The 48-State Strategy

The worst possible news for Barack Obama's stirring and improbable reach for the White House broke this week, and it had nothing to do with an incendiary preacher on the South Side of Chicago. Rather, the brewing disaster for the Senator's presidential hopes comes from his own tacticians - the very strategists who are urging him to run out the clock, take a knee at midfield, and snub voters in two of the nation's largest swing states.

It's hard to even write these words: the Democratic Party is actually on the verge of blocking the participation in this historic campaign of millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. Read that back slowly, would you? Under the leadership of Chairman Dean and with the complicity of Obama's top advisors, the Democratic Party is close to adopting a 48-state strategy that will undoubtedly depress turnout for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton (or both!) in the fall.

In the words of Casey Stengel: "Can't anybody here play this game?"

Some Obama supporters will predictably talk about rules and punishment like Republicans defending the Rockefeller drug laws, but it just doesn't wash. To win against John McCain in the fall takes a savvy electoral vote strategy, and we cannot afford to write off Florida or Michigan for even a second.

Further, if Obama does succeed in running out the clock - as his campaign is now clearly intent on doing - he guarantees that a certain portion of Democratic primary voters will never view his nomination as legitimate. He's giving ardent Clinton supporters an easy structural excuse to stay home. And he's playing directly into the hands of right-wing critics who will argue he's gotten a free pass on the back of fancy rhetoric, the moist media lovefest, and the clever exploitation of the Democrats' proportional delegate system. Craig Crawford has it right:

How amazing that Democrats have a frontrunner who is seemingly afraid to allow re-votes in Michigan and Florida. Or at least that is how Barack Obama is allowing it to appear.

Obama is all that stands in the way of letting voters try again in those battleground states. That’s probably a winning strategy for the party nomination. But the general election is another story.

And Jeralyn over at TalkLeft notes the rising anger over Obama's strange decision:

Barack Obama could care less about disenfranchising voters. That's his goal for Michigan and Florida and more than 2 million of the states' voters. Now, that's politics. And hardly the politics of hope or change.

So don't cheer the dough-headed decisions in Michigan and Florida, if you're an Obama backer. Obama needs those votes every bit as much as Clinton does, in my view. With proportional delegate apportionment, he'd get delegates in those states anyway - and just might get to 50 percent plus one for a true and valid nomination clincher. This way, he has to rely on superdelegates - and he leaves himself open to second-guessing as his poll numbers inevitably slip.

Right now, Team Obama seems very much like the underdog just "happy to be here" on Super Bowl Sunday - and it's a very bad turn for this race. By listening to consultants on Florida and Michigan, Barack Obama has made what is easily his worst tactical decision in an otherwise able campaign.

UPDATE: Chris Bowers, an Obama supporter, breaks it down - and argues that Michigan needs to vote. His take: Obama wants a floor fight in August in Denver.

Comments

[chris c]

He either wins it legitimately by allowing revotes in both states, or we lose in November. If we lose, more people suffer in this brutal economy, and more people will be maimed and killed in Iraq. More people will lose faith in America.

There is no legitimate excuse. Either count the existing votes, or hold revotes. Show some guts, Obama. Think about someone besides yourself. The consequences of not doing so will effect far more people than just Barack Obama.

[Slappy]

I say let them revote. That is what is ideal. But to pretend that Obama is some evil creature because he isn't demanding a revote is disingenuous. Would Clinton be calling for a revote if we were talking about Illinois and Georgia and Virginia? Hell no. And would you be calling Clinton evil? No, she would be a shrewd politician as Obama is being now. Fair? Fair? You are about to take on the GOP and you want fair? Maybe Gore and Kerry can give you a good speech on fairness.

And I'll repeat myself from an earlier post: The Iraq war is a vote changer, not primary technicalities.

If anybody is responsible for this mess, it is those in MI and FL who created this mess. Why is Florida always the focus of these screw ups? (Dont tell them that, they might vote McCain.)

[merciless]

I agree with Slappy, but I'm going to lay the blame at the feet of Dr. Dean. He didn't ask my opinion, and there are good reasons for that, but my guess is that he assumed (as did most of us) that the nomination would be sewn up by February, and that Florida and Michigan would be unimportant in choosing the nominee. Therefore they would be punished without harming the process.

Well, it didn't work out that way. This race is neck and neck, and Florida and Michigan are hugely important states. If this had been over Utah and Vermont, none of this brinksmanship would be necessary.

And yes, of course it's about politics.

[Tom W.]

Well, I blame Dean as much as the state parties. And I'm not calling Obama an "evil creature" at all. Rather, I'm saying he's stupid - and making a tragic mistake for his campaign.

And you know, the guy is supposed to be the all-time great campaigner, whose words and image and plan can change hearts and minds. So just go win already. He needs to do that.

[Lee Hartmann]

As a resident of Michigan, I can say without question that the fault lies with the MI and FL politicians who got greedy. I ended up voting for Romney because I didn't have a choice on the Dem line, in a futile attempt to keep Mittens in the running. I would vote for Hillary in the general, but for now there's this one word:

Iraq.

Triangulation sometimes doesn't work.

I just hope we don't tear ourselves apart and give the election to St. John.

[bcelaya]

Remember just a short time ago when we laughed at the motley bunch running in the Republican primaries? Romney? Bring him on. Huckabee? Yea, right. McCain? He has no money, he's way behind in the polls, the far right hates him- not a chance. We felt the wind to our backs as Americans seemed ready for change and the Dems, whoever their nominee would be would waltz into the White House in November.

There don't seem to be any easy answers. As for Florida, there's little mention of the fact that it was a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled legislature that moved the primary ahead in defiance of the DNC (correct, right?). I don't know what happened in Michigan, but to reward 2 states that knowingly broke the rules with the extreme priviledge of chosing who the Dem nominee should be seems a bit inappropriate. I don't know if there is a fair resolution to this mess.

It's true that this Rev. Wright stinkbomb is very troublesome and severely wounds Obama. I suppose if the Hilary camp hadn't brought this out in an attempt to slit Obama's throat, the Republicans would have certainly brought it up in the general. Better to see how it plays out now rather than later. It's going to be very hard for Obama to lose this stink, this suggestion to a lot of cautious Americans that he might be an "Manchurian angry black man".

Now as for Hilary's baggage: she has had and will continue to have enormous negative approval numbers,and a Richard Mellon Scaife-funded vast right wing conspiracy poised and ready to pick up where they left off 8 years ago. Sure, any Dem candidate will be on the receiving end of the swift-boat/talk radio slimeballs, but another Clinton candidacy will see Rush & Hannity & the Republican millionare donors kick into full battle mode like it was WWIII.

I started out more or less happy with either candidate (actually my first choice would be Al Gore, but...) I've grown more and more concerned that a Clinton candidacy will be the best get-out-the-vote issue the Republicans could ever hope for, and how that will impact House and Senate races in addition to the Presidental race. Clinton will make 2004's state gay marriage admendments seem quaint when it comes to what will get otherwise unmotivated Republicans to donate and work phone banks and make sure they ALL vote. Meanwhile, whoever finally prevails on the Dem side will surely lose support from the losing side.

I feel like a Patriots fan: winning the superbowl was a slam-dunk, a done deal no-brainer. How did we screw up such an easy task?

[Laura Stevens]

How Dare Barack Obama Lecture America on Racism.

The more I think about Obama and his "historic" "throw Granny from the train speech", the madder I get.

How dare Barack lecture me about race. How dare he tell me that those of us that were a part of the Reagan Revolution did so because we were racists!!!

Listen Barack, you didn't give that speech because you WANTED to. You gave that speech because you HAD to. And why was that Barack? I'll tell you why! It was because you sat under the teachings of a rabid racist for 2 DECADES!!!! You Barack! NOT me!

Don't lecture me. I've spent my years as a white mother teaching my kids, in the words of MLK, to judge someone not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. What have you done? You've taken your kids and put them under the racist views of Wright only to raise up another generation to hate. Which one of us is the uniter here Barack?

If you can't stand up to Rev. Wright, how in the world can we trust you to stand up to Ahmadinejad, Osama Bin Laden or Hugo Chavez? The answer is, we can't! And when I think about it, the only difference between YOUR pastor and these guys, are their addresses. ALL of them hate America and Israel and all of them do it in the name of God!

I have judged the content of your character by those whose company you CHOOSE to keep and I find it to be severely lacking! My prayer is that America will do the same in the privacy of the voting booth.

In other words, SCREW YOU Barack and the RACIST pastor you rode in on!!!

[Doubting Thomas]

There were 5 states that moved their primary in violation of the agreed upon DNC rules. It's just that Florida and Michigan did it first. The DNC then gave passes to the other 3 states. No fair. Seat all states or deny all 5 states that violated the rules.

[judith]

bcelaya - by having a lightweigtht candidate named Obama get a free ride by the "media" so they could have new story line to fill the empty broadcast hours amd fuck up our primary. That's how.

[KC45s]

He's giving ardent Clinton supporters an easy structural excuse to stay home.

Ah, here's the key, the hint of blackmail in the otherwise faux-idealistic argument to rerun these primaries.

You know what, ardent Clintonites? Stay home. Do what you gotta do. Gum your resentment in the name of principle and idealism; the rest of us will call it spite. Stay home. "Ardent Clintonites" lose either way. Either McCain becomes president, and "ardent Clintonites" become 2008's Naderites. Or Obama squeaks by and the traingulating, Mark Penn-led, four-state-strategy-obsessed insiders behind Mrs. Clinton finally can quit coasting off of 1992 and head to the margins for the rest of their natural lives, writing their books and whining to Chris Matthews about how those nasty rules kept them from lawyering their way to the nomination.

Grrr.

[rick gregory]

Let's perform a thought experiment... let's change one thing. Barack Obama decided NOT to run in 2008.

Edwards would still have gotten in, but likely run a distant second to Clinton. Dean's move to punish FL and MI has no effect on who the nominee is at this point.

Would Dems be running around screaming that we were going to lose in November? That FL and MI are lost even before the general election campaigns starts? I thought not....

Unless they're convinced that they can win convincingly supporting a revote in those 2 states does nothing for Obama except cause them to spend time and resources there. A convincing win might sideline Clinton, but a close win (55/45) very likely would not.

And... why are we assuming that not seating their delegates automatically cedes both states to McCain? Let's say Obama wins the nomination and runs a good, inspiring campaign. All of the people who would vote for him if we had a revote are going to either vote for McCain instead or sit home? Really?? Or is that scenario being put forth by Clinton as a scare tactic?

[Slappy]

Why cant Obama lecture America on race? Do you think an African American inches away from the White House should have nothing to say about race in America? If Obama is not qualified or worthy of the subject, who is?

And what politician has ever said such things? The speech might have been forced but the words were not. Obama certainly could have made a far more mainstream speech.

Here is the shocking headline everyone: "There is some hostility in the black community toward white America for the treatment they have received." THE OUTRAGE!!!

[typical white woman]

He can do what he wants if they give him a platform. More he talks the worse he looks.

[zuzu]

It's true that this Rev. Wright stinkbomb is very troublesome and severely wounds Obama. I suppose if the Hilary camp hadn't brought this out in an attempt to slit Obama's throat, the Republicans would have certainly brought it up in the general.

The Republicans were the ones who brought it up, not the Clinton campaign. Unless you've got some credible information you can show the class, you might want to stop spreading misinformation.

And... why are we assuming that not seating their delegates automatically cedes both states to McCain?

Because people in Florida and Michigan who are mad as hell over this are telling pollsters that they will stay home or vote for McCain because of the way the Dems have treated them.

[NatTurner]

I don't understand why the Clinton folk don't understand: the DNC made clear the ramifications of FL and MI holding early primaries; the states' party held them anyway; the DNC has said it will enforce the rules that the FL and MI knowingly broke. And now the Clinton folk want a do-over?? If our party stands for anything, it should stand for responsibility--isn't that what we've blasted the Repubs for NOT doing? Having broken the party's rules, if the FL and MI parties want their voters' votes to count, we have a solution for that: the convention's Rule Committee.

Grow up.

Nat Turner

[NatTurner]

I don't understand why the Clinton folk don't understand: the DNC made clear the ramifications of FL and MI holding early primaries; the states' party held them anyway; the DNC has said it will enforce the rules that the FL and MI knowingly broke. And now the Clinton folk want a do-over?? If our party stands for anything, it should stand for responsibility--isn't that what we've blasted the Repubs for NOT doing? Having broken the party's rules, if the FL and MI parties want their voters' votes to count, we have a solution for that: the convention's Rule Committee.

Grow up.

Nat Turner

[NatTurner]

Sorry for the duplicate posts--that's what happens when a veteran lurker decides to chime in.

But let me add, I don't get Tom's comment about it being "Obama supporters [who] will talk about rules and punishment"; shouldn't Clinton folk care about this, too? Isn't this a _Democratic_ concern rather than an _Obama_ one? And the notion that treating FL and MI Dem voters "fairly," the state parties' actions be damned, is essential to winning in November (a) might or might not be true and (b) smacks of the "all that matters is winning, regardless of how" attitude that we've accused the Repubs of oh these many years.

Nat

[zuzu]

Nat, those rules? Allow for a do-over. Really! You should read them sometime. There's a whole set of them.

[NatTurner]

zuzu, thanks for the patronizing response--I've read the rules, and you didn't respond to the substance of my post(s).

Nat

[zuzu]

Nat, I pointed out that the rules do, in fact, allow for a do-over, which is a substantive response to your assertion that since Florida and Michigan broke the rules, it's over and there's nothing that can be done before the Rules Committee meets.

I didn't see your other post before mine posted, but let me address it now: the people who are arguing against any sort of a re-vote, or who (as you did) raise "rules are rules" arguments and talk about punishment are by and large Obama supporters.

Yet here's the thing: this isn't about the candidates. This is about the voters, and about enfranchisement. Just because Clinton stands to benefit if the two states' delegations are seated as is or if there's a re-vote does not mean that arguing for the enfranchisement of those voters is necessarily a pro-Clinton position. Indeed, I've seen plenty of Obama supporters who are in favor of a just, fair resolution to this predicament either via re-vote or via seating the delegations -- either with the full number of delegates or with a 50% penalty.

And those people are in favor of such a resolution because they're in favor of counting every vote and letting the process play out, as a general principle. And given that the rules do, in fact, allow for re-votes or for seating the delegations, doing either of those things is well within the rules and well within the process. They're in favor of those things because they're the right thing to do, not because it will help one or the other candidate get an edge on the nomination.

Focusing on the candidates instead of the process and focusing on the nomination instead of general democratic principles is short-sighted and anathema to what progressives are supposed to be all about.

[bcelaya]

Judith: pick one: a "lightweight candidate" (who in fact is ahead of his opponent in delegates, popular vote, and states won- if he's a "lightweight" what does that make his opponent?)who is reported to have strong crossover appeal- or a candidate who 48% of Americans say they wiould NEVER vote for and who's candidacy would be a major invigorator of the extensive Clinton-hating machine that ran rampant throughout the 90's, a candidate who would trigger massive fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts by Republicans that would create fatal problems for Democratic House and Senate candidates across the country?

If I could overlook Hilary's hawkish support of the Iraq war I would have no problem with her as President- except I remember the massive acrimony of the 90's, the extreme hated MANY people in this country have for all things Clinton, and the last thing this country needs is throw gasoline on the fire that already rages between the parties. Think how you would feel if the Republicans had Jeb Bush running. Sure, ANY Dem in the White House will be a cause for hatred from the right, but another Clinton Presidency would be sheer madness. It's time to look beyond both the Bush and Clinton families for Presidential hopefuls. This is a big country, and I'm sure we can find a better-suited woman to run (I would LOVE to see a woman President, it's way overdue. Just not the spouse of a previous President that went thru an impeachment)

[judith]

bcelaya - you ignored the meaning of my post...or didnt understand it. Whatever. Now go get your smelling salts cause I am about to fire. Dont take it personally...

Your post is full of errors but that's your problem if you dont know what you're talking about. If I had to educate every net poster who didnt pass grade school reading comprehension I'd have to quit my job. And I love my job.

But I will answer one thing -

Your post is merely a bunch of the same old bullshit I keep hearing by people who are either GOP stooges or have swallowed the GOP line whole. I dont give a fuck what the GOP said in the 90s and I sure dont care now that they have virtually destroyed this country in ways too many to count. They can kiss my liberal ass if they think they can pull up some garbage from the 90s to cover their almost 8 years of rampant stupidity, theft, corruption and war. And if you get all weak kneed at the thought of that sleazy bunch of hypocrites chasing Hillary, then get the hell out of the way and let a woman deal with them. I am not afraid of them and neither are the rest of the fed up electorate of this country. John McCain has absolutely no chance of being elected versus Clinton. None.

Thank you and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[bcelaya]

Judith- save your patronizing for your fellow college freshmen. You think the press has given Obama a pass? Look at how they've treated McCain, now that's a pass. What the press has been reporting regarding Obama is the positive energy displayed at the campaign rallys, they've done some effort to report his positions on the "issues", and you know damn well they've been digging for something to "gotcha" him with all along. If you want to talk passes, look at the Hilary "win" in Texas. I'm in Texas, and we know down here that Hilary "won" the primary by 109,000 votes, and exit polls indicate 119,000 Republicans, prompted by Rush Limbaugh, held their noses and voted for Hilary, thereby giving her the edge. So much for Hilary demonstrating "momentum".

I sense you're on the young side from your idealistic "Only a GOP stooge" would care how effective Hilary will be as a President (just so you don't think I'm just blowing smoke, my first Presidential election I voted for McGovern). But try to consider the EXTREME negative feelings many, many people have about her. (Believe me if you can, but I personally have great respect and admiration for her. Really. And I have great memories of the Clinton years. But ultimately I'm a realist, and I remember how extremely contentious those years were). A President has to be an inspirational leader to get anything done- he or she has to steer legislation & gain the cooperation of the American people to achieve his/her goals. Are you old enough to remember Hilary's stewardship of health reform in the first Clinton term? Went over like a lead balloon, a total disaster that set Bill Clinton back for a long time. And things for Hilary have only gone way sour since then. How effective do you really think she will be in steering any signifgant change in policy if she's under a constant, massive barrage of scorn? She will make Jimmy Carter look like LBJ (and I really liked Jimmy Carter too. He just could never gain cooperation from Congress, and eventually, the American people.)

If you were making a movie, would you cast an actor who's despised, personally and professionally, by the general public, just cuz you liked him/her? Not if you wanted to break even. Would you start a business in Israel called, "Hamas Day Care Center"? Why bother? Never mind "ideals", if it isn't going to work, move on to something else. Let's find a viable female candidate who doesn't have all the massive baggage Hilary has. There's NO WAY she can be an effective executive with the huge negatives she hauls around with her. As for me, I'll support a candidate who is as progressive as Hilary (more so, actually)but who isn't already so despised by so many people, and who maybe, maybe has a chance to inspire a new approach to Washington business-as-usual. Obama may or may not be able to pull that off, but I guaran-fuckin-tee that a Hilary Presidency will only bring civil war.

[tina oiticica harris]

whoa! what I have missed in the nation. i love Hillary; I supported her campaign in NY as a senator twice.
But actually, my preferred candidate would have been Angela Davis. What a gal.
I read somewhere not in a blog, that the American people despise the politicians who don't come from patrician backgrounds, such as Nixon and Bill Clinton, whose background was humble.

I would say both MI and FLA should have the right to cast their votes.

[donna darko]

My ideal President is Maxine Waters because she'd have the troops home yesterday and take care of the subprime mortgage problem.