Hillary's plan to steal the nomination

The New Republic doesn't mince words in its criticism of Hillary Clinton's plan to -- and I quote -- "steal the nomination" by giving retroactive significance to the facially meaningless primaries in Michigan and Florida:

[T]heft is the only way to describe the plan [Clinton] has floated for certifying the Florida and Michigan delegations.

The back story is simple: The Florida and Michigan legislatures moved their primaries forward in the calendar to exert greater influence on the nominating process. But, by scheduling their primaries before February 5, they broke rules set by both the Democratic and the Republican parties. The GOP punished these scofflaw states by stripping them of half their delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) took them all away--and, so, the Democratic candidates did not campaign in these states.

Without ads and stump speeches--Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan--the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives.

You can certainly debate the merits of the DNC's move. What is beyond debate, though, is that all the major Democratic campaigns accepted this move without complaint. Clinton, along with her rivals, signed a pledge not to "participate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries.

But as soon as it became clear, in the wake of Iowa and on the eve of South Carolina, that Clinton potentially faced an extended battle for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game. Her campaign has been arguing that the non-contested elections in Michigan and Florida should be made retroactively meaningful--and, therefore, that Clinton should be handed a gift of nearly 200 delegates. The Clinton team has wrapped its case in the logic of voter disenfranchisement. "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee," Clinton has said.

There is a perfectly cogent case to be made that Floridians and Michiganders deserve their say. (Some of our best friends and elderly relatives reside in those states.) The way to address this complaint is to schedule new elections so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs--you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand. The DNC, if it does decide to redress Clinton's complaint, needs to do so immediately.

The New Republic hasn't endorsed any candidate in this race. Our staff is divided, like the Democratic electorate.

But neutral observers can't stand idly by as one campaign openly discusses stealing the nomination at the convention. Democrats need to recognize this potential gambit for what it is: a cynical, selfish hijacking of the democratic process. Clinton would not be laying the groundwork for this ploy unless it was potentially decisive. And the damage to Democrats (and democrats) would be profound. If Clinton is truly willing to trample so many institutions she professes to care about in pursuit of victory, she will have proven her enemies correct.

My blogging on the Michigan and Florida controversies has thus far looked at it from the perspective of a political junkie obsessed with procedure and delighted by chaos, but as a substantive matter, TNR is 100% right; what Hillary is proposing is absolutely outrageous. It's doubly outrageous with regard to Michigan, where the sole reason Clinton "won" is because Obama removed his name from the ballot entirely -- a move that was entirely in keeping with the spirit of the candidates' pledge, but one that Clinton cynically chose not to reciprocate. As a result, Michigan was far, far less than a beauty contest. It was a nullity. If Clinton gains a decisive advantage from her "win" there, her nomination will be grossly illegitimate. And prevailing on the basis of her Florida "win" would only be slightly less illegitimate.

Any intellectually honest Clinton supporter must necessarily admit all of this. There is simply no logical rebuttal to TNR's argument, no principled defense for what Hillary is proposing to do. Unless, that is, we are to declare that the whole process is a sham anyway, so it doesn't matter -- in which case, why are we even bothering with any of it? As blatantly imperfect and at times ridiculous as the primary and caucus system is, surely it is preferable to respect the process rather than subordinating it to one candidate's blatant power-grab.

If Obama were doing the same thing that Clinton is doing, I would certainly condemn it (and would, in fact, quite probably renounce my support for him altogether if he were to go through with it). I assume Clinton's supporters feel the same way, and I urge them to tell her so.

For my part, I can tell you right now that if Clinton wins the nomination through these ridiculous shenanigans, I will become much, much more likely to vote for John McCain in November -- or, if I ultimately conclude that I'm unable to support McCain, then for a third-party candidate as a protest vote. I just don't know if I can see my way clear to voting for someone who would show such blatant disregard for the democratic process as Clinton is proposing to do.

Anyway, this simply cannot be allowed to occur -- for the sake of the country, the Democratic Party, and the Clintons themselves.

(Hat tip: Joe Mama.)

P.S. Now, on the other hand, if either Clinton or Obama wins because of superdelegates -- which isn't really an "if"; one of them will -- that's arguably undemocratic too, but it's undemocratic in a way that is specifically foreseen by the process everybody agreed to. What makes Clinton's Florida/Michigan gambit so outrageous is that it would change the mutually agreed rules of the game midstream for pure self-interest, and would do so in the same of democracy, when in fact it's an entirely undemocratic move. It must not happen.

Comments

[David K.]

Seems to me the only fair solution at this point is to hold a re-vote/re-caucus in those two states if they want their votes included.

[dcl]

I think if Hillary demands that the votes of Florida and Michigan be counted without a revote and said votes are ultimately counted, and the counting of those votes is the difference in the nomination this being the ultimate nominee for the Democratic party, I would be unable to support her candidacy. Now I don't think I could go as far as Brendan and support McCain, for various reasons. So I'm not entirely certain what I would do is such circumstances, but Hillary would not receive my vote.

[Brendan Loy]

I agree, David. Of course, that solution would involve "changing the rules in the middle of the game" too, and in that sense the precedent it would set is a bit problematic... but at least for this election cycle, it would be a change that would allow both candidates an equal opportunity to compete for the votes, and thus it isn't an undemocratic change of the rules, like Hillary's gambit.

(Re: the bad precedent.... for example, what if, in some future election, a state whose early primary was won by a candidate who subsequently dropped out of the race decides to hold a "re-vote" so they can choose between the two remaining candidates? ... But, that said, this is clearly a unique situation caused by the DNC's overzealous penalty, so I think the precedent can be distinguished easily enough.)

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. re: "changing the rules in the middle of the game" ... I'm just waiting for the smartass LSU/USC/BCS comment. :)

[Gardner]

Wouldn't this be a test for Dean as head of the DNC? Wasn't it ultimately his call on the penalty. Wouldn't this be the ultimate power play by the Clintons to regain control over the DNC?

[Brendan Loy]

Yes.

[Derek]

This situation has always fascinated me. On the one hand, I applaud the DNC for sticking to its threat to refuse to seat delegates selected in violation of the national schedule. On the other hand, I don't know how much I like the possibility of someone winning the nomination through contests where the Virgin Islands have more pull than Michigan and Florida combined. I don't much like the national Democrats treading on the plans of state Democrats, particularly when the state legislature (composed of Republicans and Democrats) was the one that legislatively made the change.

Moving on to some criticisms of the less-persuasive rhetorical points in the otherwise excellent TNR piece.

1. "Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan" [because he asked to have it withdrawn].

This is a crucial element of the MI story not listed. Most camps had ceded Michigan to Clinton months before it appeared that Michigan was viable for Obama. Additionally, Michigan had a mechanism by which parties could choose to appear on the ballot (which, I believe, Florida did not). Accordingly, when the deadline approached, most of the apparent would-be losers (including a failed attempt by Kucinich) decided to withdraw their names. It was a savvy strategy--you could please the DNC even more, you could have an excuse for why you didn't win, and you could assume Michigan wouldn't matter. If was a savvy strategy for Clinton, too--be the only meaningful name on the ballot, win, and expect Michigan to get seated. It ended up backfiring for Obama badly--he had an opportunity to make a play, and instead was forced to spin it as "we weren't even on the ballot," "there were no delegates at stake," etc. Clinton was hurt badly, too--she ended up scraping past "uncommitted," when she might not have appeared on the ballot and let it go as a wash.

Both camps were not-campaigning in Michigan through proxies. Both had GOTV efforts. Both had mobilization underway for their

2. "Without ads and stump speeches . . . the actual primary votes in these states were meaningless beauty contests, and perhaps not even that. Knowing that their ballots meant nothing, many voters stayed home. And, as everyone expected, Hillary romped to victory on the basis of her brand name and voters' lack of familiarity with the alternatives."

The two sentences do not flow together. As illustrated above, both had GOTV through proxies. It's unclear in part, for instance, whether the "no alternative" in Michigan helped "Uncommitted," because more turned out in to "oppose Hillary." Ditto in Florida, but with names. And now, while Obama and Edwards each had a piece of the "Uncommitted" pie, they're now all (de facto) Obama's in name--the non-Clinton vote.

Further, does anyone really think that "ads and stump speeches" suddenly make a primary "meaningful"? Some Super Tuesday states didn't have ads from any candidates (though I believe Obama was up in all but one); I don't believe anyone ever traveled to Alaska or North Dakota for a stump speech. It's naive to think that we live in a 19th-century culture. Most voters in MI or FL are just as rationally ignorant as those exposed to "ads and stump speeches." They had all summer to watch 15 debates. The newspapers covered the positions of each candidate. The Internet, surprisingly, still reached their homes. It's not like they were utterly ignorant; just about as ignorant as the average voter, except that they weren't bombarded by :30 platitudes or vacuous (and repetitive) "stump speeches."

3. "so that candidates can advertise, make speeches, organize voters, distribute yard signs"

See 2. As indicated, both did organize voters and distribute yard signs (as one who traveled through Michigan in early January can attest).

4. "you know, do "democracy," a concept Clinton seems not to understand."

ARGH! There should be a reductio ad democracy theory for voting articles. Democracy? Seriously? Where this thing could be determined by "superdelegates" in the most undemocratic fashion? Where caucuses are a major component of the system? It's absurd to insist that the no-stump ban in Florida is somehow less democratic than the bizarre caucus system of Iowa. (Admittedly, if numerous voters chose not to participate, it would be one thing; but voter turnout was incredibly high in both MI and FL for the Democrats.)

Brendan, I think your P.S. is a nice attempt, but... just an attempt. :)

5. As for "hijacking" the process, this is exactly what both sides have been accusing the other of. Apart from cries "voter suppression" and the like in NH, LA, and elsewhere, there was the pair of legal battles in NV, by one camp to alter the voting sites, by another camp to keep the voting open longer than rules allowed.

(It's also a bit disturbing to read a liberal magazine shocked, shocked to find that the Clintons (or, perhaps more cynically still, any politician) might stop at nothing to win. As for "any politician," Obama, for instance, contested the signature totals of his mentor in his first state primary race in order to have her disqualified from the primary ballot.)

---

As for a "revote," I think that both sides gambled, the die has been cast, and now it's up to them to decide what to do. "Revote" seems to be the mantra of Obama backers because, well, Clinton "won" FL and MI. In reality, I would most strongly support keeping the penalty--and disenfranchising the FL and MI voters. That's what the DNC promised from the beginning, and that's what it should stick to. I don't understand why this "disenfranchisement" talk suddenly matters, when that was the whole point several months ago. What, you're only disenfranchised if your vote makes a difference? I would love to see someone make that argument with a straight face. "Revote" is a change; "count them" is a change; and both are promulgated, conveniently, by the respective camps. ("Revote" more as a chance to reconcile with those states after having threatened them with disenfranchisement. Of course, would strong Clinton-backers in FL and MI stay at home in November if they had to "revote," and Obama came out on top? An interesting dilemma.)

Finally, this is something that may or may not have much substance, but it's one of the more substantial critiques of Obama that directly relates to this process. I'm sure most are aware of the complaints that Obama doesn't take positions on hard issues with potential repercussions. Consider, for instance, his "present" voting record (that's been discussed endlessly), or Kevin B.'s excellent point about Obama's war position as opposed to the hard votes of actual sitting senators.

A corollary to this, I think, are a pair of Obama's most impactful statements on domestic issues (most have been non-issues otherwise, like Pakistan, Iraq, health care, etc. in terms of the general electorate). First, he indicated that he'd like to normalize relations with Cuba. Second, he's indicated that the automotive industry needs to make substantial adjustments to its fuel economy standards. Both are crucial issues to large segments of voters in Florida and Michigan, respectively. But taking those "unpopular positions" has, in effect, been without real electoral consequence. Indeed, it is dubious that many metro Detroit voters were unaware of his MPG call, or that many south Floridians didn't know about his position on Cuba. By claiming that FL and MI are meaningless, though, he can point to "unpopular positions," but things that didn't hurt him in the delegate count. (I know that too much can be read into this--for instance, the Detroit comments were made in March, far before it was known that MI would move, but Obama has cited it since as a type of "straight talk" to voters, telling them what they need, not what they want.)

It's in sharp contrast, I think, to McCain--opposing ethanol in Iowa, automotive bailouts in Michigan, hurricane insurance in Florida.

All in all, it's certainly a sign of desperation from the Clinton camp, and it's definitely not the position she envisioned she'd be in. That said, if a court of law agrees with her (Bush v. Gore comments duly noted), it's tough to say that she's in the wrong. If the law's on her side, as scandalous as it may, then it is. I don't think it is (from my cursory examination and limited knowledge), but I do think this event is relatively unprecedented.

I'm curious how much such a fight would hurt Obama, too (not by his fault). I think the case is easy that it hurts Clinton if she wins the nomination. But how many Clinton supporters would go with her, all the way to the convention, only to see them lose a legal battle on what her supporters believe are fully justified grounds? I think Obama's support runs a little deeper in that regard, and the resentment is certainly not as pronounced; but would a non-negligible number of Clinton fans (there are some rabid ones, after all, and ones with significant clout) not vote or, worse for Obama still, pull the lever for McCain? That's another side that I'm not sure about yet. And it's one that Howard Dean, to his credit, doesn't wish to see.

Faaaar longer than I wanted....

[Brendan Loy]

Just as I add a blustering update about how there's "no logical rebuttal," you offer a logical rebuttal. Dammit, Derek. You're such a damn contrarian sometimes. :)

Anyway, no time to respond in detail, but I do have to ask you about this:

while Obama and Edwards each had a piece of the "Uncommitted" pie, they're now all (de facto) Obama's in name--the non-Clinton vote.

Are you sure about this? Do we actually know anything about how the "Uncommitted" delegates will be chosen, and who they'll be? Is there any reason to believe those delegates -- the human beings who will represent "Uncommitted" on the convention floor, if they're seated -- will be Obama loyalists?

[Joe Loy]

David K, it's my understanding (subject to correction by anyone with the Gumption to actually go look it up :) that per Dem national rules and/or the DNC resolution Stripping FL & MI, the so-called Do-over ~~ of what hasn't in fact been Done in the First place, namely a Rules-compliant Delegate Selection ~~ can be initiated Only by said Strippees :> themselves, Voluntarily.

IOW, under the applicable documents as they currently stand (i.e. pending any countermanding action by the law-unto-itself-Convention), the Naked States ;} may ~ but MUST, IF they want any Delegates ~ resubmit to DNC their New delegate-selection Plans. The DNC would then review same for Compliance and, if such is discerned, Approve them ~ unlike the First plans which they correctly Rejected for unlawful Breakage of the chronological Window.

The point being, I don't think the DNC can Force the magical Second First Chance upon the Self-Disfranchised Twosome. FL & MI have to Ask. / Or, Not. In which case what they See is what they Get and they can write Themselves a nice Thankme note for Nothing. :}

And what I've heard so far is, that Michigan is factionally Wrangling about whether to Ask, whilst Florida is scornfully L'ingOL at the very Idea.

"...if either Clinton or Obama wins because of superdelegates -- which isn't really an "if"; one of them will -- that's arguably undemocratic too, but it's undemocratic in a way that is specifically foreseen by the process everybody agreed to. What makes Clinton's Florida/Michigan gambit so outrageous is that it would change the mutually agreed rules of the game midstream for pure self-interest, and would do so in the same of democracy, when in fact it's an entirely undemocratic move. It must not happen."

Fair points, Brendan. / But since you brought up the matter of Superdelegates, let us note that the Obamies ~ including I believe Yer Man, Himself ~ have commenced to demand that said Superpoopers ;> all take an Oath to vote the way their States did. / Or, their Districts. / Or in the case of the many such Poobahs who themselves weren't even Elected to their party Sinecures or Emeritii :} from a State or District, well, they must vote, y'know, the same way The People did. :>

Now considering that this proposed Pledging of the Superpowers :> precisely contravenes the Purpose of the Rules-enshrined principle that they are to be Unpledged delegates, free agents explicitly & deliberately Set Apart from Allocation to candidates by primary & caucus results ~~ and mindful that as you said, this (like the Mandatoriness of the Delegate Selection Window which FL & MI proceeded boldly to Smash) was "specifically foreseen by the process everybody agreed to" ~ it occurs to me that the Obama Gambit to Neuter the Supers, rendering them mere Pledglings, seeks in Effect to change the mutually agreed rules of the game midstream for pure self-interest, and would do so in the same of democracy, when in fact it's an entirely undemocratic move in exactly the same sense as is the Clinton Plot re the Two-State Solution.

What say you?

:)

[Brendan Loy]

I disagree entirely, Dad. What Obama is doing is merely putting public pressure on the superdelegates to do something that they are unquestionably entitled to do, namely base their votes on how their districts/states voted. Some of the supers have independently stated that they will do this, and Obama is encouraging others to do so. As unpledged delegates, they are free to base their votes on whatever criteria they wish, including the criteria that Obama is (self-servingly, of course) suggesting.

The proper analogy to what Clinton is doing would be if Obama were demanding a rule change whereby the supers are forced to vote with their states/districts. THAT would be "an entirely undemocratic move in exactly the same sense as is the Clinton Plot." What he's actually doing, by contrast, is clearly not. He's not asking anyone to change any rules whatsoever. He's just lobbying them. He's not trying to "render them mere Pledgelings" -- he is simply trying to influence their individual choices of how to cast their unpledged votes. He's not asking for a structural change to the way the system works, as Hillary is. He's working within the agreed-upon system to get an advantage. Nothing undemocratic about that.

Is he, as part of his lobbying effort, trying to alter the public perception of what a superdelegate "should" do? Sure. But that's a far cry from what Hillary is doing, which goes way beyond altering public perceptions. She is trying to alter the underlying structure of the process itself.

The two "gambits" are just not analogous at all.

[Derek]

Do we actually know anything about how the "Uncommitted" delegates will be chosen, and who they'll be? Is there any reason to believe those delegates -- the human beings who will represent "Uncommitted" on the convention floor, if they're seated -- will be Obama loyalists?

This is just speculation now, frankly. But I think that, assuming some "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan are chosen, they could, theoretically, vote for anyone--Clinton, Obama, heck, Gravel. But I think that as "uncommitted," they're going to feel a strong obligation to vote for Obama. I know that some could be Clinton loyalists, but coming from MI they're representing "uncommitted, but definitely not committed to Clinton." With that kind of "mandate," I figure that, de facto, they're Obama-supporters. Again, as "uncommitted" they could pick Clinton, but I would think they'd know what they're "supposed" to do. (Whether they actually do it... or fear the wrath of the state party....)

Basically, pure speculation, qualified with "de facto."

[Mad Max, Esquire]

I will have no problem voting for John McCain, and encouraging others to do so as well, if Hillary gets the nomination this way.

[Brendan Loy]

Derek, I realize they could vote for whomever they want, but I guess what I'm getting at is, how are the delegates themselves selected, by whom, and from what pool of candidates? I take your point about "feel[ing] a strong obligation to vote for Obama" because that's what they're "supposed" to do, de facto, but I'm not sure I buy it. :) I'd feel much more comfortable with the likelihood of them doing that if I had some reason to believe that the selection process of the actual human beings who will/would be Michigan's "Uncommitted delegates" is favorable to Obama loyalists, or at least not favorable to Clinton loyalists.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. to Dad...

To run the analogy in reverse, what Obama is doing vis a vis trying to shift public perceptions about the proper role of superdelegates is analogous to what Hillary is doing when she argues that primaries are more representative than caucuses and therefore should be given more weight in assessing who is truly the voters' favored choice (and thus who the superdelegates should prefer).

You'll note I haven't objected to that Hillary tactic. That's because there's nothing particularly objectionable about it, just as there isn't anything particularly objectionable about Obama's lobbying of the supers. It's all part of the spin game.

Obviously, Hillary knew all along that caucuses are part of the process -- and indeed, she had no problem with them, at all, at all, back when she assumed that her institutional advantage would help her in caucuses. She's only arguing against them because it's now in her self-interest to do so -- just as Obama is only arguing that superdelegates should follow their districts because it's in his self-interest to do so.

But in neither case is the candidate trying to change the rules; they're only trying, at most, to change the perception of the rules. That's perfectly fine and within the normal political realm. You or I might disagree with the arguments, think they're bogus, etc., but it isn't undemocratic to make the argument.

If Hillary were trying to decrease the number of delegates awarded to caucus states, or if Obama were trying to force superdelegates to follow their districts' votes, THEN those actions would be equivalent to what Hillary is doing vis a vis Michigan and Florida. But as it is, they're not.

[Mike]

Speaking as a voter in MI, I can say I don't think it's fair to either set the delegates or to do a revote. The legislature was well aware of the fact that moving the primary that early would result in sanctions from both parties, and it did so anyway. Actions have consequences, and a do over isn't really the correct decision at this point.

That being said, I think it's imperative that if there is a revote, there is a revote for *both* parties, at least here in MI. MI is an open primary; therefore, the fact that the D primary here was without delegates caused a large number of people who would have voted in it to vote in the R primary instead. If there is a redo only for the D side, either you'll have a strong likelihood of people getting to vote in both, or else you'll get a lot of pissed-off voters who voted in the primary they cared less about because it was the only one which mattered at the time they chose to vote in it. The fact that the FL primary was closed makes that less of an issue down there.

[Scott]

You support Obama? Really? Wow, I'm gonna have to start stopping by more often, see if I can't figure out what is in that "water" you been drinking.

[Joe Loy]

Trenchantly & dispositively argued, Brendan. / And, I must admit that I Knew That :). I just decided to take a Whirl at the ol' Devil's Advocacy anyway ;>.

What I think about Michigan & Florida is, the rules are the Rules and everybody Knew 'em and the mighty Twostates aked for this ~ Begged for it really ~ by defying said rules with the ridiculous Confidence that naturally they'd never be Enforced ~ so, now's the time to Enforce 'em. // Unless of course the Woesome Twosome roll over and meekly (and Quickly) file new, compliant, Plans as Permitted by the rules ~ and Nevermind all the buncombe re the DNC Subsidizing the expense of the Revotes, about which Florida, at least, has been Whinnying. Screw that, bub. You Bought it, you Pay for it. ;]

And what I think about the SuperDels :) is, they should each vote for the person they think will represent the Optimum available confluence of (a) Democratic Candidate & (b) American President. Being at liberty to do that is Why the Supers exist.

[Scott]

Ok, now that I've done the drive by thing, I went back and read (in depth) the post and the comments. Here's my two cents. Just as there is no crying in baseball, there are no "do-overs" in politics. The rules are the rules, everyone agrees to them at the beginning and just because you don't like the results, doesn't mean you get to try and go back and try something different. And I'm not just speaking as a Florida resident who, daily, deleted 2 or 3 voice mails a day from the likes of none other than John McCain, Charlie Christ, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, God, Jesus, Pontius Pilot, Pharaoh, Tom, Dick, and Harry. I mean, seriously, you want to come back to Florida, do ANOTHER vote in this state? Hello, history is calling, they want their irony back. FL and MI lost their delegates. The SUPER delegates have a say. They are beholden to none. Bed made. Lie in it.

[Joe Loy]

Spot On, Scott. :)

[Ricardo]

I guess this goes back to the original issue for me. Why are large states like Michigan and Florida not allowed to have their primaries that early in the race? I'm from California and I understand the desire of Florida and Michigan to be important by moving their primaries earlier in the process. I understand the argument that Florida and Michigan shouldn't be allowed to send delegates because they broke the rules. But if the rules aren't fair in the first place, I'm open to the reevaluation of the DNC's decision. So I will ask again, why are large states excluded from holding their primaries early in the race?

[Sandy Underpants]

The most troubling thing of this election is the Super Delegates. They are beholden to no one and they WILL ultimately determine the nominee. This aspect has now made "the people" who voted in the primaries and caucuses irrelevant.

[Jim]

Ricardo: I believe it's because the proper way for states unhappy with the way things are to remedy them is to band together and pressure the DNC to change the way a candidate is selected.

I think (and I think this whole mess supports my viewpoint) that it is unproductive for everyone involved for individual states to decide that while the system is screwed up, they care nothing about fixing it, only about making sure they get to benefit most from it.

[Ed]

If the rules stand as written, won't the winner of the nomination actually be forced to garner something like 54% of the seated delegates?

Wouldn't it be prudent for the Dems to reduce the magic number in proportion to the delegates who were not seated?

Imagine if FL and MI were to somehow lose their Electoral College delegation. Would the 270 threshold remain? No, it wouldn't.

So, BL, what would be the majority number be at the Dem convention, less the FL and MI delegation? Would you support changing the winning standard, or insist on the one that assumes all delegations would be seated (the current winning number)?

[gahrie]

I haven't seen where Obama is encouraging the superdelegates who have committed to him, but represent districts that supported Hillary to vote for Hillary.

His position isn't that superdelegates should vote the way their constituents did, his position is that superdelegates should vote the way the popular vote goes, something else entirely.

[Brendan]

Ed, my understanding (admittedly from no more authoritative source than The Green Papers - but they're usually right) is that the winner will only be required to get a majority of the delegates who are actually seated. Have you seen some authority to the contrary?

[B. Minich]

I think I like what Tim Russert said on Meet the Press: he called the superdelegates "unelected delegates", which is about right. That's what we should call them.

[dcl]

Hmm, the argument that there should not be a revote is persuasive to me.

[Angrier and Angrier]

What's the point of having delegates and primaries if the party bosses are going to determine who the nominee is? Sounds to me like the Democrats have gone back to Tammany Hall.

[Derek]

The innumerable lawsuits spawned from a revote would be awesome.

-Clinton v. Obama: obvious.

-Brown v. Dean: Plaintiff voted in the Republican primary after being instructed that no delegates would be awarded in the Democratic primary. Plaintiff seeks the opportunity to vote in the Democratic caucus, but the defendant has excluded him from exercising his fundamental right.

-Estate of Castellano v. Dean: Plaintiff voted in the Democratic primary but has died. Her estate wishes to ensure that her original vote would be tabulated in the subsequent caucus.

-Fitzhugh v. Browning: Plaintiff voted in the Democratic primary but has since moved to another state. He wishes to vote in the Florida caucus even though he does not meet residency requirements for Florida any longer.

...I could keep this up all day!

[gahrie]

What's the point of having delegates and primaries if the party bosses are going to determine who the nominee is? Sounds to me like the Democrats have gone back to Tammany Hall.

That is not what is happening. For instance, the party bosses cannot choose Edwards as the nominee, or say, Lieberman.

If there was an overwhelming preference for Obama, they could not choose Clinton.

All the party bosses can do is make a difference in a close race, which we have now, and frankly, since the party bosses are the party bosses, there is nothing wrong with that.

[Brendan]

the party bosses cannot choose Edwards as the nominee, or say, Lieberman ... All the party bosses can do is make a difference in a close race

Actually, that's not really true. They can't single-handedly nominate someone other than Obama or Clinton, no. But they also aren't limited, as you claim, to merely choosing Obama or Clinton. They can, if they wish, prevent either candidate from getting a majority, and thus effectively force the other delegates to consider a "white knight" candidate.

The supers are truly unpledged delegates; they can vote for whomever they wish, period, end of story, no limitations. That would include Edwards, Lieberman (ha!), or, more likely, Gore.

As such, they can certainly engineer a situation where a "white knight" candidate is able to emerge. All they need to do is vote for that "white knight" -- or, really, for anyone not named Obama or Clinton -- on the first two ballots. Then, on the third ballot, the "pledged" delegates become "unpledged," and all bets are off.

And if the supers continue to hold out on subsequent ballots, refusing to vote for either Clinton or Obama, then neither can get a majority unless their own supporters start switching sides. So, yes, the "party bosses" can absolutely create a situation where neither Clinton nor Obama can win.

Will they? Of course not. But if you're going to talk about what the party posses "can" and "cannot" do, I feel the need to point out that, in fact, they can do whatever the hell they want. There's a reason they call them UNPLEDGED delegates.

[David K.]

Yeah, see, here's the thing Derek, those cases would all be thrown out because none of those people had a fundemental right to vote in a parties primary and/or caucus. Unlike the general election all thats happening now is the parties are picking their candidates, and they can do that however they want. They could have a beauty paegant, a bicycle race, flip a coin if they wanted. They CHOOSE to follow a democratic-ish model but they don't have to.

[gahrie]

Brendan:

In the hypotheticals you postulated, the superdelegates would still not be choosing anyone other than Obama or Clinton.

I will grant you however that they would be allowing the elected delegates to choose someone other than Obama or Clinton.

[Wobbly H]

Davie,

Do you think the parties, being private organizations and entitled to select their electors in any manner, could allow only white people to participate in their state caucuses or primary?

[Derek]

I agree to an extent, David K. But in this case, the state legislature has said, "Hokay, DNC, you wanna have a 'lection? Here's how itsa gonna be." So they essentially "created" a right to vote, and they put the mechanism of the state behind it. Now the DNC wants to say, "Sorry, we'd like that back, please. No more right to vote."

I think there's a non-trivial distinction between the DNC giving it to a private caucus in the first place, and giving it to the FL legislature to create a primary only to say after the fact that it wants it back.

Consider, for instance, if California voted for the Democrat in the Electoral College, but the legislature the next day said, "Nope, we get to flip a coin if we want, and we say Republican." I think there's a similar dynamic here--you can't unring the bell, but you could have dictated who rings the bell in the first place.

I think.

[Brian Foster]

And David, before you jump on this:

Consider, for instance, if California voted for the Democrat in the Electoral College, but the legislature the next day said, "Nope, we get to flip a coin if we want, and we say Republican." I think there's a similar dynamic here--you can't unring the bell, but you could have dictated who rings the bell in the first place.

Consider further that there is no general unqualified right to vote for President.

Article II, Section 1 provides, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." It doesn't provide that the people get to vote for who the Electors will be. So if the State's Legislature directed that the Manner of appointing Electors is to be a coin-flip, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about doing so.

And of course the various right-to-vote amendments have nothing to say about this, as they target only invidious discriminatory denials based on race, color, prior servitude, gender, failure to pay a poll tax, and age.

Nor would the coin-flip Manner of Appointment be a violation of either the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because it disenfrancises everyone in a state equally, it does not violate Equal Protection, and because there is no constitutionally recognized liberty or property right in your vote, it would not run afoul of the Due Process clause.

Arguably, you might be able to say that it's a denial of a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States, but even then you'd have an uphill road to climb, because a) the P&I clause has been effectively a dead letter for over a century, and b) you still have that "there is no fundamental right to vote" problem.

Thus, and further to Derek's point, the issue here is not whether a "fundamental right to vote" has or has not been violated -- no such right exists, at least not for president (and really, not at all -- other than those few constitutional proscriptions on refusals to permit participation, as Wobbly points out, there are no restrictions on how a state may determine its qualifications for voting).

Rather, the issue is whether the state, having once extended a privilege or entitlement it was not obligated to provide, it can then arbitrarily rescind that privilege or entitlement without due process of law.

And certainly, Howard Dean changing is mind is not due process of law.

[Joe Loy]

Brendan, David K, & Brian Foster: correct.

Wobbly H: subject to correction by My Son The Lawyer :}, I believe it's accurate to say that Racial Discrimination re voter eligibility in Primaries is an established & notable Exception to the General principle that Parties may organize & regulate their Nomination processes as they see fit. / I recall the "Texas White Primary" case(s) as being seminal in this regard.

Parties are not Purely private organizations, because the State "adopts" the Results of their nominating procedures by placing their nominees' Names upon the Ballot ~ a very considerable Privilege. Thus very Fundamental constitutional rights may attach if & when the Party, at Its option, Invites the citizenry to Vote as part of its process.

However, the courts have Often struck down various Governmental attempts to regulate the details of Party nominating processes, including re selection of National-convention delegates, as overly Instrusive upon the parties' Private rights of free association.

[CD]

I see people getting so caught up in this process-- the horserace, the politicking-- becoming so rigid in support of one candidate or vowed non-support of one candidate over 'this' perceived unethical behavior or 'that' construed low blow... We are losing sight of what matters here and it is a great shame for this country if we allow ourselves to get caught up like this. Stop thinking about the politicking and start thinking about *governance* come January 20, 2009! What is at stake is the maintenance and betterment of the world we live in today and for the rest of our lives, at home and abroad, and the state of the world that we shall leave for those that come after us (begat by us).

The fact that so many of you seem willing to jump from Obama to Clinton to McCain over these campaign issues is indicative of a severe lack of judgement and substance. You can argue until the end of days that this or that behavior means someone is unfit to be the leader of the free world despite their substantive position the actual issues of the day. However, if you steadfastly stand by in this judgement, you will find no candidate or president past or present that meets your criteria.

If the last 7 years have taught us anything, it should be that ideology does matter, does make a difference. A candidate's solid marriage, sobriety, steadfastness in interpersonal morality, personableness, respectability do not translate into impact on the world. Positions on issues do.

You may have varying answers to what solutions or directions you support regarding the following, but I argue that you are a FOOL if you are not deciding who to vote for based on the these issues(among many others of course)... these are the things that will shape the nation we become and will shape very real opportunities (or lack thereof) for individuals and families in their lives. These are the reasons that I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination no matter how much I do not like or support him over Clinton. No.question.about.it.

If you want to bind the future of our country based on a judgemental snit, and the desire to punish someone for behaving crudely or questionably in a contest, well, I don't know what to say except that it saddens me, and that I sincerely hope you think hard about the following:

1. The environment and how we seek to manage our impact on it.

2. Healthcare and how we seek to address an impending system collapse/intolerable level of non-care.

3. Foreign policy. Our place in the world, respectability, diplomacy, and most importantly, when and where we deploy our great and very expensive miltary.

4. Education. Supporting a K-12 and higher education system that ensures greater ability for equal pursuit of life, liberty and happiness (property ;)) for all and the most citizens.

5. The fate of the New Deal legacy.

6. The fate of the federal government's very important role as a regulator of capitalism (see Ben Stein's NYT column from yesterday on this topic)

7. The make-up of our supreme court (so much more than about the choice/life issue, which we have unfortunately lost sight of in the public sphere).

8. The fate of a woman's right to choose.

9. The fate of our nation's immigrants and borders.

10. The reversal of the increasing inequity and skewed distribution of wealth that will continue to erode the middle class, upon which the political and economic stability of this country was build and is maintained.

There have been years when the differences between the R and the D candidates were not so vast. When issues of character and leadership and symbolism ruled the day over the substantive issues. This is not such a time. This is not a popularity contest, nor is it a morality contest, and we cannot afford for it to be.

[CD]

Again, not saying these things are not relevant in choosing between D candidates during the primary season. This is aimed at those who so blithly declare that they will punish Clinton (or Obama) by voting for McCain due to campaign behavior.

[Brian Foster]

Shorter version of CD:

"The end justifies the means."

:)

I kid, I kid.

P.S. Nice juxtaposition of #7 and #8 on your list.

[Brian Foster]

I believe it's accurate to say that Racial Discrimination re voter eligibility in Primaries is an established & notable Exception to the General principle that Parties may organize & regulate their Nomination processes as they see fit.

To be ever-so-slightly more precise, the offense arises when the party attempts to make use of the power of the state to enforce its discriminatory policy. In the Texas White Primary cases, for example, the issue was a state statute denying, in one form or another, blacks the right to participate in the Democratic nominating process. But such state action is clearly forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, if not the Fifteenth or the Twenty-Fourth.

So any attempt by a party to invoke the state's offices to administer its primary cloaks the entire process with the mantle of state action and triggers constitutional protections, even though the party is preeminently a private association. Just as no court or other arm of government may enforce a private contract that discriminates on the basis of race (i.e., a restrictive covenant among property owners preventing any owner from selling his property to a black person), so too would the state be precluded from enforcing any party rules that purport to discriminate among voters in a prohibited way.

It's not at all clear to me, however, that a political party choosing a privately-run caucus could be forced to recognize the participation and votes of blacks, or Asians, or women, or non-property-owners, or Independents, or whatever. At that point it's a completely private organization running a completely private convention completely free of the entanglements of the state.

Absent a 1981 action predicated on the (dubious, it seems to me) notion that the process of privately selecting delegates to a national political party's convention is a form of contract, I don't see how an excluded voter has a case to force his way into a caucus that does not want him.

I might be forgetting something though. Anybody have any ideas?