So Florida is not going to revote. Why? Apparently, they don't want to.
Meanwhile, there's a giant hurdle in Michigan, as my colleague Marc Ambinder reports. A lot of Democrats voted in the Republican primary, since Obama wasn't even on the Democratic ballot. It's not sure-fire that they would have broken disproportionately for Obama, but that seems like the way to bet.
This seems like a pretty huge blow for Hillary; she'll have an uphill battle getting those delegates seated. I'd imagine there will be some sort of compromise where the superdelegates get seated, but the regular delegates are shut out.
Hillary has an uphill battle no matter what - her best best is grind down Obama so that his electability in the general is destroyed, leaving her as the party's only chance.
From now on, the delegates will serve only as a distraction from the real contest - can Obama take what Clinton will throw at him, and how can he fight back without betryaing his principles or his promises?
If Hillary blows Obama out in PA, which appears increasing probable, the party will look for reasons to put her over the top. The delegates will be seated, she will be the nominee.
The delegates will be seated, she will be the nominee.
How can anybody with a vestigial sense of fairness support both 1) changing the rules suddenly after the fact and 2) seating delegates from a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? It's not only anti-democratic, it's anti-Democratic. WTF?
It's not at all a blow to Hillary. Obama is too far ahead for Hillary to catch him with Florida and Michigan, even if they voted huge for her. (Remember, from her Ohio+Texas wins on March 4, she picked up about 5 net delegates.)
The only way Hillary can win is with superdelegates. And the best way for Hillary to convince superdelegates to vote for her, even though Obama's in the lead, is to portray herself as the victim. The hypothetical delegates she would win if only the mean ol' party insiders would let her count Michigan and Florida are far more valuable for that purpose than actual delegates she'd win if they revoted.
Mr. Lyman, Obama wasn't on the ballot because he voluntarily removed himself from the ballot, despite the fact that there was nothing in the Democratic rules requiring him to do so.
Again, there was nothing in the Democratic rules requiring his withdrawal. The reason Obama withdrew was not respect for a nonexistent rule, but because of pure tactics. Hillary was polling way ahead of him there, and a clear Hillary-over-Obama victory, even with no delegates on the line, would provide momentum to her campaign. By withdrawing his name, he was able to defang Hillary's claim to a victory.
If his purely tactical decision to deny the voters of Michigan a real contest comes back and bites him, well, so what? He made his decision; he got exactly the benefit he wanted out of it; he can live with the unanticipated consequences.
"But, but, but!" various people say. "If he thought the delegates would count, he wouldn't have withdrawn." True. And if Michigan thought the nomination wouldn't be sewn up by now, they wouldn't have had their primary when they did. And if the DNC had anticipated this mess to begin with, they wouldn't have selected the enforcement mechanism they chose. And so on. The Democrats are in a situation nobody was anticipating back then; adapting to it will of course make decisions based on bad anticipations backfire.
Of course, the proper approach to hear the voice of the voters but punish the Michigan & Florida state parties for holding their primaries early would be to seat the delegates who were chosen by free and fair elections, and tell the party leaders and elected officials (who control the actions of the state parties) that they can sit this convention out. That is, go exactly opposite Ms. McArdle's imagined compromise, and seat only the regular delegates from Michigan and Florida, not the superdelegates.
It's too bad the Democratic leadership decided to take two electorally important states out of the mix. It sure would be nice to know who would win in a contested primary in both states. Now, we'll never know.
If I were a superdelegate I'd give a good long look at who I thought could win against McCain in enough states for the all important (really) electoral victory, vote accordingly and critics be damned.
"If he thought the delegates would count, he wouldn't have withdrawn." True. And if Michigan thought the nomination wouldn't be sewn up by now, they wouldn't have had their primary when they did. And if the DNC had anticipated this mess
I fail to see the point of this litany of what-ifs.
The most important thing in any contest is that people be able to rely upon the rules of the game. Tactical decisions are made in reliance on these rules. You can't add two minutes to the clock just because the team you favor isn't winning. If you do, then it's perfectly fair for the team in the lead to say, "Butbutbut we were running out the clock; if we'd known you were going to change the rules, we'd have pushed harder on offense to try to lengthen our lead." That's not sour grapes, that's legitimate grievance at having one's perfectly sensible and correct tactical decisions rendered incorrect after the fact.
I don't care why Obama took his name off the ballot. He had a right to rely on the rules as stated at the time he did so. If you want to change the rules, you must give him an opportunity to change his tactics.
It isn't a game or a contest; there are no players separate from the referees and rules-makers with rights to fair treatment. It is a multi-aspect political compromise intended to work for the maximum political advantage of the Democratic Party.
The current exclusion rules were set with the expectation that they wouldn't actually hurt the Democratic Party either nationally or in the states of Florida and Michigan. That turns out to be wrong. The answer, then, is to change them so they cease to hurt the party. Some particular people may be especially hurt or especially benefit from the change, but that's a necessary sacrifice.
Some particular people may be especially hurt or especially benefit from the change, but that's a necessary sacrifice.
Well, if acting like assholes towards Obama is what the D's want to do, I won't try to stop them. But it is certainly unfair by any measure, and I find it hard to see how the party of the New Deal is going to be helped by becoming the party of the Really Shitty Deal For Anyone Not Named Clinton. Count on R's to remind independents and blacks what she did to get nominated.