Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama should push hard for re-votes
This might be outside theconventional wisdom, but Obama should push as hard as he can for re-votes in MI and FL.
I've come around 180 degrees on this. Previously I thought that having revotes would be changing the rules in the middle of the game (it still might be), but the practical considerations make it the right call.
Two reasons...the first is the math. Obviously, he'll do well in MI, the latest poll I saw was a tie. History has shown that Obama does 5-10% better from inital polls to actual results, so let's call that one a 53-47 win for him. By the same logic, Florida becomes a 55-45 loss. The delegates are likely to cancel each other out, which is to his favor since he still has a lead (think of golf match play. If you're two holes up with five to play, a tie on the next hole is almost as good as a win, becuase time's running out on your opponent).
The other reason is the "moral claim" to the SuperDs. Part of the argument is that Obama can't win the big states. If he wins MI, that argument (which is garbage anyway) is gone.
But here's the thing...Clinton doesn't want re-votes. No really, she doesn't, no matter what she may say, because then she loses the issue. If the results go as expected, then that's one less state she can trumpet. But more importantly, they aren't wildcards anymore, floating around in the ether as these unknown quantities. They're just two more states. Her argument right now looks something like this: 1. I won the big states (which becomes "more big states" rather than "all the big states except Obama's home state"), and 2. I really won these delegates that I've been cheated of...
And that's the rub. Her campaign has thrived on the slights, perceived and real, of things like this. First it was "the mean boys are ganging up on me in debates," then it was mean Obama saying "you're likable enough" and then it was mean Chris Matthews and David Shuster, and then it was mean Howard Dean taking away two of my states...
So Obama's option here is easy: push hard for the re-vote, offer to pay for it even, and when suddenly Senator Clinton's campaign isn't so enthusiastic about it, point out why that might be.
Comments (8)
Nice post. I agree.
He'll lose Florida and win by an edge or lose by an edge in Michigan.
Obama's advantage is that he can convert people. HRC cannot do that. And I can't believe that she gets many of Edwards voters.
He just needs to make sure to give himself enough time to really campaign there.
How quickly can they set this up? If I'm Obama, I'd like to do it before Pennsylvania. And focus on Michigan INSTEAD of Pennsylvania.
Same day as Pennsylvania?
And he could raise the money to pay for it.
March 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. I agree.
He'll lose Florida and win by an edge or lose by an edge in Michigan.
Obama's advantage is that he can convert people. HRC cannot do that. And I can't believe that she gets many of Edwards voters.
He just needs to make sure to give himself enough time to really campaign there.
How quickly can they set this up? If I'm Obama, I'd like to do it before Pennsylvania. And focus on Michigan INSTEAD of Pennsylvania.
Same day as Pennsylvania?
And he could raise the money to pay for it.
March 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. But I think all Democrats should want a revote for the simple matter that it makes no sense to choose a candidate without the votes of two very large states. Who thought it would be a good idea to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters?
If these two states are not allowed to vote, the results of the primary process will never be considered legitimate on either side. Shame on the Democratic leadership for ever allowing an agreement that two elections wouldn't count.
March 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need to gently disagree that the DNC thought it was a good idea to disenfranchise MI and FL. Those two states broke the rules, they knew in advance that they were breaking the rules. In effect, they called Howard Dean's bluff, only to find out he wasn't bluffing.
And the notion of "disenfranchisement" in my book can't apply to a primary. You don't have a constitutional right to help the party pick a nominee.
March 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask for revote in Mich, and for FLA to be seated as is.
He loses a few pledged votes in FLA, gets it all back and more from superdelegates. Ratchets up his leadership quotient a fair bit also. Reinforces the "he's not a run of the mill pol" meme.
FLA is looking terrible for a re-vote, there's too much potential for crap there. MICH legislature seems much more mature about this.
State all the reasons why you're doing this, make sure folks don't miss the fact that you're handing HRC a huge win for the sake of the party's chances in Nov. BO is good enough that he can make the case without being hamfisted.
It's high stakes and could backfire badly, but it has bigger upside than the conventional route imho.
March 14, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. That's another decision that might come back to haunt the Democratic party. What if Hillary wins the popular vote by just a bit? If she gets the nomination it will taste bitter to too many people. Even if Obama takes it nicely some will think if there was a revote in Fl he might have won. Stakes are too high, passions are hot. whatever happens has to be perceived as fair to the mass of America.
March 15, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not support the idea of a re-vote in Florida and Michigan because it *does* "change the rules in the middle of the game." (Hillary supported stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates and agreed that no candidate would campaign there.) But, if Hillary does want to change the rules, Mark Schmitt explains why this is not such a good idea:
Is this really what the Hillary campaign wants?
March 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually part of my point...no, she doesn't want this. She wants no part of this, because of what Schmitt says.
That's why I'm saying, if you're Obama, and there seems to be a general consensus that there should be some sort of redress for MI and FL voters (again, I happen to think that the "tough noogies" standard should apply, but I don't need to convince MI and FL voters to vote for me in November), then he should get out in front of the issue and either a)have the re-votes, which work to his advantage or b) make sure everyone knows that he was willing, even though it is perceived that it would be to his detrement, to do what was right for the good of the party. If Clinton digs in and insists on the delegates without a re-vote, then Obama has won the issue.
March 17, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment