Obama must stop stalling MI/FL revotes for the good of the party

[Keweenaw]

One of the key items for Obama’s lack of support for a Michigan re-vote was that the voters who crossed over party lines to vote in the republican primary wouldn’t be allowed to participate. Since he had voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot, it’s likely several of his supporters crossed over to vote in the republican primary on the same day. They wouldn’t be allowed in a re-vote apparently because of some DNC party rules.

The fact is that even though he had said he would “fine” with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off, he eventually realized his campaign would be at a disadvantage because of his decision to remove his name from the ballot.

Supporting a revote just be giving Clinton an opportunity (and advantage) she wouldn’t otherwise have, and he wasn’t required to do so. He is in a much better position today than he was January 15th and would likely do much better with June primary, but why take the chance?

TIME Homepage

[Keweenaw]

@Shayna

Then, of course, the DNC had no choice but to sanction Michigan similarly. As has been pointed out, they’d been trying that trick for years, and had been warned flat out that they’d do so at their own peril. They never before had the balls to call the DNC’s bluff. They finally did, and it got them exactly what they’d been told all along would happen. Now they’re mad and blaming the one guy in this whole debacle who had fuckall to do with it. It really is outrageous.

The DNC didn’t feel the need to sanction New Hampshire, HN received a waiver from the DNC their primary move, even though it violated the agreed upon calendar. This failure to apply the rules consistantly is at the crux of this primary mess. The favored state status of Iowa and New Hampshire must end. Michigan threatened to, but ultimately didn’t move it’s primary in 2004 because they we were promised things would be different this time around.

[stolichnaya]

The thing to remember here is that the linear narrative of this race is largely a fiction- like your brain interpreting the random firings of neurons and presenting them to you as a dream.

We are being told about a rollercoaster, jerking up and down, and we are presented with Obama being unable to “finish her off”, and we’ve heard about Clinton’s comeback in New Hampshire and after Super Tuesday, and how Clinton’s Bosnia statements hit her hard, and how Obama’s bitter commentary knocked him off his game.

It’s helpful to remember that what we are seeing is largely a static demographic effect, and the illusion of linearity and ups and downs is largely created by the fact that we are journeying around the country from region to region and this is taking place over time.

In fact, this is largely what people mean when they talk about the “expectations game”, and it is the job of pundits and spokespersons to knock us off the expectations that we should logically have, which are based mostly on pre-existing demographic and economic conditions.

The only thing that will change that is a wide perception that one of the candidates is out of the race. It is not in the interest of the media to have this happen, so it has not happened. Until it does happen, it makes a lot of sense for each candidate’s supporters to continue to support them.

edit- what SenorBeef said, apparently teach me to keep a window open while I go get coffee

[Richard_Parker]

@Keweenaw

They wouldn’t be allowed in a re-vote apparently because of some DNC party rules.

I understood this not to be a consequence of some pre-existing rules, but to be part of the re-vote simply because that is how it was to be set up. The objection was that the rationale for this (not allowing some people to vote twice), was insufficiently compelling given the large number of voters who in good faith tried to use their vote in a meaningful way instead of what everyone agreed at the time was a meaningless way. Do you disagree?

@Keweenaw

The fact is that even though he had said he would “fine” with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off, he eventually realized his campaign would be at a disadvantage because of his decision to remove his name from the ballot.

While that may be so, you’ve not supported it in any way. You linked to the memo yourself. If you’re going to dismiss the reasons proferred in the memo, you’ve got to at least make some arguments.

[Shayna]

@Keweenaw

According to your link, the Terry McAuliffe and Carl Levin quotes are from when Michigan threatened to pull the primary up for the 2004 election. Michigan relented at that time with promises that the unfair primary system that favors Iowa and New Hampshire would be changed for the next election cycle.

The subsequent DNC commission made changes to the calendar that moved New Hampshire to the second primary held after Nevada. New Hampshire made it known that they would move up their primary earlier to be first, no matter what the DNC said. When the DNC refused to punish NH for this by either stripping their delegates, or recommending the candidates not campaign there, Michigan considered the 2004 promises from McAuliffe to be broken.

Obama has delegates selected from Michigan, despite not being on the ballot. He would likely have had more had he remained on the ballot. Whether or not they get seated at Denver remains to be seen.

First, you missed one of primary points of my post, which was that when Terry McAuliffe was Chairman of the DNC he was adamant that Michigan would be watching the convention on television if they violated the rules. Only now that that same exact rules violation hurts his favored candidate, he has this to say:

. . .

Terry McAuliffe: Well, what we have said is that these folks have already voted. I mean, people talk about a revote. But there is no appetite in Florida or Michigan by the state legislatures. I mean, there’s no money. Who is going to pay the tens of millions of dollars to do this?

I’ve been informed that the Florida legislature, under no circumstances, would pay to have the Democrats redo it. So I agree with what has been said. The governors of both states have kept saying that the state parties in these two states need to work with the national party and come to some resolution of this matter. We just can’t leave 2.3 million voters, 1.75 million in Florida, and over 600,000 in Michigan, who went in and voted. They’ve already voted. And we just need to count the votes.

CBSNews.com: One proposal I heard was for a Jefferson/Jackson party fundraiser in each state headlined by the two candidates that would raise the money to pay for the primaries. Are you ruling that out?

Terry McAuliffe: I doubt they could raise that kind of money. They’ve already voted. No reason they have to go back and vote again. And to spend anywhere from 15 to 30 million dollars, money that could be much better spent getting ourselves ready to beat John McCain.

CBSNews.com: So you’re ruling out the Clinton campaign ever supporting a revote?

Terry McAuliffe: I’m saying they’ve already voted, let’s count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

. . .

Hypocrisy. It’s a vehemently sanctionable action in 2004, but should be ignored in 2008 when his candidate stands to gain.

And as an aside to our friend Elvis, this quote also addresses the fact that even Clinton’s own campaign is doing nothing to promote revotes, and in fact, is opposed to them herself! “I mean, people talk about a revote. But there is no appetite in Florida or Michigan by the state legislatures.” “They’ve already voted. No reason they have to go back and vote again.”

So how about starting a thread titled, “Clinton must stop stalling MI/FL revotes for the good of the party”?

HA HA HA! <Snort!>

Ok, now that I’ve picked myself up off the floor. . .

@Keweenaw

The DNC didn’t feel the need to sanction New Hampshire, HN received a waiver from the DNC their primary move, even though it violated the agreed upon calendar. This failure to apply the rules consistantly is at the crux of this primary mess. The favored state status of Iowa and New Hampshire must end. Michigan threatened to, but ultimately didn’t move it’s primary in 2004 because they we were promised things would be different this time around.

I realize that these states are now stomping their feet and saying, in essence, “Well they did it, so we will, too!! HA!” But that argument doesn’t hold any water with grownups not on the first grade playground. The “they did it, too” argument doesn’t work when you’re 6, it shouldn’t work when your 60. The time, place and manner in which to fight the DNC over their unwillingness to sanction other states, is not during the actual primaries by breaking the rules yourself.

[descamisado]

@SenorBeef

. . . Since Clinton always had the demographics to win Pennsylvania, the fact that she won by less now than she would’ve in the past indicates that Obama is gaining ground relatively.

So unless you perceive the voter base as trying to only vote for what they perceive to be the winning side, I don’t understand the idea that Obama should win every remaining primary and that it’s a sign that he’s weak. Why would someone who supports Clinton for whatever reason stop supporting her simply because Obama is winning?

Besides, where do you go with that argument? “Obama isn’t beating Clinton THAT badly, so let’s nominate Clinton, who isn’t beating Obama at all”?

Excellent, excellent analysis (even I understood it). Can we make to remaining quoted parts a sticky?

[Keweenaw]

@Richard Parker

I understood this not to be a consequence of some pre-existing rules, but to be part of the re-vote simply because that is how it was to be set up. The objection was that the rationale for this (not allowing some people to vote twice), was insufficiently compelling given the large number of voters who in good faith tried to use their vote in a meaningful way instead of what everyone agreed at the time was a meaningless way. Do you disagree?

I was under the impression it was a pre-existing DNC rule. Some googling resulted in.

@DNC Rule 2.E

“No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential candidate who also participates in the nominating process of any other party for the corresponding elections.”

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

@Richard Parker

While that may be so, you’ve not supported it in any way. You linked to the memo yourself. If you’re going to dismiss the reasons proferred in the memo, you’ve got to at least make some arguments.

I don’t dismiss the reasons, I was referencing the main reason listed in the memo; voter disenfranchisement due to crossover voting.

There would have been little incentive for Obama supporters to crossover had his name been on the MI ballot.

[Little_Nemo]

Since Clinton always had the demographics to win Pennsylvania, the fact that she won by less now than she would’ve in the past indicates that Obama is gaining ground relatively.

Beating the point spread is interesting but it doesn’t determine who wins the game. The person who gets elected in November will be the one who gets the most votes not the one who most exceeds expectations.

[Richard_Parker]

@Keweenaw

I was under the impression it was a pre-existing DNC rule. Some googling resulted in.

A rule preventing you from voting in both primaries is only indirectly related to the situation where a re-vote is held.

@Keweenaw

I don’t dismiss the reasons, I was referencing the main reason listed in the memo; voter disenfranchisement due to crossover voting.

There would have been little incentive for Obama supporters to crossover had his name been on the MI ballot.

That’s true. But then what is your point?

[Keweenaw]

@Richard Parker

That’s true. But then what is your point?

There seemed to be some confusion as to if Obama was actually holding up a new Michigan Primary. Question 1 from your big unanswered questions post.

@Richard Parker

To summarize, three big unanswered questions:

1. What is the evidence that Obama is stopping, if even by inaction, these votes from happening? I think most of us find insufficient the bald assertion that if he was a good enough leader he could make it happen. Is there any actual evidence that his position matters and that it isn’t supportive enough?

2. Why shouldn’t we be concerned with the precedent this sets by allowing states to ignore DNC rules? The point of controlling the primary dates is to have a balanced set of states setting the early momentum. Without that, name recognition will be a much larger factor than now and we end up with candidates that might not reflect the base we want to reflect.

3. What evidence is there that voters desire to be counted, despite the clear rules, will cause them not to support the eventual Democratic nominee? It seems pretty counter-intuitive that a Democratic primary voter would toss their vote to McCain because they’re pissed at the DNC. Perhaps Clinton’s trying to blame Obama for this will have that effect, but I doubt it.

Michigan do-over depends on Obama’s Backing

My point was that, he was indeed aganist the re-vote, despite eariler having said he would be “fine” with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off.

The DNC signed off, there was time, but his decision to remove his name from the MI ballot had put him at a disadvantage due to the DNC rules.

Regarding big unanswered question number 2, the DNC broke the precedent itself by choosing to ignore New Hampshire’s move in violation of the agreed upon calendar. Had the DNC followed it’s own rules and sanctioned New Hampshire, Michigan would not have moved it’s own primary.

[Phlosphr]

@Little Nemo

Beating the point spread is interesting but it doesn’t determine who wins the game. The person who gets elected in November will be the one who gets the most votes not the one who most exceeds expectations.

True, and Obama has the better chance to garner more votes from Clinton’s supporters than the other way around, it’s just the way the mop flops in this election. Supers are paying keen attention to that.

[descamisado]

@Keweenaw

Regarding big unanswered question number 2, the DNC broke the precedent itself by choosing to ignore New Hampshire’s move in violation of the agreed upon calendar. Had the DNC followed it’s own rules and sanctioned New Hampshire, Michigan would not have moved it’s own primary.

Right or wrong, the DNC is in charge of approving or not approving primary date changes. They approved of the NH change. They did not approve of the MI & FL change and told them what would happen if they did.

I think there should be a rotating calendar of primary calendar dates. I also think states who think the current system is unfair should petition the DNC directly to consider changing it and not make it a game of chicken. Right now it appears that NH historic importance on the primary calendar took precedence over fairness and, strategy-wise, the DNC ruled in its favor.

Until then, we must accept that MI & FL played chicken with the DNC and lost. Their decision let NH do something they had control in deciding has nothing to do with it.

[Keweenaw]

@Richard Parker

A rule preventing you from voting in both primaries is only indirectly related to the situation where a re-vote is held.

I agree with you, but apparently Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer did not.

@Mark Brewer

In response to questions raised today concerning the proposed presidential primary legislation, I support this legislation as creating a legally viable process for an early June presidential primary. None of the legal objections to the legislation have any merit, and in my opinion, this legislation satisfies all DNC (Democratic National Committee) and legal requirements. For example, the requirement that voters affirm that they did not vote in the January 15th Republican primary is required by the DNC and must be part of the legislation.

From Here

[Keweenaw]

@5-4-Fighting

I think there should be a rotating calendar of primary calendar dates.

I think this would be a great idea, something will certainly need to change in the future to avoid this mess.

@5-4-Fighting

I also think states who think the current system is unfair should petition the DNC directly to consider changing it and not make it a game of chicken.

Yes, yes, yes… We did this in 2004. Thus was born the Democratic National Committee’s Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling The results with which New Hampshire wiped their asses with and then handed back to the DNC. And the DNC said thanks very much, you can go do whatever you want.

[Richard_Parker]

@Keweenaw

My point was that, he was indeed aganist the re-vote, despite eariler having said he would be “fine” with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off.

The DNC signed off, there was time, but his decision to remove his name from the MI ballot had put him at a disadvantage due to the DNC rules.

Ah, so you’re arguing that he created the situation in which the proposed re-vote would be unfair? Maybe so. But the decision to withdraw his name was entirely legitimate. Everyone at the time, including Hillary herself, said the vote didn’t matter. All of the campaigns except Hillary’s decided that they would not campaign in MI and that this meant removing names from the ballot. It seems a little tenuous to argue that he’s blocking the re-vote because he withdrew his name from the original vote.

More importantly, opposing one unfair incarnation of a re-vote does not mean blocking them all, and it doesn’t prove that he is the but-for cause of the failure to hold it.

@Keweenaw

Regarding big unanswered question number 2, the DNC broke the precedent itself by choosing to ignore New Hampshire’s move in violation of the agreed upon calendar. Had the DNC followed it’s own rules and sanctioned New Hampshire, Michigan would not have moved it’s own primary.

Maybe. But the cases are different. NH has traditionally been an early primary state, and indeed is required to be so by the NH Constitution. It is one of the small representative states that the DNC wanted to have up front.

As for Mark Brewer, I don’t think we should find it surprising that some people would find the re-vote to be required by the rules to exclude some Obama voters. But that doesn’t mean we ought to accept that interpretation as definitive.

[I would note that I appreciate our respectful discussion. It is a refreshing change from the tone of this forum lately.]

[Ocean_Annie]

@9thFloor

She is beating him. She’s got the popular vote. He’s got much more money.

And she still keeps winning large states. All of them, in fact, except Illinois.

If he’s such a great candidate and she’s such a monster, bleeding superdelegates, bleeding non-superdelegate endorsers, and bleeding large-money donors then why can’t he put her away?

There’s probably a reason.

Or maybe the question should be why can’t she put him away? If Obama is such a weak candidate and can’t win the general then why can’t HRC close the deal?
HRC is not beating him - maybe by the creative rules the HRC camp asserts every week but not the math dictated by the agreed upon rules.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@9thFloor

He was everywhere from 3 points AHEAD to 20 points BEHIND in the preceding weeks with many polls having her ahead by 10-15. And that’s where she stayed…despite being outspent by millions, endorsements from every major paper for Obama, a ‘blue collar’ high-profile legislator endorsement that everyone crowed about endorsing Obama, etc. The most he did is reduce it from 15 to 10 with triple the money. Not impressive.

His performance at the debate was his fault, not the moderators. He’s prickly.

Oh, and that’s a double digit lead. (If you break it down by percentages, that’s 54.65 percent for Clinton and 45.34 percent for Obama. Round up the Clinton number to 55 and the Obama number down to 45, you get a ten point margin of victory for Clinton.)

Wow…got cites?

This cite (a graph of an average of polls) has her at a 16.9% lead at one point in the run up to the election. Note in the graph that Obama sharply closed the gap then sort of evened out till the end although the gap was ever narrowing if only just a little.

And that is a very generous use of math there to eek out your coveted 10 point lead.

By my math Obama turned a 16.9 point deficit into a 9.3 point deficit in a state that is about as demographically ideal for Hillary as any state in the union can be all the while she was doing her best to over blow things like Bittergate.

Frankly I think Obama hung in there fairly well all things considered.

[ElvisL1ves]

Let’s have a look at where we are, pollwise, and what that implies for the fall campaign, shall we? The best compendium of poll numbers I know of, including a helpful weighted rolling-average plot, is at www.pollster.com. So what do they tell us?

As we know from the last 2 go-arounds, the election that matters will be settled by Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan - take 2 out of 3 and you win, fail to do so and you’re just an impotent loser. So where are we in the general-election matchups? As of today, the averaged poll results are:

Ohio - Clinton beats McCain by 5.4%, , Obama loses by 2.3
Pennsylvania - Clinton beats McCain by 3.1, Obama loses by 2.2
Florida - Clinton loses to McCain by 2.8, Obama loses by 11.4%

As if the voters of Florida have decided to punish him for his stalling, as I’ve been saying all along, huh?
And then let’s go to the electoral map, where this thing will be decided overall, in case you’re not happy with the battleground-state approach. For that, we have the ever-helpful (but not data-smoothed) www.electoral-vote.com. Let’s have a look at that board too, shall we?

Clinton 291 McCain 237 Ties 10
compared to
Obama 243 McCain 269 Ties 26

“Things that make you go Hmmm…”, as the commercial goes.

Yes, of course, there’s a long time left, and things can happen, yada yada … but who’s the stronger horse to bet on for those who recognize the importance of winning?

Obama can still restore some of the momentum he’s lost as people become more familiar with him, and the misty glow dissipates along with his funding advantage. But his move has to be serious, it has to be significant, it has to appeal to Clinton supporters and independents, and some Republicans would be nice too - and I have no idea what it could be, either. If not, the supers and party elders who are going to revive the smoke-filled-room method of choosing candidates can certainly be expected to choose a *November * winner.

[Shayna]

So I see you’ve now decided to completely ignore everyone who has actually addressed the content of your OP – remember what that was? – the unsubstantiated claim that Barack Obama is stalling these mysterious Michigan and Florida revotes, and completely change the subject to who’s got better polling numbers 6 months before the General Election.

Nice move there!

[descamisado]

@Keweenaw

Yes, yes, yes… We did this in 2004. Thus was born the Democratic National Committee’s Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling The results with which New Hampshire wiped their asses with and then handed back to the DNC. And the DNC said thanks very much, you can go do whatever you want.

Seems there is a twofold job to be done: (i) continue the mult-state push to work out a fairer system (balancing “coalition management” with “creating a better presidential nomination process”).

I’m all for a fairer schedule but for states lilke Michigan – what is more important: streamlining and maximizing the effects of the nominating procedures or or start a set of protests that are essentially and only “I wanna go down the slide first this thime, mommy,” without keeping the health and strategy needs of the party in mind.

I’m hoping something can be worked out between the two, keeping in mind the need to figure out what to do about the requirements of New Hampshire law.