Cui bono?
March 6, 2008, 8:10 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Republican Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida finds it “unconscionable” that Democratic delegates from his state and from Michigan will not be seated at the Democratic convention this summer (the GOP delegate counts in those states were only halved by the RNC), so he’s calling for a re-vote. Generous of him to turn his attention to this pressing matter for his opposition, isn’t it? Especially considering how close he is to John McCain. I wonder why he’s so keen on it…
It’s a win-win for Crist. He looks nicely bipartisan, and it helps Hillary (who currently does worse in the polls against McCain than does Obama). Plus, it helps promote the delegate civil war among the DEmocrats, since Obama is likely to oppose any such move (though I am not certain whether his campiagn has said anything about it publicly)
Without a doubt there is a political calculation in Gov. Crist’s public advocacy on behalf of his states beleagured Democratic delegates. I think Robert hits the nail on the head as far as that goes. It is only half the story, however, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, is also seeking to have the delegates from both her state and Florida seated at the convention. Again, there is also a political calculation here, but let’s not forget this is politics, wherein doing the right the thing for the worng reasons is oftentimes how the right thing gets done.
Just heard from a friend in Vermont, where, mirabile dictu, the primary went smoothly.
I think the Democrats can easily shoot themselves in the foot due to :
-complicated caucases
-poorly run caucuses
-issue of superdelegates who may be called “party leaders” but are party hacks
-the Michigan/Florida delegate issue
-continued edginess in the campaign.
While how good the party leadership will be on these questionsremans to be seen, John Mccain can sail along, sucking up to GWB at an extravagant hot dog lunch at the White House.
He surely has problems of his own tooo.
I kep thinking the American people desereve better than what we’ve seen, despite all the spin, left and right, that’s been put out on this.
About the Florida and Michigan voters “being denied” a vote –
The Florida and Michigan voters previously elected their own state Democratic committee members, and in doing so committed themselves to accept the committees’ decisions. Then their duly elected committees voted to break a clear national rule, knowing the consequences in advance.
The Michigan and Florida voters have not been denied a voice in the game. If you want to stay in the gme, you don’t in effect try to enact differemt rules for yourself and expect to be accomodated. (For once I agree with Howard Dean.)
Let them have a “do-over” at their own state’s expense with a proportional delegate assignment. Whatever exists now should not stand in light of everyone knowing what the rules were, particularly Hillary.
Whenever a Republican governor takes up the cudgel for his Democratic opponents, grab your wallet and keep your back to the wall.
It may be becoming clearer that Obama will have substantial challenges in the general election. He lost all the big states so it is not just because Clinton is bashing him. Secondly the face is coming off the poetry when he loses which gives one pause as to how this person will negotiate with many who are hostile to him.
As far as Michigan and Florida Obama has to tread carefully. Florida is especially pivotal and he would not want it to be said that Florida must live with its state party’s decision.
The other factor is that white males seem to be changing towards Clinton. I don’t know whether it is a good or bad thing that Maureen Dowd is slamming Clinton every chance she gets. http://hillaryisthewoman.blogspot.com/
QUERY: Has anyone evidence for the following:
Last night on the Newshour, Geraldine Ferraro said that the Florida date change was voted by the state legislature (Rep. controlled) and signed by Republican Gov. Crist. Her interpretation was that given the DNC threat, the Florida Republicans intended to cause havoc among Dems (in which they have succeeded). The Republican National Committee criticized the move in dates, but penalized the state with threatening to seat only half the delegates. Since McCain is now the clear nominee, this delegate count is of no importance to the Republicans. True? Anyone ever heard of this?
Peggy, re: Dem primary and FL legislature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Florida+legislature+Democratic+primary&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Ann, if you agree with Howard Dean, you’re in favor of a do-over:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html?scp=1&sq=Florida+legislature+Democratic+primary&st=nyt
Thanks, Scott. Interesting:
What were those Democrats thinking?
I doubt the Clinton campaign will agree to that.
I, too, doubt whether the Clinton campaign wants a do over. However, the Dems look pretty silly when a tightly contested race comes down to two imporant (one crucial [FL]) states having their delegates omitted. The larger issue is why be hard-over about party rules if it in anyway diminishes the chances of victory in November? On the other hand, given that the states were dq’d prior to the primaries, this undoubtedly affected campaign strategies. So, the Obama campaign can rightly complain about accepting the existing vote. At the end-of-the-day, the Dems are better off seating the delegates. I predict that this will become a big issue and one that will not help whoever emerges as the nominee.
If the nominee is Obama (presuming he gets the nomination without Florida [or Michigan]), who will complain?
If both Clinton and Obama fall short of delegates (including SuperDs), then the DNC is obviously going to have to help with the costs of holding an election in each state. No? Yes?
Presumably Clinton and the FL and MI voters!
Hasn’t Dean said the DNC won’t pay? I think the states have to foot the bill. They knew there would be consequences. If their constituents don’t like it, tough.
Grant, look at that IF… Obama gets the nomination without Florida and Michigan, Clinton can complain all she wants but neither state makes any difference at that point (as with McCain).
Florida and Michigan voters should punish their legislators by voting in smarter ones.
We’ll see if the DNC won’t pay part of a re-election. The rules committee may have the final word on that.
Scott —
Thanks for the NYT article. I see that I was wrong about the Florida state Demo. committee choosing the date. But if the Florida legislature set the date unanimously, it does seem that those Democrats were trying to play two different games at once. Not fair.
Howard Dean has changed his tune since last I saw him on TV. I might not object to the Democrats of Florida and Michigan paying for another vote, but in this case it wouldn’t be fairer to Obama who didn’t campaign, as per the agreement between him and Clinton.
And wasn’t illary was trying to play two games by agreeing not to campaign and then doing so? Dirty pool I call it.
The quasi-legal status of the primary system (or non-system) seems to be a the root of these problems. Here we had the Florida legislature making an essentially political decision for everyone. Should there be a national system with the states only paying the bills for the primary elections? Or what? But that might be a different thread.
About giving into Florida’s and Michigan’s complaints: many, many years ago a grandson of J. Paul Getty, the super-rich Californian, was kidnapped. The kidnappers threated to kill him if Getty didn’t pay up. Getty refused, saying that to pay for one grandchild would make his other grandchildren targets of other kidnappers. It seems to me that giving into the Florida and Michigan complaints would have sort of the same effect in future elections — giving in would encourage maverick states to pick and choose which party rules they would obey and which they wouldn’t,
Watching two Democratic politicians on the Newshour tonight, one from Michigan, the other from Florida conjuring ways to pay for a re-vote certainly had the air of two scam artists saying, you can’t do it without us.
They seemed to accept that Howard Dean wasn’t going to say, “yes” to the costs of another election. What did they propose? The candidates could put up the money. Talk about buying elections! I have favored a re-vote, but the Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan should pay for them, especially if as Ann Olivier suggests the Democratic parties in each state were complicit in the votes to move their dates to January. Oy!
I live here in Michigan. Gov. Granholm was on TV last night bloviating about how the delegates WOULD be seated, nobody’s going to ignore the great state of Michigan and blah blah blah. Most Democrats I know seem to be in denial as well, thinking there’ll be some sort of absolution at the last minute.
Michigan has been in recession for years now, and re-funding a primary/caucus at taxypayer expense is going to make the party look even worse than it does now. The upside is that perhaps some heads will roll in the next state election.
There’s also a question: Because the Dem primary here was meaningless, many Democrats like me crossed over to vote in the Republican primary. If there’s a primary re-do, I’ll have been able to vote in BOTH primaries. Is that even legal? Is it fair?
Moreover, some elements in the national party don’t want a re-do because it allows Michigan and Florida to be the last-minute “kingmakers.” And that actually rewards them for their waywardness.
One proposed solution is to seat the delegates, but require them to split their votes proportionate to the total delegate vote. (That is, if Hillary has 55 percent of the delegates nationwide and Obama has 45, then the Michigan delegation has to split its votes 55/45.)
How that’s better than not seating them at all escapes me.
It is a shameful mess any way you look at it.
Jean, while you’re off your Lenten fast: did the Michigan legislature vote to change the date? Did Gov. Granholm sign the bill? What was the Republ/Democratic breakdown in the vote? Just curious about how complicit everyone is?
I have no solution to the mess that the Democratic party now finds itself in. But if anyone had been thinking clearly–I surely wasn’t– then he r she would have foreseen that having two classes of delegates (super- and rubber stamp) is a recipe for disaster. Most people don’t pay the kind of attention to politics to see whatever rationale may exist for this system. So whether superdelegates just fall in line with the other delegates or instead go their own ways, some group of voters is very likely to be infuriated.
At bottom, the Cemocratic system tries to have things both ways. The superdelegates exemplify a selection process called “representative democracy.” It’s like what we do when we elect representatives to Congress. We expect them to have to exercise some discretion of their own. The pledged delegates exemplify a selection process called “direct democracy.” It’s like what we do when we conduct a referendum on a specific topic.
How can a convention function when some delegates have one sort of mandate and others have a different mandate?
Margaret, history of the bill here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kxmsqzegg2wtc045kgyyin55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2007-SB-0624&queryid=22334980
House passed it 327 Yeas 67 Nays 34; Senate passed it 285 YEAS 36 NAYS. Governor signed it. No one took the DNC’s threats seriously (obviously).
There was a court challenge because of a provision would give names of those who voted in which primary to the parties but to no on else. That challenge was thrown out by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Don’t know how to embed the link, and the one above is only the partial b/c the URL’s too long.
If you want to get to the page, you’ll have to cut and paste the two halves into your browser window separately. Clunky but it works.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(kxmsqzegg2wtc045kgyyin55))/mileg.aspx?page=
getObject&objectName=2007-SB-0624
Thanks Jean. Looks to me like the Dems can’t blame this on the Repubs. State parties should pay for revote.
And here you can read the views of 350 of our fellow citizens on the issue….scroll down to comments.
People don’t seem all that sympathetic to the Democratic parties of Michigan and Florida. Isn’t the metaphor here that of the man who killed his parents and asks for help because he’s now an orphan?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/fla-senator-to-dnc-pay-for-a-new-primary/
UPDATE: Honestly, Americans are smarter and funnier than we blogoids think: check out posters 324 and 335, though there is rich material of both a factual and opinionated nature throughout.
Here is a partial solution to the Florida and Michigan mess. With something of a slow down in the primary schedule, both Obama and Clinton should spend significant amounts of time campaigning in Florida and Michigan. However, their campaigning should not be about delegates, but rather about the general election. They should push their issues (which often overlap) and they should campaign against McCain. They should schedule town hall meetings, big rallies, visits to senior centers, and other speaking opportunities. I am not suggesting they do this together. Each can even keep insisting he or she is the best candidate. What I am suggesting is that there is no need to ignore the states, nor is there a need to reduce the political discussion in these states to the issue of delegates at the convention.
The underlying goal is to avoid alienating voters in Florida and Michigan; not allowing them to feel irrelevant. If both candidates campaigned hard in both states, this could go a long way in preventing such feelings, and it would give them a head start for the general election.
Of course, the only downside of this scenario is that it leaves unanswered what should happen at the convention. I think the best answer would be to say, “This is a matter for the states and the party to work out. I will abide by their final decision.” While the decision is being made, the candidates could be campaigning.
One advantage to this solution is that it doesn’t cost the states or the DNC a dime.
Joe Pettit: in your version: Who gets the delegates?
Margaret: My inability to answer that question is why I called it a partial solution. However, I do not think this is a deal killer. If there is a redo (unlikely) campaigning now will help. If there is not a redo, at least one of these two will be on the general election ticket, and the other will be doing good things for the party (promoting similar issues, attacking McCain).
Part of the motive for my suggestion is to disconnect the immediate political issue (who gets the delegates?) from the longer term political issue (both states are important in the general election).
I think it needs to become clearer to more people that no delegate solution will change the math. Clinton cannot catch Obama in delegates without a major push from the remaining superdelegates, a push that I do not see forthcoming. Were such a push to occur, I also think it would render the political problems irrelevant, as the Democratic Party would shatter for many years to come.
Joe, the candidates actually did campaign in Florida, thought they shunned Michigan. Might have had something to do with the weather differences …
Margaret, no, the state GOP is not to blame for this fiasco.
In any case, I’m against any sort of re-do, or even seating the Michigan delegation. People here are far too preoccupied about what Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick said to his girlfriend in his dirty little e-messages, and they need a kick in the head.
Unless it’s clear they’ve been screwed out of a say in the convention, the appropriate heads will not roll.
All that said, I have to wonder why it’s so important for the national party to pander to the New Hampshire-ites. What’s so great about them that anybody who tries to jump ahead of their primary gets cut out of the process.
No one campaigned in Fl or Mi, though Obama ran a national ad that played at least in Fl, and Hillary was in Fl to claim victory on the night of the primary.
Obama has about 140 more delegates pledged, while accepting current results would give Hillary 111. I do not think a 29 delegate gap is insurmountable.
The real difficulty is that the Democrats have no way of choosing a candidate. The system they put in place, called superdelegates, has been so savaged by Obama that it cannot act as it should, creating this mess.
The “monster”/”Starr’ dustups show an enormous amount of bitterness has built up -at least among campaign staffs -since pre-Texas/Ohio.
I can’t see trhe candidates reaching an amoicable solution, unless one clinches the nominations sans Michigan/Florida.
The primary tradition was broken by the need of parochial states to increase their own importance, now they’re parochially trying to say we want the rules the candidates originally agreed to to count.
The problem is magnified by folks who will take a position on seating based on which cxandidate they favor and not necessarily the good of the party.
If Dean had any juice, he should get Hillary and Barak to tell their staffs to cool it, pony up some dough for a do over and put the best face possible on party unity … but, betcha it don’t happen
If Florida weren’t such an important player in the electoral college, would any Democrat care if their delegation was seated and recognized. Would Florida go for McCain? Is Repub Governor Crist working to get those delegates for Clinton becuase he believe he (as VP candidate) and McCain can beat Clinton but not Obama. Smells like Karl Rove! or Lee Attwater (remember him?).