Thomas B. Edsall

BIO

Thomas B. Edsall

The Huffington Post

Hillary Clinton's Michigan/Florida Strategy: Keep The Dispute Alive

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

April 7, 2008 09:16 AM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

About Thomas B. Edsall

Thomas B. Edsall is the political editor of the Huffington Post. He is also Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. From 1981 to 2006, he was a political reporter at the Washington Post. He is the author of Chain Reaction and Building Red America. Tom can be reached at edsall@huffingtonpost.com.


Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean's chance of achieving an early compromise on the seating of the 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations faces a tough hurdle: the strategic importance to the Clinton campaign of keeping the dispute alive and kicking all the way to the convention.

If Clinton maintains her commitment to take the nomination contest to Denver in August, she needs to have an issue other than her own candidacy to maintain legitimacy and to use as a lever to build momentum during the committee meetings in the week before the convention -- and on the convention floor itself.

"In every recent convention contest, there has been a credentials, rules or platform dispute that has shaped the outcome," said Carl Wagner, a Democrat who has been deeply involved in DNC and convention politics -- as Edward Kennedy's 1980 national political director and convention manger; as the DNC's director of strategic planning from 1989 to 1993; and as manager of the coordinated presidential, congressional and state Democratic campaigns of 1992.

Recent nomination fights that go to the convention have all had a key ingredient: a hard-fought "test question" or issue (analogous to the two-state issue this year) preceding the actual up-and-down vote on the candidates. The outcome of the fight over the test issue then sets the stage for the selection of the nominee.

Examples include Eisenhower-Taft in 1952, when Ike's forces won a "Fair Play" credentials fight and with it, the nomination; the 1972 McGovern-Humphrey contest which was settled by votes on the make up of the California and Illinois delegations; and the Carter-Kennedy fight over the health care provisions of the party platform that were resolved by giving the Kennedy forces the opportunity to debate as their consolation prize.

In this respect, the very fact of having a major issue to take to the convention could well prove to be more important to Clinton than the actual settlement of the two-state seating issue.

Michigan and Florida violated national party rules by holding their primaries earlier in the season than party rules allowed, and, at the moment, the DNC has ruled that these two delegations will not be seated. Clinton won the primaries in both states.

Both Obama and Clinton appeared on the ballot in Florida, although each candidate abided by DNC rules and neither campaigned there.

The situation in Michigan is more problematic: Obama took his name off the ballot, while Clinton left hers on. The result was a 55 percent victory for Clinton; with 40 percent of the ballots cast for "uncommitted" and the rest for minor candidates.

So far, the Clinton campaign has attempted to cast the two-state dispute in a political/moral light, stressing the voting rights issue as well as the danger that no matter which of the candidates -- Obama or Clinton -- is the eventual nominee, if Michigan and Florida delegates are not seated, the dispute could suppress Democratic turnout and give the combined 44 electoral votes to the GOP.

"It is a bedrock American principle: we are all equal in the voting booth. No matter where you were born or how much money you were born into, no matter the color of your skin or where you worship, your vote deserves to count," Clinton's campaign declared in an email seeking signatures on a petition to support the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations. "But millions of people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls aren't being heard. The delegates they elected won't be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August -- and that's just not fair to those voters."

In 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush split the Florida vote, and Bush was ruled the Florida winner in a highly controversial decision by the Supreme Court. In 2004, Bush beat John Kerry in Florida by a more substantial 381,000 votes. In 2004, Kerry won Michigan, although the margin, 51-48, was small enough to provoke worries for Democrats concerning future elections.

Neither the Obama nor the Clinton campaign show signs of a willingness to compromise -- although they would be foolish to reveal such a willingness at this stage in the negotiations.

This past week, Dean met separately with top Democrats from Florida and Michigan, and after each session, participants pledged to work out a compromise. In a joint statement issued after the Michigan meeting, for example, attendees declared their "commitment to doing everything we can to ensure that a Michigan delegation is seated in Denver this summer. ... We have every expectation that we will succeed in that endeavor, and then go on to win in November."

"I don't know what the word compromise means," Harold Ickes, lead delegate strategist for Clinton, told The Huffington Post. "If it means Hillary Rodham Clinton should give up delegates, they are barking up a very tall tree."

If the Florida and Michigan delegations were seated -- as currently constituted on the basis of primary results to date -- Clinton would gain 56 pledged delegates, according to Ickes. With Clinton now 134 delegates behind Obama, 1636 to 1502, according to RealClearPolitics, a 56-seat pick-up could have major consequences, with upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Puerto Rico conceivably providing the New York Senator with enough delegates to catch up to -- or even overtake -- Obama.

The Obama camp is determined to prevent Clinton from gaining the large block of delegates up for grabs in Florida and Michigan, calling instead for splitting each state's delegation down the middle.

"A 50-50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything,'" said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

A large block of DNC members and Democratic activists believe that it is important for discipline, and for the integrity of the primary and caucus process, that Michigan and Florida suffer a substantial penalty for breaking party rules.

It is just this kind of conflict, involving political self interest, larger questions of voting rights, party rules, and democratic ethics that create grounds for high-intensity intra-party warfare.

 
 

Comments
281
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

How to throw an election: take away the votes from two really big states that one of the candidates needs to win. Now that's fair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 AM on 04/08/2008

I am amazed at people who insist the FL and MI votes should count. That is blatantly unfair to both Senators Obama and Edward. Do people realize that Sen. Edward may have done well enough to get a shot at the nomination? It saddens me that nobdy brings this up. His name was not on the MI ballot either. We know that at the begining of this race senator Clinton was at least 25 points ahead of the other candidate because of name recognition. It has also been shown that whenever Sen. Obama campaigns in a state he closes the gap. Fair is fair, let there be a re-vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 AM on 04/08/2008

How about this for a rule? It would seem to me that the writers here that want the FL and MI votes to count are Hillary supporters and those opposed are in Obama's column. So, if you're going to post here, how about making the first line read...

Hillary '08---I passed the cool-aid test. After that, you can post anything you want. This procedure will save thousands of hours of reading stupid comments about an election that from the git-to didn't mean anything. It wasn't even a beauty contest as anyone with half a brain would not have wasted anytime standing in line to vote.

This was truly an election for the stupid. Maybe it was a test to see how they would do with this year's "butterfly ballot". God save American from stupid voters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 04/07/2008

Correction on that last comment if it is posted.

The five stages of grief:
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 PM on 04/07/2008

Hillary is in bargaining, and will be entering depression hopefully and then acceptance before the convention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 AM on 04/08/2008


The five stages of grief:

denial, anger, bargaining, anger, acceptance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 PM on 04/07/2008

What's the point when your campaign is dead in the water?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 PM on 04/07/2008

I just sent this is to the HRC campaign via the "contact us" linky.

______________________________

Dear Mrs. Clinton,

I am a lifelong Democrat and voted consistently since '92 for Democratic presidential candidates, including your husband Bill. I have always been a fan of yours and proud of your accomplishments and achievements. One of the best days of my life was the day I shook Bill's hand. He gave the address at my college graduation, in 1995, and I will always remember the moment warmly. In addition, I believe that you have performed valiantly as a Senator and in your capacity as first lady, particularly on issues relating to childrens' welfare.

In the upcoming May 6th primary election in North Carolina, I will cast my ballot for Barack Obama. I have been undecided until this point because I believed that both you and your opponent were admirable, strong candidates. Yet the ongoing campaign has made my choice clear.

[continued in reply]

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:57 PM on 04/07/2008

I am very disappointed to see that you want the Florida and Michigan delegates seated in spite of the fact that you pledged to ignore the results of these contests, in writing. While you claim that your goal is to "enfranchise" Michigan and Florida voters, the reality is otherwise. Millions of eligible voters in MI and FL stayed home, because YOU agreed with the DNC and publicly stated that the contests would not count. Your noble claims at the moment are clearly motivated by political calculation, not upstanding principles. Moreover, given that your candidacy now rests on the remote possibility of superdelegates deciding the election contrary to the results of popular voting, your claims to be the candidate of democracy and enfranchisement are transparently hypocritical.

I will vote Democratic in November, because I believe the stakes are too high to suggest any other course of action. While I admire your intellect, your abilities, and your dedication to public service, I cannot in good conscience support your bid for the nomination.

Sincerely,

John M

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 PM on 04/07/2008

John,

If you were a Hillary supporter you would not be switching to Obama because she is trying to get all votes to count. If the race was a runaway for either candidate the Michigan and Florida primaries would be insignificant. But now we have what is essentially a tie and if democrats disregard the voters of these two states, we may lose these two swing states in November. Rather than asking yourself why Hillary would want every vote counted, have you considered why Obama wants to disenfranchise these citizens? I would rather have all votes counted so that the primary election is perceived as fair no matter who takes the nomination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:50 PM on 04/08/2008

Bravo, John--well-put. Beyond the points you made, the fact of the matter is that it is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty to claim that either vote was remotely fair or honest. It's a political axiom that if two candidates are competing for an office and neither campaigns, the one with better name recognition and more establishment support--which was clearly Clinton in the months leading up to these "primaries"--has a HUGE advantage, an advantage that only gets multiplied when the election dates are moved up so that the challenger cannot even benefit from campaigns he's run in other venues. This is one reason why incumbents win nearly every Congressional election even if people are widely discontented with Congress (and was true even before mass gerrymandering to create 'safe' seats on both sides). When you add to this the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, and that Clinton ran a substantial stealth campaign in FL through her union supporters (Obama didn't have significant union support back then), well, like I say, the Clintons re-write the definition of chutzpah every day. For Harold Ickes of all people (he sat on the committee that VOTED to punish FL and MI, and HE VOTED to strip their delegates!) to now say they must be seated based on the sham primary results (any other solution involves Clinton 'giving up delegates') is incredible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 PM on 04/07/2008

Many people from each state have noted in these blogs that there was no lack of information about Obama in either of these states. Many national debates had already occurred and Obama had fund raisers in Florida. He even bought a national advertisement that was distributed to Florida as well. You have a tainted view and you are trying to fit the facts to your opinion. Name recognition is not enough to get someone elected. If Obama didn't have union support "back then," are you suggesting that unions would have somehow seen the light if Obama had been omnipresent in Florida and that the voters should have waited until the unions changed their support before they voted? The bottom line is that not one of us would want our vote dismissed or prevented. It is the only voice we have in our government. No voting system is ever perfect and this is not a time to decide some people just don't count.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 04/08/2008

What about this: Say you live in Florida, they decide the vote will count, but you didn't vote back then because you thought it wasn't going to matter. How pissed-off would you be, especially if you were going to vote for Obama. I'd be livid.
They can't make this vote count-- it'd be nuts. If they could hold another vote, then fine-- the DNC can probably consider all this trouble punishment enough-- But that's unrealistic too. I don't know if the Clinton campaign is pushing for anything articulate here; They're just pushing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 PM on 04/07/2008

No no no, you don't understand: only voters who voted (or would've voted) for Hillary Clinton can be disenfranchised. Once you accept that assumption, you will be enlightened as to the proper logic for election analysis.

Subsequent training will cover

- Why primaries are more important than caucuses.
- Why votes cast in "big" states are more important than those cast in small states.
- Why one must consider the electoral college in the primary process.

Good luck young Skywalker! (Note that I'm referring to Anikin here, not Luke).

Vader for Veep!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 AM on 04/08/2008

I also believe that given the choice on the ballot, Obama would have receive more votes. I'm sure some said "Oh well since it doesn't hurt either way I will finally get to cast a vote for a woman!" Hardly fair or what was expected

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 PM on 04/07/2008

I do wonder if HRC supporters would be as adamant if the shoe were on the other foot. Hillary should have fought for these votes in January, not now. Principle is one thing, grubbing for vote is another.In no contest has she come out with 100% of the vote.Is she asking for a mulligan? Why should it be given to her? She refuses compromise.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:11 PM on 04/07/2008

What you suggest for Hillary, you should be suggesting for Obama. If you think she is just trying to get her votes to count, you must admit that he is trying to prevent her votes from counting. This is a two way street and only Obama is preventing a re-vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 PM on 04/08/2008

There is a serious problem with the January vote in Michigan -- a Court found it to be unconstitutional. There is a greater problem for a Michigan revote -- a Court found the January vote unconstitutional and will not allow the distribution of the list of who voted in the contest to be provided to either the Democratic party which makes a revote very difficult (since the party rules require that you get to vote only once -- hey, I thought they were trying for a revote?-- yet this apparently is not so).

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/POLITICS01/803270394

The delegate totals in the post include superdelegates. Senator Obama is ahead 164 pledged delegates-- a 56 delegate pick-up by Senator Clinton (which is disputable) does not put Senator Clinton close in pledged delegates; instead, it leaves her still 108 behind.

While a 56 delegate pick-up would be lessen the great percentage of the votes Senator Clinton must win to surpass Senator Obama in pledged delegates, it does not do so by much. Currently, Senator Clinton must Pennsylvania by 65% of the vote (29 points) and all other contests by 64% of the vote (28 points). With the 56 delegate pick-up, Senator Clinton must win 61% of all of the remaining contest or gain 61% to 39%. Senator Clinton has only achieved this lead in one state -- Arkansas.

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 PM on 04/07/2008

The court did not find the vote unconstitutional.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 04/07/2008

It's nice of you to at least mention that Obama has blocked a solution of the problem for his own self-interest.

I don't care what the individual campaigns do. I do care when my party disenfranchises voterrs.

If party politicians break a rule, their states should be treated the same as other rule-breakers. That didn't happen. Florida and Michigan were punished while two earlier transgressors were not.

Most important - you don't punish voters for the errors of party leaders. I thought Democrats believed all votes should count. I thought only Republicans stole votes. Shame on the party and especially shame on Howard Dean.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 PM on 04/07/2008

Senator Obama has not blocked anything. The post simply says that neither campaign has shown a willingness to compromise.

Do you know holding a caucus in both states is the best solution to this problem? Why do you suppose that isn't going to happen? Before you begin the brand-new diatribe against caucuses, try to remember if you ever heard any of this before this campaign season.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 04/07/2008

A caucus isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen because it is not democratic. Too many people are disenfranchised by this method of selecting delegates. The young, the advantaged, and the healthy are included but their counterparts are excluded. Again, I can't help but point out that you would not be pushing this issue if you were not an Obama supporter. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 04/08/2008

For those who don't get it, Hillary doesn't want a solution to this mess! It serves her purposes to let the conflict continue. She wants a fight in the convention and hopes to win by force! Quite a politician and unfortunately, for the country ... McCain will beat her!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 04/07/2008

""A 50-50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything,'" said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe."

And this is EXACTLY why Obama cannot win in Noveember. The arrogance of his camapign is manifest at every term. A 50/50 split leaves things exactly where they are which renders MI and FL just as disenfranchised. It's worse than not seating at all because at least that approach is honest whereas Ploufe's approach adds insult to injury and rubs salt in the wounds of FL and MI voters by assuming they're too stupid to see that a 50/50 split does nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 04/07/2008

do written agreements mean anything to you? does the fact that she ran against uncommitted mean anything to you. 50-50 is fair... this is not about what helps her, it is about what is fair... you seem to have a biased agenda and this does not fulfill the bias, so you reject it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 04/07/2008

This is not about HER. It is about the voters. Don't you get that? If the democratic party is willing to disenfranchise voters, it is not my party anymore.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 04/08/2008

I don't see how Clinton can get anything more then a 50/50 split which even then isn't fair according to the rules both candidates signed on to. In the end the fairest solution would have been new contests but the time for news contests has passed.

If you look at the below link you'll see that there is a very good possibility that delegates from MI and Fl will attend and participate in the convention. But it is in now way clear as to how they will participate.

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_delegates_from_both_Florida_and_Michigan_be_seated_and_vote_at_the_Democrat_convention_4559/view

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 04/07/2008

Why has the time for new contests passed? If I were Barack or one of his supporters, I wouldn't want see any revoting in FL and MI, but that's based on politics not principles.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 04/07/2008

The time has past because FL & MI have said that it has.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:00 PM on 04/07/2008

The elephant in the room re Clinton's continuing chance is Media's profound conflict of interest. Right, left and especially mainstream, Media loves a horse race. What will they talk about when Clinton is gone....? Kucinich was in this very position and he was discounted out of hand. (I was a Kucinich booster.) The ONLY reason Clinton is still in it is because of the likes of Chris Matthews. When Clinton is done, Media will make McCain a viable candidate too. They are already working hard to make it be so. Sells soap.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 04/07/2008

A 50/50 split in both states would allow them to "sit" w/o rewarding their rule-breaking. Obama's campaign should NOT be punished for playing by the rules. And the Clinton camp cannot be allowed to bully the DNC or the Superdelegates about this, either. A 50/50 split sounds better and better as time goes on.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:30 PM on 04/07/2008

jstock....you are the foolish one....if you checked, you would know that the rules allow for a re-vote.
Obama wants to take his marbles and go home if he can't win....simple as that. I know, it's Clinton's fault....always Clinton's fault. Better wake up now and see that you boy is just business as usual.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:15 PM on 04/07/2008

1) Howard Dean and the DNC do not have the authority to strip states of their delegation.

2) It doesn't matter if the candidates agreed to these rules, they don't have the authority to strip states of the delegations either.

3) Only a majority of the entire delegate count at the Convention can vote to unseat any particular delegations.

4) Rules? What rules? There are no rules in politics.

5) Watch and learn, children.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 04/07/2008

Well put, Adolf. No rules, indeed!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 PM on 04/07/2008

Since the nomination process is run soley by the DNC, they absolutely have the authority to strip the states of their delgates. That being said, the delegates will be sat at the convention, but not according to the results of bogus elections.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:45 PM on 04/07/2008

Watch and learn.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 04/07/2008

From watching I've learned that you are a condescending, uninformed, ignorant and oh-so-wrong tr0ll.

How's that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 04/07/2008