:
But Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, said now is not the time for a mail-in ballot. (Note: she’s “a national Clinton co-chair“.)
“We have never conducted a mail-in ballot in Florida, and in an election that is this important, an experiment like that is — now is not the time to test that,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, has also said he doesn’t think there is a fair way to redo the vote in his state.
“There’s no way to have a primary. That’s state law. That can’t be changed, and that can’t be paid for,” he said on ABC’s “Face the Nation.”
Levin said a mail-in caucus is one possibility, but “there’s some real problems with that, too.”
“Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots, can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided,” he said.
Of course, no one has explained yet what the hell a mail-in caucus means. And if there are no existing rules for a mail-in caucus, and new rules have to be written, is there any hope at all of coming up with a set of rules that both the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign would be willing to accept?
Oh, and one more thing: time’s running out.
Mr. Dean did indicate that if Michigan and Florida were to hold new contests, they would have to be completed by about June 10.
That’s about 90 days away. And “Sterling Ivey, spokesman for the Florida Department of State … said Florida would need at least 90 days from the time a decision is made to set up any new election.” At least 90 days from the time a decision is made to set up an election that needs to be completed 90 days from now. And days of squabbling still left to go before any decision gets made.
Definitely looks like an ugly stalemate to me.
nancy wrote:
The democrats are only showing how undemocratic they can be when the insider want to control the picking of the candidate. They think so little of the voters that they patronize them by telling them thier votes count, when in really only certain votes count. Its pathetic the party can abide by its own rules and is bending backward to give Hillary more chances. I plan to switch my voting registration to Independent after this current fiasco. Power grubbing is just oh so repellant.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
I actually believe FL could be seated but that MI would need to be re-voted because FL had everyone’s names on the ballot whereas MI did not. I was not in Florida but I’ve heard from people who live there that the candidates “did” have campaigning in the state (just not public appearances) so both sides had equal opportunity to get their voices heard. Yes, I’ve heard the argument about some people not voting because they thought it wouldn’t count but I know I would have voted and think most serious voters would have as well because even back then the chances were descent that they would eventually get seated. However, MI having only Clinton’s name on the ticket would necessitate a redo. Regardless, she’ll continue the “I’ve won the big states” argument and he’ll continue the “I’ve won more states/delegates” issue. She also could take the lead or at least make it “very close” irt the popular vote as well. If she makes it close enough it could be related to other votes where an outcome that is considered “so close” justifies a “re-count”… Obviously it’s not “directly” related but the concept of “too close to decide” along with winning “the big states” could be just enough to get her the nod if she can cut the popular vote difference to less than 1%.
In addition to the seating of the FL delegates I’d like to believe that the “superdelegates” would vote for who they believe is the best candidate (not necessarily who won their states (for the ones who are tied to states). The only reason Obama has won many of the states he has is due to the huge turnout of young voters and many black voters. “Many†of these voters are voting for him based more on his vibrant and charismatic charm more than actual issues. It’s become the “in thing†to be an Obama supporter among young voters and like any fad it’s hard to stop it (in the short term) once it takes over. Basically, he’s someone they can “relate toâ€. A re-vote in Fl would generate the highest turnout of those fad voters imo and would generate what I believe would be a skewed end state as a result.
Yes, that sounds very judgmental. However, it’s based on personal observations (both first hand and observed interviews of “voters†on TV). Does it mean I don’t have a lot of “faith” in the American voter? Well, having the last two elections be as “close” as they were hasn’t helped. IMO, if more of the American voters were smart it would have been something like a 70/30 or better result when Bush was on the ticket…
This goes back to a belief of mine that people should be required to pass a short quiz before “any†vote (city, state, National) to show familiarity with the issues/people. No, people who failed would “not†be disallowed to vote. They would simply be required to watch a short 5-10 minute video to ensure “a basic†familiarity with the issues they were about to vote on. It’s infuriating to see measures, initiatives, and elections determined by people who have no idea what they’re voting for. Before deciding that I’m wrong, try taking asking a random sampling of voters a few basic questions before the next vote in your states. I’ve seen it happen over and over…
I’ve felt that a Clinton/Obama ticket is in the best interest of the party for months and only wish the Clinton campaign would have acknowledged it earlier. A VP Obama leads the party towards 16yrs in office (8 Clinton/Obama & 8 Obama/Somebody else). An Obama/Somebody only produces “a possible” 8yrs… I still think it’s possible regardless of the “still campaigning” denial that Obama recently gave. Obviously, he’s not going to acknowledge the possibility of something that could send votes towards the Clinton camp. He’d denounce the possibility all the way to the day before it was announced…
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 3:08 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
The last sentence in the first paragraph of #2 should say:
…could be just enough to get her the nod “more easily” if she can cut the popular vote difference to approximately 1%. “More easily” because I still think she has a good shot regardless.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 3:14 pm ¶
An-Ban Chen wrote:
Democrats’ Dilemma
Looking at the primary results and analyses, it is not too hard to understand why Obama has won more delegates than Clinton. If this trend does not change drastically in the next three months, he will be the Democrat’s nominee. Then the nation has to prepare to stand four more years of a Republican president.
The single most important reason for Obama to prevail in the primary is that he has won over 80% support of black votes. With 20% of the voters being blacks, Obama only needs to get 45% of the rest to achieve a victory with 54% to 46% margins over Clinton. Furthermore, blacks have much larger percentages among the registered Democrats in many southern states, such as SC, GA, AL, LA and MS. Since the blacks and the young voters are more energetic supporters, Obama has a great advantage in the caucus election. A clear example is TX, where Clinton won the population votes but lost in caucus. Although the majority of the states won by Obama are the ‘red’ states, the primary is colorblind.
I call this as the Democrats’ dilemma, because not all these advantages will extend to the presidential election. I predict that the 2008 election will still be divided between the red and blue states. Thus, based on the 2004 election results, I predict that Obama, if he is the nominee, will lose to McCain. Here are my estimates: (1) Obama may lose one or two of these big blue states CA, NY, and PA, and some conservative northeastern states which support Joe Lieberman. (2) He only has slim chance to win Ohio, and other red states VA, MD, DL and NC.
On the other hand, if Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, she has a very good chance to win. Here are my estimates: (1) All the blue states in 2004 will remain in the Democratic camp. (2) She is favored in Ohio and Arkansas. (3) She has some potential to win the following red states: OK, NM, NV,TX, TN, KY, FL, WV, and NC.
These estimates are based on the primary results so far, and the following observations:
(1) Hispanics tend to like McCain more than Obama.
(2) Hispanics tend to like Clinton more than McCain.
(3) Although blacks strongly support Obama, the majority of blacks prefer Democrats over Republicans, even if Clinton is the candidate.
(4) Majority of Asians do not support Obama, but can tolerate McCain.
(5) Asians like Clinton over McCain.
(6) White women will strongly support Clinton.
(7) White men will split the votes no matter who are the candidates.
(8) McCain is a little old for the first-term presidency in this danger and changing time.
(9) War and economics issues favor Democrats. However, the intrinsic tendency of the voters listed above overshadow these two important issues.
A joint ticket (Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama) may enhance the Democrats, but will not change my prediction of the outcome of the 2008 election. However, one thing that I cannot predict is who will be the Democrat’s nominee.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 3:27 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
SurveyUSA had a poll last week that shows how Hillary and Obama would do against McCain, state by state. Hillary beats him by 276 electoral votes to 262. Obama does better: 280 to 258. (Interestingly, Clinton loses Michigan but Obama wins it. Florida is the reverse: Clintons wins, Obama loses.)
Of course, a lot can change between now and November, and I don’t mean to imply that the poll is more reliable than your estimates. But it still gives food for thought. (I’m afraid it’s a very rushed day for me, and I don’t have the time to compare your state-by-state predictions against the poll. If anyone has the time to summarize that, it would be interesting.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Power grubbing is just oh so repellant.
is “power grubbing” what home simpson does when he gets hungry?
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 4:04 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
An-Ban- I started out doing the comparison of your predictions to the poll referenced but the problem is I really don’t believe in polls. They’re similar to statistics in that they can be “very misleading” unless you know every detail irt how they were conducted. The referenced poll even acknowledges its own limited utility with this quote: “let me acknowledge that there is limited utility in this sort of exercise. Some state polls, for example, are within the margin of error, etc. But this is catnip for junkies.”
Similarly, imo, the polls stating how many of Clinton’s supporters would vote for an Obama candidate VS. how many of Obama’s supporters would vote for a Clinton ticket are equally useless. I’ve seen polls that said more Obama supporters would go ahead and vote for a Clinton ticket and polls that said the exact opposite. In fact, many of people polled “would say” they wouldn’t vote for the other Dem candidate just because they know it would make the results look better for “their†candidate to be the nominee. I’ll say it again: IMO, polls are useless and those who use them are simply playing into conjecture…
I agree with you that Clinton has the best “chance” to win. IMO, a Clinton/Obama ticket is a “guaranteed” win as I believe they would pick up 80-90% of the following states: WA, OR, NV, NM, CO, NE, IA, MI, AR, FL, OH, PA, WV, & NC. As well as a chance to win other states such as OK, KY, TN, TX, LA & MS. Basically, it would be a slaughter “imo”.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 6:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
not that i want obama anywhere near the ticket, but i hope and pray that we can bet a large sum of money on your electoral college projections.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 6:28 pm ¶
A Running Commentary wrote:
Obama or Clinton, I think either one stands a chance of jsut repeating McGovern in ‘72. The war is not and will not be the issue the Dems need it to be and the continued primary battle is going to establish them as way too liberal.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 6:33 pm ¶
babs wrote:
Ive said it before because someone brought it to my attention and I am in total agreement. Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee? Saves time and money.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 7:54 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Why dont we just deduct the delegate votes of Fla and Michigan from the total needed to become the nominee?
why should the voters of MI and FL not have their voices heard? ‘because their state party leaders are morons’ doesn’t seem like a great reason.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 8:11 pm ¶
Dave K wrote:
You don’t disenfranchise voters based on something they had no control over. They deserve to have their votes counted. Like I said before, I believe FL could be seated as is because all the names were on the ballot and campaigning did occur (just not appearances). MI should be redone to be counted.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 9:06 pm ¶
Independant/from IA wrote:
Elect new party leaders for future wisdom and for now go with #10 Just get rid of Florida’s and Michigan delages. Play by the rules this game and change the game when you start a new game. To
change on what was agreed on after the fact just is
not morally right. Look’’s like a billaary plan tho!!!!!!!!!!!! Time to cut the Crap and hold up your end of the agreement I say
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 9:07 pm ¶
Banking on Clinton wrote:
My money is on Sen. Hillary Clinton and no you cannot cut out the voters of two states(Fla. @ Michigan)would you give up your vote or state at the Convention due to state legislatures allowing early voting or are there no states rights in this Media ran presidential primary. Call Howard Dean the DNC chair because we want every vote and every state in it to win it and no arrogant VP possibilities please. I thought we are all on the same page with the Democrats and some of you think two states don’t count Geesh what about McCain doesn’t he deserve to chaallange all the states and the conventions nominee for the Dems. Think people ….HillaryClinton.com Join in,contribute, volunteer on phoones, or travel these states and see for yourself what is going on and where.
Posted 10 Mar 2008 at 9:19 pm ¶
matt t wrote:
This has already been done. 2025 is an adjusted goal. Before the MI and FL state parties broke the rules and forfeited their delegates, the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination was 2208. When their delegates were revoked, the number was lowered to 2025.
Why don’t more people know that?
Posted 11 Mar 2008 at 10:35 am ¶
william t street wrote:
As a Michigan Democrat and an Obama supporter, I think Barack should welcome a re-do primary, or caucus, or mail-in, since I think he would win in Michigan.
Remember, with the names of John Edwards and Barack nowhere on the ballot, but with the listed choices limited to Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kuchinich, Christopher Dodd, or Uncommitted (a write in spoiled your ballot), the relatively few Michigan Democrats who turned out to vote here in January favored Hillary by a mere 55%, with slightly over 40% voting for uncommitted.
Demographically, Michigan is more like Wisconsin (where Obama won) than Ohio. While it is true that Governor Jennifer Granholm was an early public endorser of Hillary’s candidacy, I don’t see Granholm or the other state party heirarchy favoring Clinton being able to deliver votes the way that the Rendel machine in Pennsylvania apparently can. Nor will the state party or voters look favorably upon a negative, anti-Obama attack strategy. Remember too, Jessie Jackson once carried Michigan in a contested statewide primary.
In short, Obama’s campaign has a good shot at helping itself with a June do-over in Michigan, so long as it’s fairly run.
Bill from Saginaw
Posted 14 Mar 2008 at 3:38 pm ¶