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

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.

Story continues below

advertisement

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

[gomer2000]

Don't forget that she not just said that MI and FL will not count but "Like other candidates, she pledged not to campaign in Florida after the state jumped ahead on the schedule of caucuses and primaries set by the Democratic National Committee. She had to make that pledge if she hoped to compete in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, as Iowa and New Hampshire zealously guard their starting status on the political calendar. "

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341

[Moderatenation]

The people calling for Hillary to give up, keep pointing out that it would be nearly impossible for her to acquire the amount of delegates needed to win the nomination. Of course if Hillary continues, Obama will also be unable to acquire the number of delegates to secure the nomination . IT'S THAT CLOSE! I would question the fortitude, tenacity, and qualifications of a candidate who prematurely folded up the tent because they were down by approximately 1%. (Shades of 2000?) Especially before all the votes are counted. Pennsylvania, one of our most populous states, still has not voted. Shall we offer them the one candidate option that we decry as fraudulent when it occurs in any other nation? I hope not. FLA and MICH have not been resolved to anyones satisfaction. When they are, what affect will it have on the count? Let the vote go on. Let the race go on. May the best person win. Let the Convention serve its purpose. The Democratic party will survive and be stronger for it.

[WebDeb]

Well... for one reason, the states have lost 50% of their pledged delegates according to DNC rules so that spread is a bit wider. Not only do the rules state they can't vote, the rules state they lose half of what they currently have which will punish them in future elections.

http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/

"In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party
provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes
the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior
to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the
event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after
such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to
the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
(50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National
Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from
that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation­."

RULE. That's why we have them.

[userw014]

Thanks for the rules reference. I'm a Democratic Party inclined resident of Michigan who has been enraged at how the state party "took away my vote". I'm especially glad to see that none of the "super delegates" will get a vote. Those are the bozos that led the party into this mess.

I'd have liked to be able to cast a vote favoring either Clinton or Obama, but since my vote wasn't going to matter, I voted for the least unpleasant Republican (whom I've discovered to be more unpleasant than I cared for.) I believe that the number of crossover votes was only about 10%.

If the state party officials cared about whether I respected them (and the party), they'd either all resign or pay for an election out-of-pocket. They can't depend on the state government's election officials (due to a school election that's scheduled in May, not leaving the state government officials time enough to set up another election),so holding another election will be really expensive.

I'm not happy with the National Democratic Party either. Coddling Iowa and New Hampshire, while allowing the whole process to creep up into January is madness. Move the process back to March.

In any event, I'll probably end up voting for the Democratic candidate anyway. I hold the Republican Party in even less regard. The Democrats have me as trapped as the gas companies, et. al. do. There's sure to be some local issue that means more to me anyway.

[LonesomeThunderbolt]

As an Obama supporter, I strongly urge the Obama campaign not to allow the Clinton campaign to milk this issue all the way to the convention. The best proposal I've heard for diffusing the issue came from a caller to the Diane Rehm show several weeks ago: Seat the Michigan and Florida delegates according to the January vote--but as super delegates, not pledged delegates.

In addition to avoiding a convention brawl, the arrangement allows Obama to maintain his lead in pledged delegates with no gain for Clinton. It is the perception of leading in pledged delegates that is most important to Obama. Even if the majority of MI and FL delegates were personally committed to Clinton, they would most likely wait for the super delegates to take their cue from the pledged delegates and then vote more or less as a block.

Because the agreement is confined to seating delegates, the popular vote issue would be bypassed. Obama could continue to credibly assert that the popular vote was invalid in both states. There is some risk for Obama in this strategy, but not as much as allowing the Clinton campaign to continue milking the issue into a damaging convention brawl.

This proposal is the least bad among some not very good options. But not seating delegates from MI and FL that reflect their importance to the Democrats in November is untenable. In a close election, FL leans to the Reps, but MI is absolutely essential to a Democratic victory.

[StephenS]

If all 366 Florida and Michigan delegates & superdelegates get to vote, then where's the penalty for moving up their conventions to after Iowa and New Hampshire, but before Super Tuesday (before South Carolina in Michigan's case)? I don't see how that could work.

[LonesomeThunderbolt]

We shouldn't care about penalizing MI and FL. Fixing the broken primary system is a problem for another day. Right now the focus has to be on not crippling the Democratic nominee in a destructive convention brawl over seating delegates--and alienating a state (MI) that is absolutely essential to a Democratic victory in November.

[Peddler]

What part of the DNC rules did Florida and Michigan didn't understand? Only idiots, who knowlingly held their primaries eariler with understanding that they would not be seated at the convention, would have voted. What is so hard to understand about that. It is like running a race, knowing that the results will not be considered. Hillary will used this as a leverage to try to create political delegate larceny...­her campaign is crumbling both physically and financiall­y.....she is toast.....­.Melba toast.

[Gatorgal]

What part of repug maneuvering don't you understand? Florida has a huge repug majority in the Legislature and a repub as Governor. They set the law as to when the primaries were held. They did so knowing that their candidate would only get 1/2 of the delegates but that the Democratic candidates would get none. They set this up so that the Democrat voters would become angry enough not to vote in the general election. Pretty crafty,huh!

[MichaelTenery]

Please don't believe the deception you hear about Florida's problems being the fault of the Republicans. It is not the Republicans fault in Florida that the voters were disenfranchised. The Democratic leaders there openly defied the DNC and laughed while they were doing it.

Senate Democrat Leader (Florida) Laughs in the DNC's Face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpHuQi17EaE

[BoydReed]

Here's the thing, though. The DNC has a "good-faith" exception they can give to states, allowing their primaries to count. The exception basically says that you have to have done everything possible to honor the DNC's rules for holding primaries. This was considered and dismissed in the case of Florida.

Why was the idea of a "good-faith" exception dismissed? Because all but one Democratic state legislator in Florida voted to APPROVE the primary's advance date! If the Democrats in the state legislature were that offended by the early date, they could have voted against the measure en masse. This would have told the DNC that they really didn't support the Republican move, and would probably have allowed their early primary to stand.

Bottom line: If you disagree with something, you don't vote for it. Would you agree?

[kettletop]

Why this hasn't been resolved in Florida and likely will not be:
"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."

I would expect W to not know the meaning of he word compromise, but if HC thinks ignorance of the word makes her exempt to reason, she cannot understand diplomacy. Unless compromise is something others are expected to do, but never apples to herself.

She says, like the Republicans, that 911 changed everything so we cannot "take a chance" on "inexperienced" Obama. But she offers us nothing but the same-o same-o.

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
Lincoln's Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862

[newddle]

Hmm, maybe Karl Rove's idea that Obama should just agree to let the delegations be seated would defuse this convention fight.

[Fitzy]

As an Obama supporter, I would love to see a re-vote in either, and or, both states. Seems to me Hillary has finally exposed her true self and I think Obama would do quite well in a re-vote.

[kristin]

A revote is up to the states not to Obama.

"Last week, the Florida Democratic Party laid out the only existing way that we can comply with DNC Rules - a statewide revote run by the Party - and asked for input. Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't."
(Last week seems to mean about March 10th.)
link:
Florida Dems: We Will Not Revote - Politics on The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/17/florida-dems-we-will-not_n_91967.html

[Fitzy]

I know it's not up to Obama. I wish Hillary and her followers would admit it and stop blubbering.

[FogBelter]

One thing that isn't in dispute is that Hillary reneged on the agreement with the DNC that Delegates from Michigan and Florida wouldn't count because of the States moving up their primaries.

That isn't in dispute.

[AdLib]

Amongst those living in reality...­which clearly does not include everyone posting here.

[NU81]

Hillary is so desperate she is intent on keeping ANYTHING alive at this point, even if she takes down the entire Democratic Party with her. Check out this article from the New Republic entitled "No Really, You Should Go: Wretched rationalizations for Hillary Clinton's Kamikaze Campaign" :

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6b3d9c26-7c9e-4814-badd-a124edc68718

[beright]

I think Hillary is just proving to the American public that her campaign is standing on prosthetics. This entire fight over MI and FL is her attempt to distract folks away from her embarassing lies and erratic behavior. The fat lady's beginning to sing .... Hillary knows it.

[AdLib]

FL law bars a mail-in revote and they didn't have the money to finance a full on primary so THEY declared they won't hold a revote. In MI, a chunk of Dems voted in the GOP primary since they were assured that voting for a Dem would not count and there is no legal way to re-enfranchise these voters.

From MSNBC - Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman: "Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again," Thurman writes. "So we won't."

From the Michigan Democratic Party's executive committee:
"The Michigan Democratic Party has carefully reviewed several proposals for a Party-run primary or caucus as a means of resolving the dispute over the seating of the Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus."

Aw, another Hillary talking point joins Bosnia Gunfire, Hospital Horror Story and "I opposed Iraq before Obama" in Hillary's Garbage Pile of Falsehoods.

[Fitzy]

The minds of Hillary's supporters can't seem to assimilate these facts.

[AdLib]

Like the 28% who continue to blindly support Bush no matter how horrible his acts are, some Hillary supporters are similarly lin denial about any truths that don't support their flawed opinions, they just don't want to admit that in the end, they made a mistake and Hillary is not the woman they "needed" her to be.

[SkipHarv]

Here's a way to get the Hillary campaign team and her supporters to stop screaming about the illegal voting that occured in FL and the unconstitutional (decided by MI courts) contest in MI and it uses their OWN WORDS to do it.
First it's this:
"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."
If it is wrong to do this to MI and FL WHY IN THE HELL WOULD YOU DO IT TO THE 28 STATES THAT (so far)VOTED FOR Sen. Obama with your argument that "Pledged delegates can vote for whomever they want just like Super delegates"
Next up is this little gem from the man who drafted the DNC stance to strip FL and MI of their delegates Harold Ickes:
"If it means Hillary Rodham Clinton should give up delegates, they are barking up a very tall tree."
Now since these two states delegates do not count right now wouldn't a 50/50 split be actually GIVING Hillary delegates that she didn't earn and should really LOSE in FL since SHE HAD A CAMPAIGN RALLY(That was against the DNC rules) AND HELD A VICTORY PARTY IN ST. PETERSBURG, FL
Please answer these questions without repeating Hillary's crap about 'disenfranchising" MI and FL

[fixbone]

to the disappointed clinton supporters - you can blame Obama for the MI and FL mess all you want BUT it is simply untrue - i understand your disappointment but plz get a life on this issue and face the facts with some intelligence and open mindedness

[kristin]

Hillary says,

“"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," ... "But millions of people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls aren't being heard.”

BUT:

Hillary wants to disenfranchise two (2) million voters in Florida and Michigan by having these elections count.

“In a new study of the Michigan and Florida Democratic primary vote,, Wharton School Assistant Prof. Gregory Nini and liberal author Glenn Hurowitz made an analysis based on voter turnout in other states. Their conclusion: Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states’ primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in Florida and Michigan had they expected their delegates to be seated.” (Hillary agreed originally, in writing, that they wouldn’t be.)

(from :Who Didn't Vote in the Florida and Michigan Democratic Primaries? - Swampland - TIME)

So are we going to change the rules midstream so one candidate and some voters won’t pout or are we going to play fair?

[jazzman]

Rules were formed and agreed upon by all candidates. The candidates agreed not to run campaigns in FL and MI. Those candidates included: Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and Kuncinich. In Michigans case, only one name appeared on the ballot. That turned MI into an election resembling something Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro would run.

The question is: Were the rules agreed upon and fair? Did rules create an unfair advantage for any of the candidates? No. Would changing the rules in mid stream create an unfair advantagie for any of the candidates? Yes. Thus the rules should not be changed.

Of course, if Hillary would have been in charge of the NFL maybe we could have changed the rules so that the NE Patriots had won and the NCAA rules so that my favorite team, UCLA had won. It wouldn't have been fair, but being the partisan that I am, maybe I would have accepted those 'middle of the stream' rule changes. On second thought, no I wouldn't.

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

Exactly, and for the Clinton campaign to crusade after the fact that the voters of Michigan and Florida are being disenfranchised makes my stomach turn. It is in a word, sleazy.

[jsj20002]

In the interest of accuracy, there were four persons who left their names on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot after the DNC said the primary would not count -- Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel. I understand that Kucinich attempted to have his name removed, but did not make the deadline for doing so. Biden, Edwards, Obama and Richardson successfully removed their names before the ballots were printed. The ballot did allow one to vote for "uncommitted". When questioned as to whether a voter could write in the names of any of the four who had withdrawn, the Michigan Secretary of State, a Republican, ruled that write in votes for anyone who had officially withdrawn would not be counted. Thus, I could have voted for any other native born citizen of the United States except for the four candidates who actually complied with the DNC's instructions. I could even have written in John McCain or Mitt Romney on my Democratic ballot.