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.)

McCain Owes Win In Florida To . . . Hispanics!

As we write this, John McCain appears headed to a narrow victory in Florida, somewhat akin to his narrow victory in South Carolina. He's pulling just over a third of GOP voters in these primaries, but with the rest of the field badly fragmented, it's enough to keep on winning.

And hey, Florida is winner-take-all, so that 35% plurality gets him 100% of the delegates.

We took a look at the exit polls and guess what? There's a pretty good case to be made that Hispanic voters put McCain over the top in Florida. For all the carping that McCain's position on immigration had killed him in the Republican party, it may actually have saved him.

Hispanics made up 10% of Republican voters in the primary. While that's not a large percentage, they broke heavily for McCain: 51% for McCain versus only 15% for immigrant bashing Romney. That's enough to explain McCain's three percentage point victory over the Mittster.

All of which is why we'd rather see the GOP nominate an immigrant basher, making Democrats an easy choice for Latinos, than to see McCain as the nominee.

Now, wouldn't both Romney and Huckabee like to get a clean shot at McCain, in a closed primary, one-on-one? And yet with Giuliani now finished--his weak third place in Florida will be the end of his road--both Romney and Huckabee find themselves fighting for the hard-core party conservatives, while McCain consolidates the center and left of the party.

We'll have a more detailed analysis tomorrow of how all this affects Super Duper Tuesday, but McCain is now the clear favorite to win the Republican nod. With Giuliani mortally wounded, McCain should be able to sweep the blue state Republican primaries--NY, NJ, CT, Delaware, Illinois, probably California--while Mitt and Huck fight for the redder states.

With McCain now the clear odds on favorite, Democrats have to give serious thought to who they want to put up in opposition. We'll have some ideas on that as well tomorrow.

So, the Straight Talk Express is picking up steam. Unless conservatives in the party can really rally around Mitt Romney, they're going to have to learn to live with a "maverick" (i.e., someone who doesn't kowtow to party purity).

Desperate Giuliani Panders His Way Through Florida

Desperate to win Florida, Rudy Giuliani is pandering his way across the state. Rudy had no choice--poor strategy has painted him into a corner where the only hope for a foundering campaign is to come in first (not second) in Florida.

Furthermore, Giuliani's poll numbers in the Sunshine State remain weak--in most polls reported this week he's a relatively distant third behind McCain and Romney. Even in New York and New Jersey--voting on Feb. 5--the Rudester is trailing McCain in polls. Which raises a question about Romney: does he need Giuliani to be strong enough through Super Duper Tuesday to siphon support from McCain, or with the G-man out will anti-McCain forces coalesce around the Mittster?

But back to pandering. On the one hand, Giuliani is pushing a massive tax cut, disguised as tax simplification, without any indication of how he would pay for it. Inflation, we guess. Or maybe through one of those magical Laffer curves, where lower taxes miraculously turn into higher revenue. Mind you, Giuliani is not talking about an economic stimulus--his tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the rich, and they aren't temporary.

On the other hand, far from cutting government spending, Rudy G. proposes that the government subsidize Florida homeowners' hurricane insurance costs. One reason you gotta like McCain is that despite the huge benefit he'd get from winning Florida, he opposes such government largesse. (For more on the hurricane insurance issue, see today's WSJ: "The Panhandle Pander.")

Giuliani epitomizes borrow and spend Republicanism--borrow from the poor and spend it on the rich.

It's not likely he can win Florida, unless he has a fabulous debate performance tonight at McCain's expense. In any event, Giuliani shouldn't win: all he's proven so far is that he is a poor strategizer, a poor manager of consultants spewing bad strategy (reminds you of how the neocons got W Bush into a protracted war in Iraq), and a fiscally reckless big government Republican. We've had all that for the past eight years, without success, so no need to try it again.

Those Florida Voters, At It Again

Florida Democrats have rejected a compromise with the national party under which Florida could hold its early primary, but treat it as a "beauty contest" with delegates to be awarded later.

Indeed, the Florida Democrats were quite defiant. Our favorite portion of their statement taking umbrage at the very thought that they should compromise: "Florida Democrats will have a major impact in determining who the next President of the United States will be."

Well, yeah. They did it before by golly--totally bollixed up the 2000 election and gave us the worst President ever. So we should, like, be soooo pleased that they're going to do it again.

Of course, politics are at work here. On the Democratic side, the big beneficiary is none other than Hillary Clinton. If all the candidates abide by their pledges not to campaign in Florida, then, by default, Hillary will win by a pretty comfortable margin simply because she's the best known candidate.

That is, unless voters get confused by the ballot. It's certainly possible that Florida Democrats could accidentally end up giving all their convention delegates--if they have any--to Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee.

Meanwhile, some in the party are threatening a "civil rights" lawsuit against the national party. Give us a break. The claim is that because Florida is a voting rights state, it deserves to horn in on the early primary festival. This is utter nonsense. No one is depriving Floridians of anything. They just want to cut in line and make another mess of another election, something they're very good at. The national parties--both of them--should have adequate leeway to sanction state parties that refuse to toe the line. We don't see any such lawsuit having merit or really going anywhere.

Anyway, thanks a bunch Florida. We're really happy that you're going to have a "major impact" on the election again!