Could today’s John Edwards endorsement of Barack Obama in Michigan mean that there will be an effort to resolve the MI/FL issue before May 31?
Astute followers of politics will know that as little as possible is ‘left to chance’ in a campaign. The timing and positioning of every move is carefully studied and calculated so as to have maximum impact.
The timing of John Edwards’ endorsement today is no accident. He could have officially endorsed Obama weeks or months ago if he wished.
So, why pick today, and why fly to attend a large rally in Michigan to endorse?
Let’s see:
Almost 600,000 people voted in the Democratic primary in Michigan held on the 15th of January this year. Roughly 55% voted for Hillary Clinton but 45% didn’t, even though she was the only major candidate on the ballot.
The DNC rules committee is set to meet on the 31st of May. The main item on the agenda would be what to do about Michigan and Florida primaries that contravened the rules on the timing of their elections.
If John Edwards was waiting to see how the race played out so as to make it fair to both candidates, why pick the day immediately following a substantial majority win by Hillary Clinton to add his support to Obama. On one hand it detracts from Hillary’s glory; on the other, the win had all but been dismissed as ‘expected’ and ‘irrelevant’ by the pundits. Few even in the Clinton camp believe that it will make much difference to Barack’s nomination chances.
I’m speculating that Edwards’ endorsement may help to precipitate a decision about MI & FL before May 31. Why?
1 - If Clinton and Obama can reach a consensus on seating MI & FL before the DNC rules committee meet, then it will appear to be a happier outcome than relying on a behind the scenes decision by senior DNC members.
2 – If the DNC rules committee did have to make a determination, they would have little choice but to find a solution that would penalize them for breaking the rules. They have a tough choice to make that allows the voters to have a voice, yet shows determination in upholding the rules. As I pointed out in a previous diary, there is already provision in the rules for states that violate the primary timing rules. That is that only 50% of delegate vote is to be allowed, or worse.
If the candidates agreed to resolve the matter between themselves and propose an amicable solution to the rules committee, it would largely absolve them from a politically charged decision.
3 – Let’s assume that Florida is seated in the ratio that voted. That would mean that Hillary would get 105 delegates to 67 for Obama plus the virtual support from Edwards’ 13 delegates (see my justification below). That would result in a 105 to 80 split, a net gain of 25 delegates for Hillary.
4 – Michigan is not so obvious. Since Hillary was the only candidate to win any delegates (the others on the ballot failed to get 15% minimum), she could receive 73 out of the 128 delegates available. Under this scenario, there are still 55 delegates unaccounted for.
If the argument to seat MI delegates is that MI voters should have a voice, then those 55 must also be seated. After all, in an election where Hillary was the only major candidate, 45% (almost 240,000) voted against her. One could argue that even if you assume that MI was a fair vote, the remaining 55 delegates would necessarily vote against her at the convention. So in this worst case scenario for Obama, Hillary gains a further net 18 delegates.
5 – Adding the 18 + 25 we get +43 delegates for Hillary. Based on the current figures from Real Clear Politics, that means that Obama would still have a 111 ‘pledged’ delegate lead over Hillary as of today.
There are 189 pledged delegates left, so Obama only needs 39 more for a pledged delegate majority, whereas Hillary needs 150 or 80% (including Oregon).
Assuming a +10% victory for Obama in Oregon, Hillary would need 92% of all the rest and Obama only 8% (10 delegates).
6 – The above scenario only covered pledged delegates. Since Obama only needs 10 more after Oregon and he’s already ahead in ‘unpledged/super delegates’ by 14, the race is effectively over after Oregon.
7 – I argued above that the Edwards delegates would vote for Obama and that all the uncommitted in MI should be his. Despite Edwards’ endorsement, his delegates do not have to vote for Obama. However, we would only find out at the convention, far too late for it to matter. Since it’s to the benefit of the party to determine a winner sooner than later, and Hillary's chance of winning is negligible, this argument makes sufficient sense.
What is clear to me from the above is that John Edwards’ endorsement helps to make the case for a decisive majority after Oregon, even if MI & FL are seated as voted.
Ironically, this could help Hillary end the race with some grace. I’m not suggesting she should drop out once MI & FL are counted, and Obama receives the majority. The ideal solution is for the remaining 3 states (Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota) to become a showcase for party unity with Hillary and Obama campaigning together to ensure that everyone gets to vote.
Please note that my above assumptions about the vote split in FL and especially MI are based on the most straightforward scenario. In reality, it’s likely that MI may be split in a more favorable way for Obama. Also, there is the possibility that the rules committee allows all the delegates but only ½ of a vote each at the convention. Either way, the numerical contest ends in Oregon.
CT