The Two-State Handicap

Perhaps Barack Obama really is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime candidate who can get away with tossing two large swing states on the scrap heap, and whipping John McCain with one hand tied behind his hopeful back. But should he fail - and I remain petrified that he might - his campaign's decision not to find common ground on legitimate primaries in Michigan and Florida will be rightly seen as one of the great strategic blunders in Presidential political history.

Veteran New York muckraker Wayne Barrett has the definitive piece in HuffPo on machinations that led us to this strange 48-state strategy. Barrett's take: Republicans set it up, Dean and Obama fell for it (in their zeal to run out the clock on the reviled Clinton), and the rest is - or sadly may be - history.  Says Wayne:

In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly, just like he and Michelle parcel out Christmas presents to their two daughters.

Of course, the column inches and moments of air time spent on how and why these two states and their 366 delegates have been banished adds up to less than the attention devoted to, say, the Wyoming caucus, where a 2,066-vote Obama margin gave him a big enough delegate boost to virtually cancel out Hillary Clinton's 329,000-vote margin in the five March races.

What's more, argues Barrett (he of the 30-year career exposing the vast patronage underbelly of New York politics), the Republicans set it all up - while the Hillary-hating media could only chant the idiotic playground song of  "rules are the rules." More from Barrett:

Imagining a convention without delegations from these large and politically volatile states has become the nightmare of every thinking Democrat. Polls indicate that a nominee who refuses to count the 1.7 million Floridians who voted in a level-playing field primary, or to find a way for them to vote again, will wind up wasting whatever time and money he or she spends there in the general election campaign. As close as the general election vote in Michigan has been in recent years, even a small margin of voters disgruntled by the state's Democratic lockout could push it into the GOP column. Obama's stonewalling about both states may offer short-term advantages, but two delegations denied seating because of his maneuvers may well be seen as contrary to his populist rationale now -- and crippling to his candidacy in November.

Ed Pozzuoli, the Republican chair of Broward County, recalls the Florida showdown of 2000, when he says Democrats taunted Republicans, insisting that they should "let every vote count." He gloats now: "I guess that's changed in eight years." He's hardly the only one chortling over the likely consequence of what he calls the "draconian" Democratic spiking of his state's delegation.

What started out years ago as Howard Dean's 50-state organizing strategy for the national party now looks like a 48-state electoral one. Michigan and Florida could become the Ralph Nader of 2000, the great regret that delivers the country once again to four years of darkness.

As I've written before, this is a stunning mistake by the Obama campaign; undoubtedly the McCain campaign is working already with the state Republican machines in Michigan and Florida on just the right tone of slogan, just the right video - all of them saying the same thing: the Democrats didn't want your vote. As commenter argent1 adds to Barrett's in-depth reportage:

The long and tedious nuts and bolts doesn't fit well with the "I want it Now" Obamelites. All those retired grandparents may go McCain in FL, and the blue collars of MI as well. The demonstrative snub by Obama and Co. will ruin his chances. Then we'll be hearing boo-hoo-hoo after November 4th trying to blame Clinton for not bowing out in April.

Hat tip: Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft, who also asks: do Clinton-haters "hate Clinton more than they care about the Democratic Party?"

Comments

[Jsilverheels]

Oh, so it's the fault of eevil white men, eh? You guys are really nuts. This is Obama's fault. He's a black nationalist.

[tdraicer]

The Obama campaign undoubtedly gamed the nominating process better than the Clinton campaign. They figured out that they could get a lead in pledged delegates by winning Republican and GOP votes in small Red States. But it is pretty clear that the system wasn’t actually designed to produce a Democratic nominee who lacks a majority of actual Democratic votes, nor a candidate for November who does well mainly in states the Dems will lose in the fall while doing poorly in states the Dems have to have to win.

I’m a game designer. It is how I make my living (such as it is). And thus I’m speaking professionally when I say that any complicated set of rules can be broken by those seeking to exploit ambiguities and loopholes over the intent of the designer. In my field we call them “rules lawyers” and when they “break the system” we issue changes to the rules (errata) to force them back to playing according to our intent.

The Dem nominating process was a very poorly designed set of rules (probably because there was no single designer) and the Obama camp broke the system. Well, good for them, but it places the Super Delegates in the roll of the Designer: they can in effect say, “Sorry, it wasn’t our intent that the system be gamed in that way so that we have a candidate a majority of actual Democrats rejected, and moreover who has the lesser chance in November.”

And just as I have the authority to issue such changes at any time to my own designs, the Supers have the authority to issue their own “errata” on the campaign by voting for Hillary over Obama. And it is hypocritical for the Obama camp to complain about that: it is, after all, in the rules (the same set of rules the Obama camp swears by) that they can do so.

[Stuart O'Neill]

Sorry error in the previous comment:

chicago paper:

In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.

So it was a 200K raise after he was elected to the US Senate. Why? There could be lots of good reasons. But without real investigation we won't know the reality. The appearance stinks.

Which is why we need a real investigation. We need the reality.

[Slappy]

Yes, thats right. Obama planned this. He foresaw all of this. We are all just pawns in his game of world domination.

And yet who voted in favor of banning MI and FL? Harold Ickes. And who agreed to the banning of the two states? EVERYONE. And who prefers to change the rules in mid-game because the outcome is not turning in their favor? The loser. If the roles were reversed, the opinions would be reversed. This is such crap.

Perhaps Obama is so devious and effective at playing the political game against such a seasoned and wise politician as Hillary Clinton that he was able to steal the nomination. Perhaps he will win at all costs. Perhaps Clinton was foolish in agreeing to such an agreement in the first place. Perhaps you just gave me a reason to think Obama would be the better candidate.

[Ralph]

Tom, I am afraid that you have lost me again. How did Obama contol how the DNC decided to punish MI and FL for moving up their primaries? How does Obama control what FL and MI do now? They could have supported a re-do vote, but they haven't. How the heck is Obama to blame for that? This is just silly.

[Tom W.]

You guys must surely know that in Michigan, Obama's folks blocked a new primary - that's been well-reported. And in Florida - a more complicated story because the state party there is so disorganized and inept - he did nothing to encourage a new vote.

And you have to realize that if his campaign came out strongly for new votes in those two key states, they'd be on the calendar now. He didn't. He's running out the clock. And it's a tragic mistake.

And Slappy, who cares what the original "punishment" for wayward state committees was - it's almost embarrassing to hear Obama backers chant "the rules are the rules" about some arcane, insider, party hack arrangements cobbled together by an inept DNC chairman - "rules" that can and should be changed to make the process legitimate.

You'll be hearing that word "legitimate" from the state GOPs in FL and MI in the fall - get used to it!

[Jsilverheels]

"He's running out the clock."

Yes, Obama. Or perhaps you are saying that Rush Limbaugh is running out the clock? Or Hugh Hewitt?

[donna darko]

Obama is running out the clock.

[Jsilverheels]

I'm asking Tom, who links approvingly to Wayne Barrett's article, which blames this all on white men.

It seems that guys on the Tom Watson wing of the Dem. Party won't admit that blacks can be racists too, and that Obama is deploying against a Democratic heroine what they have deployed against anyone else who dares to disagree with them: the race card. This is a bridge too far for Tom.

[zeke]

Tom,

Problem is, Hillary "fell for" the same rules, or ruse if you prefer the conspiratorial frame, that Obama did. That she now wants to change them is a function of the fact that these rules are not working in her favor. If they were, she would be staunchly defending them.

The fact remains that Obama is ahead by any reasonable standard, and that is unlikely to change even if re-votes occur in both MI and FLA.

As to the disingenuous question Tom cites at the end of his post, "do Clinton-haters "hate Clinton more than they care about the Democratic Party?"?

I can only say: Tom, take a look at your own comments section, wherein one can find ample evidence that Obama-haters hate Obama more than they care about the Democratic Party.

And yet I rarely see you take commenters like Judith, Tom C., muataman et al. to task for their self-destructive fanaticism. Hence, I continue to advise that you have a trained medical technician take a look at that mote in your eye. I fear that it is getting bigger as the campaign progresses.

[Judith]

Me? Self destructive? That is hilarious!

hahahahahashaha

April Fools!

[Tom W.]

Sure, Hillary wants the revote because she cleaned up in the first non-sanctioned fight and suspects she will again - I get that. Yeah yeah. Fine. Fine.

That's not what I'm talking about. Forget Hillary Clinton is even still alive (barely) as a candidate, even with those states.

I'm talking about the Democratic nominee handing a bludgeon to McCain and saying "hit me" in two large and crucial swing states.

I'm saying, stop fighting Hillary (it only makes this thing longer) and start trying to actually win the election. Get those revotes, create excitement in those states. Get off your comfy "it's fun to bash Hillary" couch and do the hard work. It's basic politics.

[Tom K]

Give FL the 50% discount, after the fact, that the R's gave before.

Do the same for Michigan, but with the proviso that they presumptively should not consider the vote there (since HRC was the only one on the ballot), but may consider whatever other factors they think appropriate to determine what the voters of Michigan want (to the extent that enters into their decisions).

Trust 'em to do the right thing, since you can't really control it beyond issuing guidance.

And for Pete's sake -- MOVE ON! (to coin a phrase). With proportional voting already dilluting the result, and some haircut necessary if the national party wants to retain any credibility, how much difference are we really talking about here?

[Judith]

I am not sure which idea is funnier - me as self destructive or the Obama kids actually getting off the couch.

woo hoo.

time for cake.
bye

[Tom K]

My suggestion doesn't address the question of who the delegates should be, I guess. Why not just let the Democratic side of the elected legislatures of each state determine, by whatever means they think best, how to vote the (discounted) number of delegates apportioned to them?

[ZaphodBeebleBotox]

I've never visited this blog before but I'm certainly aware of the various online battles between HRC supporters and BHO supporters. It's frustrating but at the same time somehow divinely, transcendentally comedic. A party that should have absolutely been a shoo-in is almost certainly going to lose the general election to someone who, although a Vietnam hero, is also a doddering 72 year-old who has promised to continue the unpopular war. If Shakespeare was around to write a tragedy of the mismanagement of political opportunity, he couldn't write it any better. But I'm beginning to think the best chronicler of this dysfunction might be Todd Haynes. It's ironic how the various progressivistic tropes are all coming home to roost in this one: race, gender, "fairness" -- because the proportional representation has failed to cleanly decide as the winner-takes-all method would have -- etc., to produce the absolutely muddled mess we now have. When I think of the democratic party now, I can't help but think of Carol standing in the Wrenwood meeting hall, rambling incoherently about "toxins" and "being aware" and still not really recognizing why her life has fallen apart. There is, from the top down, a fundamental disconnection from reality. (FWIW, Republicans are disconnected, but in a different way that tends to be destructive of the world, instead of their own party. But I won't digress into that). The top democratic leadership's world view (I'll pass on the pretentious German word weltanschuung for today) is obviously so filtered through various lenses: identity politics, unions, etc. that they could not see the obvious fact the HRC was unelectable. I'm convinced these people have never traveled south or west of DC in anything but the first-class cabin of an aircraft. Sure, the Clintons were loved by the hardcore constituencies of the democratic party: 1) traditional pro-labor democrats of the Midwest 2) the immigrant bloc and 3) rich ivy-league educated Northeasterners like the writer of this blog, but they were absolutely, profoundly despised by huge swaths of voters in both red and blue states. It's like...can you imagine if Nixon had had a younger brother also active in politics (we'll make an adjustment for gender considering the 70s were somewhat "more conservative" than our era) who was in a primary fight with Ronald Reagan in 1980? Many middle Americans hate the Clintons as much liberals on the coasts hate Nixon. And part of the essence of my argument is that Republicans wouldn't have been stupid enough to make that mistake but democrats ARE because they don't want to "feel bad" about the world in which they live. But don't take me to be an Obama supporter. My view of him is that he is the better candidate, but only slightly. (as is, of course, reflected by current delegate counts) And his past seems to have it's own cold calculations: Rev. Wright's church is the biggest African-American church in Chicago, right? I can't help but believe that's why he went with it...I bet you he's now wishing he'd chosen a slightly more anodyne one to get his Christian cred. As other killjoys have said, if this is the best the democrats can come up with...both in terms of the candidates themselves and the way they've been allowed to make buffoons of themselves and of the message that the democratic party SHOULD be telegraphing at this point, (sometimes during the Hillary Bosnia scandal, as amusing as it was, I had to keep reminding myself we are in a much bigger mess than Bosnia, right now) then let them eat the sweet cake of defeat in November.

[Judith]

hey zapho - I call it the replacement of the boy king by king lear apres le deluge, if ya get my drift.

as for getting the media to shut up about stupid crap and actually do the news, well that ship sailed a long time ago. What we have now is isntant noodles news for the ADD addled population who cant deal with reality unless it smacks the across the checkbook. well, OUCH.

Me, I am going for the tres leches cake. That gives me more than one chance to get it right.

[Tom W.]

One observation - some commenters are giving me too much credit. I'm not rich, and I don't have my own wing of the Democratic Party.

I can freely admit that anyone can, indeed, be a racist. But that may be another post.

[BEW]

Tom W.,

Great post! The only thing I would add is that Obama's lack of leadership on this issue as well as supporters chanting rules are rules at every step will make it very hard to fight Republican voter suppression drives that will happen in the general election. We democrats will have lost the moral high ground.

[zeke]

BEW,

You mean the moral high ground that consists of having your wealthy surrogates threaten to withhold their financial support from Democratic Congressional candidates if Nancy Pelosi doesn't toe their line? Or the moral high ground that consists of ignoring the will of the voters if they aren't going your way (talk about your voter suppression!)? Or perhaps you mean the moral high ground that consists of grossly exaggerating (well, lying about, if you want to get technical) your foreign policy experience?

Because to me, those sound more like moral precipices than the moral high ground.

[zuzu]

Problem is, Hillary "fell for" the same rules, or ruse if you prefer the conspiratorial frame, that Obama did. That she now wants to change them is a function of the fact that these rules are not working in her favor.

Which rule is she trying to change?

I ask this question a lot, even provide helpful links to the DNC rules, and yet nobody I've asked can ever give me an answer.

And that's probably because no rule has to be changed, at all. That's a whole set of rules that I linked there, and within that set of rules, there are rules that allow for appeals, there are rules that allow for re-votes, and there are rules that allow for the delegations to be seated by the convention despite an earlier decision stripping them of delegates.

If you're going to make a "rules are rules" argument, you can't simply ignore applicable rules that you don't like.

[Jsilverheels]

"I'm not rich, and I don't have my own wing of the Democratic Party."

I never said you owned it. I do charge that you are associated with it, and that you are an abject coward on the subject of race.

"I can freely admit that anyone can, indeed, be a racist. But that may be another post."

I won't hold my breath.

[BEW]

Zeke,

I was talking about the moral high ground on voter suppression. Perhaps it is just me, but it seems that all of your examples are about Clinton. In your haste, you forgot to mention her vote for the waar, and the fact that she eats kittens and drink the blood of babies.

Thank you for your comment, though. I certainly appreciate it.

[Slappy]

zuzu: All parties agreed to MI and FL not counting. That rule. Yes it was a rule set by the DNC and agreed to by ALL parties way in advance of any vote.

I'd be disappointed in Clinton if she did not fight tooth and nail to get every vote she could. I feel the same about Obama. I wish Gore and Kerry fought half as hard. As much as I HATE this clusterf**k (Tom W's kids read this blog I recently read) I am very much pleased to be guaranteed to have a candidate who will slit their grandmother's throat for a victory. If you think it takes anything less than that you are mistaken. And as horrible as this all seems, it will fairly quickly fade into the past as the nominee takes on McCain full time. Never, ever, underestimate, or maybe overestimate, the attention span of the American public. Bloggers will continue to do their best to rip the Party in two and the other 99% of America will move on. Including FL and MI. This is will be the most polarized general election in many, many years. The effects of this unforeseen nightmare will be fairly minimal. (Thats what I keep telling myself.)

And I hope I never have to say this again but... Tom K is making the most sense here.

[zuzu]

Slappy, please find me one rule that says that the decision by a committee to strip MI and FL of delegates is absolutely irrevocable.

Also please find me a rule that says that what the candidates "agreed to" has any real bearing on what the convention can do.

The convention makes its own decisions, and the rules that say that are the rules that the candidates agreed to. And I'm very glad to see Howard Dean reminding people what the rules are regarding superdelegates.

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism that FL and MI voters will just "get over it" or "move on" if they're not permitted to participate in the selection of the nominee.

I do, however, share Tom W.'s opinion that the failure of Obama to press for the seating of those two delegations is bewilderingly short-sighted and will have very bad repercussions in November.