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

[BillCarson]

Robert, where are you getting your numbers from?!

Here's the latest count from Demconwatch: (as of 3/30/08)
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

w/o FL and MI
Obama: 1619
Clinton: 1496

with FL and Mi
Obama: 1691
Clinton: 1688

An "insurmountable" lead? Including FL and MI the race is virtually tied.

[Daniel8168]

Aren't there 128 delegates in Michigan and 185 in Florida? If so, how does the change in total delegates only come to 264?

128 + 185 = 313

(1691 + 1688) - (1619 + 1496) = 264

Why is the total number of delegates from Florida and Michigan different than their actual total delegates? I suppose one explanation is that delegates for candidates other than Obama and Clinton aren't counted, but isn't that the same as disenfranchising them?

So, in my estimation, the question is where in fact does demconwatch.com get THEIR numbers?! I think that's a more important question.

As far as I recall, Hillary had 66% in Florida, and 55% in Michigan. To count all delegates, it would be more fair to assume that Obama should get those votes that weren't for Hillary, particularly since Hillary was and continues to be disingenuous in the entire matter.

If you go here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

input 66% for Hillary in Florida and 55% for her in Michigan, you'll see that she would still need to win all remaining contests 58 to 42. That's when the odds start looking pretty insurmountable.

But then you still have to ask yourself how many voters stayed home because they were told their votes wouldn't count. Then, you need to ask yourself how many more of Hillary's supporters actually went and voted anyway because she promised them that she would do her best to flaunt the DNC rules and have them seated.

[Daniel8168]

I just went back and looked at the demconwatch again a bit more closely. I see now where they count Edwards' delegates separately, and "uncommitted" delegates separately. So, what they are insinuating is that every single uncommitted vote could not have possibly been for Obama. Not only is that more than just a bit shady, it reflects the problems that Hillary Clinton caused by leaving her name on the Michigan ballot and campaigning in Florida. Those results are all fine and well if they weren't already skewed through her flaunting of candidate agreements and her promises to FL and MI to make their votes count despite very clear DNC rules that were in effect long before those two states decided to break those rules.

Regardless of what measure is adopted, there is absolutely no way that the original vote could count and be fair. Hillary Clinton made very sure that she saw to that.

[TurnThePageGA]

From Real Clear Politics which has been the most reliable of all delegate watchers.

W/O FL and MI
"ELECTED" Delegates
Obama 1414
Clinton 1248

SuperDelegates
Obama 218
Clinton 251

Total Delegates
Obama 1632
Clinton 1499

Popular Vote
Obama 13,355,437
Clinton 12,638,175


Keeping Trucking That Virtual Tie Bullshot. The media won't tote that water for you. So you won't get away with it. Everyone will know the truth. And the truth will make you free.

[LionEater]

This article is silly. Sure, Obama should just GIVE those states to Hillary. Why not?

Ok, without the sarcasm. Obama's name wasn't even on the freaking ballot in Michigan! What if he gave those states to Hillary, and she ended up winning the contest because of them? That would would piss a lot of people off. And you know Hillary would have no shame in that.

[RButler]

For crying out loud. People were pissed off when she won New Hampshire. Don't you remember ? The superdelegates need to vote for Hillary and put an end to the takeover of the party by the likes of Obama's supporters. That's what they're there for in the first place.

[MsLiz]

The likes of Obama's supporters will take over the party and take it to victory in November, perhaps for a few decades. Clinton does not own the party.

[MarkieBee]

I remember her crying after being asked how she manages to do hair every morning on the trail. I remember her sending out a completely bogus mailer about Obama's votes on women's reproductive rights and I remember an incredibly close 4 point victory by Hillary that was so hinky that Dennis Kucinich paid for a partial recount. I remember that recount found some evidence of that hininess but Dennis ran out of $$$ to fund a total recount. I remember that Obama said OK, whatever we'll win in the other states. And I remember that he crushed Hillary in something like 21 of the next 29 states. But really RButler, what do you mean by takeover of the party? As if Hillary was inevitable, that it was her turn? Obama is following a 50-state strategy and its working. Let Hillary continue to harp that she won California and new York. You think Obama won't carry those state sin November?

[JasonEverettMiller]

The likes of Obama's supporters? Oh, you mean the millions of ordinary Americans (including roughly half of the democratic party, independents and even some republicans) who want to work toward a better life for everyone, even ignorant asses like you? Yeah, God help us if those hippie freaks get into power. We just might start fixing shit.

[Schnitzel]

How dare those Obama supporter think that THE POPULAR VOTE should decide the nomination!!!
ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY QUEEN HILLARY!!!

[Delle]

Hillary has no shame.
She doesn't even have a conscience!

[AbbieXHoffman]

I agree--have elections there. If Obama is meant to be the true winner, he will win. If not, then he shouldn't get the nomination. Let's be true democrats and voice our opinions to make this happen.

The only that that will come out of it is the the TRUTH and since when is that a bad thing?

[ItsAlessandro]

lol, Obama built his faux lead on the caucus states in which 88% LESS voters determine each delegate. Until this fact is publicized Obama continues to hang on to a lead that is based on smoke and mirrors, and the young ones bullying their elders at the caucuses.

Obama is losing in all states that actually held primaries, and that doesn't even count Florida and Michigan.

[MrWinky]

Actually, he has won more primaries than Hillary, so what you say is factually wrong. Also, his delegate lead is in fact built upon also having 700,000 more people vote for him than HIllary, so why is it so mysterious to you?

Hillary knew the rules, but didn't bother to plan to do what it took to win the nomination. Doesn't speak well for her abilities as an executive.

[doschi]

Actually (not including MI and FL), Obama has won 15 primaries to Hillary's 12.

I guess he just won primaries in states that don't count.

[Sioen]

I agree with you, except for the fact that in America, we follow the rule of law -- and the rules were broken. The states did it themselves.

Obama should still suggest it, but the party would look weak and silly to do it.

[nohat]

Obama shouldn't even suggest it if, as you remark, the rules were broken. It would make him look as if he doesn't care about things like rules. Wouldn't it?

[bjorn]

The voters did not break the rules, but the voters pay the real price, not the silly pols who made up the silly rules! I am sick of hearing "they knew the rules, they broke the rules". What a load of crap if you are just an ordinary citizen and the only chance you had to vote was on the day your state told you that you could. Obama will never do what you suggest. Show me one vote he has taken, one thing he has done where he has truly gone out on a limb to show leadership­....and I am not talking about his 2002 speech which was in his best political interest at the time. I am talking about one thing he has actually done as a U.S. Senator that showed daring leadership.

[RButler]

The DNC penalizes MI and FL for moving ahead in the calender and then Democrats for Obama want Hillary to drop out thereby penalizing the states that are still left to vote. Boy, the Democrats need to lose in November and maybe they'll learn a lesson which they're starting to seem incapable of.

[MrWinky]

Don't be silly, in most election years, these states only have one candidate to vote for anyway. How many people are saying that the Republican voters have been disenfranchised since Huckabee dropped out? That's right, none.

[civitat]

It's not crazy, and I agree it would have desirable effects for Obama. But seating these delegates undermines one of the most basic democratic principles: You can't change the rules of an election after the polls have closed. People in Michigan and Florida have said that they didn't take time off from work to vote in an election that didn't count. How can we now change the rules to diss those voters?
The truly crazy thing about the Michigan and Florida situation is this: If a candidate in another country argued that the state should change the rules after an election was over, we would either laugh ourselves silly or bomb them as despots. It's hard to believe that Clinton keeps pushing this "change the rules after the election" position without more people noting how completely undemocratic it is.

[nohat]

How woujld it have a desirable effect for Obama if he suggests something that, as you say, undermines the most basic democratic principles? Then he'd be charged with suggesting something like that. Let Hillary suggest it.

[JadedAggie]

The thing I find most entertaining about Florida is that many Florida democrats are blaming the democratic party and the Florida democratic party when it was the Republicans that pushed the primary up in order to create such a situation. In order to punish their democratic leadership many are threatening to vote Republican thereby rewarding the people who actually caused them to be screwed over to begin with.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Sorry Aggie (maybe you should have went to State), but It was a group of Hillary Clinton Supporters from Miami/Ft. Lauderdale who proposed the Legislation initially THEN ALONG with the Republican Legislature that caused our Primary to be moved forward.

By the time it was realized by them they had shot off their own foot it was too late. These people wanted to jump to the front of the line so they could be there to crown Hillary queen.

Just think had they just bided their time (and them folks in Michigan too) and held the primaries when they were originally scheduled they actually could have had a REAL impact on the nomination process.

[MsLiz]

I agreed with you until one Florida resident revealed that the original proponent was a Democrat.

[doschi]

Not a single Democratic Representative in the Florida legislature voted against changing the primary date. While the Majority and Governorship in Florida are indeed Republican, the Democrats in that state did nothing to stop this from happening.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Oh and I forgot...h­ave the Territories all go in January.

[tester]

Obama is gonna accept the delegates of FL and Mi only, and only if, they will not be a threat to his nomination. If that's the case he will be magnanimus and accept them.

But how about "the rules are the rules"? Well, you tell me.

[eagleye]

Mr. Schlesinger,

The DNC ruled that the delegates from MI and FL would not be seated as punishment for moving their primaries up in the schedule. Obama can call for them to be seated, but the decision rests with the DNC Rules Committee, and will be taken up by the Credentials Committee at the convention. I would expect that even if Obama called for those delegates to be seated, the DNC would have reservations about un-doing their own ruling. And besides, when you're up against an opponent as treacherous and opportunisitic as Hillary Clinton, it isn't wise to give her anything.

[gallonjug]

what are the numbers? If counted as is how many delegates would each get from each state.

[Daniel8168]

Considering Obama's name was on neither ballot, he would get none. If there's an agreement that he'd get all votes that weren't for Hillary - which would disenfranchise all voters that had to select "No Opinion" for anyone but Clinton. I believe she got 55% of the vote in MI, and about 66% in FL. I think FL has 185 delegates up for grabs, and MI has 128. This would mean she would get 122 from FL and 70 from MI. Obama would get 121 altogether while Hillary got 192 altogether. This would cut Obama's elected delegate lead of 166 by 71, or reduce his lead by about 43%. Doesn't seem fair considering he neither campaigned in those places, nor had his name on the ballot.

What interests me is the potential outcome of the next two large states: PA and NC. The RCP averages of polls in those states show Clinton winning PA 52.3% to Obama's 36.3%, and Obama winning NC 50.0% to Clinton's 37.4%. Assuming these numbers could be extrapolated onto delegates won, Clinton would win 93 delegates in PA to Obama's 65, while Obama would win 66 delegates in NC to Clinton's 49. The result of these two contests, as polls stand now, would be Clinton 142 delegates and Obama 131. Between PA and NC, Clinton would gain 11 delegates on Obama. There are several other contests besides those, but they're by far the largest, and I couldn't find poll figures for the others.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Not true...In Florida once a Candidate's name is on the ballot the only way it can be withdrawn is if the Candidate quits the race. Obama, Clinton Edwards and Gravel's names all appeared on Florida Ballots.

His name was not on the Michigan Ballot...t­hat's why 45% voted for Mr. Uncommitted.

[MsLiz]

Those numbers don't add up to 100%, so I guess those are the "undecideds" and folks who still want Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, or Richardson. They won't vote for "undecided­."

[MsLiz]

Obama and the others were on the FL ballot because in FL you can't be on the November ballot unless you are on the primary ballot. However, Obama had a significant disadvantage in terms of name recognition. Many FL voters voted only because of a property tax issue, and renters didn't think it affected them so they didn't tend to vote.

[Daniel8168]

I figured I should correct myself. Obama apparently was on Florida's ballot, but only Clinton campaigned there. Clinton's was the only name on the ballor in Michigan. I apologize for any confusion as a result of my mistake.

[army193]

It is simple 50/50 they had nothing from the start but will end up with 50%.

[mlaiuppa]

They can't be seated as is. Obama wasn't even on the ticket in Michigan.

The only way to seat the delegates is to seat both Michigan and Florida as "superdelegates". In other words, they can be seated but are not committed to either candidate and can therefore vote however they wish, just like a superdelegate does.

Let's see Hillary agree to that one.

[TurnThePageGA]

Sorry, but for the Clinton campaign it already about the superdelegates in those states. She locked many of them up early and right now they don't count either. The only thing on the table is elected delegates.

[MsLiz]

Hillary and Obama will know the preferences of the proposed delegates. One can not get to be a delegate without being known locally. Who will select the delegates?

[Zeusthunderbolt]

Part 1

To the Hillary supporters who keep bringing up the M & T primaries. ( Please anyone correct me if I am wrong in my understanding and analysis ). Obama and his campaign has nothing to do with the so called disenfrenchment.
The reason for such a harsh punishment for the states that move up the primaries , is to prevent complete chaos and bullying by the large states to control and manipulate the elections. ( Senator Clinton is already arguing that the small states do not matter anyway, all she has to do is win the big states, and let the small ones be abandoned, forgotten, and their fits of self importance and so called democratic involvement in our presidential election process be exposed for what it is-------- not important .

The primary process gives the small states, a say in this election process. In fact the super tuesday primaries already pose insumountable challenges to the underdog candidates. In fact , if we look at a state like California, where HRC won, the current polling now shows a reversal in support of Senator Obama.

We live in a country , the size of a continent. Imagine that Europe changes to a system like we have. If germany, France, Great Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland were to hold their primaries first, which presidential candidate will ever care for the scandinavians, estonians and Irish ?

[Daniel8168]

Howard Dean discusses the reasons for the rules which Florida's and Michigan's state democratic party leaders broke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23501526#23501526

You pretty much got it right.

[Zeusthunderbolt]

Part 2

If Obama was not so organized, his campaign would have faced the fate of Dr. Dean. Inspite of that, his ability to penetrate the voter awareness has been an uphill battle, specilly in big states. . Research shows that the single most important factor in election process is NAME RECOGNITION. In fact, the ability of an unknown candidate, like senator Obama, to be able to personally meet the voters of the small state, is a key factor in preservation of our democratic election process, which would otherwise be at comlete mercy of the corporate media, the jokers who consider themselves journalists, and the baffoons who pose as experts, to lie, spread rumors, and repeat politically motivated catchy slogans and words, that have been poll tested to manipulate public opinion.
This year is an anomoly, because we have a once in ageneration, exceptional leader with inspirational abilities, not experienced by majority of current voters. His money management skills are also way beyong those of senator Clinton, plus a base of support that is educated, and understands the insurmountable obstacles that shortage of funds can place on a candidate, and is willing to persistently donate.

Hence, in my humble opinion, the penalty placed on the gigantic states, to bully their way to the front, is necessary. In fact, instead of caving in, Florida and Michigan should be put on notice , that they will face a similar fate in four years , if they contine to behave like a bully.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

Bolt,

Very well said!

It is my opinion that we should go to a three tiered Race...

First Tier would be say 5 States, New Hamphire, S. Carolina, Nevada and throw in a couple bigger States like Missouri or Ohio (this could be rotated) all those States go in January. This would winnow out the No Chancers.

Then in February let the Caucus States go (short month anyhow) There are 13 Caucus States, including Texas and they can hold their Caucus during Feb and their Primary later in Mar.

Then in March let the rest go (32)...1/4 of them first week, 1/4 second week etc., etc. Then rotate the groupings, if you went last last time you go first next time...Jus­t group the States like Football Divisions.­..Have big States (Like CA) and smaller States that equal out.

[TheRealMacDaddy]

The territories can go in April.

[GManPhx]

Barack Obama may have been born at night, but I'm sure it was not last night. Right, he should agree to seat a Michigan delegation with his name not even on the ballot. Exactly what has Obama done during this campaign to convince you he is so stupid?

[bobdob]

Go here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

He can't possibly lose. Bill Clinton is a former president and Hillary is his wife. He should graciously concede those states to her. Not because it's fair or right, but because they so desperately want them. And it doesn't matter to him. He still wins, and there's no way she can. He should pay his respects, give them those states and then go on to become president. Because Hillary CAN NOT win.

Sometimes, the best revenge is to be a better person than your tormentor.

Obama is the next president of the United States of America. Nothing and no one is going to change that. It's over.

[TurnThePageGA]

Not that I agree with seating the full delegations from those states. But how would seat Michigan when Obama was not on the ballot?

[Herrington]

A simple solution from Karl Rove eh? He proposed Obama acquiescing to seating FL an MI just today.

As if it were Obama’s sole prerogative. It isn’t. Then the DNC, and MI party and Clinton would have to agree how apportion the MI uncommitted delegates. Even if Obama agreed to let the FL allocation of delegates stand, the FL party would catch fire over disenfranchising the people who stayed home thinking the primary was pointless. And the whole idea presumes that Clinton even wants them to be seated without a floor fight with which she can threaten the DNC and super delegates. The DNC itself would be ripped apart over the potency of the organization itself to impose rules and sanctions in the future.

The situation was created by the states, the DNC and the candidates. It was not meant to matter, but now it does because of Clinton’s reprise of the question to her own advantage. In the very simplest terms, if the states are punished for breaking the rules, Clinton should be punished for advocating that they be allowed to break the rules now. Simple contract, simple solution.

Anything more or less will devolve into a fight over minutiae that will be MORE DESTRUCTIVE in both time and uncertainty than letting the rules agreed upon run.

[bobdob]

I've come to the same conclusion. He could afford to let them be seated and he still could not possibly lose. It would be seen as the magnanimous gesture of the decent guy. He should give Hillary Florida and Michigan. It won't make ANY difference at all in the delegate count, but it could mollify Hillary's supporters and show them that this race is over. Because it's over.

[MsLiz]

It won't make ANY difference at all in the delegate count

Is that what you say when you confuse tablespoons and teaspoons in a recipe? Three times as much salt/chili powder/yeast won't may any difference?