Jason Linkins

BIO

Jason Linkins

The Huffington Post

McAuliffe Has Flip-Flopped On Counting Florida, Michigan

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

April 27, 2008 02:44 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

If you cast your mind back to the evening of the Pennsylvania primary, you'll remember that the Clinton campaign began to develop a pretext for the superdelegates to rubberstamp in support of her candidacy: namely, that she was winning in the popular vote. That case is not without a certain amount of speciousness (at the moment, it requires one to count Florida and Michigan, and accept the premise that NOBODY in Michigan would vote for Obama), but it's her best case to make, so she might as well give it a try.

That said, she might be well-served if some of her supporters refrained from doing the same. Perhaps you remember this moment from that evening, where former DNC Chair and Fox News Cheerleader Terry McAuliffe told Chris Matthews that he "always" counts the votes from Florida, and that Michigan counts among her big wins.

[WATCH.]

As it turns out, McAuliffe's definition of the word "always" is pretty unconventional, for it was not too long ago, he thought something entirely different. In fact, the entirely different thought he thought was something he thought so hard that he even put in a book of his other thoughts, entitled What A Party! And what a party it was! When Michigan Senator Carl Levin wanted to move up the Michigan primary in 2004, McAuliffe shot him down with swagger, belittlement, and the sorts of words he's not using these days, now that he finds himself on the other side of the fence. Via Mark Nickolas' well-chosen excerpt:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.


"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

That's on page 325, by the way, so, if you want a refund, that's the page you want to tear out and send to McAuliffe.

 
 

Comments
62
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 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

The man's respect for order and rules obviously depends on where he sees himself having more power. What a cynical and narcissistic group of people in that Clinton camp...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 AM on 04/29/2008

I serioously doubt HRC would be trying to count MI & FL if she had lost them. This "new math" tactic as I have heard it called is just the latest underhanded tactic by a morally bankrupt campaign. The popular vote in a primary is translated into delegates. Period. To try to change that now does not make HRC the champion of disenfrachised she is claiming to be. It makes her someone who will use voters to suit her own ends, even if this tactic turns those voters away from her dem. counterpart.
It is striking to me that while Howard Dean & most of the other dems. have been saying we will have a nominee by JUN. 3. I have not heard HRC say anything close to this. Suggesting to me that she intends to dispute the validity of the nominee if in fact it is not her in JUN. It is a sad thing to imagine Obama being chosen the nominee by the superdelegates in JUN. and HRC still on the news publicy caliming that she is the rightful nominee, and that Obama is not. A very sad thing from a sad person. If this fight goes to the convention. It will cost the dems. the white house. In this unfortunate event I can only hope that history will lay the balme squarely at the feet of HRC.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 04/28/2008

it seems like when you are in last place (HRC) you don't have the rules applied as much as the guy in first place. HRC can do and say anything, while Obama cannot.

HRC is trying to win by makinig him look bad. A real strong person would try to win on how good they could make themselves look.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 04/28/2008

Has there been a case when Clinton significantly cut into an Obama lead going into a primary/cauc.?

Has there been a case when Obama hadn't done so when HRC was winning prior to the event?

I don't know. I am asking. It does seem to me that, had they been campaigning in FL and MI, Obama would have done much, much better than the uncounted results show. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that had they been counted in the beginning, he may not have won, maybe he would have, but he definitly wouldn't have done as bad as these results show.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 04/28/2008

The only candidate that ran any ads in Florida was Obama which he said were national ads so he couldn't stop them from being recieved in Florida. The bigger point here is that none of the candidates were supposed to campaign and as far as i'm concerned, they didn't. But the thing that is, is that the dems didn't move the primary up, it was the repubs in the florida ledgislature that knew the vote wouldn't count that moved it up and they laughed about it. Do you remember the last few election cycles, How about 2000. Get your facts straight before you are willing to throw out the whole state of Florida, We need them on our side this time around. Michigan is another case but they should have been allowed to revote. Obama didn't want that because it didn't favor him, he wanted to split the votes equally. That is the same as not counting the votes. So much for his all inclusive B.S. This guy will lose against the repubs. Look into the Resko deal, I'm sure they have and are just waiting for the chance to launch their smear campaign that is unfortunately true and indefenceable. I hope that whole story breaks before the rest of the primaries because was nominated we are stuck with a sure loser.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 AM on 04/29/2008

First, the delegates will be sat for the convention.
But, that will not happen till there is a nominee.

That said, this is a race of super delegates. Obama has a lead that HRC can't over take. Almost all of HRC's super delegate support came when she was the only game in town and she was assured her inheritance of the oval office that her supreme elitism provides.

Since then the tide has changed. Obama is winning, by all real accounts. Almost all of the super delegate support this year has been in favor of Obama. There is a reason for that.

There is also a reason for him to not accept another debate. Her position in this race is such that she isn't held back by anything. Most of all, reason. Him, on the other hand, has to act presidential. She gets to toss out hail marys and hope that one sticks. There is a definite difference in the positions of the candidates. Why else would a 22nd debate be so important? It isn't. It is her NEEDING something, anything. Obama isn't loosing and has a 90% shot at winning the whole thing. He has to protect the party and HRC has done nothing to protect the party, only herself and her interests.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 04/28/2008

The Clinton people, like their candidate and her family, all lie all the time. the offensive part of this, of course, is that they think we are stupid enough to buy their bs.

Hillary is my senator, but I won't vote for her again. In fact, I am thinking about running against her, and my campaign will be simple: I won't lie to you; she will.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 04/28/2008

his recent praise of Pox News drowns out anything else he might have to say. Likewise David Gregory from MSNBC. Seeing him dance with Karl Rove as if everything is allright and its all in good fun while our country fails puts him in much the same category. until we through ALL of these "insiders" and status quo types OFF our payroll we will continue to be offended by parasites such as this guy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 AM on 04/28/2008

Any way the wind blows...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 AM on 04/28/2008

April 26, 2008
Popular Vote Gives Clinton an Edge
By Michael Barone

One thing many people haven't noticed about Hillary Clinton's 55 percent to 45 percent victory over Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary is that it put her ahead of Obama in the popular vote. Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama.

Hillary is ahead and she will be the DEM nominee.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 AM on 04/28/2008

I have to correct my fantasy figures (and can't seem to reply to my own post unfortunately). If you split the uncommitted Michigan votes 50/50, Obama would receive 118,881, not 168,881 as I used. So his popular vote total would be 15,111,881 and Hillary would, indeed, be ahead by 119 votes when Florida and Michigan are counted. But since it is fantasy, if Obama received ALL the uncommitted votes in Michigan, he would again be leading.

Good thing I'm neither a pollster, vote counter or anyone's accountant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 04/28/2008

Go ahead and count Florida. She's still behind.

The ONLY way she is ahead is to count Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot, however, she LOST almost 40% of the low turnout primary's vote to UNCOMMITTED. That amounted to 237,762 (according to CNN). It's safe to say that "Uncommitted" was a strong negative vote against Clinton since hers was the only top-tier name on the ballot (Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel were on the ballot; Edwards and Obama weren't).

Since this is strictly an exercise in fantasy anyway, let's split uncommitted 50/50 between Edwards and Obama, giving Sen. Obama 168,881 votes. As anyone who has been following the primaries knows, this is extremely generous to Edwards. This 50/50 split nets Obama a popular vote total of 15,161,881 or a POPULAR VOTE LEAD of 49,881.

So even in the specious logic of counting Michigan and Florida, Sen Clinton loses (1) for proposing such a ridiculous notion and (2) in the math.

BTW From CNN, 1/16/08, after the Michigan primary: "For the first time since 1988, this is a delegate race," Clinton aide Howard Wolfson said last week.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 AM on 04/28/2008

Just like Hillary, you are skewing the facts and looking at these primaries through tainted lenses. The votes cast in Florida were only 10% of the voters in the state. Where are the other 90%? They didn't vote, because most of the voters coming out voted on the property tax that was on the ballot in Florida. Would YOU go out and vote knowing that your vote wouldn't count? I doubt it.

Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, yet 40% of the voters came out to vote AGAINST Clinton, because they figured, accurately so, that she would try to pull a fast one (she did). How do you count "other?" There were other people in this race at that time, so what about votes that would have been for them?

How about the caucus states? How do you count the voters? Don't feed me that line about caucuses being undemocratic, because those caucus states were fine with Billo and HIllary when he was winning them. You can't count them.

Stop grasping at straws. It's not becoming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 AM on 04/28/2008

IF you count Florida, which Clinton's campaign had long ago agreed wouldn't count, and IF you count the votes for Clinton in Michigan, which she also agreed would not count, and IF you also fail to count any other votes that were cast for "uncommitted" because Obama took his name off the ballot there, THEN Clinton has a tiny lead in the popular vote.

Funny how those primaries that didn't count when they happened suddenly do count when you're desparate to spin the facts and find something positive about your campaign.

And besides, its about delegates, not popular vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 AM on 04/28/2008

Shame on Obama for following the rules he agreed to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 04/28/2008

Frank Caliendo should do a Terry McAuliffe impersonation. Terry is that funny. Talk about fuzzy math. He must think we're all too stupid to see through his desperate attempt at misdirection. He also must think the superdelegates are equally gullible and stupid.

I think he's smoking something......and inhaling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 AM on 04/28/2008

The delegate selection rules are on the DNC website:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 AM on 04/28/2008

Doesn't surprise me

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 04/27/2008

As an Obama supporter, I think that Michigan and Florida must be counted. The voters cannot be punished for the antics of their politicians -- not if the Democrats want to have a chance to win in FL and MI in the fall.

It is my expectation that Obama will end the primary season June 3 with about a pledged delegate margin of about a hundred votes.

Shortly thereafter, the DNC and Obama's campaign will announce they will recommend that the credentials committee seat the Florida and Michigan delegations selected at their state conventions, giving Clinton a 60 net delegate gain. Obama will continue to lead the total pledged delegate count by about 40 votes.

A few hundred superdelegates will announce their committment to vote for Obama at the convention. Obama will be the presumptive nominee, AND Michigan and Florida will have been counted in the total.

If the situations were reversed, and Clinton was ahead by any number of pledged delegates, she would be the nominee. To do anything else would leave her supporters feeling severely alienated and cheated. The Democrats won't do that to either side. Since Obama will almost certainly be in the lead, he will be the nominee.

I hope that the Democrats can then unite around Obama, our nominee, and win in November.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:03 PM on 04/27/2008

I have to disagree with you. What part of "they broke the rules" is so hard to understand? It sucks, but the ones who should be held accountable are the politicians who broke the rules and played chicken with the democratic party. Although I personally never understood why Iowa and New Hampshire went first, address that in November AFTER the general election so that maybe the schedule will change in 2012, but you just can't change the rules in the middle of a contest.

It is definitely unfortunate, but ALL of the outrage needed to take place BEFORE the plans to move up Michigan and Florida's primaries were finalized. There is far too much at stake in this election and I doubt people in those states will cut off their noses to spite their faces when the choice is between Obama and McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 AM on 04/28/2008

Excellent post.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 AM on 04/28/2008

Hahahahahahaha!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 PM on 04/27/2008

I can't believe anyone in the Democratic party would actually consider nominating a candidate without all of the votes of every state being counted.

Technicalities aside, there seems no justification for this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 PM on 04/27/2008

FLORIDA and MICHIGAN knew they should not push up their dates of the primary and Clinton and Obama signed a pledge NOT TO COUNT those primaries...everyone seems not to remember this especially if they are for CLINTON

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 04/27/2008

It's called following the rules of the party, you know.......like following the law of the land.....same thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:02 PM on 04/27/2008


Oh shit! considering the bush administration's allegiance to the law, that means, 'anything goes.' and when anything goes, you can bet it won't be too long before everything's gone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:21 PM on 04/28/2008

Regarding Florida, I don't know if people remember but there were two other people on the ballot along with Clinton and Obama. They were Edwards and Kucinich and together they garnered about 260,000 votes. Doesn't this skew the results somewhat and put into question that Clinton feels entitled to take a win in this state?

Not to mention, Obama didn't even campaign there. If he had, he likely would have eroded her lead significantly like he has done in other states known to be her strongholds. Oh, and 9.3% is not a landslide!

Buh Bye Clintons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:30 PM on 04/27/2008

There's a postion available for Terry on SNL. What a joke!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 PM on 04/27/2008

Hillary wants to disenfranchise 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan by having the original elections count.

"I didn't understand why Sen. Obama and some of his supporters wanted to prevent you and other states from actually being able to vote," she said on a Wilmington, North Carolina station." That is both a lie and hypocrisy.

"In a study, Wharton School Assistant Prof. Gregory Nini and liberal author Glenn Hurowitz try to figure that out, 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."

"Although the Democratic turnout rate was impressive in Florida and Michigan, it was not nearly as high as it has been in other primaries so far. ... In many other states, Democratic voters outnumbered Republican voters by at least 3 to 2. Simply stated, in states where Democratic voters expected their delegates to count and the candidates spent time and money campaigning, Democratic turnout has vastly exceeded Republican turnout. The fact that Republicans outnumbered Democrats in Florida and Michigan suggests that many would-be Democratic voters in those states chose not to vote at a much higher rate than in other states."

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 04/27/2008

Another narrative(a very important narrative really) which the media doesn't seem to want to address. It's not only the dirty tactics against Obama but there has been a consistent effort to marginalize states, caucuses, certain types of voters and important demographics in the country. there is nothing beyond the blue state strategy and frankly with all of the demographics and voters they have marginalized I'm not even sure the Clinton's can win the Blue states.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 04/27/2008

Yes, didn't you know Hillary is running to be President of the Swing States? Everyone else can go it on their own. They are the ONLY ones that matter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 04/27/2008

..and we want to trust her with the Constitution?
...pheww we are in trouble.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 04/27/2008

This whole debate about perceptions is crazy. I really think that the surrogates for Obama like Tom Daschle and Bill Bradley need to take their head out of the clouds of hope and change and get to accurately framing what is happening in these contests.

If Clinton wins Indiana, the Clinton campaign is going to text every Blackberry the press owns and they're going to say "Barack Obama cannot win over the white middle class blue collar worker". This simply isn't the truth.

The truth of the matter is is that campaigning with Evan Bayh is a HUGE advantage. She has him out on the stump looking like he is going to be her choice for V.P. So, the real explanation for how well she is running in Indiana is that people are voting for Bayh. They're not voting against Obama as much as they are voting for the home town guy.

Someone from the Obama campaign needs to articulate this.

I also get the sense that McCain has two options for a running mate: Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Texas and Charlie Crist from Florida. My guess is that he will choose Hutchinson. She will pick up Clinton's disgruntled female moderates and appeal to conservatives.

I'm hoping that Obama selects Kansas Governor Sebelius. She competes for the female vote and also has a record of working with Republicans.

Obama should push the message of change while Daschle and Bradley defend and frame the comments made by the Clinton campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:54 PM on 04/27/2008

You forgot to mention Bill Clinton. He's also campaigning for her. Where would she be without him?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 AM on 04/28/2008

Great post. I agree with most of what you said. However, if Clinton eeks out a win in Indiana, say by 5 pts. or less, what will that prove? If she wins big, she's got ammo. Other than that, she will have to hope that exit polls show that Obama hasn't done any better among blue collar white voters. I'm hoping that doesn't happen.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 04/27/2008

Also, Sebelius is Catholic, a demographic that Clinton has been winning.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 04/27/2008

I think that Hillary has put the kbash on a woman VP / President ever again or at least till all of the posters have gone on to the other side of the rainbow.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 04/27/2008