DNC To Hear Michigan and Florida Challenges

The Rules and By-Laws Committee of the Democratic National Committee will meet on May 31 to hear challenges to the decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. For some more information, see the Democratic Convention Watch website, which has the Committee's notice of its meeting.

The Rules and By-Laws Committee is stacked in Hillary Clinton's favor. The Committee has 30 members, of whom 12 are committed to Hillary, 8 to Obama and the rest uncommitted. One of Obama's supporters on the Committee is from Florida, so he may not be allowed to vote on the Florida challenge. (This info is also from DemConWatch) Obama would need to get seven of the 10 uncommitted members to force a tie, so Clinton obviously has a big advantage.

The co-chairs of the Committee are Alexis Herman, who resides in Virginia, and James Roosevelt of Massachusetts. (Virginian Jerome Wiley Segovia is also on the Committee.)

Obama could still capture a majority of the Committee. Of the 10 "uncommitted" delegates on the Rules Committee, seven are projected to eventually go for Obama by a stastical model created by the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, while the other three are not included in the projection.

Of course, being committed to a candidate doesn't mean a committee member won't "do the right thing" in any event, but it will color their views.

In any event don't expect whole Michigan/Florida issue to somehow magically be resolved on May 31. This is just the first step. Most likely, the next step will be an appeal to the Credentials Committee. If Obama hasn't clinched the nomination before the convention, then the committees' decisions would probably be challenged on the convention floor.

While we'd rather not see the nomination come down to a floor fight and dramatic up or down vote at the Denver convention, we did talk to one astute friend this weekend who pointed out--and we agree with this--that such a finish would focus all media energy on the Democratic Party and it's right on through August, sucking the wind out of anything McCain would try to do.

[Our friend had a funny story. He was in India (no, not Indiana) and talking to a businessman about the US election. The businessman said he thought either Clinton or Obama would be a big improvement over Bush. "What about McCain?" our friend asked. "Who's McCain?" said the Indian businessman.]

If the nominee who emerged from such a dramatic process could then get up and make an impassioned and effective acceptance speech--with the whole world literally watching--it could touch off a final 10-week push to the general election with tremendous momentum.

While we're intrigued by that scenario, it's obviously risky, as a summer of bickering between supporters of both candidates could create dangerous party divisions that might not be healable in the short time after the convention.

Hillary Math Doesn't Add Up

Increasingly desperate as it becomes more and more obvious that Senator Barack Obama has a virtual mathematical lock on the nomination, Hillary's supporters are resorting to some awfully dubious math to say that she is still in the picture--or even in the lead!

One of the more fascinating aspects of these mathematical gyrations is that both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are giving them favorable play. The Times, of course, placed only the thinnest of veils on its endorsement of Hillary for President. The WSJ, on the other hand, only wants Hillary as the Democratic nominee, in the clear hope that she will make it easier for John McCain to be elected President in November.

So what of Hillary math? One good example can be found on Not Larry Sabato, the entertaining, often newsworthy, and widely read blog of Virginian Ben Tribbett, a prominent Hillary supporter in the Commonwealth. NLS has a Democratic Delegate Count on its website that might surprise those who rely on the Mainstream Media for their information.

According to NLS, it is a very tight race indeed! Obama has 1794 delegates, just 8 ahead of Hillary, who has 1786. And both have a long way to go, needing 2208 delegates to win--not the 2025 you'll see on most delegate counter websites.

How does NLS get these numbers? It's not really explained, at least in an easily accessible manner, but you can figure it out. NLS includes Michigan and Florida in the totals. Well, kind of. You see, NLS gives Hillary full credit for the delegates she would have won based on her showing in the Michigan and Florida primaries. But since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, his supporters had to vote for "uncommitted." NLS doesn't credit Obama with those "uncommitted" delegates however. Instead, they are in a separate "uncommitted" category.

Add the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates to Obama's total, however, and he now has a 63 delegate lead over Hillary, even with her getting the full benefit of both those contests. Now, here at the Curmudgeon, we've said all along that we'd be willing to seat the full Florida delegation based on the outcome there--we doubt a new primary would alter the result at all.

Michigan is a different story, however. Hillary cheated. She had her name on the ballot, the others didn't. It wasn't a valid election in any sense--many of Obama's people clearly stayed home--the turnout proves it. Yes, Hillary would probably win Michigan--it's like Ohio and Pennsylvania. But we doubt if her margin would be as large.

In any event, the NLS numbers, which aren't explained (at least in any easily accesible manner, such as clicking on the delegate table) seem to be a bit optimistic even with the various assumptions NLS has made.

We looked at a website that's pretty good--and neutral--with numbers: Democratic Convention Watch. They list the numbers with all kinds of options for Florida and Michigan, and in the one that gives both candidates the Michigan and Florida results (as is, but with Obama getting the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates) he has an overall lead of 67, probably because he's picked up a few more superdelegates than NLS is willing to give him credit for.

Every day it seems, Obama picks up one or two more uncommitted superdelegates--he's certainly been racking them up at a greater clip than Hillary for the past two months. So after North Carolina and Indiana, his lead will still be quite sufficient, regardless of Michigan and Florida.

Bear in mind also that the ultimate decider of whether and to what degree the Michigan and Florida delegations get seated is the convention as a whole (excluding the challenged delegations). In such a showdown--we shiver at the prospect and hope it will never occur--Obama's fairly large lead in pledged delegates from states excluding Michigan and Florida should be enough to put him over the top in terms of any floor challenge.

So, Hillarymath or not, Obama still leads. And that will be enough to sway the majority of remaining uncomitted superdelegates his way, and to make sure that any floor fights over Michigan and Florida work out in his favor as well.

Indeed, Hillarymath is just about as good as McCainmath, under which it is now okay to cut taxes to the point they bear no relationship to expenditures. Evidently, McCain, like W Bush, has no objection to China and a bunch of Arab oil states owning the United States via its debt.

Democratic Ground Hog Day--Eight More Weeks (Or Six More Months) Of Battling?

Hat tip to one of our anonymous commenters, who called yesterday Democrats' Ground Hog Day, meaning they have at least eight more weeks of battling for the nomination thanks to Hillary's comeback in Texas and Ohio. More likely, it's six more months.

Here's where we are: Sen. Clinton had to win Texas and Ohio to stay credible, and she did. But in the Democratic way of allocating delegates proportionally, she didn't gain much ground--depending on whose doing the counting, she narrowed the gap by maybe 15-20 delegates. Of course, clinching those key wins last night staunches the flow of superdelegates to Obama, and may even bring a few back home.

What's crystal clear is this: neither Clinton nor Obama can win the nomination--nor even come close--on pledged delegates alone. Indeed, neither can win it with the remaining pledged delegates even if you include their superdelegates. Here's the math--bear in mind that the delegate totals vary depending on your source (ours is realclearpolitics.com).

According to RCP, Obama has 1546 delegates (1344 pledged) to Clinton's 1449 (1208 pledged).

The remaining primaries/caucuses have 611 pledged delegates, and it takes 2025 to win. So Obama would have to take 479 out of 611 pledged delegates (78%) to win it, while Clinton would need 576 out of 611 (94%!) to win it. With the Democratic Party's proportional allocation rules, neither will come close to that, even if they sweep the rest of the contests.

[The candidates actually need slightly fewer delegates than we've set forth above because about 67 pledged delegates from prior contests--48 are from Texas--haven't yet been assigned. Still, you get the picture in terms of the math.]

In any event, neither candidate is going to sweep the rest of the races. If anything, last night's contests showed pretty clearly that where the demographics favor Hillary, she'll win; where they favor Obama, he'll win.

With that in mind, we'd expect Obama to take the next two contests--the Wyoming caucus on Saturday and the Mississippi primary on Tuesday. After that, it's a long wait to Pennsylvania, where Hillary should be favored, especially after the result in Ohio. After that, give Obama the edge in Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota; give Clinton the advantage in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico.

All that, of course, depends on no one having a major stumble or gaffe between now and June.

So, when the last contest--Puerto Rico--is completed on June 7 (assuming, for the moment, no re-vote in Florida and Michigan), the margin is likely to be about the same as it is now--Obama leading in pleadged delegates, but still well below the magic number of 2025, and Clinton likely to lead in superdelegates, but behind Obama.

Unfortunately, there's no clear path to victory for either Senator that doesn't include a deadlocked convention, unless a sufficient number of superdelegates fall to Obama to put him over the top. The potential for floor fights over Florida and Michigan delegates, and maybe some others, looms large.

This is not a happy scenario for Democrats.

Democratic Deadlock: Don't Blame Proportional Delegate Allocation Or Superdelegates

As Democrats increasingly face the prospect of a deadlocked convention and a long summer with no nominee, many party members are turning to their party's system for allocating delegates proportionally, and the reservation of nearly 20% of the delegates as uncommitted "superdelegates" as possible problems that need to be "fixed."

We were wondering whether the proportional delegate system and superdelegates are really part of the problem, or whether it's simply that this is such a tight race.

Our conclusion: don't blame proportional delegate allocation, and maybe don't blame superdelegates either.

We went back through all the Democratic nominating contests held so far and reallocated the delegates on a "winner-take-all" basis, a system the Republicans use in some, but not all, states, which many believe is why the GOP nomination process appears to come up with a winner sooner.

The Democrats have finished 36 contests to date (including Samoa and the Virgin Islands, but excluding Florida and Michigan, which awarded no delegates). According to the website RealClearPolitics.com, Obama has earned 1134 pledged delegates out of that process so far and Clinton has earned 996, for a difference of 138.

What if we re-allocate the pledged delegates on a winner-take-all basis? Well, it's closer, with Obama still leading with 1096 delegates to Clinton's 1075, a difference of only 21 delegates. In other words, winner-take-all just makes it a closer contest, not a run-away for either candidate. It would still come down to the 796 "superdelegates" to decide the nomination.

So, you say, let's get rid of, or at least pare back, the superdelegates so that someone can win without going all the way to the convention. It's certainly true that without superdelegates, either Obama or Hillary would eventually win. But neither would be anywhere close at this point, and it would again be very close.

Again, let's allocate each state's superdelegates on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate who carried the state. Now we have Obama leading Hillary by 1396 to 1325, a margin of only 71 votes. (By the way, that's almost identical to RealClearPolitics.com's margin for Obama when superdelegates are included now: 1302-1235, for a difference of 67!) That's certainly close enough for both candidates to continue competing at least through April, and probably all the way to June.

It's also close enough that Florida and Michigan would make a big difference, especially on a winner-take-all basis, and so it might still all come down to a convention challenge over seating those state's delegates.

The bottom line is that this is simply a very close race between Senators Obama and Clinton, with each taking a number of states. In such a tight race, no delegate allocation system is likely to give one a significant enough advantage over the other to force him or her out of the race early. And while the superdelegates virtually assure that neither candidate can win this BEFORE the convention, it is not clear that elimination of the superdelegates would avoid a convention fight the way things have gone this year.

Obama's Best Shot

A few days ago, we did the math for the remaining Democratic nominating contests, concluding that neither Obama nor Hillary has much chance of even coming close to winning the nomination on pledged delegates alone.

For another take on the math, which will get you to essentially the same conclusion, see Michael Barone's piece in U.S. News, "More On A Hillary Comeback." Barone approaches it from Hillary's side of the legdger and concludes that, even with very optimistic assumptions for winning Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio, she'd still trail Obama in pledged delegates, although it would be pretty close at that point.

Barone also briefly reviews the post-March 4 contests and finds them somewhat more favorable to Hillary than to Obama, but that, of course, is only if Sen. Clinton succeeds on March 4.

Which pretty much leads us to this conclusion: Obama has one chance to put this whole thing away and avoid the trainwreck of a deadlocked convention with disputes over seating delegates and all kinds of other entertainment. That chance is to defeat Hillary in either (or both) of Ohio and Texas.

Based on some polls, we think Obama has a better chance in Texas, but we wouldn't write-off Ohio. Certainly, if Obama won both, the pressure on Clinton to give it up would grow immense. While she's said she needs to win both, if she barely loses Texas, but wins Ohio, she'll probably pledge to forge ahead anyway.

While we're at it, there may be yet another source of delegate challenges at the convention if the condidates remain deadlocked. In addition to Michigan and Florida, and potentially Puerto Rico (if it sticks to a plan to award delegates on a winner-take-all basis), there's Texas.

The issue in Texas is that it awards its delegates on the basis of state Senate districts (rather than congressional districts, like most states). That's no problem standing alone, but not every Senate district in Texas is equal in delegates--the state party gives more delegates to state senate districts that had a high turn-out for Kerry in 2004 and for the most recent Democratic nominee for governor.

It so happens that this formula penalizes some Hispanic senate districts where turnout has been low in general elections, but where Hillary expects to do well on March 4. As a result, Hillary could carry the state, but be about even in delegates. Whether this issue is enough to sustain a delegate challenge is not clear. (Another quirk in the Texas delegate allocation process is that all the statewide delegates will be selected by caucuses, held in the evening on March 4, which may favor Obama.)

As a general rule, we think the close the nomination, the more of these delegate challenges will occur.

The Double Deadlock Scenario

Last night's result in the Democratic race in New Hampshire, with Hillary making a "comeback," raises a new spectre--the Double Deadlock scenario.

[As an aside, we have to wonder about the media's role in painting these "victories" and "defeats." If the polls had shown Hillary with the lead that they instead attributed--falsely--to Obama, then Hillary's three point victory would have been portrayed much differently, maybe even as Obama exceeding expectations. The delegate count puts it where it should be: a tie.]

For months now, we've speculated about the possibility of a Republican deadlock, i.e., no one in the field having a majority of delegates before the convention. That possibility remains quite real, with four viable candidates, none of whom draws better than 25% support in national polls. If those four stay in the race and divide the delegates along their poll lines, no one will have a majority.

But we haven't discussed the possibility of a Democratic deadlock as well, the conventional wisdom being that the Dem race would quickly come down to two candidates. But we now have to consider the possibility. The Democratic Party awards delegates much more proportionally than the Republicans. The result is that although Hillary won yesterday, she and Obama got the same number of delegates. Likewise, in Iowa, Obama won, but got only one more delegate than Hillary.

And, in both races, Edwards won a few delegates. Edwards says he going to stay in it for the long haul, and he may very well do so. If that's the case and he gets 15-20% of the delegates while Hillary and Obama go back and forth, then the Dems could end up in a deadlock, too.

We wouldn't put it past Edwards to be a spoiler, with his huge ego. And we wouldn't put it past Democratic voters to consistently give him 15-20% of the vote--he appeals to the "angry" Democrats who believe his schpiel that the world's woes are caused by corporate greed.

We don't think a deadlock would be good for either party. A double deadlock might even things out, but it would encourage third party candidacies and lead to an endless summer of speculation and hand wringing. The odds of a deadlock on the Democratic side are still pretty low, but if neither Hillary nor Barack comes out of February 5 with a clear advantage, the odds go up.

Meanwhile, just think of the irony here: everyone moved their nominating contests up this year because they wanted their votes to "count," to be "meaningful." And yet it now turns out that the LATE nominating states may have the more meaningful say.