« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama should concede Hillary's demands to seat Florida and Michigan
Why on earth would he want to do that? Because that may be the only way to truly end the nomination process without Hillary appealing all the way to the floor of the convention. If he gives in to her demands, it shuts her up and leaves her without a chair to stand on.
Rachel Maddow makes this point on Huffington Post:
<blockquote>if the Democrats are to avoid a divided convention, the Florida and Michigan dispute will have to be taken off the table -- settled in a way that avoids the risk of a rules dispute that stretches the nominating contest out through the convention. I can think of only one way to do that, but there may be others.
Here's my way: based on my read of NBC's delegate math, I think if the Clinton campaign won 100% of what they wanted on the Florida and Michigan dispute, Obama could still clinch the nomination -- even according to the most pro-Clinton math -- if 90 of the remaining 210-or-so undeclared superdelegates declared for Obama.
If they so declared before May 31st, the Rules and Bylaws committee would have no reason to take up the Florida and Michigan dispute because it would be a moot point -- Obama's camp could concede every Clinton demand on the subject and still win the nomination.
Otherwise? I'll be the twitchy one on radio row at the divided Democratic convention in Denver... spooked by the ghosts of 1968, 1972, 1980...</blockquote>If Maddow's math is right, then Obama could give in to 100% of Hillary's demands if he thinks he can earn the support of at least 42% of the undeclared superdelegates. Hillary would need 58% of these superdelegates to pull off a come-from-behind victory. Those are odds he could definitely pull off, considering that he will have won more delegates, more states, and probably the popular vote as well.
I'm not sure Obama would even need to give in to 100% of Hillary's demands. He could just give in to her demands for seating Florida's delegation, and then go with the Michigan Democratic party's suggestion that 69 of the state's delegates go to Hillary and 59 would go to Barack Obama. It would be extremely difficult for Hillary to attempt to go all the way to the convention if there wasn't a good cause. Her superdelegates would never sanction that.
By conceding defeat, Obama could hasten the march to victory and get Hillary out of the picture fast.
Comments (18)
Update: Bill Clinton thinks it would be okay to seat 50% of Florida's delegates. See this post.
This willingness to compromise makes it all the more important for Obama to get this issue behind him ASAP.
May 23, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great Idea. That would go far towards healing the rift that Mr. "I can bring us all together" (AKA BO) helped create. There is no way that the DNC is not going to seat those delegates in the end. It would be bad for the party not to. And you can bet were the tables turned and Obama had won those states that he would be fighting every bit as hard for those delegates to be seated himself. If you think not, you haven't been paying attention. Why else has he been so successful in states that held primaries as well as caucuses in winning more delegates even when he lost the actual vote. Because he fought by hook or by crook for every single delegate. In fact his success in this primary is very reminiscent of his first contest to win his senate seat in Chicago where he used the "rules" to eliminate all the other primary candidates from the ballot. Presto chango if in doubt of winning get rid of the competition. It is classic old style politics and very effective. Congratulations.
The problem may really lie in the fact that he already knows that he can't get enough of the rest of the super delegates to clinch the nomination if MI and FL are included. If that is the case he will be the one keeping the fight going until the convention. If not he will be "magnanimous" and concede that he lost those states. I don't know the answer but I bet someone in his campaign does.
It is ironic that the candidate that says he is the best man to bring the country together can't even do that within his own party and win the nomination hands down. Super delegates should perhaps pay attention to that when they make up their minds. It would have been so much more convenient for Obama if they could have forced Hillary out of the race before WV and Kentucky and those huge wins. Shame on Hillary for not bending to the will of the tiny majority that Obama has won in the primary. A bit embarrassing for the great orator, the candidate of hope , and the one with the message of unity thats supposed to win the GE though.
May 23, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Naughty, naughty "rules." They're such a nuisance.
You have no evidence to back up your "hook and crook" claim. He did follow the rules in Chicago as many names on his opponents' petitions were false; that's why he won.
As for the split being his fault? How and by what measure? Is he to blame for other people's actions, especially when their actions are based either on racism, lies, or ignorance?
May 23, 2008 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"By hook or by crook" I live in Texas one of those states where he and his operatives are using every trick in the book so I do know. In fact I ran a caucus so I do know what they do. And I attended the convention where they were on the credentials committee and rules meant nothing to them. The only rule they know is if it got the delegate for Obama you voted for it if it did not you did not. Rules are only rules when it favors Obama. They even planted Obama people who said they were for Clinton in the Clinton camp who became delegates and then didn't show to try and reduce the number she got. And it is still going on because the delegates in Texas won't be decided until June.
Why is it racism when WV and Kentucky vote for the white candidate but not racism in SC, MS etc when the black vote is 80-90% for the black candidate? Race played a role in this race but it went both ways.
May 23, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is only racism when you're voting against someone because of their race. African Americans weren't voting against Hillary because of her color but there were some white folk that certainly were voting against Obama because of his color.
May 23, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello?
If you're choosing between two candidates, one of whom is black and one of whom is white, and you vote for the the black candidate because he's black, then you're voting against the other candidate because she' white.
Nice try though.
Congratulations! You've won an all expenses paid trip for 2 to Jonestown, brought to you by the makers of Koolaide!
Your tickets can be picked-up in the Lobby.
May 23, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. You're right. Black people are anti-white racist.
That's why we supported Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc, etc.
May 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard first-hand accounts about the Clinton campaign. And Obama plants to declare and then not show up?
I respond to the racism charge below. But, white people need to not try to play "gotcha" with blacks on racism. 20% of white voters in WV and Kentucky admitted to anti-black racism. We haven't seen that coming from African Americans.
May 23, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is ironic that the candidate that says he is the best man to bring the country together can't even do that within his own party and win the nomination hands down."
Do you think that "winning the nomination hands down" is simply a matter of waving a magic wand?
The Democratic party leaders have repeatedly shown that they have no spines and no souls. Barack cannot cure that problem.
May 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama's going to accept no votes and no delegates in Michigan. Guess again.
That's what conceding to her demands means.
May 23, 2008 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thats not the deal. The deal is Hillary gets the percentage she won and Obama gets the uncommitted. I believe it is something like 74 and 55. But Obama wants to split 50 /50 and great deal (for Him). It is like wiping out that loss.
May 23, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama getting zero delegates in Michigan is exactly what Clinton and her thugs want http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/22/1052820.aspx
May 23, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I worry about what secondary plan she has after she gets the MI & FLA thing settled even remotely in her favor. So I wouldn't concede the MI & FLA delegates to her unless I had something in writing (in blood and in triplicate) and a concession speech drafted and prepared for national broadcast before the blood ink dries.
May 23, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once you take that off the table, what else does she have left? If she continues to stay in, she looks like the spoiler and nobody likes a sore loser. She'd have to start worrying about her future in politics and her seat in New York.
May 23, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spade: I don't know what would be next. I guess it would be invalidating all the Caucuses.
May 23, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama shouldn't (and likely, doesn't) care how the MI and FL delegates are seated. As long as doing so does not become the actual difference in the nomination. Any seating formula is probably acceptable without that violation. Which means that Obama shouldn't accept a proposal until AFTER all the supers have declared.
Conversely, Clinton likely wants MI and FL to be resolved BEFORE the all the supers have declared. That way, she has a chance to line up enough supers behind closed doors so that MI and FL are the difference in the nomination.
I don't see how could the party reward those two states, which were being punished for brazenly seeking more primary process power, by now giving them the ultimate primary power. The power to actually decide the nominee.
May 23, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm actually with you on this one Joe. Have been for a while:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-simple-route-to-a-decis.php
Fully seating the delegations, as is, would produce an outpouring of superdelegate support for Obama. It would mend fences with those dems in Florida and Michigan upset by the Party's actions. And it would lay to rest any excuses the Clinton campaign has left.
May 23, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can devise another excuse at the drop of a hat.
May 23, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment