If Michigan voters feel disenfranchised by the DNC rules
They don’t seem to be blaming it on Obama, as he performs a hair better in the polls than Clinton there.
Polling in Florida displays a much bigger gap favoring Clinton, but that may have less to do with the primary disqualification than to the demographic biases present in a state full of senior citizen women, and a fair number of racists.
I certainly wouldn’t oppose a revote, because I believe the two states would split, with Obama winning Michigan. Anyone suggesting the first vote should stand is simply playing games while rooting for Clinton. The lack of any real campaign there makes the original results flawed.
So let a re-vote settle the controversy once and for all. If Clinton’s supporters think she can repeat those results, I say, let’s do it. On the level playing field of a revote, And then they’ll run out of excuses for why she’s in second place.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am
When you hear some thing like “We Can’t Wait” . What do you think ?
Obama said that over and over again while sounding off a huge laundry list of issues that can’t wait any longer. If you listen closely issues that have been center for many Democrats for almost twenty years. But, the reality is for the last twelve years the Republicans with the help of Mainstream Media brought America to this point. The Congress was in Republican control, a fact, and is very much part of the serious flaw in much of the debate currently floating through the blogs.
Here, never will be admitted on national cable news at all, that the Media was embedded in this fouled up war in Iraq but blames the Democrats at every turn. Very Ironic. Let’s include the mortgage melt down, and Allen Greenspan that has often said this was an accident waiting to happen. Sheesh for twenty years Allen and his wife Andrea Mitchell have been watching this accident take shape then out of the blue Allen decides leave to leave the Federal Reserve. And please oh please you think Andrea Mitchell wife of Allen Greenspan is not privy to trillions of dollars in investments in the Fed, World Bank, or the IMF all the while being a political commentator on MSNBC. One could wonder if the Treasury called the name of the ink they use on our money is the color name “Greenspan”.
With a generous laugh to it all some up that the Democratic Party is changing The Kennedy’s have a burned out torch to give Obama, and Hillary is bashed so much she appears to be the Democratic Leadership. Of course Obama wining all those red states that have not voted Democrat in forty years is not too much of a leadership position, with delegates or popular vote. In fact it really is disappointing to be Obama whaling about having a Red State leadership that will likely bolt in the national election. For sure now with his Reverend Friend Mr. Wright who is wrong for his two seconds of a sound bite, dam America. Isn’t it amazing how one could suffer for twenty years like Hillary, yet some one with an Arabic name like Barack Hussein Obama could even be suggested as a front runner. That would be a piece of cake for McCain to win.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
a state full of senior citizen women, and a fair number of racists.
Yes. Well. That’s quite a statement there, cowboy, on so many levels.
March 31st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“If Clinton’s supporters think she can repeat those results, I say, let’s do it. . . then they’ll run out of excuses for why she’s in second place.”
I’m always on the lookout (perhaps futilely) for good, well-rounded news and analysis that’s not too one-sided. And again I am disappointed. One of these days I will give up and just read the Onion.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:54 pm
The Onion is gospel. As for my analysis of Florida, I have an 83 year old Mom there (undecided), a sister (clinton), another sister (Ron Paul), numerous nieces (mostly Obama) and I lived in the state for 6 years of the last 15.
If you seek balance for the sake of balance, instead of an opinion informed by my experiences and observations while living there, I guess I’ll disappoint.
Clinton’s supporters, like Clinton herself, keep saying “the rules suck, let’s reconsider a different way to assess things than the delegate count.” And considering her experience at national campaigns, it’s a rather lame argument, which is why so many superdelegates aren’t going her way.
She wrote off too many small states, didn’t organize the caucuses as well as the other team did, and let Obama into the game in too many early states. So yeah, unlike some Obama supporters, I’m eager for a revote to happen, because I think Obama will fare better if they both campaign in those two states.
Not because I’m an ardent Obama supporter. I’m not, though I did endorse him recently. But simply because it’s what my perception yields. She’ll never get closer than 30-40 pledged delegates, even if a revote happens.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“Clinton’s supporters, like Clinton herself, keep saying “the rules suck”"
I’ve never said that, nor is that my opinion. I have often heard middle-class white feminists such as myself flamed for claiming to speak for people they aren’t.
I appreciate an analysis that acknnowledges the shades of gray. Here’s an interesting perspective: ” (1) the best argument for seating Florida and Michigan as is, is that they are at least as valid as any caucus result; (2) caucuses have shown themselves to be pretty invalid from the standpoint of the principle of “one person, one vote”; (3) thus, either seat Florida and Michigan or throw out all caucus results,” http://www.hillarynowobamalater.org/
I don’t entirely agree with that any more than I entirely agree with your statement that I am “playing games while rooting for Clinton,” but if you examine both angles and acknowledge that the truth is somewhere in between your argument is bound to be a lot more substantive.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:35 am
Okay, the best argument for not seating the FL and MI delegates is that, just like the electoral college is an imperfect replacement for simple popular vote election, the current primary system is an imperfect means of choosing a nominee. Via primaries everywhere, we could have a more representative popular vote system, so we ought to reform that.
However, as all parties knew the rules going into this particular primary season, they all had to determine how to most effectively gain delegates in each and every state. After one candidate proved more successful at achieving that, yet is likely to fall short of the total delegates required to be the automatic nominee, the rules say the superdelegates weigh in and if enough of them push one to that magic delegate number, then it’s over.
So yeah, the superdelegates get their crack at it. And if one or more convention votes fail to produce a winner, alternatives become available: joint tickets, an appointment promise, a policy push, or a completely different compromise candidate.
That’s a perfectly acceptable argument to make, even if some fret about ‘hurting Dem chances’.
However, since one candidate proved more successful at achieving a delegate lead under the existing rules both knew were the rules going in, to say ‘let’s change the rules and count disqualified delegates’ is like adding a wild card to a poker game halfway through after everyone agreed to play with no wildcards. Otherwise, the guy with the biggest pile of chips is being cheated, because the other poker player is being handed a fresh pile of chips in the middle of the contest that were not earned under existing rules.
The other arguments (more experience, winning big states, etc) are perfectly okay as persuasion points in an effort to convince superdelegates to cast their votes her way. But they should not be viewed as something voters and pledged delegates will agree to. They are likely to counter such arguments with opinions and talking points of their own. So contentiousness is to be expected, it would seem. And it’s up to the superdelegates to - if they’re responsible - weigh both sides and render their best judgments on the dispute.
Some have said, ‘we’ve heard enough, here’s our decision today’ instead of waiting. That’s their prerogative and may be a perfectly responsible judgment, too.
What I was saying, in abbreviated fashion, was the arguments haven’t been proving persuasive to most of the superdelegates who’ve announced their decisions in the past month. They haven’t proved successful in persuading pledged delegates or the majority of Democrats to the point that enough are clamoring for the announced superdelegates to switch to Clinton, to actually stop the movement of most superdelegates to Obama.
So, in short, the arguments Team Clinton and her supporters are making ring hollow to many, so they’re tired of the repetitive arguments as well as the fresh angles being floated. I didn’t mean to, but probably did, make it too much a sweeping generalization, as I don’t really think every Clinton supporter is making identical arguments or parroting Team Hillary’s arguments.
But many, publicly, are.
As winning enough of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up to Obama is mathematically highly improbable, the only way to increase her chances beyond that is to (a) persuade the superdelegates or (b) seat the disqualified states, or (c) work out a compromise that satisfies both parties in this contest, like a revote or something else. Nobody has a right to impose the latter on either contestant without their consent, and nobody should really anticipate that either would agree to compromise rules that worsens their chances. I’d consider the judgment of any candidate to be flawed if they worked hard to gain what they earned, then give that advantage away.
I don’t think there’s an advantage to us voters to back anyone if they displayed such flawed judgment. So the onus is on everyone involved in boosting Clinton’s chances to make the modified rules sufficiently neutral to limit the loss of the one with the earned advantage. If they fail to do so, Obama is entirely within his rights (and sensible) if he rejects options that might seriously weaken his chances.
And people can complain about him for making such an understandable choice. Or omplain about the DNC-imposed penalty, which was decided on jointly with representatives of both of the contestants involved in that joint decision. Less than a majority of Dems want to impose a modification on Obama and Clinton without their assent.
Lacking success at achieving (c) and (b), that only leaves (a) as a viable option if Clinton can’t produce the huge wins necessary to make the delegate gap so small as to be insignificant. The rules as they are then: win big the rest of the way or persuade the superdelegates to vote for Clinton.
The argument you made about the representational weakness of caucuses is worth putting forward to persuade superdelegates. But one should not reasonably expect Obama to agree to a modification like that, or for his ardent supporters to accept it either. That, to me, is wishful thinking.
However, considering all that’s occurred in this overlong primary season, promoting such a reform and many others is likely to gain support from many or most Dems if the reforms take place after this contest but before the 2012 primary season begins.
I should also note that if Obama is to succeed in November, he also has to weigh the possibility that the disqualified voters may abandon the nominee that resists the rules modification. That also must be a consideration in his choices about modifications.
Reasonably, he has to determine:
1) Will they really switch to McCain?
2) Can I (correctly) point out that Clinton has also shot down some proposed modifications, sufficient to blunt that potential switch?
3) Can I win them back to vote for me between the convention and Election Day?
And if he makes a decision that proves successful in November, he’ll be the next president. If he makes a decision that proves wrong, then he won’t be president. If he decides the risk is too great, that may add some more flexibility towards potential modifications. But even there, I’d consider it incredibly stupid to agree to something too hurtful to his chances to be the nominee.
His decision will not satisfy everyone, no matter which way he chooses. But he is not some villain for making entirely reasonable choices. Nor is Clinton a villain for trying to persuade, which is also reasonable to expect.
I’ve even previously offered a rule modification that I think is better than any I’ve heard so far that might possibly be acceptable to both.
Barring that (because I doubt anyone within the DNC will ever hear my suggestion), and barring my fresh suggestion to just do the revote (the point of my post) I’ve concluded that:
a) Obama and his supporters will not give ground sufficient to significantly weaken his chances.
b) Clinton will continue to present arguments that would, if accepted, significantly strengthen her chances.
c) Obama and his supporters will not be persuade and will remain skeptical of and adverse to most or all of Clinton’s arguments.
d) And the success of either will hinge on what superdelegates decide. And right now, the available evidence suggests most of them are skeptical of and adverse to most or all of Clinton’s arguments.
Finally, the reason the first vote can’t stand as is is clearly evident in the Michigan primary, as the voters weighed Clinton against Uncommitted. How many uncommitted would agree to go to Obama? That cannot be accurately decided. And now, since everyone knows it’s between the two of them, would the voters who previously chose Clinton wish to stay with her? We can’t accurately assess that either.
It’s less clear with Florida, but again, if both had actively campaigned there, would the results be the same? If one’s better at face-to-face campaigning or better at the ad game, a fair contest would require they both campaign actively, as that was the option they had in every other state.
Anything short of an acceptable modification to both falls short of the rules. I happen to believe a revote in both states would yield little to Clinton, too little to be convincing to superdelegates. When I wrote the post, I expected many Obama supporters would object to my argument as a risk Obama shouldn’t take. Instead, rather than consider it potentially beneficial to Clinton, you - her supporter - indicate that’s not enough and ask me to consider accepting the results of the initial vote.
As you see now, I trust, I have considered the ‘as is’ count the delegate option and determined it to be unfair and not truly representative of an evenly weighted and evenly fought contest. I believe Obama, his campaign staff and few Obama supporters will accept that your proposal merits acceptance (and I wouldn’t be surprised if they reject my proposal for a revote, as well).
I hope that clarifies my thinking and consideration of the contest and its likely outcome. Yes, it’s clearly my opinion, not some statement of fact. Presumably, my own biases exist in my approach to these decisions and in my ‘calling it as I sees it.’
My prediction of the outcome is as objectively made as I can muster, because I prefer not to be proven wrong. You and others are welcome to disagree with my predictions, but the only way to measure their accuracy is simply to see what happens.
I have no power beyond my single vote, to alter that outcome, so if I’m proven wrong, I desrve criticism. And if I’m proven right, it’s not because I made it happen, but merely have a reasonably good analytical capacity about this race (though I assure you, my track record of predictions is not 100%).