Hillary's Road To Nowhere (via Florida & Michigan?)

The story lines and spin coming out of yesterday's semi-super Tuesday are enough to make your head, well... spin. The Clinton camp would have us believe that the results in Ohio and Texas fundamentally altered the trajectory of the primary, while the Obama team would have us believe that yesterday was but a hiccup on the way to the nomination. What seems clear, at least in our post-March 4th hangover, is that Clinton has all the rationale she needs to continue her campaign. The problem remains that despite any perceived swing in momentum--and barring any improbably lopsided routs in the states to come--Clinton is still mathematically unable to capture the pledged delegate lead without any electoral shenanigans.

Even Clinton (probably) realizes that she cannot wrest the nomination away from Obama if she trails by any significant margin of pledged delegates (let's say 50-100 delegates). Central to her campaign, then, will be either the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates, or at least a re-do of the two primaries. Florida Governor Charlie Crist, the man who helped deliver his state for John McCain, has even suggested that his state would foot the bill for this electoral mulligan. How sweet of him! But this isn't a decision in which a Republican governor should have a hand, regardless of how willing he is to open his taxpayers' pocketbook. If Crist's plan were adopted, perhaps the greatest irony of this election season would be that the two states which were supposed to have the least clout in the process might wind up having the greatest.

Let that sink in for a minute. In a calculated move against warnings and admonitions from the party, Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries to give themselves a greater say in the nomination of the Democratic candidate. In response, the DNC stripped the scofflaw states of their delegates. Even Bob Kerrey, one of Clinton's high-profile boosters has rejected the notion that Florida and Michigan could be put back in play: "You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Period. . . . No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to."

Of course, the irony here is that had Michigan and Florida abided by the DNC's rules, both states would have wielded considerable power in the nominating process. And, in keeping with this year's drawn out Democratic fight, the later their primaries, the more significant they would be. So, instead of a key swing state like Florida having a meaningful say in the process, Texas, a perennial GOP stronghold, was vaulted to the position of King/Queen-maker.

The upshot is that if the DNC decides to ratify the votes in Michigan or Florida (a result which appears unlikely), the initial threat to strip their delegates will have been entirely hollow. On the other hand, if the Michigan and Florida votes are rescheduled, these states will have actually benefited from their malfeasance. This is not to say that there is no role whatsoever for the Florida and Michigan delegations at the Democratic Convention. Even Obama would need the eventual support of both states in the general election. So the fairest and most probable outcome is the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates with their votes distributed according to some sensible rubric: in proportion to the national popular vote or to the total pledged delegates.

During last night's election coverage, NPR noted that Florida and Michigan officials are in discussions with the DNC about how to ensure the states' participation at the convention while adhering to the spirit of the rules that they broke. The problem for Clinton is that she cannot hope to win the nomination without Florida and Michigan breaking decisively for her--a result which would be accomplished by seating both states' delegates in accordance with their prior votes--even though that argument has been a loser in the press and among Democrats nationally. In fact, if the Obama camp plays its cards right, it should be able to make some serious political hay out of any effort by Clinton to reopen the Michigan/Florida debate. Perhaps the Clinton team has some internal polling showing that Democrats react favorably to suggestions that these states should be seated, but until I see those numbers, I'm inclined to think that the argument is a dud.

So, who were the winners last night? Not only Clinton, but McCain and his strange bedfellow, Rush Limbaugh, who had instructed Republicans to hold their collective nose and vote for Clinton in an effort to prolong and muddy the Democratic race. Oddly enough, however, last night's silver-lining may belong to Obama. He retains a formidable delegate lead, which will not (or at least, should not) be seriously jeopardized by Clinton's Florida and Michigan gambit. And while his New Hampshire upset loss was roundly seen as a momentum killer that would doom his campaign, the ensuing fight leading to (the real) Super Tuesday and beyond, tested and strengthened him in ways that a waltz to the nomination would not. Similarly, Obama has now faced his first real spate of fear-mongering propaganda, and one has to imagine that his campaign has the smarts and wherewithal to emerge stronger for it, and to win the Michigan/Florida argument, while they're at it.

Comments

[kinderworld]

I am for a redo in Florida and Michigan, for the simple reason that in Michigan, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, and I am sure many people in Michigan and Florida did not show up to vote because they thought it would not count. Either a redo, or follow the rules to which everyone agreed, including Hillary.

[eatfish]

do you really thank Florida well go to hillary in November were the governor and the legislature are repub and back mccaine. thy well eat here alive

[BRoy]

Perhaps, you should send a copy of this to the Clinton campaign.

[HaveFaith]

The votes count the delegates do not. Simple. The rules where broken last year by Florida and Michigan in a muscle move to challenge the party rules. The party leaders in those states are to blame, not Dean, Hillary, or Obama. This is not High School this is life and in life, you don't get do overs! Rules are the rules.

[Sunny]

Maybe I just fell off a turnip truck ... It's amazing to read about all the disenfranchised voters and how terrible it is that their votes aren't being counted. So let me ask this ... if HRC had won on Super Tuesday as she expected, then she would have been crowned the Candidate before Ohio, TX, Wyoming, Mississippi, etc etc etc. and all those states would have disenfranchised voters whose votes were then meaningless. What am I missing here?

The fact is that all candidates signed a pledge and agreed to the DNC position re FL and MI. So now when the primary is not to HRC's advantage and she needs to close in on the delegate count, she's insisting, and the Clinton machine demanding, that money be spent for new primaries in these states. Please pass the WHINE and cheese.

Seems like the solution is to divide the MI and FL delegates in half and give them to BO and HRC equally and not change the bottom line. This does give them a voice (a whiney one at that) and they don't benefit from giving the DNC the proverbial middle finger.

[YankeeCanuck]

It's easy to win if your name is the only one on the ballot.
I like your solution.

[LarBear]

YankeeCanuck: You said: "It's easy to win if your name is the only one on the ballot. I like your solution."
You must be referring to Obama? How he originally became a Illinois State Senator??? Waiting until just prior to the Election to challenge his opponents signatures... Upon some being ruled non valid, they had no time to collect more, to be on the Ballot... Sure, he already knows how to legally play that Game...
I believe in Florida a Republican Congress/ Governor moved the Primary... So Democrat Voters should pay the price, so your Candidate, Obama, might win??? Especially since it is NOT you, or your Vote being disenfranchised!
Are we addressing Fairness, or Fear Obama isn't going to Win?

[hank48188]

Obama should get 33% of the delegates in Florida, Hillary should get 50%, the voters decided. In michigan Hillary should get 55% of the delegates, people voted that to her, Obama can split to 40% on the "Not Committed" delegates with Edwards, that is what they received from the voters.

[Mollye]

If the 5 million + voters in Florida and Michigan don't have a say in this election, Howard Dean and the DNC can kiss a lot of Democrats good-bye...and not just Dems from those states. Howard Dean should lose his job if he cannot work this out..it's his mess, it was his ultimatum, it is NOT the fault of the Florida Dems. The Democratic Party is not Howard Dean. Try, again, Nathaniel.

[cameoz]

Sorry Mollye, but you're on the wrong side on this one. Where's your sense of fairness and sportsmanship? As an Obama supporter, even if the situation were reversed, I would feel the same way. I would rather my candidate win cleanly in a fair contest than one that's stolen. After 2000 and 2004, I believe that most Dems feel this way.

[Democrab]

Everybody says Obama played by the rules by not putting his name on the ballot in Michigan.

Bad judgement! Very bad, regardless of all the lame excuses, she did it.

Hillary went to Florida after their vote and thanked them for their support of her even though their votes didn't count.

The MSM said she was grandstanding, but you know what Florida voters probably call it?

Good judgement.

You bots all wish now that Obama had had the good judgement, like Hillary Clinton to put her name on the ballot; or Edwards or any of them.

Now they regret it, and use it as an excuse to get another silly caucus instead of the real will of the people, the ballot.

I'd want someone with the best judgement on day one. Hillary has the best judgement.

Obama chose to do drugs, where's the good judgement in that?

And he's supposed to inspire the youth, really!

[YankeeCanuck]

It seems your interpretation of judgment means you favor politics as usual. For a slightly different take about a defining moment in this campaign season, here's a link to a column by David Brooks in the NYT. His paper endorsed Senator Clinton.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04brooks.html?scp=1&sq=david+brooks%2C+defining+moment&st=nyt

I was present for that moment, and Brooks describes what many of us felt that night. We were there to support Senator Biden, who also gave a brilliant speech that drew applause from the Obama crowd at several points. Biden was the Obama of his generation, and Obama may also have greatness in him. Neither practices politics as usual. Both possess good judgment.

[hank48188]

Obama shows what POOR JUDGEMENT he has when he sought out the help of Tony Rezko to buy his House. Everyone in Chicago KNEW Rezko was under investigation by the FEDS but that didn't stop Barcack Obama from seeking his help, talk about bad judgement............

[Jandie]

The only reason that the Republicans want Hillary to win is because they have a HUGE pandora's box to open if she is the nominee - be careful what you say and what you wish for because Obama might only have poor judgement, but Hillary has a closet full of skeletons!!!

[UnknownSoldier]

Since when is it poor judgement to be loyal (to the DNC) and to keep your word Obama and Edwards (by not participating).

I think there is something wrong and un-American about the letting people vote twice. I think the people who did not come out and vote the first time should be allowed to vote, but thats it. The other voters would be getting a second bite at the apple, which is not fair to the primary voters in other states like NH maybe more people would have come out to vote for Obama if he not been predicted to win in a landslide.

Out

[eddiestardust]

Here's the question:

Legally, who is authorized to decide when a state has it's primary?

Is it the Chairman of any National Party or is it perhaps the State Legislature & Governor?

The correct answer is the State Legislature and Governor.

In other words, the people of Michigan & Florida can't be chastised for something that Governor Dean,
as the Chair of the Democratic Party, did.

And for any of us to rule in HIS favor is to relegate ourselves to the pile of

THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES!

Governor Dean may not realize this but he has signed his own death warrant...
He won't be around (he could if he had done a good job) very much longer as Chairman.

And we have just handed The Republicans a great little issue..
One that is going to haunt us....

It's called...

BEING STUPID!

[iluvsam]

Nathaniel, you're actually SUGGESTING that Obama support the disenfranchisment of 5 million voters...in two of the biggest, most populous states...and expect those same voters to vote for him in November....and to continue to donate money to the DNC and the candidate.... despite Obama and the DNC telling them they don't and shouldn't matter...WHAT A ROOKIE MOVE.

Not smart. Really, really not a smart thing to even contemplate. See, this is why the Clintons are THE MASTER campaigners. THEY get it. Obviously you and most of the Obama supporters on this board don't. You CANNOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SUPPORT DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT OR PERSONAL GAIN. If Obama does that, he will certainly lose those states in November (if he's the nominee). Also, the Florida and Michigan donation wells will dry up.

I hope that John McCain presidency works out for all you. Good luck with that.

[kirafa]

So let me get this straight. The legislature in Florida votes to move up the date of the primary, the Governor of the state signs it into law. The DNC says no, that is not okay and because Hillary won by a landslide, Obama-ites say its not fair to allow them to re-vote. You scream let the people decide, but only if it is the people who want Obama. What about the voters in Florida? Do they count, do they matter, do you care?

[lunadove]

I support Obama, however, I strongly believe ina revote. The voters did not create this mess and should not be punished. This circus has gone on long enough. Let the best man/woman win.
The delegates as it stands should not be seated as is, considering nobody campaigned in those states and Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot.
This whole process is a mess and I hope the dems can support whoever gets the nomination. This divide is getting deeper everyday. Both candidates have a right to stay in the race now, and in this democracy, all voters should get a chance to vote.

[UnknownSoldier]

People should not be allowed to VOTE Twice something seems wrong with that. Only people who did not vote the first time should be allowed to vote. Winner of those votes gets the delegates. You can't reward people who went against the party, there would be something unjust about that.

Its just my Opinion, I'm open to other suggestions.

[brutus948]

as the article said you can't change the rules mid way. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in michigan. You have to do a revote or the votes don't count.

The votes already casted mean nothing. As the playing field wasn't even. That is not democracy

[Vishous]

I support Obama and have no problem with a revote, but they cannot be seated as they initially voted as the candidates agreed not to campaign in the states, and only Hillary and Kucinich were on the ballot in MI. A full revote allowing the candidates to campaign in the states in fine with me, but the Clinton character attacks on Obama have to stop for the sake of the party. The candidates need to discuss the issues and their respective visions for the country. Also, they need to turn the heat on to McCain and why Republican rule is unnacceptable.

[hank48188]

The DEMS voted in Florida and Michigan, Hillary got 50% of the votes in Florida, Obama got 33%. In Michigan Hillary got 55% of the votes, Edwards and Obama REMOVED THEIR NAMES FROM THE BALLOT, it was THEIR CHOICE to diss the voters of Michigan. They did ask their supporters to vote "Not Committed" and 40% of the voters did, let Obama and Edwards split the 40% they earned.

[WH]

The simple fact of the matter is that the Democratic leadership in those states failed to follow the rules of the DNC and therefore were punished. As the article points out, had they just followed the rules in the first place none of this mess would be occurring.

When states move primaries in an attempt to be politically relevant, they are doing so out of a belief that more politicians will kiss their ass and bless them with pork barrel spending while they are in Congress waiting their turns to run for higher office.

If you want to blame anyone, don't blame the mean old DNC...blame your state leaders who decided to ignore the rules of the party. Democracy does not mean anarchy, and if voting is allowed to occur in a haphazard manner then you can be sure that corruption will reign supreme.

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

Has it not been the dems who have cried about disenfranchised voters for the last two general elections? Yet the DNC decides to disenfranchise two entire states worth of their own party’s voters just because they do not like when they voted. Hypocrisy in its most blatant form. Shows just how much they really care about the voice of the people. What should it matter “when” the people vote, only that they get the opportunity to cast their vote. Accept the original count and move on.

[RobtBrock]

Obama's message on behalf of disenfranchising Michigan and Florida is not going to play well at the convention. His message will provide the talking heads with a plethora of negative items for the Democrats to suffer - AND their may be a riot over credentials that may look something like the 1968 convention or maybe (best case) the 1972 convention.

If there were to be "re-do" primaries in both states I assume that the victor would only win by slim margins and the delegate count would only be marginally impacted. Do the re-do and spare us.

[Northernmom]

It's amazing to me that people continue to treat the voters of Michigan and Florida as if we were somehow stupid to go to the polls and vote. Clinton won both states because over 2 million people voted for her. I was angry at Obama and Edwards for removing their names from Michigan's ballot, while Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel remained. I'm even angrier now that Obama's people continue to state that our votes shouldn't count. (I would have voted for Edwards if he were on the ballot). To those in the other 48 states who would so quickly throw away our vote, what if it was your vote that was ignored?

There should be no do-over elections, but if there are, they should be paid for by the National Democratic party, and not the taxpayers of either state. The states held legal and open elections on dates determined by the State Legislatures.

[StillAmused]

Yeah... what's a couple of missing states in a national election, anyway!

Hey, we already cut loose New Orleans and the Gulf region when THEY became "inconvenient"... why not Florida and Michigan, too? What the hell do they know...

Mother Nature doesn't LIKE it when you count your chickens before they're hatched.

[Singha]

The NEW AMERICAN INTEGRITY:

1, Rules: We don't need no stinking rules.

2, Laws: We don't need no stinking laws.

3, The Constitution: We don't need no stinking Constitution.

4, New Orleans: We don't need no stinking "Democrat" vote.

Sorry SA, I couldn't help but amuse myself.
Mother Nature will eliminate us all in matter of time.