Looming Delegate Fight Over Florida And Michigan Races

The split decision from Super Tuesday's coast-to-coast balloting has thrust the fight over the disputed delegations from Michigan and Florida back into the spotlight, now that neither Democrat can claim an outright delegate victory.

Political pundits Wednesday forecast that the Hillary Clinton campaign would now make a renewed push to seat the delegates from The Wolverine and Sunshine States, given the neck-and-neck delegate count on the Democratic side.

"It's easy to imagine that they could be the difference between Obama and Clinton even after the super delegates have made their decision," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia told The Huffington Post.

According to projections from NBC news, Barack Obama was expected to rack up between 840 and 849 delegates following Super Tuesday balloting, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention are awarded proportionally based on votes received in each congressional district. There are also a number of so-called "super delegates," Democratic Party elected officials and insiders, who are awarded a convention vote based on their position in the party.

The Democratic Party had earlier sanctioned Michigan and Florida for leapfrogging ahead of other early voting states in the primary calendar by stripping them of their convention delegates, and each of the major candidates pledged not to campaign in those states.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean was quoted by the St. Petersburg Times in June 2007 saying: "Their primary essentially won't count...Anybody who campaigns in Florida is ineligible for delegates."

Barack Obama and John Edwards withdrew their names from the ballot in Michigan, leaving only Clinton and several minor candidates in the race. Clinton won the Jan. 17 primary with 55 percent over "uncommitted" which received 40 percent of the vote.

Clinton also won the Jan. 30 Florida Primary, with 50 percent of the vote to Obama's 33 percent.

The Obama camp derided the win as meaningless in an email sent to reporters on primary night, reminding the press that both candidates received zero delegates in the Florida primary.

But Obama supporters also cried foul over Clinton's pre-election activities in the state, saying that two events she attended in the Sunshine State broke her pledge to respect the Democratic Party's sanctions and avoid campaigning in Florida.

The Clinton campaign argued that the events were closed to the public, and therefore in line with the no-campaigning pledge.

On primary night, Clinton also flew to Florida for a victory celebration alongside Reps. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Alcee Hastings.

The Associated Press reported on Jan. 27 that Clinton had already vowed to try to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates:

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said at a campaign stop in Tennessee before flying to Sarasota.

Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford, writing on his "Trail Mix" blog, forecast what was in store for the convention if the candidates became embroiled in a credential fight:

First, the rival campaigns must compete behind the scenes for the support of credentials committee members - a contest that could prove to be the most important "primary" of all.

Outside the backrooms, the Clinton campaign will surely mount a vigorous public relations drive aimed at turning the debate into a question of "voting rights" and "civil rights," hoping to put Obama in the position of seeming to oppose such civil liberties. And the Clinton team will argue that Democrats simply cannot afford to deny entry to two of the nation's biggest swing states in the general election.

Already, pundits and party activists are raising the possibility that the Democratic Party might have to consider is a "re-do" in Michigan and Florida.

Marc Ambinder wrote Wednesday that:

Here is what might happen instead.

The DNC will sanction new contests, probably caucuses.

The Clinton will protest vociferously. Caucus? CAUCUS?

There will be a big debate.

Sabato told The Huffington Post that there had been "lots of credentials fight" over the years in the Democratic Party, but nothing quite like the "mess" looming in the current fight.

He also said credentials fight doesn't bode well for the party heading into the general election.

"When you get factions within the party believing that they have been treated unfairly, you have created the super-structure of defeat," Sabato said. "Some half of the party is going to feel cheated. That is exactly what you don't want your party activists to feel headed into a contested general election."

Comments

[Chuckbutcher]

02:45 AM on 02/08/2008

Let's get things in their proper order, first. When DNC found that MI/FL Republican Legs were considering moving the date, they informed the Legs what the consequences of an illegitimate election were - no delegates. DNC owns its Primaries, its rules. The Legs did it anyhow, it then fell to the MI/FL State Parties, which own their elections within DNC rules, to rectify the situation, they refused. They had alternatives, in fact still do, they could have self-financed a regular Primary, they could caucus, they could convention, all they had to do was stay within the rules. The State Parties told the DNC to take a hike, they'd do it the way the Republicans wanted it done, because they were soooooo important that they did not have to follow the rules all the rest of the states did. DNC refuses to seat the delegates of an illegitimate election.

SSV, you did not have an election, whatever it was you thought you were doing, it wasn't an election. It was not at anytime recognized as an election. You knew it was not an election, but you say you voted. You may have voted for something, but you didn't do anything that the Democratic Party even knows about because you never had a Democratic Primary Election, no matter what the pinheads around you tell you, you didn't have one.

Nobody has taken your delegates, they still exist, in theory, somebody you think you elected in a sham vote isn't going to be seated. Now you pinheads can sort it out or not. My state will go in May, DNC told us the same thing when our Leg wanted to jump and our State Party asked the Leg not to make a mess & and then we put together a backup plan if they did. They listened, we vote in May, and it will be a legitimate election.

At the time, with our small delegate count, most figured we'd have no say in a nomination that late and didn't like it. It appears we will be important. Yes, Oregon.

[jcharliemiller]

07:45 PM on 02/07/2008

Isn't it "business as usually" at the Hillary camp that they would like to change the rules mid-game. If she wants to do that then Barack should challenge the un-democratic Super Delegates...

[mscreant]

06:59 PM on 02/07/2008

Simple...agreements were made then broken...penalties get imposed.

[TheSchul]

03:44 PM on 02/07/2008

No objective person could make the argument for counting those contests. You can make the argument for having caucuses in June, but not for counting votes that many of the eligible voters who did not vote were told would not count.

Here is a sports analogies that should clarify this point.

In football it is illegal for a receiver to run out of bounds and then back in bounds to make a catch. Imagine if a receiver did just that, the defender stopped guarding him, knowing that the catch would not count, and, then, upon catching the ball in the end zone the receiver started arguing the catch should count. Nobody would think twice, the catch would not count.

Throwing around how many people voted in FL is a red herring, because it discounts the people, like the receiver in the analogy, who chose not to vote because they knew their vote wouldn't count.

Also, the state parties have the final say in setting contests for the selection of delegates, not the legislatures. The Florida Democratic Party could have rejected the Jan. 29 date and run their own primary or caucus. If it cost them more, well, that sucks, but many state parties pay for their own contests and it should just be more motivation to win back the legislature.

[mishte]

02:51 PM on 02/07/2008

There are a couple of distinct issues, I think, and I view them separately:
--what the DNC did
--what the states did
--what the candidates did

I have no authority to make a judgment on regulations regarding the DNC or the states, but I do know that the candidates entered into an agreement based on the situation. I doubt that any of them was happy about it, they don't want to dismiss voters!

The candidates agreed to "play by the rules". They should have, if they were unable to change them prior to the vote.

Actions can be a good measure of character. What Hillary did may have been factually "legal" (saying that it was "unnecessary" to remove her name from the ballot). That doesn't make it right.

[ProudLiberalDan]

02:42 PM on 02/07/2008

I support Michigan's and Florida's attempt to strip Iowa and New Hamsphire of their sense of entitlement to "winnow down" the nominees. I quite frankly didn't want and don't need their help. I can think for myself and am just as good a judge of character any they are and so are you.

That being said, the unity of the party is what is really important.

The least worst option right now is to have caucuses in Michigan and Florida.

For 2012, let's have one national primary day in the Spring and a direct election for President in the fall, with a runoff if no one gets 50% of the vote.

It's time to rescue our democracy from the tyranny of small states. "States" don't deserve favoritism. It is "people" and "citizens" which we should empower.

Small states get disproportionate representation in the U.S. Senate and that's all they warrant and deserve, if even that.

[mishte]

02:36 PM on 02/07/2008

I am disappointed in the whole Michigan debacle, and I really don't know what to think about it, but I keep leaning towards disappointment with Hillary's actions.

This is a simplistic analogy, but, if my child and two of his or her friends were competing in a contest and agreed not to engage in one part of it (going by the rules laid out to them) and then my child went back and participated in it alone, which would give her a tangible advantage if she successfully got the contest judges to change the rules... that is not something I would allow my child to do and it would need to be addressed.

Am I way off? Florida seems *somewhat* different, but I'm uncomfortable with that too. The DNC acted in a dumb way, the two states acted in a dumb way, and the candidates should have been bound to honor the decision OR do something about it before the fact.

I don't get a do-over, or better yet get *rewarded* if I break the rules because I don't agree with them... that's not the right message for my children, and its not the right message for society when we have valid avenues to protest (and change) the rules we can't tolerate or don't want.

[Orikinla]

01:10 PM on 02/07/2008

The delegates should be given their due rights after the party's presidential nominee has been chosen.
Finis.

The way things are going with the Democrats, if John McCain wins the presidential election, do not be surprised. Senator Barack Obama behaves like a political spoiler.

He is pouring millions of dollars on the streets and as far as I can see, he is simply paying for his votes.

[FranktheDem]

12:47 PM on 02/07/2008

I will make my point concisely this time, hoping that my time won't be wasted on yet, again, my trying to participate in this discussion only for it not to be published.
The fairest resolution to not disenfranchize Michigan and Florida voters is to allow a caucus in each state.
The unintended consequences of not seating delegates of these two delegate rich states would be a disaster in the general election.

[JackWOrf]

12:04 PM on 02/07/2008

As a Florida Democrat, I think that a re-vote is a good idea, altho it is rather unfair to Hillary, since she ALREADY WON Florida.

A CAUCUS is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!! Caucuses are CRAP! Obama does well because all his BLACK THUGS INTIMIDATE PEOPLE.

And don't give me any CRAP that Obama doesn't have any black thugs working for him. Why do you think that the creep wins in caucuses, but not when there is a SECRET BALLOT!

Caucuses are especially INTIMIDATING to WOMEN. Women particularly need the SECRET BALLOT, which is our GOD-GIVEN RIGHT as American (f-word)en Citizens!!!

Caucuses SUCK!!! It should be a regular ELECTION, complete with early (weekend) voting. That is the way that we do it in Florida!!!

Also, NO NEW voters. It should be the SAME voters who voted in the regular Jan 29 election. Otherwise, Obama will be paying slaves thousands of dollars in Oprah-money to vote for his con.

No stupid all-day caucuses with black extortionists breathing down your neck!!!
NO CAUCUSES!!! PERIOD!!!

An election, or forget it! An election or we take it to the SUPREME COURT! I'll bet that Roberts and Alito would just LOVE to keep the Democrats in a Supreme Court battle for a couple months before the election!

We want an ELECTION!!! No (f-word)en caucuses. Save the caucuses for the dumb farmers in Iowa.

[WeNeedObama]

11:48 AM on 02/07/2008

This is just a travesty. She can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Regardless of whether or not to decision to strip the delegates is fair, she can't change everything now and ruin the party.

Sign the petition to stop this madness!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness

[BrianBoru3]

11:13 AM on 02/07/2008

Let's see. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan because he honored a pledge. Clinton was on the ballot because she ________? Michigan voters knew their delegates would not be seated. How can anyone argue with a straight face that seating these delegates is a matter of fairness?

[Chauncey1186]

10:41 AM on 02/07/2008

As a Michigander who voted "undecided" as a protest against Hillary's flagrant rule breaking I will leave the Democratic Party and join the independents if the Dem leaders kowtow to the Clinton Machine.

How many Obama and Edards supporters didn't bother to vote because they thought their votes wouldn't count? I say bring on the caucus and let's have a fair fight in Michigan!

[Chauncey1186]

10:36 AM on 02/07/2008

As a Michigander who voted "undecided" as a protest against Hillary's duplicity I will leave the Democratic party for good and join the ranks of independents if the powers that be kowtow to the Clinton Machine.

How many Obama or Edwards supporters just stayed home knowing their vote wouldn't count? I say bring on the caucus and let's have a fair fight!

[NoRepresentation]

09:25 AM on 02/07/2008

man will someone dispose of the trash. Someone take both of the Clintons to the curb. If Hillary is the best that the Democrats can do, we can expect to have another four years much like our past eight were.