The Obama campaign's David Plouffe said on a conference call this morning that a 50/50 split would be fair from Chicago's perspective. That's their starting point, I bet they're willing to nudge those numbers a little. A Clinton aide on a later conference call took note of the proposal and dismissed it. "We think the votes should be counted."
« Oh No He Didn't | Main | Duelo En Borinquen »
Florida and Michigan Update
24 Mar 2008 02:00 pm
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/20185
Comments (16)
So nothing's going to change here. The two campaign's are way too far apart on this to compromise.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
You can make a reasonable argument for letting the Florida results stand. My guess is that HRC would do less well in a revote than teh current results (so I'm not sure why she's pushing for a revote).
But letting the Michigan results stand and saying that's a fair outcome is an attempts at outright fraud.
Comedian david plouffe:
"a 50/50 split would be fair from Chicago's perspective."
Pretty funny. Of course after trashing FL and MI voters obama's biggest fear is the blow out would be even worse. And it probably would be.
After Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania in a landslide there will be renewed pressure to hold free and fair elections in Florida and Michigan. I think it will happen, every vote should be counted in a democracy. I know about the "rules" and all that, but democracy is NOT a board game...
They will go in as a neutral weight -- 50/50 -- when the Credentials Committee gets around to that. By then, of course, Obama will have won due to the mass-movement of Super-delegates. Lynn Woolsey will be the next to switch; a two-point change as Obama gains one and Hillary loses one.
I'm a big Obama supporter and even I think the idea of splitting the delegations 50/50 is ludicrous.
"I think it will happen, every vote should be counted in a democracy. I know about the "rules" and all that, but democracy is NOT a board game..."
The democratic primary isn't a democracy. If it was, there wouldn't be anything called a "superdelegate." You'll still get a chance to vote in November.
the blow out would be even worse
You think Obama might get *negative* votes in a MI do-over?
You really think that now that Clinton's been exposed as a fraud on NAFTA that she'd do *better*?
Obama just wants to avoid revotes at all costs. It isn't about the pledged delegates -- he knows he can survive some whittling in this category. It's because he doesn't want the media spotlight that would accompany losses in Florida (and in Michigan, if he loses that one). Obama knows he's going to lose Pennsylvannia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky and West Virginia. He knows he may well lose Indiana, too, and possibly North Carolina. You add in Florida and Michigan, and that adds up to one huge question mark about his electability.
It is electability -- more than any other single factor -- that will influence the superdelegates. I don't blame the Obama camp for opposing revotes -- I'd feel the same way in their shoes. But the whole situation rather underscores his lack of a mandate, and the precarious nature of his hold on the nomination. Assuming he prevails, Obama will very much be the 53-47, narrow winner -- not the triumphant consensus candidate.
Let's ask ourselves this--
If Obama had come out ahead in the bogus primaries held in Florida and Michigan, would Hillary Clinton be going around and sanctimoniously advocating for the seating of those delegates? I don't think so, either.
Her contention that she is sincerely and deeply concerned that the voters in those states should not be marginalized is the most transparently self-serving load of horseshit that I've ever witnessed in American politics, and that is saying quite a bit....
I am also completely baffled by the idea of a 50/50 split. Is the point that it allows the superdelegates from those states to vote? That the pledged delegates would be available for poaching at the convention? Aren't those both pretty marginal benefits?
You can make a reasonable argument for letting the Florida results stand. My guess is that HRC would do less well in a revote than teh current results (so I'm not sure why she's pushing for a revote).
No, you can't make a reasonable argument. They didn't campaign there. If we weren't going to have people campaign, then why didn't we just hand the nomination over to Hillary back in Dec 2004?
And Hillary really wasn't looking to get a re-vote: she knew it wouldn't happen. The hope of a re-vote is what was important. Saying there's 200 delegates (or whatever) on the table makes it seem as if she can get the nomination... if this, that, and the other thing fall into place. Well, they didn't. Time to drop out.
"You think Obama might get *negative* votes in a MI do-over?
You really think that now that Clinton's been exposed as a fraud on NAFTA that she'd do *better*?
Posted by justinb "
So you agree a 50-50 split is so absurd it's believe even an obama surrogate would suggest it. obama gets just what he played for from MI: Nothing. Zero.
I have no idea planet you came from but stop by again when you can stay longer. Oh and before you leave check the job creation numbers during the Big Dog's reign. Nice huh. Anyway see ya!
If Obama had come out ahead in the bogus primaries held in Florida and Michigan, would Hillary Clinton be going around and sanctimoniously advocating for the seating of those delegates?
One only has to look at her actions in Nevada to understand the answer to this one. Hillary will say or do ANYTHING (including flip-flopping on Michigan, lying about Bosnia, lying about NAFTA, exaggerating Ireland, and endorsing McCain over Obama) if she thinks it might in any way help her cause.
No, you can't make a reasonable argument. They didn't campaign there. If we weren't going to have people campaign, then why didn't we just hand the nomination over to Hillary back in Dec 2004?
Absurd argument. They didn't campaign in Alaska, either. Should Obama's win there be discounted?
The fact is a record number of voters turned out to vote in the Florida Democratic primary, and the fact is both Obama and Clinton has vigorous surrogate campaigns being waged on their behalf. Oh, and the fact is Obama purchased a seven figure ad buy putting TV spots in front of millions of Floridian eyeballs.
If the "no revote" situation has a silver lining in it for Hillary, it is that her popular vote victories in those two states will remain in her arsenal of arguments -- unsullied by any narrowing of the gap achieved by the Obama campaign via revotes. Yes, the delegates from those two states won't be seated per the decision of the DNC. And yes, the people who showed up to vote are real, live folks who will quite rightly be included in the popular vote tally by the Clinton campaign as part of her compelling case for greater electability.
Wouldn't it be sweet justice if Obama's fear of facing the voters of Michigan and Florida insured a narrow popular vote victory for Senator Clinton?
| 
The Florida and Michigan revotes have become the Jason Vorhees of primary electoral politics.
Posted by Jason Miller | March 24, 2008 2:25 PM