Listen - I think I've made myself pretty clear here at Daily Kos about the fact that I have chosen a side in the Democratic contest for the Presidential nomination. That side would be for Barack Obama. I believe I have also made it clear that, despite any personal reservations I may have, I will support Hillary Clinton should she secure the nomination. My plan is to go "full immersion" this election cycle, given that John Warner (R-VA) is retiring and Mark Warner will be competing for his open seat. So canvassing is on my agenda and that will mean avidly talking up the entire ticket in my efforts.
So now that we're clear on where I stand (I'm not going to deal with why - that's not the point of this diary), I'm going to turn my attention to the subject of Michigan and Florida. More over the flip.
Background
A lot of people aren't familiar with exactly how - the timing, the decisions, etc. - Michigan and Florida wound up potentially at the center of a bitter controversy. So let's do a little primer.
Via the DNC's website:
On August 19th [2006] the members of the Democratic National Committee adopted the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The Rules govern the development and implementation of a delegate selection process by each state and territorial Party.
What I want you to keep in your mind is the fact that the 2008 rules were issued in August of 2006. Continuing:
Last year the Party's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling issued its recommendations on the 2008 primary and caucus calendar.
The Party recognizes the need early in the nominating process to broaden participation to reflect the Party’s rich racial, regional, and economic diversity by including 2 additional states. Twelve states applied to conduct early primaries and caucuses. We believe that shows the energy and excitement for opening up the process.
The addition of 2 states early in the process will also open up the dialogue to engage a broader range of people to talk about a wider variety of issues. This will enable the Democratic Party to choose the strongest candidate to be our Presidential nominee.
The new schedule is as follows:
- Iowa holds the first-in-the-nation caucus on January 14.
- New Hampshire holds the first-in-the-nation primary on January 22.
- Nevada conducts a caucus between Iowa and New Hampshire on Saturday, January 19.
- South Carolina holds a primary 1 week after the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 29
The regular window will open for all other states on the first Tuesday in February -- February 5, 2008.
My emphasis added. I only want to underscore here that the rules were quite clear and issued well before Florida and Michigan decided to act in defiance of those rules.
So on to Florida and Michigan, via Wikipedia:
The Florida legislature voted via House Bill 537 to move forward the date of their state's primary to January 29th, causing a chain reaction which moved many other states' primaries and caucuses to much earlier dates. The vote passed with bipartisan support 118 to 0 in the House, 37 to 2 in the Senate. In response, the Democratic National Committee has ruled that Florida's delegates will not be seated, or, if seated, will not be able to vote, at the National Convention. Furthermore, the DNC has also stated that it will forbid any candidate from receiving delegates should they campaign in the Florida primary. The DNC Rules Committee met on August 25, 2007 and ruled that Florida would have 30 days to move its primary date at least 7 days later than the current date of January 29, or else lose all of its delegates in the Democratic primary. Florida officials said they may challenge the ruling on legal grounds and protest the 2008 convention; additionally, the actual implementation of such a decision might prove to be difficult.
Again - my emphasis added. So Florida's legislature voted to move their primary back in defiance of the DNC's rules. I should note here - the Florida Senate is Republican controlled by a 12 member majority and the Florida House is also Republican controlled by a 36 member majority. Net result, Florida did NOT move its primary to align with the DNC's long-published rules and we are where we are today, with Florida's delegation not represented.
Now to Michigan, again via Wikipedia:
Michigan moved its primary to January 15, 2008, also in violation of party rules. On December 1, 2007, the Democratic National Committee voted to deny Michigan’s request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan’s delegates would not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moved its primary to a later date. That said, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the primary could go ahead as scheduled.
Indeed - the Michigan Democratic Party released this statement on August 31, 2007:
"The leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party today announced their intention to comply with the new state law establishing a January 15, 2008 Presidential primary, and to select their delegates to the Democratic National Convention on that day."
"Michigan Democrats are taking this step in direct response to the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s statement of intent on August 9th, supported by the Democratic leadership of New Hampshire, to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, in direct violation of the DNC Rules that state that New Hampshire’s delegates cannot be selected at a primary held earlier than January 22, 2008."
"Michigan Democrats believe that no state should enjoy a privileged position every four years in selecting our party’s presidential nominee. New Hampshire’s stated intent to move their primary before January 19th, in direct violation of the DNC rules, is an effort to perpetuate their self-appointed privileged position. That makes the delegate selection process in other states, including Michigan, less meaningful, and results in the candidates paying less attention to the issues that are important to Michigan and other states."
So there you have it. Basically a pissing contest between Michigan and New Hampshire, which added to the situation faced today, that Michigan's delegates don't count. Further complicating the Michigan picture is the fact that five of the then-current Democratic candidates withdrew their names from the ballot in Michigan:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Five Democratic presidential candidates Tuesday sought to officially withdraw from Michigan's January 15 primary, rendering the event virtually insignificant.
Ah -- the nostalgia of "insignificance".
So here's what I want you to take away from all of that background.
- The DNC published its 2008 Presidential Primary rules in August of 2006.
- Florida violated the rules by moving their primary in August of 2007.
- Michigan followed suit and violated the rules in August of 2007 as well.
- Both states in question had the rules a full year prior to deciding to violate them.
Oh What a Difference a Few Months Makes
That's an understatement. According to MSNBC, this is where the delegate count, WITHOUT supers, stands today:
Obama: 1,116
Clinton: 985
Adding in supers (via CNN), it looks like this:
Obama: 1,259
Clinton: 1,212
By either measure, when you consider that it takes 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination, this sucker is CLOSE.
I can't find a specific transcript to link, but I've seen this story repeated in some form or fashion across cable news - essentially, it's a scenario that keeps Clinton and Obama close throughout the remainder of the primary contests. It shows Obama maintaining a narrow lead if Clinton wins all of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania but by less than 60% in each. It shows Clinton pulling slightly ahead if she blows out Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The only scenario that yields a true frontrunner is if Obama blows out each of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I find neither the second nor the third scenarios likely, which leaves us, either after March 4 or even beyond, still with a hotly contested race.
Which makes Florida and Michigan that much more important.
So we have a connundrum. On the one hand, each state (and I mean all states) had notice well in advance of setting their respective primary schedules of the rules of the game. The two states in question, Florida and Michigan, were given notice of the penalty when they did decide to move their primaries outside of the DNC's published rules yet moved them nonetheless.
Consequently, the DNC's ruling stood and each of Clinton, Obama and Edwards pledged to avoid "defiant" Florida and Michigan Note that the linked article is dated is September 2, 2007 - a lifetime ago in this particular political cycle.
Now things have changed. Clinton is trailing narrowly (by any measure) in delegates, and the momentum appears to be shifting to Obama. There is no clear frontrunner despite the delegate count.
Obama and his campaign are absolutely right to contest the issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegates based on the races that were run in January. In the case of Michigan, apportioning delegates is pure folly because we don't have a candidate named "uncommitted" to which those delegates can be assigned. You could take an extreme view and say that ALL "uncommitted" ballots cast should go for Obama given that the other candidates who removed their names from the ballot (well, almost all - except Mike Gravel) have since dropped out, but that would be equally unfair. So Michigan's vote, as it stands today, is unresolvable in any fair sense.
In the case of Florida, candidates did not campaign there and therefore were unable to reach out directly to Florida's Democratic voters. That could have gone either way - Clinton could have increased her margin had she been able to campaign, or Obama could have been able to cut into her margin had he been afforded the same opportunity. It's anybody's guess what could have transpired, but it's just that - a guess. I see many Clinton supporters here on Daily Kos lauding the size of the voter turnout in Florida (as though that somehow mitigates the essential question of whether or not counting Florida's delegates, now, is fair - it isn't) yet I see very little mention of the fact that there was a very politically charged and controversial ballot initiative appearing on that same January 29th ballot:
Florida Amendment One, also known as the "Portability of Save Our Homes", is a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution. Florida voters will decide its fate in a special statewide election on January 29, 2008. Due to a November 2006 change in Florida's laws governing their ballot measures, 60% of the state's voters will need to approve of it in order for it to pass.
I think any fair person would concede that it's impossible to tell which drove voters more: their zeal to pull the lever (or punch the chad or press the button or fill in the oval) for Hillary Clinton or their desire to weigh in on this important property tax issue.
So the "rules are rules" crowd, rightfully, cry foul at the recent indications from the Clinton camp that they will fight to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates.
Zzzzt. Try again. Because seating them under the current circumstances is patently unfair.
Yet there is another issue of fairness at stake here. Florida and Michigan's voters are being victimized by their state legislatures and Democratic parties, and they want their vote to count. I really do find this a compelling argument, folks.
Yet at the same time, I am unwavering in my opinion that seating the delegates as they stand today is flat-out wrong.
So the obvious solution is a re-vote. I don't know where the Clinton camp stands on this - I haven't heard them say anything about it, but I don't watch Clinton exhaustively nor hang on her every word so I may have simply missed a yay or nay statement by the Clinton campaign with respect to a re-vote. I can say that I have heard Obama, when being asked a question by the press (sorry - can't find a link), indicate that he would be open to a re-vote provided it was fair and allowed each candidate the necessary time to campaign.
So re-vote, right?? Wrong. The issue is the cost associated with a do-over contest in Florida and Michigan. From The Huffington Post:
The sources claimed that neither state party nor the Democratic National Committee had the sufficient financial resources to restage the primaries and that any money raised for such an effort would be better spent on the general election.
|--snip--|
The minimum price tag for a new round of balloting in Florida - such as a vote-by-mail contest - would be $4-5 million, a sum that is beyond the reach of Florida Democrats, according to a source familiar with state party finances. The price tag for a new primary could be as high as $18 million.
Stalemate
Not like this. I don't want either candidate to become the nominee of the Democratic party under the current circumstances. Think about it - If things remain as they are right now, those who support Hillary Clinton (and it's a sizeable number, folks) will feel forever slighted. It will cause a rift in the party. And if the delegates are seated and allowed to cast their ballots by simply counting the vote that has already occurred under the circumstances outlined above, those who support Barack Obama (and it's a sizeable number, folks) will feel forever slighted. The nominee, whoever it is, will be dogged by some underlying sense of disunity and cries of "FOUL!" from that point forward.
I would like to know why the states themselves - whose legislative actions gave rise to this circumstance - are not willing to work with both of the states' Democratic parties AND the DNC (yep - they should chip in here) to resolve the issue of financing so that a fair re-vote can be achieved. I would also adore the idea of each candidate contributing equal dollar amounts from their war chests to achieve this goal. I don't believe for a second that it MUST cost X dollars - they can get creative here and pool resources and ideas across the states, the DNC, the Democratic parties in each state, and the candidates to make this happen.
While I support Barack Obama, I also support the idea and truth of voters. I am inflexible on simply passing through the Michigan and Florida votes as they stand today for all the reasons cited and documented above (and probably, more than anything, because it would be the flipside of the bad coin of simply not counting them at all without any re-vote). Every avenue should be exhausted - every ounce of creativity and teamwork channeled - to try to fairly resolve this issue in a way that votes are heard with a re-vote.
Because honestly - no matter what - it's a victory made somehow a little hollow with the two non-options on the table today.
I don't want to win that way, and I won't accept losing that way.