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's Hollow Complaints About Caucuses

It's pretty obvious that both the Clinton and Obama camps are completely result-oriented in their respective complaints about delegate selection and allocation.

We find Camp Hillary's complaints about state caucuses particularly hollow. Caucuses have been around for a long time. They are less expensive than primaries. Most importantly, they have traditionally served as a means to get input from the party's most active participants--the precinct captains, the donors, the voters who follow the ins and outs of the race, the folks who think in terms of "who can win."

To hear the same people who speak virtuously of the "superdelegate" concept denigrate the caucus system is cynicism at its worst.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been powerful party insiders for nearly 20 years now. If they thought there was something wrong with caucuses, they could easily have done something about it. Of course, they didn't--indeed, Hillary had every reason--as with superdelegates--to think that those party insiders who attend caucuses would be her core of support.

Her campaign's mistake, however, was to ASSUME she'd win caucuses without really working at it. And that's where Obama's campaign--through sheer determination, strategy and organizational savvy--simply outmaneuvered her.

So, Hillary, don't complain about caucuses. Next time, have a stragegy for them as well.

Now that brings us to Camp Obama. They like caucuses, but not superdelegates. Get over it. As we said above, the two are analogous: both are intended to put power in the hands of party insiders. You can't accept one, but not the other.

Furthermore, Obama has the chance to persuade the superdelegates that he is the right candidate. It comes down to electability. If they think Obama can beat McCain, and Hillary can't, they will come over to his side.

There are some legitimate beefs out there. The so-called Texas two-step--both a primary and a caucus--is ridiculous. It adds the exclusivity of a caucus to the expense of a primary. It exhausts the party's workers. It's confusing. And it's unnecessary. We'd like to see the party ban anything like it in the future.

Then, there's what to do with Florida and Michigan. A do-over, while not perfect, is the best option. Those states' voters should have a say, especially in such a close race. By the same token, it would be ludicrous to reward Hillary for staying in Michigan while Obama stayed out. And the Florida vote was terribly flawed by the circumstances. So do it over. Both should be primaries, as they were intended to be.

Hillary's supporters think those states will somehow put her over the top. They won't--not under the proportional allocation system. Even after her big victories in big states this past Tuesday, Hillary barely closed the gap. So, barring an unlikely blowout in either state, Hillary won't win the whole thing if we do it over in Florida and Michigan. But it will avoid a nasty floorfight at the convention.

Since it's clear that the remaining contests, without Fla. and Mich., won't decide it, the Democratic Party should--in the lull before Pennsyslvania--get this resolved and set the new primary dates in early June.

Don't Let Florida (and Michigan) Despoil The People's Will Again

In the 2000 Presidential election, it all came down to a flawed ballot in Florida. In the process, the voters got screwed and saddled with one of the worst Presidents in history.

You'd think Democrats, being on the short end of that stick, wouldn't make the same mistake again. Think again.

Predictably, Hillary Clinton's increasingly desperate campaign is maneuvering to reinstate the Democratic convention delegates taken from Florida and Michigan when they defied party rules and moved up their primaries.

(Ironically, both states would have had more influence by keeping their primaries later in the season: see Texas, Ohio).

Of course, the Clinton campaign is pushing to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates because Hillary "won" in both states.

The problem is that Hillary "won" only because Obama played by the rules, while she didn't. And it's not just Obama--recall that at one time there were half a dozen or so Democratic candidates, all of whom abided by an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida.

Clinton's argument in Michigan is particularly ludicrous. There, Obama (and Edwards) weren't even on the ballot, having withdrawn in compliance with party rules. There is simply no way you can award Hillary delegates for Michigan under those circumstances and call it fair or reflective of voters' preferences.

Democrats should heed the lesson of 2000. They should not award the Florida and Michigan delegates based on flawed primary elections where the two candidates played by different rules.

IF Michigan and Florida want to play a role at the Democratic convention, they still have the opportunity: they can either (1) hold party caucuses in which both Clinton and Obama compete, or (2) hold new primary elections. The latter is not very practical. The former probably won't happen because Clinton supporters oppose caucuses, claiming they are at a disadvantage in them.

(The reason for Clinton's disadvantage in caucuses is that latinos and working class women, two groups that disproportionately favor Hillary, are less likely to show up at caucuses. Indeed, in Nevada, Hillary won the caucuses in large part because of "at-large" caucus meetings held in casinos, which allowed her working class supporters to attend--it was these very at-large meetings that her campaign unsuccessfully sought to prevent, in a lawsuit, because evidently they didn't understand where her support was coming from.)

You might ask, how would the Democrats decide whether to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates? Good question--the answer is that the Superdelegates would ultimately decide the issue.

Here's how it works: if there is a dispute at the convention as to the seating of delegates, it gets referred to a Rules committee. When things are tight, as they likely will be in Denver this August, the decision usually gets referred to a floor vote, i.e., all the delegates (except those who are challenged) vote on whether to seat the challenged delegates. Those delegates already pledged to Clinton and Obama will vote based on the interest of their candidate--Obama's against seating Michigan and Florida; Clinton's for it. But neither will have enough to win, so it will be up to superdelegates, uncommitted delegates and Edwards' delegates. The vote could decide the nomination, and thus could be quite bitter.

In 1952, Republicans were deadlocked between Eisenhower and Taft as their nominee. The convention came down to seating of three delegations: those from Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. In each state, there were two delegations--one favoring Taft and one favoring Ike--so the winner of this battle would get the nomination. Earl Warren, then Governor of California, had about 100 and something delegates from his run for the nominatin, and he sided with Ike, helping get Ike's delegations seated and putting him over the top (and later becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).

Democrats could be headed for a similar scenario in 2008. (Not that we're saying John Edwards will become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.)

Michigan Up For Grabs

Should we even bother with the polls in Michigan after what happened in New Hampshire?

Well, the New Hampshire polls were pretty accurate with the GOP side of the race, so let's give it a try.

Six polls have been released in Michigan covering interviews conducted January 9 or later. Of those, three give Romney the lead and three give McCain the lead, with the largest lead for Romney at 8% and the largest for McCain at 7%. Huckabee is in third, about 9 points back.

(For a complete tabulation of the Michigan polls, go here.)

That means Michigan is a toss-up. A lot hangs in the balance: if McCain wins, his momentum could be enough to run the table in SC, Florida and Super Duper Tuesday. If Romney wins, however, it knocks McCain down a peg, gets the Mittster back into the race, keeps SC up in the air (leaning Huckabee) and even gives Giuliani a shot in Florida.

McCain could even come in third in Michigan--Huckabee's numbers may be a bit better than the polls, because his people will turnout. We think Romney is enjoying a mini-surge of support in Michigan, and it's not clear that independents, who McCain needs, will really turn out.

And, if Romney wins Michigan, he could end up with a very good week, as he has a good shot at Nevada with it's large Mormon population.

Looks to be another interesting week.