Obama Should Think Big -- and Seat Michigan and Florida

Barack Obama should call for the Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated at the convention -- not as a concession to the Clinton camp or because of pressure but as an outside-the-box show of strength.

The Illinois senator has several things going for him right now: He has what everyone agrees is an insurmountable lead among pledged delegates; he has an imposing lead in total popular vote; and those facts give him this trump: superdelegates -- elected officials and party operators -- are not going coronate Mrs. Clinton in the face of all those advantages without a wildly compelling reason.

Put it another way: The superdelegates won't risk crippling the Democratic party by driving black voters out of it short of a colossal Obama collapse -- like wearing an al Qaeda flag pin while holding rallies with Jeremiah Wright. The Clinton camp has trotted out various arguments -- some quite silly -- for why the superdelegates should nominate her, but the nomination is his to lose.

But there's one argument that needs be addressed: Democrats don't want to go into the fall risking offending voters in a state they need for victory (Michigan) and one they desperately want (Florida).

So here's what Obama should do: Get bigger than the problem. Say that while the arguments against seating the delegations are all valid and helpful to him, as presumptive head of the party he needs to think of its best interests. And right now the Democrats' best interests lie in a united front in the fall. So he'll support the two states' delegations being seated.

Properly presented -- and if Barack Obama is good at anything, it's proper presentation -- it would demonstrate a position of strength.

Here's what would happen:

- The press and bloviators would go wild, entering new paroxysms of ecstasy over his ability to transcend old politics.
- The Clinton camp would be confused -- who knows, maybe they would even oppose seating the delegations out of sheer reactive instinct.
- The numbers would not change dramatically -- Obama would still have an insurmountable delegate lead and a formidable popular vote lead.
- The superdelegates, faced with more Obamamania, would have less room or reason to dislodge Obama.

Crazy? Probably. But it's time for a power play.

Comments

[jcwtts1]

She wanted a war she wanted politics, well this is how politics functions. This is the campaign Hillary wanted a slug fest. Well in a slug fest you slug it out. She shouldn't have signed the pledge if she wanted them to count. She shouldn't have argued that they were meaningless if she was going to need them. If polling in Florida and MI showed Obama up 25 pts she wouldn't want them to count. She fought and lost and now wants round two. Doesn't work that way.

J

[jcwtts1]

Interesting idea. I even agree with part of it. I was a lone voice about a month ago arguing that Obama should just offer to pay for the revote. Here is the problem. His opponent is dishonorable. I know that is a harsh term, I don't use it lightly. While Hillary is in the race MI and FL are out. She agreed to the rules and now that she is losing wants to change them. She argued against MI and FL while Iowa and NH were on the board in a complete political 180 as soon as she lost the nomination, and she has lost it, she started every vote to count. We are not going to win FL it is a red state and it is done. We are not going to lose MI it is a blue state and it is done. Politically we are where we are. Hillary wanted to govern in prose (a lift from the West Wing of all places) well this is how prose governs. You honor your pledge that they don't count. You go to the convention and they don't count. Obama becomes the nominee and HE seats them. She lost her right for magnanimity long ago.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

you like to IGNORE the fact that a revote for these states has always been within the rules that everybody agreed to before the primaries.

And your contention about the Nov results for FL and MI are not based in reality either. Check the state level polls for those states PRIOR to FL and MI revotes being scuttled and now.

When everyone thought FL and MI would get a revote, Clinton was winning both of those states against McCain. Obama was losing FL to him but winning MI.

Now after there will be no revote ijn these two states, McCain is winning both FL and MI agains either Clinton or Obama.

[Siryn]

A revote disenfranchises those who instead voted in the Republican primary because they knew their vote wouldn't count. Those people matter too. But Hillary doesn't truly care about that.

[goodsnservices]

Just four items, Robert.

1. Obama doesn't have the power or authority with the DNC to "seat the delegates.­"

2. It should be clear to you by now that the Rulses Committee is the only body left who can, and they won't decide until the convention.

3. A call by Obama to seat the delegates would go unanswered until the convention, giving his enemies months to point out how little power and clout he has with the DNC, so calling for their seating could only weaken his image as a leader.

4. The "bloviators" use the word, "bloviate.­"

[DavePM]

The Credentials Committee vice the Rules Committee. They hold the real power to seat.

[dvdpt]

The credential committee vice the Rules Committee. can not change the rules
The courts have already RULE on that !

[Jaradan]

The nominee with the most pledged delegates gets to basically choose whether or not to "seat the delegates" because the pledged delegates will vote in a way to help their nominee at the convention.

Obviously, Obama has no say-so...b­ut his delegates do. :-)

[cam]

Aside from the fact it is Hillary's only chance, it would be an exercise in hubris. Obama would have to be a fool to concede Florida and Michigan for a very dubious reward. Casting those states to his competitor as though they didn't matter would rightfully be perceived as patronising, arrogant and dismissive.

[riconap]

Like it or not; no seating for Florida and Michigan = Victory for McCain in those two key states come November. The rules were part of a ridiculous calendar system and they should be re-written as soon as possible. Voters can't be disenfranchised - especially in Florida where Republicans were responsible. Obama can strengthen his case by allowing re-vote and will appear weak and frightened if he does not. Obama campaign hypocrisy also appears if they say: " follow rules and punish these two states but don't follow rules regarding the establishment of Super Delegates and their power to make their own decision as to supporting the candidate they believe can win, without being shackled by either primary results or popular vote."

[massimo1]

I wonder where people get the idea that democrats in those two states somehow are going to vote for a republican in the general election. Even if the delegations are not seated, that does not imply the voters would either not vote or turn toward the opposition party, especially if they see clearly what the stakes are. To say they are going to be a win for McCain is foolish and defeatist thinking.

[riconap]

I would call it a "reality check", not "foolish and defeatist thinking." You have a short memory and a naive perspective (historical and otherwise) if you think the voters in these two states will genuflect before the omnipotent Obama. You're position is akin to that of a religious fanatic who believes he has found the truth and therefore can't accept that others may believe in other "truths."

[KatieBeGood]

Obama can strengthen his case by allowing re-vote and will appear weak and frightened if he does not.

You just don't get it. Obama does not have the power to make this decision. Unlike Hillary, Obama is following the rules and not trying to go back on his pledge that these two states wouldn't count. He has said consistently he will support whatever the DLC decides to do. It is not up to him and it is not his problem.

And your assertion that Michigan will go to McCain if there is not a revote is pure balderdash. I'm fairly sure that the Democrats in Michigan will do what is best for the country and that would not be voting for John McCain or not voting because they got their feelings hurt.

I hope that the DLC stands firm on this issue. If they don't, future Democratic primaries will be a free-for-all. Why don't they agree to seat the delegates without their votes counting? That will allow these delegations to participate in forming a platform but still hold to the original agreement?

[Jaradan]

Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, already extended offer to MI and FL to come up with plans to settle this issue and they came up with nothing by the deadline. NOTHING. What does that tell you? Obama isn't the Democratic party god, people. He cannot change rules. He cannot re-write rules. He cannot pay for MI and FL to re-vote (not in his budget, sorry).

[xcrunner77]

This makes sense only if Obama gets all the delegates that Clinton did not. She "won" Florida 55-45, so he won't lose much there. She "won" Michigan 50-whateve­r....if he gets the other 50%, Michigan is a wash.

Where she flies past him in Florida is superdelegates. All those Congresspersons you see all over the TV arguing for "fairness" for Florida are Clinton supporters. They can't wait to give her their superdelegate votes.

Right now Florida and Michigan are playing the General Motors/Bear Stearns card (GM/Bear Stearns were too big to be allowed to fail. FL/MI are too big to risk offending them.) Their bluff needs to be called. If they do not, the state with the most votes -- California -- WILL move its primary to first place in 2012, on the theory that "we're too big to be offended in the general election -- just like Michigan and Florida." That WILL happen. You heard it here first. California's 2012 primary will be held in late December, 2011.

There must be some penalty for moving their elections forward. If there is not, the 2012 race and beyond will be completely chaotic, as EVERY state realizes they can race to the front of the line without penalty. I don't know what that penalty should be but it must something that makes states in 2012 say, "move our election forward? are you kidding? look at what happened to Florida and Michigan!"

[bish66]

She won Florida 50 to 33 (with 14% going to Edwards) and she won Michigan 55% to 40% uncommitted. Since Obama and Edwards both urged voters to vote "uncommitted" he can have half of the 40%.

The penalty for the two states to have their primaries early should be similar to the penalty that the Republicans enacted = loss of 50% of the delegates.

BTW, I am still wondering why Michigan and Florida were penalized, but not Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. I would appreciate an explanatio­n...

I think that for 2012 a Super-Duper-Uber Tuesday (or why not Sunday) would be helpful: all primaries on one day, no early starters, no states to wait for, just one big day.

[TurnThePageGA]

Bwahahahah­ahahahahah­ahahaha! Sorry but you you or your candidate ain't in any positition to make such a claim. Those primaries were bogus. Hillary said so herself while she was campaigning for votes in IIA and NH. Case closed. The offer to halve the delegations in FL and Michigan at 50-37 and 50-50 are the only offers you are gonna get. And the popular vote are not part of the discussion since candidates did not compete in those states as mandated by the DNC and agreed upon by all candidates including Hillary. This is just a means to seat the delegation from those states. And Superdelegates from those states are out as part of the penalty. Next time around folk will follow rules.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

a one day primary would never work for any candidate that didn't have HUGE name recognition and about 400 million to campaign with.

That's the reason they have always started out with Iowa and NH, small states where you don't need a ton of money to get your message out and see if you can become a viable candidate.

But, that doesn't mean it always HAS to be those two states.

[dvdpt]

Needs Explanation ?
If I remember correctly Iowa, New Hampshire, Neveda, South Carolina,
all agreed with the CANDIDATES ! were to put their names on the ballet.
Michigan and Florida had no such AGREEMENT !

[fightorleave2]

I don't buy the premise that voters in Mich or Fla won't vote in Nov., or even that they won't vote for Barack. I think they will on both accounts. Yes, maybe some won't vote, but the voters in Mich and Fla should be angry with their state legislatures and governors, not Barack. Another, media distortion lapped up by the public, if you ask me. They should not be seated because those are the rules, and those are the breaks.

[ConservativeCouchPotato]

How can you NOT seat Michigan and Florida? Don't get me wrong, I am tickled pink that you aren't. If I was a Democrat living in either of these two states, I wouldn't even go to the polls in November. Why would I? Would you? I mean after the Democratic party has told them that they don't count they might as well live by it. Michigan has 17 electoral votes and Florida has 27. Let Howard Dean explain to your eventual nominee why he/she will be starting 44 electoral votes in the hole because he is too stuborn to see that there is no way that these two states will be BLUE in November if they are not allowed to be seated now. Senator McCain would be very wise to remind Democrats in Michigan and Florida of this, how they aren't important enough to have had a say in the primary. It would be foolish for him not to exploit it during the Presidential campaign. It would be very easy, in my opinion, to disenfranchise these voters. I don't expect that they will totally forget that they are Democrats and vote for McCain, but I can very easily see many, if not most of them just staying home on election day. There are 50 states in our great nation, and all of them need to be counted, especially in something as important as a presidential campaign.

[JasonEverettMiller]

Then we can remind them that their democratic and republican controlled state legislators are to blame, not Barack Obama. If this is all McCain has for a general election strategy, it needs serious help. It's all a moot point, however, since as soon as a nominee is selected, those delegates will be seated. Just like a republican ideologue to advocate following the rules - only when it is to their benefit.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

how can state legislatures be controlled by BOTH dems and republicans at the same time?

IN both FL and MI, the legislatures a controlled by Repugs, not dems

[Whinger]

Michigan and Florida should be seated....­...

But you don't change the rules half way thru a contest!

[Boadicea]

I don't disagree at all with the strategy in terms of Obama's campaign.

However, I don't think that Florida and Michigan should be seated without having to pay the penalty of the cost of a legitimate primary or caucus. This is a decision that needs to be made by the Democratic Party leadership, not the candidates, and for the longterm benefit of the party, they should decide NO.

This is not the first time states have broken the rules. It should not be the first time states have gotten away with it. The rules have been in place for decades, are there for good reason, and ALL the candidates agreed to them. If Florida and Michigan are seated and their delegates are given the same power as those from states which played by the rules, that would be unfair.

Polls show that the majority of Democratic voters in both states do NOT feel disenfranchised, in spite of Hillary Clinton's efforts to make them feel that way. The thing to do is wrap up the primary as soon as possible and once the voting is finished, invite the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated.

[BrooklynLager]

I'm torn - on the one hand, you're absolutely right; on the other hand, there's the fact that Hillary Clinton might be able to demagogue the issue. How successful that will be is an open question.

I think the point here though is that it would be hard to make the case that they would be "rewarded", since their votes aren't going to change anything. They'll be tacked onto the totals at the end of the primary.

[Massconfusion]

Clinton HAS been demagouging the issue - to death. It is in fact the Obama camp that has been working for and talking to Michigan to find a soultion. This has been largely ignored by MSM and apparently Mr Schlessinger missed it entirely - great post Robert, if you just ignore the facts!

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Of course Clinton will be able to use this to her advantage. Obama supporters are making that very easy for her with their new calls over the past week to drop out. In effect Obama supporters are now saying let's not count FL, MI, PA, Guam, WV, KY, IN, NC, PR, OR, MT, SD

[DRaymond]

Teh thing that is lost in all this discussion about Florida and Michigain is that the Democratic party getting hardnosed about the primary schedule was the only thing that kept the 2008 primary calendar from becoming the 2007 primary calendar. If when it really matters the party caves in how much credibility will it have in four years, or even ever again, if it tries to keep the primary calendar from leapfrogging into absurdity.

Still I agree that a deal is possible. The FL and MI superdelegates should work a deal with Obama so that in exchange for voting for Obama (amd thus not posing a threat to him) he will agree to drop any opposition to the delegations being seated.

[BrooklynLager]

Oh - I think the superdelegates should be stripped of their vote. THAT'S the lasting punishment - and you can't make any argument about "disenfran­chisement" as superdelegate votes aren't democratic.

Seat the elected delegation. Strip the superdelegates of their superdelegate status. If that can be done within the rules it's an excellent idea.

[TurnThePageGA]

The states have to penalized in some way and the proposal that is on the table is in Florida cut the delegation in half based on the January 29 beauty contest. The Popular Vote does not factor into the discussion because the state broke the rules and candidates didnot campaign in those states. This is the same penalty that the Republicans applied to Florida and Michigan for Breaking the rules. You can't have the states go unpunished because of the precedent you sent for future primaries. Michigan would have to be split down the middle.

[Daniel8168]

The Republicans would probably have a field day if we had to adopt their rules in order to resolve the situation.

I think the only fair solution is to allow the race to continue without Florida and Michigan, and to seat their delegates AFTER a nominee has been chosen. That way they get to participate in the convention, but their delegates don't count until then, which means probably not at all, although there is a minute chance they would matter. Let's also not forget that after it was a two candidate race, most states had a strong general trend towards Obama from their original polls. Assuming Florida and Michigan had waited until they were supposed to, it's likely that Obama would've been able to make huge gains on Clinton in both states, particularly had his name been on the ballot in Michigan, and had he campaigned in both of them. That's probably the biggest unquantifiable in this whole issue - How many delegates could Obama have gained on Clinton in FL and MI had the primaries been done when the rules said they should? I suspect it would be a considerable difference from the original vote.

[trinity29]

popular votes should not count at this point because people who wanted to vote for edwards did not get a chance to vote. the only acceptable deal is to figure out whether the delegates will be seated and if so how will the splitting of the delegates be handled.

[MrWinky]

I also disagree about the media. Look how they have held up Clinton even though she is mathematically out of it, yet they still support the myth that it is a horserace. If it got close, they would be uncontrollable. Not to mention the hours of, "Can we trust Obama if he is silly enough to give away such an advantage? What would he do when he is President?" You can see it coming from a mile away, the press just can't help themselves. In the end, he would be the guy that lost the nomination, sitting on a street corner, and every once in a while someone talks about how "nice" he was.

No thanks

[MrWinky]

I understand your point, but disagree with the outcome. With both FL and MI sat now, then that would narrow the delegate gap. Then, rather than having Clinton on the ropes, as he does now, she gets new energy, and maybe more money to fight him. Clinton acts like they are tied now, what would happen if you gave her a smaller gap to overcome, she would act like she is winning. Once done, it would be impossible to unring the bell. Not to spite Clinton, but she is making noises that she wants to go all the way to the convention, now would not be a time to give her encouragement.

I think we should just relax. Let the primaries end, let the supers nominate Obama, and THEN he can agree that both FL and MI can be sat as is.

[1849]

How 'bout Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama split the Michigan and Florida delegates?

[tlk221]

The BO camp has suggested the same thing because it is essentially the same thing as not counting them at all - what's the point then?????

[MsLiz]

It gives them the right to party! Plus they vote on platform, VP, and other boring stuff.

Here's my question. If they seat the delegations as is, who gets the delegates for Undecided in Michigan? Nothing stops them from voting for Clinton, which would be obnoxious.

[Daniel8168]

The difference is that if they split them they would then be recognized at the convention. As it stands, they won't even be able to participate in the convention.

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton herself disenfranchised voters that supported every other candidate by leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan and campaigning in Florida.

Basically, Hillary saw her big chance to try to gain an advantage in those states, and she tried to take it regardless of civil agreements among all candidates. Now, she pretends to be the savior of these two states in order to look good to them in case there ever is some re-vote, which it has been made clear there will not be. Now, she pushes for those two states to be resolved before the end of the primary season because she knows that with their votes counted, she could concentrate more on bullying and bribing super-delegates.

Hillary Clinton, and all of the two states' democratic party officials knew very well what the rules were nearly a year and half ago. Hillary made no move to complain when she knew that they wanted to move their primaries up and break the rules. If she were concerned about the disenfranchisement of the voters, why did she not step in then and warn them of the consequences of their actions?

[trinity29]

It is counting the delegates. It is only not counting to Hillary because it doesn't give her a lead. And at this point nothing can. Apart from that the delegates need to be recognized at the convention and without being seated they will not count for anything.