"Yes. Well. No. No. No. No."

Looks like Obama will control the credentials committee.

Good news!

I'm sure the Obama campaign is well aware of this fact. They do seem to be the only ones who have payed attention to the actual rules and have a long term strategy.

Planning and long term strategy - sounds like good skills to have in a President.

Posted by Kristi | March 9, 2008 1:49 PM

Dean is really screwing up this issue. I was a Deaniac in 2004 and a big supporter of him getting this position at the DNC, but he's been a huge disappointment in the way he's handled this issue. Instead of clearly explaining the issue, he's allowed confusion to fester and has only made things worse.

Posted by Mike | March 9, 2008 1:52 PM

So, the credentials committee can refuse to seat superdelegates?

Posted by anon | March 9, 2008 2:23 PM

So, the credentials committee can refuse to seat superdelegates?

Posted by anon | March 9, 2008 2:23 PM

If the BO dominated Credentials Committee votes not to seat the Delegates they and Mr. BO will be seen by the people (esp. MI's and FL's) as suppressing the votes of millions of people and they will not be so kind to him come election time.

I would like to know: How are the Credentials Committee seated? At what point will we know which candidate has a "majority"?

Posted by Marc | March 9, 2008 3:02 PM

I would like to know: How are the Credentials Committee seated? At what point will we know which candidate has a "majority"?

At the state conventions, delegates to the national convention are elected, and they can jockey/position for a seat on any of the committees. This means that the representation on every committee isn't directly proportional to the delegate distribution, but it also means that the committee can be packed by a well run organization at the state convention.

Posted by justinb | March 9, 2008 3:11 PM

This is all rather beside the point. It is OBVIOUS that the Democrats will have to revote Florida and Michigan. The dare NOT cede the former to McCain, or make the latter into a purple state. But that's exactly the risk they run should these two states' delegations not be seated.

Yes, rules are rules. But a showy display of slavish adherence to the rules is outweighed by the reality that the Republicans have settled on a strong, well-known candidate with broad appeal.

The Dems have to do revotes in those two states. The only questions are when, and who pays for them. The other question would probably be what format, but I seriously doubt they'll dare hold caucuses. The last thing they want is for the Clinton campaign and its surrogates to raise a ruckus over the exclusionary nature of many of Senator Obama's wins. And Michigan and Florida, after all, were primary states to begin with.

Posted by We | March 9, 2008 3:18 PM

What will Hillary Clinton's financial standing be at the end of May? The re-votes would be in June, not before. Charlie Cook, the political analyst, said she was piling on more debt, even though her campaign has reported better fundraising. She might end up supporting 50/50 delegate splits in MI and FL as the best she can get. She'll get the majority of superdelegates in those states so its still something she'd want.

Posted by Karen | March 9, 2008 3:36 PM

What will Hillary Clinton's financial standing be at the end of May? The re-votes would be in June, not before. Charlie Cook, the political analyst, said she was piling on more debt, even though her campaign has reported better fundraising. She might end up supporting 50/50 delegate splits in MI and FL as the best she can get. She'll get the majority of superdelegates in those states so its still something she'd want.

Posted by Karen | March 9, 2008 3:37 PM

Reports say that Hillary's only chance at the nomination is to get the rules changed in midstream. She can't win it under the rules in place when the primaries began, so she wants to change the rules. Sickeningly, the Democrats in her pocket (Mich. Gov. Jennifer Granholm) and the Republicans who want her to be the nominee because they know she will be easier to defeat in November (Florida's Charlie Crist) appear all too willing to bend over backwards for Her Royal Highness. What you may not know is that Hillary's supporters know African Americans are less likely to "turn out" if the "re-vote" is a mail-in and this is why they support that option. Vote suppression to steal Florida -- and here I thought that was something only Republicans did.

Democrats, don't be fooled by all this talk of "disenfranchisement" -- this whole Michigan-Florida thing didn't become an issue for Hillary until last Wednesday -- the day after Hillary failed in her "comeback" attempt. Barack Obama actually has a wider delegate lead now that he did before March 4, thanks to his Texas caucus win, his win in Wyoming, and the California precinct counts which came in and awarded Obama extra delegates.

Posted by julie | March 9, 2008 3:37 PM

Vote suppression to steal Florida -- and here I thought that was something only Republicans did.

Don't be an absurd. The Obama campaign, if it is forced into a revote, would absolutely love to suppress votes in the manner that has worked for them quite well all along: the caucus format. There's no way Obama wins a primary in Florida (and probably not in Michigan, either) and he knows it.

Posted by Maximom | March 9, 2008 3:43 PM

Could it be that Howard Dean is not at all the person we thought he was? Could it be that the Democratic party is not particularly in favor of democracy?

Posted by PW | March 9, 2008 3:45 PM

Could it be that Howard Dean is not at all the person we thought he was? Could it be that the Democratic party is not particularly in favor of democracy?

WTF? This doesn't even make enough sense to be trollish.

Posted by justinb | March 9, 2008 4:02 PM

If the BO dominated Credentials Committee votes not to seat the Delegates they and Mr. BO will be seen by the people (esp. MI's and FL's) as suppressing the votes of millions of people and they will not be so kind to him come election

Obama will seat them after the race is over and he is the nominee.

Posted by kdee | March 9, 2008 4:13 PM

Maximom, aren't you tired of the same old falsehoods? Clinton has won fewer primaries than Obama, and if anyone tried to suppress votes it was her campaign in Nevada. As for Michigan, Obama is tied with her in the polls, which most likely means a whipping for her by 10 points. Florida she won relatively unconvincingly when no-one campaigned, but is unlikely to do so when voters actually meet her. Obama has no reason to sweat these states, because your candidate has consistently lost large leads. The outcome of a do-over is at best a draw for her - and she will still be behind on delegates, popular vote and states won.

Posted by juliek | March 9, 2008 4:13 PM

Before piling on Dean, it should be noted there are at least three possibilities here for sitting the delegates: seat the delegations as they stand, re-vote and sit the new delegations, or work out some other sort of compromise in which delegations from MI and FL are sat without a re-vote. I think keeping that third possibility open is one of the reasons why Dean is rightly reluctant to call for a re-vote.

By the way, Maximom, if anything a Michigan primary would be more favorable for Obama than the Wisconsin primary.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 4:14 PM

Just have to respond to Maximom (3:43).

I worked at our Texas county's (and precinct's) caucus and can tell you that it was very above-board, honest, and encouraging. The Obama vote was very big in some precincts, not all. There was great respect of one group for the other, no arm-twisting, hardly any gentle persuasion. People had already made up their minds. They'd waited in the cold for 90 minutes, Hillary and Obama supporters became friendly and stayed friendly and pressure-free throughout. The only "pushy" person I met during the entire four hours was a fervent Hillary caucus monitor who may have tried, elsewhere in the room, to put pressure on Obama supporters, but she didn't try it in our area!

The turn-out for Obama was large (in my county, and apparently many others) both during the primary vote and at the caucuses. Anomalies seem to have occurred in a few counties where a large "Limbaugh vote" for Hillary was suspected in primary voting due to many Republicans crossing over at Limbaugh's instigation. From what the Dallas papers are saying, that's being looked into by analysts. Not much can be done about it.

Possibly Hillary's Texas win was really a "Limbaugh win." But that will be at least partially rectified when all the caucus results are known (not till June!). Predictions say Obama will wind up with a slight majority of Texas delegates. But no one "suppressed votes" in the caucus I attended. Quite the opposite. Tired caucus goers -- many elderly and handicapped -- were extraordinarily helpful to each other during a long, hard night.

Posted by PW | March 9, 2008 4:22 PM

I agree that Dean is muddying the waters but I think it's because he's trying not to be partisan.

Remember that before last week the speculation was that a re-vote would all be in favor of Obama because the choice was:

Seat the delegates now - Hillary gets them all
or
Re-vote and Obama picks up delegates

the squawk now seems to be that Hillary has figured out she doesn't have the power to get them seated, no more aces in the pocket to pull that hat trick.

So with 40% of the turnout in Michigan voting not for Hillary can we assume that with Obama on the ticket he'd get the 50% to win?

I've heard lots of talk about seating the delegates 50/50 but let's throw Hillary a bone.

Clinton gets FL 60/40 and Obama gets MI 60/40. Saves money and they each get to claim a victory.

Preponderance of delegates come from Florida because of population but I'm assuming not enough to make up her current deficit.

Posted by LetThereBeLiberals | March 9, 2008 4:25 PM

As for Michigan, Obama is tied with her in the polls, which most likely means a whipping for her by 10 points.

Just like his tie in the Ohio and Texas polls meant "a whipping" for Hillary?

By the way, Maximom, if anything a Michigan primary would be more favorable for Obama than the Wisconsin primary.

I seriously doubt it. Michigan's economy is absolutely the pitts. Maybe worse than Ohio's. And Michigan is significantly more culturally conservative than the state that gave us Russ Feingold and Eugene McCarthy.

But no one "suppressed votes" in the caucus I attended. Quite the opposite. Tired caucus goers -- many elderly and handicapped -- were extraordinarily helpful to each other during a long, hard night.

You misunderstand. There is no "active effort" required at vote suppression when it comes to caucuses. The format itself disadvantages and reduces the turnout of voters who lack work schedule flexibility, or who depend on public transportation, or who have greater difficulty with childcare or eldercare. The caucus format itself, in other words, compresses voter turnout, and this compression adversely impacts lower income voters, yielding a remainder that is more liberal, more upscale, and more friendly to Senator Obama.

Posted by Maximom | March 9, 2008 4:33 PM

Don't be an absurd. The Obama campaign, if it is forced into a revote, would absolutely love to suppress votes in the manner that has worked for them quite well all along: the caucus format.

Caucuses don't suppress votes -- they simply cull the wheat from the chaff. You know, those folks who value democracy enough to spend a couple of hours every four years building their party versus those folks who'd rather be watching American Idol.

There's no way Obama wins a primary in Florida (and probably not in Michigan, either) and he knows it.

Oh, I think Obama wins Michigan, albeit narrowly. He would lose Florida, however, by not by a margin that would net Hillary many delegates. But traditional primaries aren't likely to happen in either state because no one's going to pay for them. I certainly won't, nor would I expect either candidate to reward Florida and Michigan for their dipshitery. That leaves the possibility of a mail-in primary or a caucus, paid for entirely by the voters of Florida and Michigan. Now, Obama doesn't have to agree to either re-vote because the rules as they stand stipulate that Florida and Michigan have zero delegates. Instead, the Obama-controlled credentials committee can just seat the delegations 50-50.

Posted by asdf | March 9, 2008 4:34 PM

The CULT FAVORITE OF 2004, has been exposed as a COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON. Now his last grasp at some semblence of relevence lies in CARRYING THE WATER for THE CULT FAVORITE OF 2008. The blind and stupid leading the blind and stupid.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 4:36 PM

Think we ought to be careful chucking around such loaded terms as as disenfranchisement, vote suppression and undemocratic, pepys.

The Democratic Party is, as any other, free to select its nominees for office as and how it sees fit. I'm all for closed primaries with advance registration by party, myself, with the day before the Iowa Caucus serving as a nationwide registration deadline for presidential primary voting and caucusing. The maintenance (or lack thereof) of one's voter registration status is a citizen's responsibility, and I would have no sympathy for latecomers or would-be switch-hitters who try to change their status too late.

Absent that, starting and ending the entire process within the confines of the proverbial smoke-filled room would be plenty good enough for me. In any case, if one doesn't like the way that a particular party handles its business and/or the candidate who emerges the nominee, then one is always free to administer due punishment in the polling booth when all candidates face the electorate on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.

Posted by Tut tut | March 9, 2008 4:42 PM

I seriously doubt it. Michigan's economy is absolutely the pitts. Maybe worse than Ohio's. And Michigan is significantly more culturally conservative than the state that gave us Russ Feingold and Eugene McCarthy.

First of all, as others have pointed to time and time again, this election is all about REGIONALISM. Michigan is more like Wisconsin than it is like Ohio and Pennsylvania, so I'd expect Obama to do quite well there. Michigan, moreover, has a larger black population than Ohio. Secondly, you need to get your senators straight. Eugene McCarthy was from Minnesota. Joe McCarthy was from Wisconsin.

Posted by asdf | March 9, 2008 4:45 PM

They should have dispatched Elmer Fudd back to a "home" in Vermont when the first symptoms of progressive degenerative neural disorder surfaced back in 2004. Now the Democratic Party has to deal with the consequences.

A direct result of Howdy Doody's backroom deal with Tom Harkin to try to save his desperate campaign in Iowa in 2004 by promising that the People Of The Corn would always get to the Dinner Table First in any future Primaries.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 4:55 PM

I used to wonder what a low information voter looked like - and now, behold, Maximom and robert ethan are in the same room. Maximom, Clinton lost a more than 20 point lead in Texas, and the same in Ohio. Obama won Texas, with more delegates, while Hillary gained little in Ohio. That's the best she can hope for. In Michigan, she is tied in the polls now, and is utterly unlikely to win, although she might get a 5-10 pointer in Florida. No significant shift there. All the math basically says that Clinton goes to the convention behind on states, delegates and popular vote, even if Florida and Michigan do revote. That's a losing position, and just what a an unprofessional and dishonest campaign deserves.

Posted by morzer | March 9, 2008 4:56 PM

Maximom,

First, I grew up in Michigan, and the Democratic primary electorate in Michigan is very much like Wisconsin's plus more African-American voters. And keep in mind that Wisconsin is not the same Democratic bastion it once was--indeed, Wisconsin was Kerry's closest state in 2004 (he won it by only 0.38%, as compared to winning Michigan by 3.42%).

Just as importantly, your analysis reflects no understanding of the actual coalitions in question. In the national aggregate, Obama has won self-described liberals AND self-described conservatives, and he did that in Wisconsin as well. Clinton has actually done best among self-described moderates (again, while doing worse on either end of the ideological spectrum). What this shows is that ideology is not the dominant factor in this contest, and indeed that Obama is beating Clinton so solidly on non-ideological factors that Clinton can only compete among those voters who feel she is an extremely close ideological match. In any event, that means a claim like "Michigan is significantly more culturally conservative than [Wisconsin]" does not necessarily mean it is more favorable territory for Clinton.

And indeed, the biggest non-ideological factor you are missing is regionalism. In fact, those of us who know these areas know that roughly speaking, culturally only about 1/2 of Ohio overlaps with about 1/2 of Michigan and Wisconsin, whereas the other 1/2 of Ohio and Michigan/Wisconsin respectively are culturally distinct from each other. In contrast, Michigan and Wisconsin's other halves roughly do overlap, which is why Wisconsin is much more predictive of Michigan than Ohio.

Anyway, I have no real interest in arguing whether the sky is in fact blue. I am confident in my understanding of Michigan politics, and I would be happy to have my understanding of Michigan put to the test. In fact, I suspect so would Obama. The only downside for him is that he obviously doesn't need Michigan to win, so while there isn't much of a downside for him to a Michigan re-vote, neither is there much of an upside.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 5:08 PM

Looks like the New Age crowd has entered an even Newer Age. Now all the repetitious, monotone, chanting coming from the Cult Compound deals with MATH. Or should that be "New Math"?

Oh well, at least it's a change from "Auummm...Hope.....aummm....Change....aummmm...Come to Obama....aummmmmmmmmmm.....".

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 5:08 PM

Let's see Hillary Clinton hates caucus states, red states, "fly over" states, non-bellweather states... With so much contempt for states you don't win, you are quickly piling up enemies among people who Bill counted upon as a friend.

Honey, don't whine about the process. Caucusing has been around lot longer than you have been in politics, your claims of "35 years" of experience notwithstanding... If you hate caucusing and the states that you don't win, go fly a kite... You will, soon enough.

Posted by Hillary contempt for caucus is laughable | March 9, 2008 5:24 PM

Caucuses are a small step more civilized and democratic than deciding the winner with arm wrestling contests at the local bar. But only a small step. They deserve contempt.

So far Obama has survived on the support of Republicans and probable Republican voters in this convoluted and undemocratic process who vote for him based on their simmering anger at the Clintons for interrupting what would have been a 40 year unblemished run of power. Along with the glee they take in being able to CHOOSE THEIR OPPONENT IN THE G.E. That is kind of like leaving it in the hands of opposition coaches as to whether Tom Brady or Matt Cassell plays QB for the New England Patriots next season.

That and the overwhelming support of voters from a particular minority demographic who would likely support the restless ghost of Idi Amin, or one of Michael Vick's pitbulls, in a popularity contest against a middle aged white woman.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 5:37 PM

robert ethan,

That's all quite a bit silly. Pour a glass of lemonade and go relax somewhere.

Posted by Klaus | March 9, 2008 5:43 PM

"Yes..Well..No..No, no, NO!"

From the sputtering coming from the small misshapen mouth of the former Mayor of Vermont, you would think it was his butt being subject to an unnatural, non-consentual sex act, rather than those of all REAL DEMOCRATS across the nation.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 5:53 PM

Robert, I think it's time for you to take your meds.

Posted by Lou | March 9, 2008 5:56 PM

Calm down folks, we all know that the restless ghost of Idi Amin's pitbull is currently hovering over the internet. Funny name for it to chose though - Robert Ethan. Still, perhaps the poor creature just didn't have many options. You can always tell Bobby Troll by his fascination with male bottoms and unnatural sex. Different priorities, I suppose. In the mean time, Bobby Troll is usually a good guide to what the Clinton campaign really thinks about the rest of us. Why its perspective resembles that of a sub-literate and racist hick is admittedly another of those great mysteries that no-on really wants to solve.

Posted by katiphas | March 9, 2008 6:51 PM

Don't be an absurd

Maximoron strikes again. Good thing we have her around to spout specious and absurd Clinton talking points. Makes for excellent comedy.

Posted by Jeremy | March 9, 2008 6:59 PM

Hillary will never allow for a re-vote, in spite of what her campaign may say in public. She cannot, because the instant there is a re-vote announced then she must explain why she was claiming the first votes as her legitimate victories.

Either she believes the first elections in FL and MI were legitimate or not. If she believes them to be legit, then why in the world would she agree to a re-vote?

If she does agree to a re-vote, then she is admitting that she never really took these as real elections after all.

Also, imagine if a re-vote is taken and Hillary does not win, or wins by a smaller margin, as one would expect. I mean, in MI she ran against "uncommitted"...she will never do as well there. Then expect lawsuits from her.

Wherever Hillary goes she divides and pulls people apart. She is intent on destroying the Democratic party and the country if necessary, for her own ambition. She must be stopped hard and fast. Hillary is a cancer on our political system.

Posted by cm | March 9, 2008 7:59 PM

fatihas (or katiphas or whatever they call you), I guess it was that bitchy gossip hag rant by Randy Andy Sullivan (for overseas consumption only, AGAIN) trashing the Clintons, that set me off on a homophobic tract.

Standard, irresponsible, blogsite slime, in the style of Drudge and Politico, directed at the woman who was chosen the most popular in the U.S. in a recent poll.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 8:02 PM

cm,

I agree Clinton won't support re-votes unless she perceives that to be in her self-interest, but I kinda doubt any perceived inconsistency would be much of a barrier (after all, the glaring inconsistency with her prior statements and pledges didn't stop her from suddenly supporting the MI and FL contests after SC was done voting). And I think self-interest could arise if she couldn't get the delegations sat as they stand, and because at a minimum putting these states on the calendar might buy her more time with her donors and the media.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 8:14 PM

Get real, DTM. Everyone knew that Michigan and Florida were states favorable to Hillary Clinton, long before Elmer Sputterin' Fudd REVOKED THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE. Nothing coincidental about the decision to pull the rug from under the millions who showed up to support Hillary.

Fudd and the Far Lefties knew it would damage Clinton's campaign. The fact that Elmer sold his soul to Tom Harkin during the 2004 campaign in a futile effort to win Iowa may have factored in to the process as well.

Millions of voters in the two states are disenfranchised, or at best severely inconvenienced,due to the corrupt, self centred motives of the Whacky Fringe element of the Party.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 8:23 PM

One more thought on any possible re-vote: it must not be financed by some third party interests, particularly people supporting one candidate or the other.

We all know the rule that whoever pays is the one that gets to call the shots. If some wealthy Clinton donors get together to finance a re-vote, we should seriously doubt the integrity of the system.

It would be the same with corporate donors; imagine if a corporation, like Halliburton, were to finance an election. Would anyone trust it?

Posted by cm | March 9, 2008 8:32 PM

robert ethan,

I find it awfully hard to take you seriously. For example, I am trying to figure out how Dean managed to force Michigan and Florida to schedule their primaries before February 5 in violation of DNC rules.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 8:41 PM

What "rules"? Did Moses send tablets down from Heaven some time in the deep dark past establishing the everlasting right of some pissant little state covered in cornfields to overwhelmingly disproportionate benefit and influence in the Democratic Primary Process. Speaking of which, didn't Harkins redneck farmers move their OWN primary date up on the calendar? Not to mention New Hampshire and most of the succeeding state to vote?

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 8:50 PM

Do not take robert ethan seriously...he is a flame thrower. Do not feed the troll.

As for this do-over process, the key is that the process have integrity. And that means that somehow the financing must not come from interests tied to either campaign, or lacking that, have both campaigns contribute equally.

It would not have the appearance of legitimacy if some of Hillary's backers raised the money, or for that matter, if some of Obama's backers raised the money.

It also would not look good if there were some sort of corporate sponsorship.

I've heard some float the idea of a mail-in vote. Well, it seems easy to commit fraud with that type of system. Also, one wonders who it disenfranchises...what about those who've moved, or don't have permanent residences? What happens if someone's ballot is lost in the mail? I'm not saying it cannot work, but the details have to be worked out well. If the mail in vote were so great, why not use it for every election?

A do-over only serves a good purpose if it doesn't make things worse. And the potential for any do-over to make things worse is great.

I still say the best thing is to let things stand, see where the process plays out, and then divide the votes equally.

Posted by cm | March 9, 2008 8:57 PM

Gee Bob why don't you call Andrew a Faggity Fag while you're at it, seriously just gay-bait the man some more.

Posted by Socraticsilence | March 9, 2008 9:09 PM

that set me off on a homophobic tract.

Wow, the depths of your ignorance and stupidity never cease to amaze. My guess of you're some sort of Larry Craig.

Posted by Cal | March 9, 2008 9:24 PM

Robert,

The Democratic Party has established a national governing body called the Democratic National Committee. Among other things, the DNC establishes the rules for the national convention. On August 19, 2006, the DNC adopted its rules for the 2008 convention. Rule 11.A provided that no state could hold its delegate selection meeting prior to February 5, except for Iowa, NH, NV, and SC.

And now I will take cm's advice and terminate my participation in this conversation.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 9:29 PM

DTM - Those "rules" seem pretty arbitrary. Why the four states mentioned? Kinda like saying no one is allowed to leave their desk for lunch before 12:30 P.M. except Joe, Sally, Arthur, and George.

Why? Just because, that's why. Them's the rules, anyone disobeys, they get expelled.

Signed,

Howard Dean, failed former medical practitioner, failed former Presidential candidate, failing Chairman of the DNC.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 9:38 PM

The voters of Florida and Michigan should re-vote in June, in a primary where all voters who are eligible are able to participate.

The Democratic nominee should not be elected on a technicality.

Posted by Tim K | March 9, 2008 9:45 PM

Cal & Socratic - I think when someone stoops to the depths of journalistic mudslinging to firm up the public meme of the Clintons as "monsters" straight out of a "horror movie" as Drudge and Sullivan have done recently, they are open to whatever blowback they recieve. No one is going to force them to resign from their own crappy little blogsites.

Hillary Clinton was voted the most popular woman in America in recent poll, Bill Clinton finished second among men. I wonder where a pasty cyber geek like Drudge, or some serial sodomizer screaming outside the closet,would finish in such a poll.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 9:49 PM

One has to wonder if the Clintons were ahead in delegates, would they allow these re-votes. My guess is that they would respond with a hearty "hell no."

I still think the best thing is for the contests to play out, and then split the votes equally.

To do anything else will just create a greater fiasco, and also encourage states in the future to break DNC rules.

And there is no way that Clinton supporters should fund these contests; can you say voter fraud?

Posted by cm | March 9, 2008 10:02 PM

Robert,

Because I find this subject interesting, I will actually continue for a bit.

The basic idea was to try to make it possible for a large field to compete for the nomination, and the thinking is that a staggered schedule of smaller states at the beginning of the process would give candidates with less funding and less name recognition a chance to make their case to a smaller subset of voters before the campaign moving on to the bigger states and more concentrated portion of the schedule. The hope, I guess, is that if one or more lesser-known candidates could do well in these early states, they would get momentum and/or funding which could be used to keep them viable for longer. These four states in particular were selected in part as a matter of tradition, but also in an effort to provide regional and demographic balance between them.

Personally, I am somewhat skeptical about this whole idea, largely because I don't really buy the idea that these early states have the power to make an otherwise unviable candidate more viable. In any event, I certainly think it makes more sense to rotate these slots, as opposed to allocating them to the same four states in every contest.

But, of course, the point I was making above was not a matter of whether this rule is a good idea or not. The point was that this rule was published in August of 2006, prior to Michigan and Florida scheduling their contests. So, the idea that the DNC singled out Michigan and Florida in an effort to deny Clinton a chance to compete in some favorable states is hard to take seriously, since Michigan and Florida had to voluntarily put themselves in violation of the rule before the DNC could act.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 10:03 PM

Has anyone on Obama's side considered whether conceding Florida might actually be in his campaign's interest? This idea might be naive and counterintuitive, but could Obama actually yield the possible benefits?

1. Obama has the math already, and even the net loss of 30 or so pledged delegates (that's the calculation I've seen elsewhere) won't change that in the end. In effect, Obama partisans can just say we gave you the 3rd biggest state and the numbers (probably) still can't work out for you. The biggest risk is that the overall delegate lead does shrink by a much larger proportion and the popular vote difference becomes much tighter.

2. He gets the good will of Florida, saves everyone money, and pre-empts Clinton and her surrogates from playing hero by paying for/buying the re-do. Obama can be seen as unifying the party and respecting the voters of Florida, an example of new politics at work. Maybe he even wins over a few FL superdelegates to offset Clinton's delegate gain. He definitely wins a few news cycles (though probably not 6+ weeks worth).

3. Clinton likely wins Florida how ever it's done, so ceding the illegitimate January election is better than losing a re-do and having the Clintons crow that they have even more "big-state momentum"

This scenario, however, does not take into account how the Clinton spin machine would turn this narrative inside out...

Posted by sportpan | March 9, 2008 10:03 PM

"The caucus format itself, in other words, compresses voter turnout, and this compression adversely impacts lower income voters, yielding a remainder that is more liberal, more upscale, and more friendly to Senator Obama."

And yet everyone knew this going into the primaries. It was no secret surprise pulled on anyone. In retrospect, it worked to one candidate's disadvantage and for that reason and that reason alone, it is now a problem.

Show me one quote from the Clinton campaign complaining about caucuses before she started losing them all.

The same is true for the MI and FL primaries. Everyone knew the rules. Everyone agreed to them and abided by them (if you don't count Ms. Clinton's specious victory rally in FL). This is an issue now only, only, only because the vote is close and one candidate would like to see those votes reflecting her early front-runner and name recognition advantage, unchallenged by any other campaign, now confirmed to her advantage. It is so hugely transparent.

The only way to seat the MI and FL delegations is to split them 50/50 (which is the same as not counting them), or to hold a new vote. Anything else would be transparently unfair. And in the interest of the voters of those states and the Party, a new vote should be held.

Let's have Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton split the cost of new primaries in the states. I've heard FL could cost $10 million. Let's have each campaign kick in $10 million to cover the cost for both states. Put your money where your mouth is, in other words.

Otherwise, it's up to the states to pay. They broke the rule, they need to pay if no one else is willing or able.

If a fresh clean vote isn't worth paying for, than everyone should just shut up and accept what has happened. This is all getting like someone on an eight lane highway, passing his exit, and wanting to throw it in reverse and backup in the right lane rather than take his lumps and turn around at the next exit.

Posted by J. Myers | March 9, 2008 10:13 PM

DTM, any way you slice it or try to justify it, doesn't make any more sense, or make it any more fair, than the analogy I provided above. Dean was hired to "fix the process" and let off a lot of hot air about "reforming the DNC" as I recall.

All he has done is to exhibit a sheeplike tendancy to follow the trodden trail. When the unexpected arose, he put on the bureaucratic blinders, pulled the covers over his head, and hoped things would work themselves out.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 10:13 PM

Actually, I should probably amend my comment about Sullivan not being "forced to resign from his own blogsite". Apparently that has happened numerous times in the past to many reader's least favorite immigrant expert on American politics. He has to run out of forums to publish that pap sooner or later.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 10:20 PM

sportpan,

Well, back before the primaries, Obama stated he would respect the DNC's calendar and its rules, that he would not participate in any primaries that violated the rules, and he signed a pledged to that effect. In part, he and the other candidates were asked to do that in order to reassure the authorized early states that they would not try to retroactively legitimize any rogue primaries once it was too late for the early states to do anything about it. In addition to that being a matter of respecting the rule-making procedures of the Party, that was also necessary to keep more states from moving up, which could have resulted in the calendar pushing deep into 2007.

That said, his prior promises are not necessarily inconsistent with the DNC working out some sort of compromise solution and then Obama supporting it. But I do think Obama has to leave it to the DNC to make that call, precisely because he is not the only interested party (e.g., the authorized early states to whom he made his pledge have an ongoing interest).

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 10:21 PM

The bottom line is that - regardless of the DNC rules - not allowing Michigan and Florida delegations to be seated at the convention is simply not an option. That would either lead to an ugly confrontation in Denver or a serious risk of losing both states in November (which would cost either Democrat the election).

The only other options are re-votes, or seating the delegates as they were selected in the January primaries.

I think it's clear that re-votes are the right way to go.

Simply splitting the delegates evenly would be tokenism, and not allowing them to express a preference. That's what elections are about: voters choosing between candidates.

Posted by Tim K | March 9, 2008 10:34 PM

I think people are worrying too much about this. In practice, here's what it looks like is going to happen:

- Michigan will have a caucus (which was their original plan before they started trying to get clever) which won't make much difference, but Obama will have the edge.
- Florida will dick around for a bit and not agree to anything.
- Superdelegates will coalesce around Obama once everybody has finished voting, if not before. A majority will support him, and given his lead with pledged delegates he only needs 1/3 of the remaining undecideds in any case, so he'll be home and dry.
- Obama will graciously vote to seat the Florida delegates as they are. At that point Hillary will probably see the writing on the wall and release them to vote for Obama in a show of unity, but if she doesn't he'll win the vote.

Either way, after all these predictions of doom the whole thing should create a nice positive buzz, get loads of media attention and provide a shot of momentum to help Obama fight McCain.

Posted by Edmund in Tokyo | March 9, 2008 10:35 PM

That's what elections are about: voters choosing between candidates.

Tim, first and foremost, elections are about a system of rules and regulations that allow people to express their preferences in an agreed upon way.

That way was agreed upon, and everybody concerned *including Hillary Clinton* was fine with it, and signed on board.

The idea that you can, with a straight face, now claim that the process was/is somehow unfair is patently absurd.

Do you really want Clinton to win so badly that you're willing to ignore all the rules (well, not all of them, only the ones that she'd benefit by ignoring)?

How upright of you.

Posted by justinb | March 9, 2008 10:54 PM

Never ever trust a Clinton. That should be everyone's motto going forward.

I do think the party needs to step in and put an end to Hillary's campaign. Don't be so afraid of the Clintons; they are not all that great.

All Hillary can do at this point is drag down the party. Time for her to be brushed aside and pulled off the stage. She's a pathetically divisive candidate. We can see that because she even divides her party. It's just her nature.

The Clintons have had enough time and spotlight and power. Time to move on to something far better. If they were gracious people, they would welcome that.

Posted by cm | March 9, 2008 10:57 PM

Justinb:

For starters, let's be clear what we are talking about here: DNC rules. These are not based on principles written in the US Constitution, or any of the state constitutions, or even state laws. These are DNC rules designed to protect the special placements of Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary process. So let's not discuss these rules as if they have some kind of special legitimacy that goes beyond their technical and arbitrary nature.

What is "patently absurd" is to think that the convention in Denver is not going to include delegations from Florida and Michigan which have been chosen in a democratic primary process. Patently absurd because it would be electoral suicide. Regular voters couldn't give a fig about DNC inside baseball, but what they do understand is not giving voters the opportunity to vote and have their votes count for something.

Also, speaking of DNC rules, the party leaders and elected officials (aka superdelegates) are also part of those rules you so cherish. It's part of those rules that they can choose whichever candidate they feel would be best for the party ... not on the basis of which candidate is leading among pledged delegates.

And, yes, I do want Clinton to win pretty badly.

Posted by Tim K | March 9, 2008 11:07 PM

CM:

If Obama actually tried to force Clinton from the race I hope she does take him down so hard he becomes unelectable. Game over for him, in that case.

Posted by Tim K | March 9, 2008 11:09 PM

The two states set the date for their primaries and carried through on them. As they are legally bound to do. They both carried out the process in exemplary fashion, and both set record turnouts among voters. If that causes alarmed clucking amongst chickens in a far off hen house, that is not the problem of the states voters.

When someone lays down arbitrary "rules" that have no foundation in fairness or reason, adopted purely for expediency sake, reasoning individuals aren't bound to abide by them. Almost every state in the union changed their primary/caucus date from last cycle. How is it that Michigan and Florida get singled out for CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, while no others are even admonished?

If it looks like a Duck, walks like a Duck, and quacks like a Duck, you can bet that Howard is close at hand. Don't allow him any more input into the process.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 11:09 PM

This is a terrific issue for revealing those who have principles and behave in an ethical manner - and those who don't.

Frankly, if I was a Democrat, I'd be embarrased and dismayed at what is taking place.

It's sad that so many adults can't or won't see what even a young child could.

I hope this issue bursts the bubble of many Dems who think that their side is pure and that only the GOP cheats.

I think Clinton, Obama, and McCain are lousy human beings and will make lousy Presidents.

Obama is far too inexperienced, naive, and out of the mainstream of America.
Clinton is far too corrupt, devious, and power-hungry.
McCain is far too self-righteous and arrogant.

All 3 are big liars. Not an honest one between 'em. It's a pathetic comment on our society that we accept and excuse our politicans' lies.

Frankly, I hope Obama wins. I think the USA (and the rest of the world) deserve to get an all-Dem D.C. for a few years. Let's see how they like it.

Posted by slick | March 9, 2008 11:09 PM

For starters, let's be clear what we are talking about here: DNC rules. These are not based on principles written in the US Constitution, or any of the state constitutions, or even state laws. These are DNC rules designed to protect the special placements of Iowa and New Hampshire in the primary process. So let's not discuss these rules as if they have some kind of special legitimacy that goes beyond their technical and arbitrary nature.

Yes, they are DNC rules. Put together by the party, and agreed upon by all candidates and campaigns. For whatever reason, it doesn't matter. It could have been because it helped support the price of hockey pucks in Malaysia, it really doesn't matter. They're the rules, and everybody agreed on them, and nobody complained about them.

Also, speaking of DNC rules, the party leaders and elected officials (aka superdelegates) are also part of those rules you so cherish. It's part of those rules that they can choose whichever candidate they feel would be best for the party ... not on the basis of which candidate is leading among pledged delegates.

Agreed. I'm pretty clear on the process, having been a delegate in 04. It's also pretty much blatantly obvious that if the PLEOs vote against the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the bigger portion of the popular vote, that the party will self-destruct. I, for one, will not cast a vote for President in that case. Of course, I'm in Utah, so it doesn't really matter :)

It should be pretty much obvious to anyone that's not completely innumerate that Clinton has lost this race. She cannot win, unless by doing so she destroys the party. Even if that didn't happen, the drag on downticket races would be so extreme that absolutely nothing would happen in the next 4 years. Now I agree that nothing happening is better than a McCain presidency, but you can't honestly look at the landscape, the polling, the history, and the demographics and tell me that Clinton is a stronger candidate for the GE. Yes, Hillary can get us pretty close to that mythical 50%+1, but what does that really get us, aside from a subsequent loss and a perpetuation of the current climate?

Posted by justinb | March 9, 2008 11:41 PM

Oh, and Tim, it's interesting that you don't particularly like the rules about FL and MI, but you like the PLEO rules a lot.

Which of the rules are you prepared to accept, and which are the ones you don't like? Would you think the same thing if the Hillary and Obama roles were reversed?

Honestly, that's what it comes down to for me. Clinton won't accept rules that don't favor her, and she's willing to bend those after the fact. That's reprehensible.

Posted by justinb | March 9, 2008 11:46 PM

Justin - Obviously everyone didn't "agree to abide by these rules". As I mentioned before, nearly every state in the union moved up it's primary/caucus date, including Michigan and Florida. If the "rules" were set in 2006, how did they include all the changes that happened in the months leading up to the primaries?

People like Bill Nelson, Janet Granholm, Charlie Crist, etc. aren't wild eyed out of control rebels breaking some rules just to get attention. They (as most reasonable observers, I would think) did not thing "the rules" were reasonable or fair, and took steps to alleviate the injustice.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 11:59 PM

...not to mention the fact that there weren't any official candidates in 2006, so how could they agree to rules that were apparently established at that time. It seems more a case of Elmer Fudd saying "Here's the rules kids, if you want to play in my park sign the dotted line.".

Posted by robert ethan | March 10, 2008 12:06 AM

...not to mention the fact that there weren't any official candidates in 2006, so how could they agree to rules that were apparently established at that time. It seems more a case of Elmer Fudd saying "Here's the rules kids, if you want to play in my park sign the dotted line.".

Posted by robert ethan | March 10, 2008 12:06 AM

I don't think Tim K is that far off when it comes to the desirability of Michigan and Florida having delegations at the convention. He just is wrong about sitting the delegations as they stand: those delegations were not the product of real elections, because you can't hold a real election if the nominal candidates refuse to participate in your election. So, there would be no more electoral legitimacy to those delegations than something like a 50-50 split--either way, the delegations would not be the product of real elections.

That said, I agree Michigan and Florida holding real elections would be preferable, but there is not much the Democratic Party can do if Michigan and Florida simply refuse to hold real elections. And that means the Party may have to settle for sitting unelected delegations from Michigan and Florida (likely with a 50-50 split), since again they can't really make Michigan and Florida hold elections.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 12:22 AM

Justin - Obviously everyone didn't "agree to abide by these rules". As I mentioned before, nearly every state in the union moved up it's primary/caucus date, including Michigan and Florida. If the "rules" were set in 2006, how did they include all the changes that happened in the months leading up to the primaries?

Umm, Tim, the candidates (and potential candidates), and their supporters, and those that hold leadership positions in the party *did* agree to abide by those rules. By definition. Not to mention, *every* candidate - except Hillary - pledged not to campaign in those contests, because they understand that working against the party *hurts* the party.

I'm not sure what you mean by including changes that happened in the months leading up to the primaries.

The rules were voted on by the party in '06, and agreed to. You can't change them, even if that would mean helping your candidate.

Posted by justinb | March 10, 2008 12:31 AM

I wonder where a pasty cyber geek like Drudge, or some serial sodomizer screaming outside the closet,would finish in such a poll.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 9:49 PM

Probably right next to a racist self-abusing troll like you, Bobby. Now, surely you have commitments this evening? The leather shorts and swastika memorial night, perhaps?

Posted by maxq | March 10, 2008 12:41 AM

The candidates agreed not to campaign or advertise in the states, I don't think any of them agreed that the delegates would be ignored. Hillary didn't campaign in Florida any more than Obama did, and probably but less effort into Michigan than the "Uncommitted" delegation did.

Don't try to retrospectively smear the Clinton campaign for states they won. There was no pressure on the voters, they could have gone either way. If Obama "graciously" removed his name from a state he knew he had little chance of winning in any event, there was nothing to stop write in ballots. Why did he not remove his name from the ballot in both states? Would the results have been any different? I doubt it.

Posted by robert ethan | March 10, 2008 12:45 AM

Clinton and Obama did more the pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida: they also pledged not to participate.

And you can't hold an election between two people who refuse to participate in your contest. Indeed, without their participation, all you can do is conduct a poll.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 12:51 AM

Naw, max, I'm going to sit back and watch the "Dumpster Diver" Drudge, the effete English ex-pat who is "Bearish" on Americans, "Randy Andy" Sullivan, "Short Fat White Dick" Morris, Robert "Undead" Novak, David "Runs With Crooks" Brooks and all the other sundry and sordid REPtiles who are preening your boy Barack like a Turkey before Thanksgiving at the moment.

Lucky Bird, Barack. Getting extra portions of grain from Farmer John, having his beak stroked every day, soothing lullabies sung in his ear. He must feel "thpeshull". I bet Farmer John wants to adopt him as a pet this Thanksgiving. Take him into the house, give him a soft pallet close to the hearth, stroke his head as he smokes his pipe and reads by the fire. Why else would he be so attentive?

Posted by robert ethan | March 10, 2008 12:58 AM

Naw, max, I'm going to sit back and watch the "Dumpster Diver" Drudge, the effete English ex-pat who is "Bearish" on Americans, "Randy Andy" Sullivan, "Short Fat White Dick" Morris, Robert "Undead" Novak, David "Runs With Crooks" Brooks and all the other sundry and sordid REPtiles who are preening your boy Barack like a Turkey before Thanksgiving at the moment.

Lucky Bird, Barack. Getting extra portions of grain from Farmer John, having his beak stroked every day, soothing lullabies sung in his ear. He must feel "thpeshull". I bet Farmer John wants to adopt him as a pet this Thanksgiving. Take him into the house, give him a soft pallet close to the hearth, stroke his head as he smokes his pipe and reads by the fire. Why else would he be so attentive?

Posted by robert ethan | March 10, 2008 12:59 AM

"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot." -- Hillary Clinton on Michigan, 2007.

Trying to change the rules at this late date won't change a damn thing. This thing is over.

Posted by Kevin | March 10, 2008 2:49 AM

Yeah, you're right Kevin. Be sure to advise all your friends that "it's over" while you're at it will you? Obama's got it in the bag, you can all lay back and close your eyes. Rest easy. Tune in again at the end of the summer for the festivities, awards, and speeches.

Posted by robert ethan | March 10, 2008 3:12 AM

Your selective little snippet leaves the impression that Hillary was against having the Michigan primary count. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, I've never seen that particular quote anywhere, but assuming it it genuine, it just reveals her acknowledgement of the realities of that moment.

The overwhelming sentiment in late 2007 was that the other candidates withdrew their names from the ballot for expediency sake. They knew they weren't going to win, so by not contesting in any fashion they diminished the impact of a Clinton victory. Which is essentially what happened. More people voted in Michigan and Florida than all the previous primaries and caucuses combinded, but there was a collective "Ho Hum" when the results were announced.

But did the world end when Michigan and Florida voted out of step with DNC "rules"? Did the Democratic Party self destruct and the Primary season come to a screeching halt? Seems to me that everything went ahead as planned, record turnouts were recorded, no one contested the results yada, yada. If anything the states showed that Elmer Fudd and the Far Lefties were DEAD WRONG in their assessments and reasoning for only allowing select traditional states to hold early primaries and caucuses.

Posted by robert ethan | March 10, 2008 3:33 AM

Please, do keep raging. It's amusing to the rest of us. Particularly once you're finally forced to internalize the mathematical reality of your situation. At this point, you might as well be railing against gravity.

By the quote is from NPR -- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859 -- as you could've figured out if you'd just plugged it into Google. If you've never heard of it, you should check it out. It might help you on the ridiculously uninformed tip.

Posted by Kevin | March 10, 2008 3:55 AM

So what if I said "The darker the berry, the sweeter the juice"?

I really don't see how that makes me a racist.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 7:21 AM

It is true that Clinton's statements during that period reflected the "realities of the moment". Specifically, she knew she would likely be punished by the voters in the authorized early states if she supported the Michigan and Florida primaries. So, she provided her fellow Democrats in the early states with multiple assurances that the Michigan and Florida contests would not count--until right after the last of the early states (SC) voted. Then, for the first time, she announced she was opposed to the DNC "disenfranchising" the voters in Michigan and Florida and called for the delegates she was going to win in those contests to be sat at the convention.

This is one of the most brazenly unethical things I have ever seen a politician do in a campaign (I have seen surrogates and staffers do worse, but not the actual candidate). And even if you think it was fine for Clinton to lie to her fellow Democrats when it was politically expedient for her to do so, you can safely bet the Republicans would hammer her over and over for her lack of ethics in the general election.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 7:30 AM

I know the idea of a mail-in re-vote has been floated. One thing I worry about: will it be some coincidence that there may be a large number of black mail-in ballots "lost" in the mail? Will it be that of the ballots sent back in, that the majority of them "lost" or not counted just happen to come from the black community?

It could happen...do not fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

And why should the rules be changed in the middle of the contest to benefit the white person, who happens to be behind the black person? I bet there wouldn't be all this talk of accommodating a re-vote if it were the other way around. I bet if it were Georgia or Alabama or South Carolina or Missouri, all of which Obama won, there wouldn't be this talk of a re-vote. Seems to me there are double standards that may be related to race.

Posted by cm | March 10, 2008 9:34 AM

"Yes. Well. No. No. No. No."

Comments (82)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives