Please Help Me, I Agree With Hillary Clinton
The Media is predicting that Clinton and Obama will run out of primaries before either can get to the magic number of delegates for nomination – 2,025. Various counts have Obama ahead by about a hundred delegates, a number expected to hold through the convention.
That raises two thorny issues for Democrats. One, should Michigan and Florida delegates be seated at the convention (the Party said it wouldn’t seat them as punishment for holding their primaries earlier than the dates chosen by the Party); and, two, how should the 796 “Super Delegates” make their decision as to whom to vote for.
Clinton beat “Uncommitted” 55% to 40% in Michigan. Obama wasn’t on the ballot. In Florida, she beat Obama 49% to 33%. Her camp argues that the delegations should be seated so as to not “disenfranchise” voters in two big states (with lots of delegates). She would of course then pick up most of the delegates. Obama says wait a minute, I played by the rules. Lots of people sat home because they were told their votes wouldn’t count. You seat the delegates and those people are disenfranchised.
And you guys think lawyers are sleazy. Oh, wait they’re both lawyers.
I’ve got to go with Clinton on this one, but I don’t like it and I could just as easily go the other way. Those that voted and didn’t vote in both states took their chances on whether their votes would be counted. In Florida, Obama will lose by 16%. But in Michigan, he will probably pick up most of the 40% uncommitted delegates – who is going to vote uncommitted other than someone that can’t stand Hillary? They’re probably in his camp. Thus he loses by 15%. Delegates are “awarded” proportionately so it isn’t that big a loss to him. It’s a question of who the Democrats screw, those that voted or those that didn’t. To my mind the tie goes to those that made the effort.
(Maybe Clinton and Obama should get rid of the disenfranchisement issue and push to seat the delegates but with no requirement that they vote for a candidate. That would make them quasi Super Delegates that takes us to the next issue.)
Back a few decades, the Democrats nominated their candidate based on the numbers. You get x% of the vote in a state, you get x% of the delegates. Then the party leaders decided that that system was, well, too democratic; and, more importantly, it had selected George McGovern and Jimmy Carter who weren’t among the leaders’ anointed choices. So they kept the basic system, but added to the delegates by giving guaranteed seats to people like former and current presidents, governors, congressmen and senators, in other words, themselves. There are, as noted above, 796 of them.
The issue? Just how are they supposed to decide who to vote for at the convention?
Obama says they should follow the lead established by the primary voters in their state. If Obama won the primary, they should vote for him, otherwise “the people” would be yet again disenfranchised. This of course results in Obama probably winning the nomination has he has won and probably will win most of the primaries and caucuses.
Clinton says wait a minute, they should vote their conscience: “’Super delegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment, that is the way the system works,’ …. ‘If Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position which is really contrary to what the definition of a super delegate has historically been then I look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry.’” (They endorsed Obama; but, Clinton won the primary in Mass.) Clinton is also ahead about a hundred pledges of SD votes.
I hate it, but Clinton has the better argument. For better or worse, the Dems decided not to let the “little people” decide a close race. If, as Obama argues, they should follow the lead of the little people, why have Super Delegates in the first place?
I really kind of like the irony here. The Democratic Party, the party of “The People,” may well chose its candidate in a smoke filled room after lots of wheeling and dealing. What was that word all of the candidates are throwing around? Change! We are seeing a change back to the old power broker way of doing things.
12 comments:
The only fair way to handle Florida and Michigan would be to have another primary, with full participation and campaigning by each candidate.
As for superdelegates, the whole system seems like a disorganized mess. Those superdelegates can vote however they want, but most of them have constituents to answer to if they buck the will of the people. But they can decide to do what they wish...
Imagine the irony of Obama winning the the popular vote but losing the nomination!! Deja vu!? Is Gore one of the SD's?
As I recall Ex-VPs are on the list. Maybe he'll trade his vote for a promise that he gets a Presidential Merit Medal or whatever it's called for discovering the Internet and Global Warming.
First of all, the parties have no business telling states when to hold elections. Unfortunately, a lot of voters in Florida thought we were voting on "Super Tuesday" and missed the election alltogether.
(SM)
I have mixed feelings about saying this, because it sounds so cynical, but the ability to successfully navigate smoke-filled rooms is a more important skill for a president than the ability to wage a campaign.
Maybe that's the better way to go.
If Obama has a significant lead in "state" wins and a majority of the popular vote but is pushed aside by the superdelegates the democratic party will destroy itself. So what else is new?
This whole business of the delegates being committed to vote this or that way at the convention and the super delegates thing is, to me, just as confusing as is the Electoral College come November! While I understand (I think) in principle, the reasoning behind the electoral college, I think the way it works is one thing that tends to get people to think why vote, because my vote doesn't really count overall. Maybe I'm all wet here too - I dunno. I'm old, sometimes senile, confuse easily. Hey, I should have been a politician -I satisfy some of the requirements, don't I?
Ah... This is one of those times when I am glad that I am a Republican... (And there just haven't been many such times in the last... decade or so!)
Gotta side with Obama on this one.
In a perfect world, the states would have another primary. But obvously, that's just not practical. And to change the rules for Clinton at this point is beyond unfair.
As previously noted, the best way to handle this would be to give Florida and Michigan a do-over. Of course, that won't happen.
The superdelegates are a non-issue. There will be a clear leader by convention time, and the superdelegates will support whoever that leader is. I'm starting to fear that the Democrats have found yet another way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Clinton's demand to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates she "won" by failing to follow the rules -- rules to which she publicly agreed, promising not to campaign, but failing (unlike everyone else) to remove her name from the ballot -- is aggravating in the extreme. It is so very Clintonesque of her.
All I can say is that McCain is probably praying for Hillary to be the nominee. That may be the only way a Republican can get elected this year.
I didn't read your whole post, it's almost bedtime and I wanted to respond to your initial question.
ABSOLUTELY NOT to Michigan delegates being seated for Hillary. Her name was the only big name on the ballot which I'm pretty sure had people confused and they didn't realise that if they wanted to vote for Edwards or Obama that they needed to vote for Uncommitted and I think, therefore, that they voted for Hillary just because it was the only name they recognised. There has been some discussion of Michigan holding caucuses in March, but I'm not sure if that's going to happen.
Post a Comment