Michigan, Florida, and the L-word

Barring some bizarre new twist in the endless campaign, there will not be "do-over" primaries in Florida and Michigan.

According to news reports, the Obama campaign had a lot to do with that outcome. With the clock ticking, the campaign stalled, quibbled, and objected to different possible election formats -- until state officials finally gave up and packed it in. No point having a party if one of the guests of honor doesn't want to dance.

Tactically that may have seemed like a shrewd move to Obama's campaign managers. Holding two more primaries would have given Hillary two more chances to gain ground; it would have increased the total number of delegates (and thus the number required to win); and it would have guaranteed that this whole messy thing would go on at least until June.

But it was a mistake to place obstacles in the path of the only conceivable means of fairly apportioning and seating delegates from two large states with a combined total of 400 delegates. A mistake because not having those primaries inescapably raises the question of the "legitimacy" (this spring's L-word) of Obama's claim to the nomination. Obama can talk all he wants about having won the most votes, the most states, and the most delegates so far, but if they don't let the voices of the people be heard in two key states, his claim to the popular mantle can be challenged. The Clintonites have already begun using the L-word, and that will surely continue and escalate; indeed, the issue of legitimacy can be (and likely will be) used as a rationale for Hillary's remaining in the race, despite the slim odds of her succeeding.

It was also a mistake because it tarnishes (slightly) Obama's claim to represent a new kind of politics, more idealistic and participatory, less hard-nosed. Yes, of course, if the roles were reversed, the Clintons would have done exactly the same thing: winning at any cost has long been their mantra. But Obama has promised a more principled and democratic politics, less bare-knuckled and more visionary; and the principled move in this circumstance would have been to invite more democracy, rather than less, even at some (small) risk that it would lessen his chances of getting the nomination. The last thing Obama wants or needs is to add fuel to the internecine warfare and to end up with a nomination that carries an asterisk.

Comments

[LeoMarvin]

"It was also a mistake because it tarnishes (slightly) Obama's claim to represent a new kind of politics, more idealistic and participatory, less hard-nosed."

You either misunderstand or misstate Obama's philosophy. It presumes respect, it rejects sleaze, and it prefers the high road. But there's a saying used by the Supreme Court that applies here: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." And neither are Obama's good will and preference for a respectful competition. It's Hillary who turned this into a cage match. So don't pretend to be shocked that Barack is now kicking her ass.

[nazgul]

You can spin it any way you like, but all Obama supporters know that all of the re-vote scenarios presented changed the state rules in order to favor Hillary.

[ntmessage]

Clearly, he DNC primary would be considered illegitimate by most Americans most fundamental understanding of democracy. Whatever the DNCs moving target of the so called rules are at any particular pint in time over the past 40 years, most Americans have these *radical* and *totally wrong* ideals like one person one vote or for example when they go to the polls the votes are actually counted. I know, its crazy!

[RumiSouth]

A mail-in vote is guaranteed to have lower (and whiter) turnout. It's a naturally-­disenfranc­hising way to hold an election.

[nazgul]

One of those correct, obvious facts that HRC supporters ignore while arguing that Obama is disenfranchising voters.

[Democrab]

You can spin it any way you like, but all non Obama supporters know that Obama stalled and discouraged the re-votes.

[SARGE1]

Hillary Clinton Flip Flops for Florida and Michigan votes

[rikoriki]

It's interesting that the Clinton campaign has taken refuge in smokescreens in lieu of valid arguments in their desperate scramble for delegates. First it was "Disenfran­chisement"­. When that one flopped, another pro-Clinton blogger tried "Integrity" with no more success. Now they have professor Keyssar floating the word "Legitimacy". Brilliant! In each case it was blatant question-begging, also known as circular reasoning. A vague, righteous-sounding word is raised, hoping that no one will question that presumption, which just happens to be precisely the whole point of the dispute. It is telling that supposedly intelligent people have to resort to such shyster tactics to defend their position.

[readerK]

rikoriki: You didn't respond head-on to the issues raised in the blog. Do you think that what the blog states is true: "According to news reports, the Obama campaign had a lot to do [with the fact that there may not be revotes in Michigan and Florida" outcome. ]"

[tea in the harbor]

Obama has consistently said that he would abide by any decision the party made. You say "reports" say he has done otherwise, yet you produce no such reports, not even a quote or a specific reference. Rules were broken in both states long after they were announced. There should be anger over disenfranchising voters, but they were disenfranchised by their own elected officials and that is where the anger should focus! I suggest the good people of Florida and Michigan vote out the SOB's that cost them their voice, the ones who refused to abide by the rules the rest of the country played by. If they don't, they become complicit in their own tragedy. In doing this they will protect themselves from recurrence, and set an example for arrogant leaders in other states. Their votes will then not only count, but set a national precedent that will serve our country well!

[patriotscholar]

I beg to differ with your reasoning. When this whole fiasco started, both Florida and Michigan were told that their actions would disenfranchise voters, because they were a violation of rules. Note that this was "their" (the states) actions. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both signed a pledge not to campaign in either state, as did the other candidates in the race at that time. This pledge was, in essence, legally binding, although at this time it appears that the candidates may have violated the spirit of the pledge, one more than the other. Because of a legal document, the lawsuit in Florida failed.

[NovatoBon]

It's too bad voters weren't encouraged to vote....but not told "it won't count." Rather, that the results would be held UNcounted until the rules were straightened out. Then, and only then, count the votes and let the chips fall where they may. I abhor those citizens being denied participation, yet any "legitimac" MUST depend on playing by "the rules". ....How the voters of Michigan, and astoundingly, Florida allowed this to happen is beyond me. Since a 'do-over' has been ruled out, perhaps they could allow a special additional day of voting to allow those who opted NOT to vote their chance to express themselves. The same rules would be in effect to verify signatures and registered voters etc. That way no one would have been excluded from the process. As a penalty perhaps the Super Delegates---or anyone who helped contribute to the snafu---should have to sacrifice their 'bonus power' as a result. The state would be counted strictly on citizens cast votes.

[repearwo]

Legitimacy requires following the rules. Once the two states mentioned decided to NOT obey the rules there is little that can be done. Anything done now will not be ligitmate because the process is underway.

[Nonamnesiac]

Obama has proven himself to be as unprincipled -- as selfish and as much of a lowlife -- as Hillary is. He is willing to see John McCain win in November -- as his decision to torpedo a rerun of the MI and FL primaries almost guarantees that both states end up in McCain's camp.

[nazgul]

Neither MI nor FL offered a re-run of the primaries. Both offered new contests under different sets of rules tilted toward Hillery.

[jahyarain]

yeah, i remember hearing Barack telling all the people of Florida and Michigan, "nevermind the dnc, your state lawmakers are right! vote earlier than allowed while my name doesn't even appear on the ballot!".

[rgraves]

Professor Keyssar, I'm truly disappointed in you...your post is premised on the following.­.."Accordi­ng to news reports...". Now how in the world can we take your post seriously when it's premised on such a flimsy basis. We all know that "news reports" could be anything at all...and we also know that our vaunted media has lost so much credibility in general and particularly with respect to the election, that relying on "news reports" negates everything that follows. If I was grading your post it would definately deserve a failing grade. And one more point...why wasn't Clinton complaining about disenfranchising voters before the Florida and Michigan primaries? In fact, she was complicit in the establishment of the rules that led us here. Add to that her blatantly false statements about her decision to leave her name on the Michigan ballot in violation of her commitment that she would not "participate" in the Michigan primary and she ends up with zero credibility on the issue. Don't let yourself be dragged down in support of her dishonesty!

[Didi47]

professor Keyssar,

[gipper1]

If your candidate can't win, you must spin :-)

[beright]

Haha ... I like this one. Great post.

[CindyV]

The problem with setting yourself up as someone trying to break the old political mold is that you have to live by your new rules. Instead we get "the same old, same old."