The Florida-Michigan Resolution

Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws committee finally decided just what would happen with the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which as we all know had their delegates stripped by the party for holding their primaries too early in violation of a party rule. The decision? Their full delegation will be seated, but each delegate will only have half a vote as a penalty. Also, the results from Florida will be counted as they were in the primary, but the 44% of Michigan ballots that chose "uncommitted" were counted towards Obama, whose name was not on the ballot in that state. Clinton earned 55% there.

Finally, a resolution that compromises both sides in a very difficult situation. Now can we please stop making a big deal out of this? I'm talking to you, Hillary Clinton! This decision only gave her a net of 24 votes at the convention, and while it is a fair decision that recognizes the interests and arguments of both sides, it does not bring here anywhere near Obama, or being able to make her case that she is more electable with any sort of credibility. He remains nearly two hundred delegate equivalents ahead of her, and now needs to garner just 67 more to reach the requisite 2118, adjusted from the previous 2026 to account for the Florida/Michigan delegations. This changed almost nothing, except for laying Obama back some twenty delegates. And here's the thing--the primary season ends this Tuesday, and with three remaining contests, she has no chance to close the gap without going to the superdelegates, who are expected based on recent behavior to support the majority of pledged delegates and back Obama.

Now Clinton and her supporters are complaining about this decision, ostensibly because they want their votes counted, but in reality it is because this changed absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, she is (as a practical matter) no closer to catching up with Obama than she was at the beginning. But her supporters have turned seriously ugly because of this, even going so far as to say that they will vote for McCain if Hillary isn't nominated or booing Obama, the presumptive nominee.

The party will unite after the convention, Hillary? Really?

Because what we are seeing in your insistence to keep running is going to destroy the party. Florida and Michigan, your last great hopes, were resolved in a way that is fair to everyone, and you are no better off because of it. What happens after Tuesday, when the superdelegates begin to announce their allegiance to Obama, and he finds himself with a majority of the convention's delegates? Are you going to keep fighting until the convention itself, as you and your supporters have hinted? Because if you do, and even then fail to get the nomination, the Democratic Party that leaves Denver will be even more fractured than when it entered. It's over, Senator. The people have chosen, and shouldn't that be enough for you? Or do you really not care about the people, and are only so egotistical to believe that you deserve the nomination no matter what they say, willingly sabotaging your party's chances of winning in November by deepening the rift between your supporters and Obama's? Way to...umm...unite the party?

Florida, Michigan, and Hillary Clinton

You know, I am just sickened by the dispute in the Democratic party over the Florida and Michigan primaries. Remember back when the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates for scheduling their primaries too early, and no one really cared? Seriously, I don't remember anyone complaining that the people in those states had lost their voice in the democratic process. But now, all of a sudden, people have realized that those delegates could have made the difference at the convention, and are all of a sudden complaining about the nullification of their results.

The facts are thus: in August of 2006, the Democratic National committee decided that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada would be allowed to hold primaries/caucuses before February 5, to slow down the packing of the early primary season. In spring of 2007, the Florida General Assembly voted to hold the primary on January 29, a week before the date set by the party. Michigan also set its primary for mid-January, due to the opinion that the DNC rule gave the four states unjust importance in the process. In August 2007, the DNC decided to strip Florida of its delegates within 30 days. It did not do so, and so the delegates were stripped. Michigan managed to keep their delegates all the way until December 1, when the DNC officially stripped its delegation as well. Following these decisions, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other candidates removed or tried to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, and tried to get off of the Florida ballot as well, in a show of respect for the rules of the party. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd both decided to remain, to demonstrate respect for the people of the states. All candidates agreed that they would not campaign in either state--including Senator Clinton.

Not surprisingly, most of the complaining about this whole mess is coming from the Clinton camp, which has found itself against a wall that it never could have foreseen last fall. Now, with the nomination getting further and further away from her, and ever closer to Senator Obama, she is getting desperate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1206036634-4naVLUR96ihfinrGOTeHHg

Maybe I just read all the wrong articles in the, oh, seven months between the DNC's decision to strip Florida's delegates (only 4 months in Michigan), but I don't remember Senator Clinton complaining that they had lost their vote in those states until she realized that she probably will not get the nomination without them. (Her earliest opposition to this came on January 25, when the early primaries did not go as she had planned.) Now, however, her campaign has taken the position that "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process,"* and she actually went to the state recently to campaign to have the results from the January 15 primary count...even though her principal competitor, Barack Obama, wasn't even on the ballot.

Now, in Florida I can almost understand the desire to count the delegates according to the results of the January 29 primary. All candidates had agreed not to campaign in the state, and therefore no candidate had an unfair advantage, right? But what about all the eligible voters who decided they would not vote in this primary because it didn't count? Their voices would not have been heard anyway, so the only way to have a truly fair election in Florida would be to have a primary do-over (which would also be a bad idea--more on this later.)

But try as I might, I cannot find any justification for Clinton's argument that the Michigan primaries were fair, and should be counted due to the January 15 results, other than the fact that she knows that Obama would get no delegate because he was not on the ballot. How can you possibly claim it was a fair primary if the current front runner wasn't even an option, especially while saying that everyone has a right to their vote? What about all the ones who would have voted for Obama had he not decided to remove himself from the ballot, in honor of the Party's rules? Again, if you want a truly fair election, you would move for another primary in both those states.

Okay, so counting the votes as they happened on the original dates is out of the question. So why not have a primary do-over? Well, it's not that simple. First of all, another primary costs a lot of money, that frankly has better uses elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, it sends a message to all the states that if you break the rules of the party, it won't really matter. This will end up being a huge problem, as it will clear a way for future rules violations in the future, because if your votes will count anyway, why not risk it to make your own state a little more important? This year, with the delegate count so close, and all the media attention on Michigan and Florida, they would appear just as important as any of the first four states anyway. Not a great way to punish rule breakers--in fact, it ends up punishing the states that actually honored the party's decision. The way I see it is this: the DNC set a clear rule. Florida and Michigan chose to violate that rule, knowing that it would result in the stripping of their delegation. You're upset now that your votes don't count? That's called "tough love."

The third option is to divide the delegates from both states evenly between Obama and Clinton. This is by far the fairest option to the other 48 states, plus all the US territories, that obeyed the party rules and held their primaries on or after February 5 (unless they were Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina). The effect on the delegate count is essentially zero--since each candidate has the same amount tacked onto their delegation, there is no net change in the difference between pledged delegates. This would, however, bring the lead candidate nearly two hundred votes closer to the 2,025 needed for the nomination, which would help that lead candidate to win over the support he needs.

Because, lets face it, this primary battle has gone on too long. We have as the current front runner, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote. Senator Clinton trails, but not by enough. However, her time is running out, and she will have to win big in the few remaining states (especially Pennsylvania). Unfortunately for her, it is looking less and less likely that she will win by enough to make the kind of gains in this area that will allow her to to say she's caught up to him (unless Florida and Michigan are counted as they stand...), and will thus be forced to rely on the superdelegate vote that will likely go with the candidate with more delegates--Obama.

I don't have a problem with Hillary herself. Whatever people say about her, I believe she is genuinely committed to the causes she fights for, particularly health care. However, she is behind, by a significant margin, in the delegate count, and it is very unlikely for her to catch up. So why is she staying in? She's close enough to Obama that the party leaders can't simply ask her to exit the race, with a fair amount of delegates not yet apportioned, and she is not going to drop out on her own because that's not how she is. She is becoming desperate for the nomination, and that is causing her to launch a progressively more negative campaign against Senator Obama. If she fails to get the nomination, her negative campaigning will come right back at Obama during his race with (presumptively) Senator John McCain. McCain himself is currently not clawing at others within his own party, who presumably share many of the same ideals, he is preparing for the general election. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are still attacking each other, and unless one drops, they will continue to do so right until the convention in August, where the superdelegates will likely be the swing votes.

I doubt that Hillary will be able to make up the gap in pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (although this is a presumption on my part). So, she will be going into the convention, behind in pledged delegates, but relying on the top Democratic Party figures to give her the nomination. What if they do? What if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, even if she didn't win the vote of the Democrats of America? She will be going into general election season as a tainted nominee, a nominee chosen by party insiders as opposed to the people. She will be going against John McCain, a strong candidate with great appeal to moderate voters. If this scenario occurs, and she loses the general election, the Democrats will have blown this golden opportunity, amidtst painfully low public opinion of George Bush, a tired war in the Middle East, and a deepening *recession,* to take the presidency and accomplish their agenda. This disastrous party infighting, the controversy over lost votes, and potentially a candidate who did not truly win will end up destroying the Democratic party. As one who tends to lean liberal, I, as well as many others, will be upset if the Democrats lose in November because of this fight. This is a glorious opportunity, but instead of rallying behind a candidate, the party is in the midst of petty squabling, between two candidates who have policies that are 95% the same. A lot of people will lose faith in the party, if it cannot rally now when so many Americans want change. This needs to stop now.

So, Senator Clinton, stop running against Barack Obama and start running for the Democratic Nomination. Stop viciously attacking the man who may well become the nominee, partly since it will hurt him in the general election, but partly since it will hurt you too. Stop trying to find a way around Democratic Party rules for Florida and Michigan, and endorse the wishes of the party you represent.

Because, as we all know, in the general election, there is no do-over.


*http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html?scp=1&sq=promoted+the+idea+in+a+statement%2C+saying%2C+%22The+best+outcome+is&st=nyt

Boneheads of the Week: Florida and Michigan

Dear Florida and Michigan,

You broke the rules. The DNC told you that you couldn't hold your primaries before the approved date on February 5th, but you didn't listen. No, you felt as though you're states were too important to be grouped together with all the riff raff on Super Tuesday. The DNC even warned you. They told you that if you moved your primaries before February 5th, your delegates wouldn't be seated in August.

But you didn't listen. No, you passed legislation that mandated your primaries be held before the rest on Super Tuesday, so that your state could have more influence. The DNC was mad, sure, but they gave you another chance. They told you that if you repealed the legislation and moved your primaries back to where they were supposed to be, they wouldn't penalize you. You had months and months to consider what you were doing, as well as the consequences.

But you didn't listen. You went ahead with your primaries against the rules of the DNC, and they punished you, just like they said they would. Your delegates aren't going to be seated at the convention. You took away the vote and voice of your people, not the DNC. Don't complain that your people are being disenfranchized, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, you were the one that allowed this.

But now you argue that the DNC is at fault? You say that your delegations "will be seated" no matter what? If you wanted to have any say in this election, you would have followed the rules, just like the rest of the states.

But no, you're too important for that. And now you're mad, fighting mad. Do you hear that sound, Florida and Michigan? It's me playing the worlds smallest violin.