DNC: Florida and Michigan Re-Elections
Marc Ambinder brings the news that the DNC’s chairman, Howard Dean, has told Michigan and Florida that they can still be seated at the convention…
Marc Ambinder brings the news that the Democratic National Committee’s (henceforth DNC) chairman, Howard Dean, has told Michigan and Florida that he “will not bend the party rules to grandfather in the disputed delegates from” those two states. He gives them two options: “either they can wait and allow the credentials committee to decide whether to seat their delegates, or submit to a re-vote sanctioned under DNC rules.”
He also said in a statement that if either one of the candidates wants to hold re-elections in both states, he or she (in this case probably she, since Clinton will be the favorite to win again in those states) should come up with a plan to organize those extra primaries and that person has to “suggest a credible mechanism to pay for it.”
All in all, because Michigan and Florida were stripped off their delegates, there are 366 delegates less to give to the Democratic candidates. If both would, therefore, hold new primaries, and if Clinton wins both – and by a considerable margin – she could close the gap with Barack Obama, or, at the very least, make great inroads into Obama’s lead.
Obama will, most likely, favor the first option: leaving it up to the credential committee. As it is, though, it’s unlikely that this committee will give Florida and Michigan their delegates back. From an opportunistic perspective, it would make sense for Obama to advocate the first option. However, if he’s all about change, about giving people a voice, and so on, he should give both states the opportunity to hold re-elections.
At this moment Obama’s campaign has said that although they don’t oppose new elections in Florida and Michigan, they’re not going to do anything to make it happen either. That sounds like a reasonably smart attitude: this way he won’t give Florida and Michigan voters the idea that he’s their enemy (although; also not their friend), but he’ll make it more difficult for Clinton to make this happen nonetheless.
Clinton will, of course, favor the second option, mostly out of opportunistic reasons as well. If the roles were reversed it’s likely that she would do what Obama does. They are ambitious individuals, and they’re ruthless. That’s how they operate.
Two selfish people… two opportunists. The question is: what’s the right choice?
I considered the decision of the DNC to strip both states of their delegates to be undemocratic from the beginning. It’s a strange thing to do for a party that calls itself the Democratic Party.
On top of that, Florida and Michigan are important states in November. Can the Democrats afford to alienate Florida?
David Brooks spells out how Clinton should operate:
She’ll have to make the case that everybody’s vote should count. She should offer to split the $15 to $20 million cost of a Florida re-vote with Obama. If he says no, she can ask why he is against democracy. Why does he like the small turnout caucuses over the big turnout primaries?
Yup. And there really isn’t much Obama can say about that. If Clinton chooses to attack him on this issue, all Obama can say is “well, but it’s their own fault.” Yeah, nice and all, but not effective (also because Clinton can simply say that the people had nothing to say about the date of the primaries).
I can see Clinton being favored to win Florida again (but probably by a smaller margin). But Michigan? She barely won that one when her’s was the only name on the ballot — against Undeclared. I’d say that Michigan would be a toss-up for her at best.
I would say that the Rules were announced and that FL and MI should have appealed at that time and not waiting until no to raise a stink. I think that FL’s gov has an interest in seeing a protracted fight between the Dems so the Repulican candidate can gear up while the Dems infight.
As for what Obama says to Clinton’s offer, I hope that he says that he is a man who by his integrity will honor the rules of the DNC and allow the organization that oversees the party to make the decision. It is not up to him to spend his donors money in that manner and as donor I do not want my money going to pay for FL and MI mistakes.
Frankly, it is just that sort of "rules don’t apply to me" sort of behavior that is the problem with this country. Everyone feels entitled to special treatment. Hillary doesn’t care about voters and if they have voted for Obama, she’d be suing to keep the delegates from being seated.
By the logic of the writer, it is un-democratic if you get arrested for drunk driving. The law is the law. Rules are the rules. Everyone needs to follow them.
KK, what nonsense. The DNC has rules, and the state has rules too. the question is whose rules ought to take precedence. This situation is all the DNC’s fault, because they felt that they were entitled to dictate when the states’ primaries would be held, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS THE STATES WHO WERE PAYING FOR THEM TO BE HELD. How in the world does that make any sense? The states attitudes ought to be that if the party isn’t interested in Florida’s view on who the candidate ought to be, then the state isn’t interested in whoever the party nominates, and that person will be left off our state’s ballot in November. Remember, each state sets the rules for who can be on the ballot, and how they qualify. And the parties have to follow those rules. So If the democrats want to behave like a snotty private club, I’m all for MI and FL punishing them.
Let’s see. Suppose I cannot be bothered to register to vote before the election (my state requries registration a month in advance). Then I show up at the polls on primary election day, and am disenfranchised because I am not allowed to vote! Obviously the rules should be changed, and the election should be re-run so I can vote. Anything else would be undemocratic. If I don’t get my way, I should vote in the General Election for a candidate I don’t like or agree with, just to punish my party for not letting me vote in the primary. What else would a 4-year-old having a tantrum do?
Sorry, but I just have a problem with the whole discussion over Florida and Michigan. If they want to get the rules changed for next time, fine. But until then, grow up! You get to lie in the bed that you made.