Florida, Michigan, and electibility

Back to Florida and Michigan again. The issue has been fairly consistent throughout, but now that particularly Florida Democrats are getting involved, offering strategies for inclusion, the debate is becoming real. I think Michigan's party leaders are probably watching to see how the wind blows before putting forth an offer to the DNC. Michigan and Florida represent very different problems, in spite of their being lumped together in the debate. Let's talk about both on their own.

Florida

Florida gets to go first for a few reasons. Being the "more important" state in the general election pretty much trumps. Florida's issues are also a lot less complex. All candidates were on the ballot. Clinton and Obama both followed the rules, or broke them depending on how you look at it. Both held fundraising events in Florida and made private appearances only. Both ran national ads only in Florida. The claim that there was "no campaigning" in Florida by either candidate is a conceit. There was no ground game in Florida. Since both Democratic survivors shared this handicap, I don't think it matters. The main issue is rules, which Florida state Dems broke by moving their primary date forward, and were duly penalized by having their delegates to the Democratic National Convention stripped. Now, because of the finger-breadth differences in votes and delegates in many races, the overwhelming pressure from all sides is to count every vote. So, how do we do that without just trashing the rules?

I believe Clinton was a little presumptive to hold an event in Florida the day of the primary, and if she had not done that, the debate would be even less complicated. Conversely, I believe being present to claim a big popular victory in an electorate-rich state is a long-term campaign strategy, and a smart one. Florida is a Red-Swing state, and a double-digit lead in a three-way contest (Edwards' last contest was Florida) is a big win that demonstrates electibility. Dems in any other election cycle would be thrilled to see such a strong performance by any candidate. Obviously Florida "mattered" since a third-place showing was Edwards sign of the times to drop out.

I am torn on the idea of a re-vote. It seems fair, but is it? The prevalent push at the moment is toward a mail-in vote. This opens the door to so many potential disasters, I honestly can't imagine how Howard Dean and the DNC could agree to it. Paper ballots and Florida have a very bad reputation since 2000. I've also said this before, and will reiterate it here: there will be no re-votes in November. Florida voters knew Florida was a "beauty contest" and they still came out in record numbers. The popular vote is winning the argument all over the place, and 1.7 million voters in the Democratic race should not be ignored. But, what do you do with the other six candidates? Sure, they're out now, but they weren't then, and Edwards is still technically in. There is no way to effectively reconstruct campaign conditions.

I don't think it would be too much of a political problem for the DNC to simply say, "Florida was conducted according to the rules save for timing, which is the state's right to decide. Considering the cost of re-votes, and the potential issues of fairness involved, we have ruled to include Florida's results as-is and will authorize Florida's state party to award delegates proportionally, based on their state's rules. Michigan will be addressed individually, based on its unique situation." Really, there is plenty of legal precedent for respecting the will of state governments over federal authority. I believe there are two fair resolutions to the Florida situation: either include Florida as-is, or don't include them at all. Inclusion of Florida as-is would not put precedent forward to do the same in Michigan, as I believe it is plain that Michigan is a different issue.

Michigan

Michigan poses a different problem all together. Let me start by pointing out, Hillary Clinton was not the only candidate on the Michigan ballot. However, Barack Obama and John Edwards (and Joe Biden and Bill Richardson) were not. So, only 50% of the Democratic candidates were represented. The claim that there was "no campaign" in Michigan is a lot heavier than the claim in Florida. Edwards urged voters to vote "uncommitted" because write-ins would not be counted. 40% of the primary vote going to "uncommitted" certainly indicates that voters knew this, and made an informed choice. This also makes the argument for a re-vote a lot stronger in Michigan.

But what does it mean? Did Edwards win 40% of the Michigan vote? The uncommitted idea was his. I think the idea that people voted for Clinton because she was the "only candidate" is so full of holes there is no way it could go anywhere. In every race Clinton has won except 2, she has done so in the 50+ percentage area, so the Michigan results, at a time when Clinton was still perceived as the front runner, are pretty much in line with expectations. I know that argument is weak, but the argument that all uncommitted votes would or should go to Obama is weaker. Also, what were they supposed to do in Michigan? Not vote? If Clinton had pulled herself from the Michigan ballot, would they have canceled the primary? I doubt it.

So what do they do about Michigan? Did it give Clinton "false momentum"? If it did, Edwards and Obama are certainly to be thanked for it. Michigan was a beauty contest, but state Democrats obviously didn't think so. Why would you remove yourself completely from a ballot when you knew your opponent was not going to? The following-the-rules-good-faith-move argument only holds so much water, and in the end will probably hurt more than help. Edwards and Obama not being on the Michigan ballot has completely muddied the waters in that state and has created a lose-lose for everyone. This is an election. If you want to win you put yourself on the ballot. Attempts to characterize Clinton as greedy or underhanded because she wanted to compete in a state primary are little more than slur tactics. The conceit that there will be "no campaign" just because the DNC says so is ridiculous. The primary still happened -- isn't that the point of scheduling early -- Democrats in Michigan still came out and voted, and obviously at least 40% of them were listening to the campaign rhetoric, since they followed advice and voted uncommitted.

Michigan is a problem though. The problem is not that Hillary Clinton "broke faith" and stayed on the ballot. Obviously Obama and Edwards learned from that mistake, and quickly put themselves on the Florida ballot. (Giving more credence to Florida's validity, too, or to the hypocrisy of all of them, depending on how you look at it.) The problem is, we don't know who all those uncommitted people would have voted for. In terms of the general election, Michigan is an electorate-rich state as well, but it's a Blue state and I think whoever wins the nomination will carry Michigan. The state's overall importance is more inside the Democratic race than in the larger general election schematic. The "split them 50/50" argument is ridiculous. Clinton won more than 50% of the vote, and giving more than the uncommitted vote percent (40%) to Obama would show clear favoritism. The idea that all the uncommitted votes would have gone to Obama is bunk, since it was Edwards who pushed for it. And, with Edwards out, his supporters do not automatically go to Obama or to Clinton, as we have clearly seen since. I think there are two solutions for Michigan, too: either organize a statewide re-vote, or leave them out.

Other Early Voting States

Nevada and South Carolina had early primaries, too, and were not penalized by the DNC. So, the "rules" don't hold much credence in this case. A voice vote only was held to authorize primary / caucus advance dates and the argument was that Nevada and South Carolina are more representative of minorities, and would give a broader scope to early primary returns. Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally been allowed to hold early primaries as well, based on the argument that small states should get their voice heard over the din of big events like Super Tuesday. But, we all know that big states pretty much decide the general election. Having an early litmus test of big states is not such a bad idea.

I honestly believe that the real issue is that Clinton clearly won 3 of 5 early voting states. Including Michigan she won 4 of 6. At this point in the campaign, if Obama had won the majority of them, it would be over, Clinton would be out, and the controversy would be moot. The fact that Florida and Michigan draw the race to a true razor-thin difference, is the difference. The media has struck its blow on this one and cast Clinton as the "desperate" and "manipulative" underdog who will "do anything to win." This has made her look like she wants something unfair. Let's not forget that Clinton is the one advocating for a system of inclusion, and Obama is the one who keeps saying no. Why? Because it's bad news for him. Poor Obama. His "overwhelming lead" (which he does not have) would be challenged. His poor performance in big states would be sharply underscored. He would be challenged to really prove that he can win, instead of coasting on small state wins and lopsided victories in demographics that are not representative of the general election turnout.

Obama's arrogance on these matters is monumental. Currently he is holding an 8% lead in delegates, which could easily be erased between now and June. He is holding only a 5% lead in the popular vote, which drops to less than 3% if Florida is included. And, in the most recent head-to-heads, where now both Clinton and Obama beat McCain, Obama only performs better than Clinton by 0.3%, a difference that is meaningless. The two are in a statistical dead heat, and yet Obama is trumpeting all over the news that he is "the clear front runner" and "obviously winning." I've said this one before too, but here it is: it aint over til it's over, and it isn't over til Denver. Superdelegates are going to decide this nomination, and they are not going to be bound solely by the popular vote. Even Nancy Pelosi would not say she would follow her constituency in her decision as a superdelegate. If the leading Democrat in the country as of this time is not willing to advocate for the popular vote, I'd say that argument is now moot. Clinton is leading in superdelegates by 13%, and that balance is a lot more likely to swing the nomination, unless the popular vote dramatically swings in favor of one or the other.

Also, claims that Clinton is using GOP tactics against Obama are just hype. She has been calling herself more qualified, and ripping on Obama's abilities as commander-in-chief for a very long time. The fact that McCain is doing it, too, does not logically prove that Clinton is doing the same thing. It only proves that two people believe they would be better than him. Clinton is getting slammed for using divisive tactics and called (basically) a bitch for "trashing another Democrat." Isn't accusing Clinton of "using the Rove playbook" the exact same thing? Isn't an uncooperative attitude toward Florida and Michigan re-votes just as nasty? Please. This is a presidential campaign, and a very critical one for Democrats. Every candidate is pulling every stop to win. That's the bottom line. Also, Clinton's words are coming back -- and ringing very true -- get ready, it's just started. If Obama can't survive some relatively polite negative campaigning from Clinton, he'll be crying in his beer once McCain gets going. Come on. The 3am ad? The commander-in-chief bickering? Those are small beans compared to how fast and deep the GOP is going to rip into either Democrat once the nomination is sealed.