To my mind, the biggest issues facing the Democrats at the moment are (1) will there be a unity ticket, and (2) what are we going to do about FL and MI? Let’s take them in reverse order.
The FL and MI situation is a big, big problem. The (Republican) governor of FL and the (Democratic) governor of MI put out a joint statement yesterday insisting that their states’ delegates be seated. They appear to be demanding that both parties seat all their delegates (recall that the GOP stripped those states of half their allotments), but the big event obviously is the Democrats’ decision to zero out two states whose voters will be critical to both parties in the 2008 general election.
What to do about this? To me, a do-over of some kind is the only plausible option. That the voters of FL and MI would not be heard from at the Democratic convention seems intolerable. Equally intolerable would be accepting the results of “primaries” in which the candidates did not campaign, and for one of which (MI) only one candidate appeared on the ballot. Howard Dean has indicated that he’s open to talking about a do-over, and there are starting to be murmurs from the campaigns that they’d be up for it as well. Apparently, the top brass at the Clinton campaign (including the candidate herself) are so far not on board with a do-over. Here’s hoping that common sense prevails upon them, and that they listen to the other unnamed “advisers” who think a do-over is a good idea.
Problematic, however, is this:
Democratic Party officials in Michigan have been considering holding a caucus-style election, and a spokeswoman for Ms. Granholm said she was open to the idea as long as no public money was used. Such a caucus has also been discussed for Florida.
Uh, Governor Granholm? Hate to tell you this, but you set this situation up, and if you want to fix it, it’s going to cost some money. There’s plenty of blame to go around on this, but there is no doubt that some of it falls on the political leadership of the states, who approved jumping the schedule despite numerous warnings from the party. It’s all very well to issue statements, but solving the problem is going to cost you. Pony up — it’s worth it. IMHO, primaries are always immensely preferable to caucuses, but even a caucus, if done right, would be far better than nothing. Here’s one clever idea on how to do it.
Now, about that unity ticket. Clinton is talking publicly about it; Obama, so far, is holding his cards close to his vest.
Try this out for a thought experiment (it probably won’t happen, but just bear with me): both candidates commit now to a unity ticket, without any comment on who’s #1 and who’s #2. They also commit to as close to a co-presidency as possible — think Cheney-sized influence without Cheney. The remaining contests, and perhaps the convention, will decide who gets to run as Prez and who as VP, but both are guaranteed at least the VP slot.
I just don’t see much downside to this. Both candidates are wildly popular within the party electorate — witness the record turnouts this cycle, with almost equal numbers of voters supporting each candidate. If both are on the ticket, doesn’t it stand to reason that much of that enthusiasm will carry over into the general?
Plus, I tend to agree with sabutai that the longer John McCain doesn’t know who his opponent is, the better off we are. If he knows he’s running against both Clinton and Obama, but he’s not sure in which order, he’s in a very difficult spot until it gets sorted out. Meanwhile, both Obama and Clinton can run hard against McCain — and because they’re still in a tight race, the media will print every word they say, while largely ignoring McCain’s ripostes.
Of course, part of the deal would have to be that, beyond some point, negative ads would be deal-breakers. Clinton’s statement suggesting that McCain would be more qualified than Obama to be C-in-C was a big mistake, and she absolutely should avoid comments like that in the future. If there were a deal in place now, it might actually cut down on pointless negative attacks, while encouraging legitimate drawing of contrasts. Nice theory, anyway.
The Clinton and Obama candidacies have already made history. If they were to join forces now, they’d do it again, in a truly dramatic way. I cannot see either a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket being stoppable in the fall, and either would change the country forever in all kinds of good ways.
Finally, this passage from an NYT article today caught my eye:
Mr. Obama has built a campaign persona as the man of hope, a young candidate with oratorical skills who promises to build bridges across the ideological divide.
If he indulges his inner Chicago pol, formed in a city where politics is conducted with crowbars, he risks taking the shine off. But his advisers say he has little choice.
“His advisers.” I recall a recent election in Massachusetts when another candidate who talked a lot about “hope” and optimism faced similar cries from the purveyors of conventional wisdom. He stood fast, and it paid off. Here’s Vennochi a couple of months ago on this subject:
As a gubernatorial candidate, Patrick stayed above the fray. He could afford to stick to a positive campaign theme, especially in the general election, where he always held the lead. Even after his Republican opponent, Kerry Healey, sharpened her attacks, Patrick resisted advice to go negative. With Democratic activists firmly behind him, the strategy worked in a statewide campaign.
A presidential primary presents a much different political challenge. Those Democrats trailing Clinton can no longer make the case for their own candidacy. They must tell voters why she shouldn’t be the nominee. John Edwards made a clear decision to do that a few weeks ago, questioning Clinton’s electability.
But Obama’s in a tough spot. How do you go after an opponent’s perceived weaknesses when you’re telling people you’re tired of politics as usual? If you’re the candidate of change, it’s hard to be the candidate of old-fashioned attack politics.
Once a candidate goes down that road, there’s no turning back.
This is indeed a tough spot, and a big decision, for Obama. But I do think that if he takes the bait, returns to his “inner Chicago pol” (as the NYT amusingly puts it) and breaks out the crowbars, he will damage his candidacy; he will not win PA; and he will find himself with a very tough case to make with the superdelegates. It’s fine to “draw contrasts”; it’s fine to call on her to release her tax returns and whatever. But at all costs, he should avoid letting his desire to win get the better of his making the case for why he should win.
He should, in other words, campaign as though he is willing to lose, if winning would cost him his core principles. Really, both ca
ndidates should do that. But, yes, Obama gets held to a higher standard. It is not really a double standard, by the way — Obama himself has issued the call for a new kind of politics. He owes it to his supporters to practice what he preaches.
as I was typing this comment. I agree with you.
Democrat Gary Trauner almost won in Wyoming last time around. He’s running for Congress again. And in Mississippi, Trent Lott has given up his Senate seat to cash in as a lobbyist before the new rules make it tougher to cash in, so Dems have an easier chance to win that seat.
<
p>If the two campaigns fight for those contests, it can build up grassroots networks for the downballot candidates to work with. And if the Republicans have to spend money to defend their positions in MS and WY, that’s money they can’t spend trying to keep Virginia or take New Jersey.
<
p>BTW, remember that Obama has worked the identity politics of youth pretty effectively thus far (always using ‘old’ as a pejorative)–he has an uphill battle in Pennsylvania where old people make up a larger than usual chuck of the population, as in Ohio.
edit.
The existing calendar is the correct starting position, I think. Maybe that will decide matters, along with the SuperDelegates (the possibility of a collapse by one side or the other is always there). If FL and MI want to schedule repeat votes that conform to Party rules, terrific; otherwise, don’t seat their delegates: that’s a simple policy that everyone can understand and should respect.
<
p>I agree both of these candidates on one ticket is the best outcome for the Democratic Party, but given the sums of money involved and the political commitments made, I don’t think either candidate could accept VP at this point, even if they wanted to — and I don’t think either wants to: it takes an ego the size of the world to run for President these days, and that type of person won’t accept defeat unless forced to do so, especially when they are so close to winning.
They knew the rules. They knew that they should not move their votes forward or their would be consequences. It was clear.
<
p>As for the Clinton attempts to seat them. I find it disgusting. Her campaign made it clear that when the rules and schedule for the primaries were set by the DNC, which they had a lot of say in setting, that they were fine with them, including the dates and the consequences for breaking them. That was of course when they thought they would run away with this thing. That she has completely reversed her position on these states smacks of all that is wrong with her politics. Maybe the rules were dumb but her campaign was fine with them then. Its totally about what is good for her and not about the party or principle.
<
p>I think the idea of a do-over is kinda lame. If it comes to that, it shows that the party is worth crap.
<
p>The Florida guv is playing politics with this thing. Great for Republicans to schedule a do-over for Florida in June or something. It just drags this thing out further. McCain will love that and Charlie Crist get’s to look like man of the people.
<
p>
lets their delegates be seated if the states select them within the approved calendar.
<
p>It would be against the rules not to seat properly selected delegates.
They knew that and they knew they risked not being seated. Clinton had no problem with these rules. Until she started losing.
are exactly why I hope this is over soon. You seem to see this as a contest and your guy is better and therefore is the victim if he doesn’t “win”. In my opinion neither is better. The nastiness and confabulation of fact and fiction is what concerns me the most — it’s deja vu all over again. If anyone is naive enough to think this is not about political maneuvers and campaign tactics, caveat emptor.
<
p>I’m reminded of GW mangling the phrase we should all be more familiar with:
<
p>
I just think it sucks that Clinton agreed a set of rules when she thought she had nothing to worry about. Then she loses Iowa and South Carolina and all of a sudden completely reverses her position. Even if I wanted Clinton to win this thing, I would find that a little slimy and self-serving. That is not the type of politics I endorse and please give me an example when Obama has done the same – otherwise don’t lump them together.
<
p>And yes it is all campaign tactics. But that is my problem with it. Clinton is all campaign tactics. Winning is everything. This is not playing a victim card. Its stating a fact. One that no one seems to want to own up to on the Clinton side. In some ways, she get’s a pass for sleazy self-centered manuvering because its just expected from her.
<
p>Please explain to me how Clinton agreeing the rules and then completely changing her mind when she felt the rules were now not in her favor is justifiable?
believe that? Can you put aside all the anger or adulation and look at the situation from a disinterested perspective? Both candidates want more delegates and both are willing to maneuver and twist their campaign rhetoric to their advantage. Neither is pure as the driven snow and as such, they want to manipulate public opinion by whatever means are available. Your guy is as prone to this as she is. I really think you need to see that, otherwise, you’re missing a big piece of the puzzle.
Not once has Obama lost and then blamed the rules. Clinton has done that all over the place. Michigan and Florida. The Nevada casino caucuses. Texas caucuses.
<
p>Your argument that this is in some way an equal discourse is not backed by the facts.
…I believe that FL only selected real-live human delegates just the other day. That is, they held the caucuses like MA will on April 5th to determine which individuals go to convention. If the rules specifically refer to delegate selection within the window you could argue that FL followed the letter of the rule.
<
p>The voters are what matter here so I have no sympathy for your line about having little sympathy in a previous comment. It was not FL and MI VOTERS who knew the rules but chose a rogue date anyway.
<
p>Finally in another comment you mention Clinton’s alleged winning is everything strategy. Cite examples! What has she done that is so beyond the pale? Of course every candidate uses tactics to gain and advantage. This is called (drum roll please) POLITICS!
It avoids both disenfranchising the millions who live in the two states and allowing an ugly fight over seating delegates that were not awarded through a fair process.
how do you see that anyone was disenfranchised if they seat delegates based on that result?
Not seating delegates is what would disenfranchise them. But seating delegates awarded in a contest in which not all candidates competed and which was explicited deemed illicit by the national Democratic party would be an unfair process.
thanks for the explanation.
If the game is not going your way—-change the rules? What?
<
p>Gov Dean and all of the rocket scientists at party headquarters and a slew of opportunists just had the whole process blow up in their faces.
<
p>If they have any kind of another voting primary in FL, Obama will take the hit for a variety of reasons. He would be a fool not to go into federal court and injunct the proceeding citing Gore v Bush. Why should Obama be punished for a multitude of sine for a multitude of people.
<
p>The FL governor is delirious with joy. He is prompting them to have another primary—-as long as the democratic party pays for it.
<
p>What a colossal F up. What do you think the voters in USA are thinking.
<
p>Is this what is called “being hoisted on your own pittard”?
–Isn’t it likely that Granholm is playing the “not public money” card in the hopes that the DNC will pick up the tab? If that’s the case, I’d suggest the caucuses first, too. Primaries are more expensive, no? Take the cost to the state out of the equation and I think she might be perfectly willing to run whatever process Mr. Dean requests.
<
p>–Dream ticket. Obama is in the lead. Why should he agree to the VP slot if he loses? Wouldn’t that lead some to go for Clinton, thinking they can get her, then him with more experience later?
<
p>–I’m not sure the “strong VP” role is all that appealing. The president gets what they want. The only real value in my mind to a VP is when they bring policy or experience expertise to the office. (Why Cheney might rank with LBJ as the best VP choice ever for their Prez) Hillary might be a good VP for Oabama because of her experience seeing the WH machine work from behind the scenes. But I”m not sure Obama works as well as a #2. Just doesn’t seem to play to his strengths. But I’d take him.
She would treat Obama the same way that Clinton Al Gore: Like dirt!
Obama does have a tough choice and to date he has really stayed away from attacking Hillary directly and personally – and seems to get little credit for it. I don’t think he’s good at confrontational politics and it would take him off his game to engage in it. Most of the time he responds to Clinton charges but does not make many of his own.
<
p>But he can’t let Clinton dictate the media coverage as she did in the last week before Ohio-Texas. She dominated and he was on the defensive. He has to change that dynamic.
<
p>And Patrick was able to stay positive because ultimately Healey was a far weaker candidate and her attacks were wild and over the top. There was also only one election day in the Patrick-Healey fight and not the unending wave of contests which require a recast message and new approach to each state as we have with the prez contest. Say Healey had 20 other elections to try and hit Patrick – she might have hit her target at some point and it may have been hard for Patrick to remain above it all for so long. I just don’t think we can make much of the comparison between Patrick’s staying positive and Obama’s choice here. The Clintons will not be beaten with hope alone.
<
p>And it seems absurd to hold Obama to some higher standard because he aspires to a new politics. Instead of demanding that he remain cleaner, why not demand more of Clinton. Otherwise, you are just giving her a pass. Double standard if you ask me.
I hoped that Tuesday night would’ve settled this primary, especially now that the GOP have their nominee. Now I’m convinced that this is only going to be resolved at the Convention.
<
p>Hillary has no real probable chance of catching up to Obama, mathematically, because of proportional allocation of pledged delegates. Yet she’s not backing down. Obama sure as hell won’t back down either since he has the lead in the delegate count, which he’s likely going to take into Denver. I don’t see either campaign easily agreeing to re-runs in Michigan and Florida. So the only real way either can win at this point is by strong-arming the superdelegates. Even then, it’s all too likely that they’ll split too evenly to put someone over the top, unless a parade of high-powered, highly influential Dems come out to endorse one candidate overwhelmingly.
<
p>This show is going to Colorado and if things stay as close as they have, there will be no resolution between the two campaigns since both have strong claims to the nomination based on states won and delegate counts. The only way out would be a third way: a brokered convention nominating a consensus candidate, other than those two, who could unite the delegates and the party faithful. If so, Al Gore may yet be the Democratic nominee.
<
p>Of course, there are still several long weeks and months to go before this improbable convention scenario has any chance of playing out. Unless one of the candidates is able to blow the other one clear out of the water, I can’t see how a brokered convention isn’t a possibility.
The party will not nominate someone with no campaign organization, no money, no volunteers, no mandate, etc over one of two people who have money in the bank, have strong organizations, and have been running for more than a year.
<
p>It’s going to be Obama or Clinton.
I fully conceded that the Al Gore scenario is highly unlikely. However, the discussion I’d like to see is how do you get one candidate who will likely hold onto his delegate lead or another candidate with the establishment support to back down? Barring any major error or event in either campaign, how does the party pick its nominee out of this mathematical and institutional deadlock?
You have to figure delegates will start peeling off for the other candidate. Superdelegates, for sure. Even with Obama and Clinton going in to the convention splitting the pledged delegates, one of the two will get the number needed to win the nomination from the superdelegates. Worst case, there will be a few rounds of balloting before they start breaking for one of the two candidates.
is probably on the first ballot, with results known before that.
<
p>With only two candidates, unless some delegates cast legal ballots for someone else (can they?), someone has to win on the first ballot.
<
p>Denver will be a triumphant end of marathon for one of them.
Given the tremendous success of a woman candidate and an African-American candidate, do you really think these two constituencies (both vital to the Party) are going to stand for both candidates being kicked to the curb for a white dude?
<
p>Now that would be a doomed Democratic nominee.
<
p>Katha Pollitt made a really interesting comment over at The Nation recently, about how flat the John Edwards candidacy turned out. He adopted strong political stances on Democratic issues, and it just didn’t attract voters the way the woman and the African-American did. Frankly, I haven’t seen a good argument Al Gore would have done much better than Edwards at attracting support. Given how many people are turning out for Hillary and Obama (Texas has almost as many primary voters this year as general voters for Kerry in 2004), I think it’s clear that identity politics is the way to move people to the polls.
<
p>Which gives me hope for November. Because the evangelicals in the GOP don’t see John McCain as one of them the way they did with Bush.
This like a game of chess. Somehow the democratic party is being unwittingly maneuvered into an untenable position.
<
p>A friend from Ohio wrote me and said that many people pulled a democratic ballot to vote for Hillary just to keep the bloodsport going.
<
p>Where is Karl Rove?
Dodging an investigation into what the DOJ did to Don Siegelman.
is put more power in the hands of the last few deciding delegates.
<
p>Senators, Governors, Representatives, and Party Chairs who hold out to the last can bargain for Federal funding for their districts & states. Which is fine for me if it means new schools or hospitals or roads in places that need them. But if it is stuff like airstrips for Lear Jets and resort golf courses, then that’s really wasteful.
[quote]Plus, I tend to agree with sabutai that the longer John McCain doesn’t know who his opponent is, the better off we are[/quote]
<
p>This is bad. The longer we do not have a nominee the easier it will be for McCain to define both candidates before they can define themselves. Plus he can use attack lines they use against them i.e Hillary’s statement that Obama cannot be C&C.
<
p>Also a unity ticket while ending the primary would be terrible since both candidates are superstars and the nominee will get overshadowed by the VP candidate either way.
<
p>Not to mention VP candidates ought to balance the ticket experience wise yes, but also ideologically, regionally, etc. and honestly Hillary does not bring enough outside of experience to truly balance the ticket. And she is such a heavyweight she might just tip the scale towards her direction.
<
p>Also I doubt someone with her supersized ego would accept VP, she will destroy the party if it means she can have a shot at becoming President and evidently she is. Funny thing the reason she won in TX was record Republican turnout that voted for her.
The reason for a ticket in this situation, however, would have little to do with the need to “balance” the ticket and everything with consolidating the base behind the ticket. If this battle is protracted, and it appears it will be, then a ticket may be the only, or at least best, way to make sure that the 15-20% of Dems who now say they won’t vote for the other candidate get on board.
<
p>As for your last comment:
<
p>
<
p>it’s pretty clear that this is way off-base. According to the MSNBC exit poll, it was Obama, not Clinton, who won the Republican vote and Clinton who won amongst Democrats. If it had been a closed primary, Clinton would have won by even more.
I think the unity ticket is a bad idea. Hillary and Obama are strong on domestic issues, but weak on national security and foreign affairs no matter who gets the bigger type. While people are turning to domestic affairs, if another attacker slips through Bush’s incompetent homeland security, of Muqtada al-Sadr makes his move in Iraq, foreign affairs is back on the agenda.
<
p>And we’re left with either somebody who made some good speeches while traveling a lot as a First Lady, or somebody who couldn’t bother to run his foreign affairs subcommittee. We need a Clark, Webb, or Zinni on that ticket, or failing that a Richardson. Frankly, I wouldn’t horribly mind seeing the “loser” as Secretary of State for four years.
<
p>As for the re-dos, we’ve seen enough from the Nevada at-large, Maine multi-day, Texas overwhelmed, universally confused and unreliable, thoroughly undemocratic banana republic exercises that we’d be wasting time with a caucus. If this is the key moment in choosing who will likely be the nation’s next president, do it right or don’t do it at all.
I’d just like to know that voting is on the level somewhere.
<
p>This is from the “take the papers and run” department