Clinton Campaign Signals Possible Delegate War Over Florida And Michigan
Faced by a string of recent primary defeats, and scrambling to shore-up its “firewall” against Democratic Senator Barack Obama, the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton is now making rumblings about triggering a divisive convention delegate war that could polarize the Democratic Party — and possibly leave the probable GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain smiling.
During the Vietnam War there was the now-clichéd saying about blowing up a village in order to save it. Recent comments from the Clinton camp suggest it is prepared to blow up the Democratic Party in order to win it. The New York Times:
Senator Barack Obama emerged from Tuesday’s primaries leading Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 100 delegates, a small but significant advantage that Democrats said would be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to make up in the remaining contests in the presidential nomination battle.
Neither candidate is expected to win the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to claim the nomination by the time the voting ends in June. But Mr. Obama’s campaign began making a case in earnest on Wednesday that if he maintained his edge in delegates won in primaries and caucuses, he would have the strongest claim to the backing of the 796 elected Democrats and party leaders known as superdelegates who are free to vote as they choose and who now stand to determine the outcome.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said she could still pull out a victory with victories in the biggest primaries still to come, including Ohio and Texas next month. But Mr. Obama’s clear lead in delegates allocated by the votes in nominating contests is one of a number of challenges facing her after a string of defeats in which Mr. Obama not only ran up big popular vote margins but also made inroads among the types of voters she had most been counting on, including women and lower-income people.
Should the cracks in her support among those groups show up in Ohio and Texas as well, it could undermine her hopes that those states will halt Mr. Obama’s momentum and allow her to claim dominance in many of the biggest primary battlegrounds.
With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.
Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.
The Atlanta Constitution gives this background:
After eight losses in a row and no victories in sight this month, Hillary Clinton’s campaign renewed calls Wednesday for the votes in Florida and Michigan to count toward delegates that would help her catch Barack Obama.
Obama’s camp said her demand was a blatant attempt to ignore the ground rules set when the national party stripped both states of their delegates for breaking early-primary rules. Last summer, all of the major candidates agreed to boycott the two renegade states.
“Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they’re trying to rewrite the rules,” Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters in a telephone call. “Now, at the 11th hour, the Clinton campaign is trying to rewrite rules that were firmly established, and I don’t think there’s a lot of appetite for that in the country or a lot of appetite for that at the DNC.”
In fact, when the national party inflicted its punishment on Florida in August, Clinton’s campaign did not protest. And on Sept. 1, Clinton went along with the boycott urged by four smaller states authorized by the DNC to hold the earliest contests.
About one month later, her chief rivals took their names off the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not, but said during an interview on public radio, “It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.”
But when Michigan voted on Jan. 15, Clinton stood up for voters there and in Florida — states she expected to win handily. “The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else,” the campaign said in a statement as the Michigan results came in.
Since then, as Obama has racked up more victories and nudged ahead in delegates, Clinton and her supporters have repeatedly called for the two states to count. On Wednesday, the day after her defeats in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, top advisors said she was entitled to 178 delegates from Florida and Michigan.
The irony is that polls now show Mrs. Clinton with an edge in future contests.
If Clinton were to win this way, she would, I believe, guarantee the Democrats will lose in November. A bitter, polarizing, divisive battle for Michigan and Florida with the result being a Clinton nomination would prompt large numbers of independents and Obama Democrats to stay home or even vote McCain. Would the Clintons sacrifice their party for their own ambition? You bet they would.
And, indeed, Sullivan is correct. There are any number of conventions in American history that left partisans bitter and feeling cheated…even if the ultimate victors won using loopholes or exploiting rules that many felt were unjust (and even were later changed). And the person who won via that kind of convention lost. Read TMV columnist Shaun Mullen’s history-packed post on brokered conventions.
If the Clinton campaign wins this way, it would be ignoring some key facts about Obama’s campaign: he is winning the support of independents and many other demographic groups, plus attracting a lot of new voters who have stayed home or been too young to vote before. They will not simply go to the polls anyway because Mrs. Clinton’s operatives (or lawyers) get the nomination in a way that a large portion of the Democratic Party feels is not legitimate.
And then there’s this: McCain remains underestimated by many Democrats. Even as the Arizona Senator begins to move to the right to try and unite his party, many independent voters would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in a general election because he has a long history of appealing to them. If there is a huge controversy over how Clinton won the nomination, McCain will most likely benefit from Democrats who don’t vote, who cast protest votes and from chased-away independent voters.
From the beginning of the primary season, Clinton has had to work to overcome perceptions that she is polarizing and will polarize the nation if she wins the White House. It’ll be hard to do that if she winds up with a nomination that many members of her own party didn’t feel she got fairly — and if voters see a polarized Democratic Party and read stories about turned-off young voters.
Clinton’s best bet: impressive wins in her firewall states. She already has double-digit leads over Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Sometimes if you blow up a village, you just get a blown-up village.
Cartoon by Mike Lester, The Rome News-Tribune.
Read weblog reaction to this issue HERE.
24 Responses to “Clinton Campaign Signals Possible Delegate War Over Florida And Michigan”
You're late to the party! We've known for weeks she has wanted to force those delegates into the convention. Have the party leadership and the party in Florida and Michigan already begun acting to hold new elections there, as they should, if they want the delegates to be seated? In other words, have they done anything of value about this?
No we're not late to the party. We've mentioned this in posts as speculative, or based on reports from a source or two. But if you look at the media coverage on this, it is now campaign signalling it will be doing this. It's now much less speculative than it has been before. And the context has changed: Obama has won all of those primaries. But a cautionary note on this: the conventional wisdom is a see saw and if he loses the next few it should shift back to a narrative with Hillary Clinton ahead or the front runner again. You do get a feeling, reading through dozens of stories on google, that the Demmies are possibly headed for a train wreck and that Mr. McCain could benefit.
I expect the Clinton campaign to be partisan, but why is the DNC inviting this blowup by remaining silent? One way or another, they need to preempt the blowup of at least the FL/MI issue by making some kind of decision. It will only be worse if they wait until it's a Bush v. Gore-style choice that hands one or the other candidate the win.
“One way or another, they need to preempt the blowup of at least the FL/MI issue by making some kind of decision.”
Absolutely. “Speculation” (actually, suspicion if not already firm belief) about this is that they are in cahoots with Ms. William Jefferson Clinton until and unless they demonstrate otherwise.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Clinton Campaign Signals Possible Delegate War Over Florida And MichiganHere’s a quick excerpt Faced by a string of recent primary defeats, and scrambling to shore-up its “firewall” against Democratic Senator Barack Obama, the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton is now making rumblings about triggering a divisive convention delegate war that could polarize the Democratic Party — and possibly leave the probable GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain smiling. During the Vietnam War there was the now-clichéd saying about blowing up a village in order to save it. Recent comments fro [...]
As a dispassionate observer, I think the noise-making about this could be more likely strategic-posturing than cataclismic -promising. Is it really about actually seating those delegations or is it more about planting the seed in the superdelegates mind that Clinton “apparent wins” of those states voters (and regular delegates) are being ignored?
And one thing that has not yet been tested is Obama and Obamacons reactions in the face of adversity. I think it will be instructive.
“And one thing that has not yet been tested is Obama and Obamacons reactions in the face of adversity. I think it will be instructive.”
Well, I think Obama is smart enough to play his hand well. But why would you, or anyone, care what his supporters do? Why would the Obamacons reaction be at all instructive?
Obamacons as defined as his campaign spokespersons, yes. Teenagers with headbands, no.
“planting the seed in the superdelegates mind”
Planting the seed in the mind of the gullible, emotional, or “ethically challenged” voters as well: “The people of Florida and Michigan [who didn't even really truly vote in a true election, but in a sham election held "anyway" despite the rules, and in one case, others left the ballot and psychologically, the election, but Clinton refused] deserve to be heard…”
And yes, Casual Observer, in at least one instance working in Obama's campaign office here in Iowa, wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt. [grin]
As there's no separate thread yet — the Bush guys want to shoot down the satellite that was in a decaying orbit. (This prevents a collision on Earth somewhere, ruins the chances of Chinese or Russian acquisition of the satellite's components, and lets us show off to China our own satellite-killing capability.)
1. What if we shoot and miss? Dem candidate fun-fest!
2. What if we don't destroy the satellite and the pieces fall to earth anyway? Dem candidate fun-fest!
DLS: I agree with your posts about the Dems in FL and MI needing to hold another contest. It would need to be a caucus, since the Dems pay for it (MI and FL would refuse to pay for a primary). It appears that Obama does better in caucuses so Hillary wouldn't go for that. And why would she if she believes she can get the delegates seated as is?
“If the Clinton campaign wins this way, it would be ignoring some key facts about Obama’s campaign….”
And if they lose graciously, what do they get out of it? There is no silver medal, no “Miss Congeniality” award.
“If the Clinton campaign wins this way, it would be ignoring some key facts about Obama’s campaign….”
And if they lose graciously, what do they get out of it? There is no silver medal, no “Miss Congeniality” award.
casualobserver- very good point about Hillary planting the seed in the superdelegates' minds that those “apparent wins” are being ignored.
I wonder if a reasonable approach would be for the majority of the superdelegates from FL and MI to pledge their support to Hill. (Not all of them and I'm not even sure what the split would be.) But it would give her more delegates towards the total of 2,025. If it's close otherwise, that could put her over the top.
casualobserver- very good point about Hillary planting the seed in the superdelegates' minds that those “apparent wins” are being ignored.
I wonder if a reasonable approach would be for the majority of the superdelegates from FL and MI to pledge their support to Hill. (Not all of them and I'm not even sure what the split would be.) But it would give her more delegates towards the total of 2,025. If it's close otherwise, that could put her over the top.
I've thought all along that Hillary will approach the primaries as a battle and will do whatever it takes to win each one, even if it means polarizing the constituencies. In the end she will expect everyone to fall in line and make nice.
I think the following factors are probably most important; up to 50% of the electorate will not vote for Hillary in the general election; if funny shenanigans happen which give Hillary the nomination, then many of Obama supporters will feel disenfranchised and either stay home (probably most of the first time voters who supported him will stay home) or vote for someone else; IF for the general election McCain retracts his “endless war in Iraq” position then he will get a lot of votes. The posting was right that McCain is underestimated- he has a lot of qualities that Americans value. Most people don't expect politicians to agree with them 100% of the time, and McCain does appeal to moderates. It may take a village to raise a child, but it only takes one polarizing politician to lose the presidency for her (or his) party. McCain is no where near as polarizing as Hillary.
I've thought all along that Hillary will approach the primaries as a battle and will do whatever it takes to win each one, even if it means polarizing the constituencies. In the end she will expect everyone to fall in line and make nice.
I think the following factors are probably most important; up to 50% of the electorate will not vote for Hillary in the general election; if funny shenanigans happen which give Hillary the nomination, then many of Obama supporters will feel disenfranchised and either stay home (probably most of the first time voters who supported him will stay home) or vote for someone else; IF for the general election McCain retracts his “endless war in Iraq” position then he will get a lot of votes. The posting was right that McCain is underestimated- he has a lot of qualities that Americans value. Most people don't expect politicians to agree with them 100% of the time, and McCain does appeal to moderates. It may take a village to raise a child, but it only takes one polarizing politician to lose the presidency for her (or his) party. McCain is no where near as polarizing as Hillary.
StockBoy with all respect, where did you get all your so called statistics.?
I recognise you maybe an Obama supporter but let's stick to facts rather than supposition.
Why are we Democrats always falling for this Right Wing SPIN when it comes to ELECTABILITY regarding our two Democratic Nominees?
“Hillary has too many negatives, BLAH BLAH BLAH…JAZZ JAZZ etc.
The Repub DOMINATED MEDIA TELLS YOU THIS.. Duh..So it must true eh?
They say if Hillary is nominated, that would UNITE the GOP to fight against you. Duh..So you should chicken out and wave the white flag and let them DICTATE TO YOU who you should pick to face them right? What kind of logic is that?
A lot of very intelligent Dems unfortunately right now seem to be have their “heads in the clouds” most of the time, instead of examining issues with heads firmly on their shoulders.
There's is NOTHING NEW they can throw against Hillary and THEY KNOW IT.
I have nothing against Barrack. I think he is very intelligent and full of potential. However I think his time is not yet ripe to face the GOP in a GENERAL ELECTION. You may not want to hear this but he will provide FERTILE GROUND for the REPUB spin machine. They will chew him to pieces if he is the Nominee.
THEY OWN THE BULK OF THIS MEDIA that is giving him this GLARINGLY obvious “We love You” press right now. It is with GOOD REASON they are doing this FOR NOW…yes FOR NOW.
Think about it a little.
StockBoy with all respect, where did you get all your so called statistics.?
I recognise you maybe an Obama supporter but let's stick to facts rather than supposition.
Why are we Democrats always falling for this Right Wing SPIN when it comes to ELECTABILITY regarding our two Democratic Nominees?
“Hillary has too many negatives, BLAH BLAH BLAH…JAZZ JAZZ etc.
The Repub DOMINATED MEDIA TELLS YOU THIS.. Duh..So it must true eh?
They say if Hillary is nominated, that would UNITE the GOP to fight against you. Duh..So you should chicken out and wave the white flag and let them DICTATE TO YOU who you should pick to face them right? What kind of logic is that?
A lot of very intelligent Dems unfortunately right now seem to be have their “heads in the clouds” most of the time, instead of examining issues with heads firmly on their shoulders.
There's is NOTHING NEW they can throw against Hillary and THEY KNOW IT.
I have nothing against Barrack. I think he is very intelligent and full of potential. However I think his time is not yet ripe to face the GOP in a GENERAL ELECTION. You may not want to hear this but he will provide FERTILE GROUND for the REPUB spin machine. They will chew him to pieces if he is the Nominee.
THEY OWN THE BULK OF THIS MEDIA that is giving him this GLARINGLY obvious “We love You” press right now. It is with GOOD REASON they are doing this FOR NOW…yes FOR NOW.
Think about it a little.
Hey, Jakey. The only “statistic” I threw out was that up to 50% of the voters have said they would not vote for Hillary, which is in line with what I've seen out there (some polls have high 40s while I've seen one or two articles mention a little over 50%). But regardless of the exact number who would never vote for her, the point I was making was that a huge percentage of voters won't vote for her, more people say they would not vote for her then the other candidates.
As far as my other comments- they are strictly my musings.
Yes, I am an Obama supporter and I also know that whoever the Dem nominee is the Reps. will go after him/her with everything they have. And if Obama gets the nomination that means that the Republicans will go after his so-called lack of experience and sling every bit of mud at him that they can- including his “boneheaded” (as Obama put it) land deal. Hillary and Bill have already thrown stuff at him and he's not only survived but has been trouncing Hillary of late. I'm sure the Reps. will be more of the same, and more intense.
Yes, I agree with you that a lot of Dems may have their heads in the clouds and even though I'm happy to see them support my man Obama, I'm not sure they're all supporting him for the right reasons. Though why does anyone support Bush at all? It's a rhetorical question and somewhat flip so I'm not expecting an answer.
As far as your paranoia… you're more than welcome to it. You must be a Hillary supporter.
Hey, Jakey. The only “statistic” I threw out was that up to 50% of the voters have said they would not vote for Hillary, which is in line with what I've seen out there (some polls have high 40s while I've seen one or two articles mention a little over 50%). But regardless of the exact number who would never vote for her, the point I was making was that a huge percentage of voters won't vote for her, more people say they would not vote for her then the other candidates.
As far as my other comments- they are strictly my musings.
Yes, I am an Obama supporter and I also know that whoever the Dem nominee is the Reps. will go after him/her with everything they have. And if Obama gets the nomination that means that the Republicans will go after his so-called lack of experience and sling every bit of mud at him that they can- including his “boneheaded” (as Obama put it) land deal. Hillary and Bill have already thrown stuff at him and he's not only survived but has been trouncing Hillary of late. I'm sure the Reps. will be more of the same, and more intense.
Yes, I agree with you that a lot of Dems may have their heads in the clouds and even though I'm happy to see them support my man Obama, I'm not sure they're all supporting him for the right reasons. Though why does anyone support Bush at all? It's a rhetorical question and somewhat flip so I'm not expecting an answer.
As far as your paranoia… you're more than welcome to it. You must be a Hillary supporter.
Hi StockBoy,
Yes I am a Hillary supporter but I am first a Democrat .
At the end of the day, we should ALL support whoever the nominee of the party is, just like the GOP is doing around McCain who is ultimately their nominee.
At the end of the day it's about the party not the personality. That is what we should all remember.
Hi StockBoy,
Yes I am a Hillary supporter but I am first a Democrat .
At the end of the day, we should ALL support whoever the nominee of the party is, just like the GOP is doing around McCain who is ultimately their nominee.
At the end of the day it's about the party not the personality. That is what we should all remember.