Clinton / Michigan Florida

johnife · February 2008

Last night on CNN, one of the pundits (I think it was David Gergen) made reference to a potential attempt by Clinton to get the Florida and Michigan delegates (which she won) seated and capable of voting at the convention despite the fact that the Democratic party denied them that capability after those state Democratic organizations brought forward their primaries in violation of the DNC's wishes. I have no bone to pick here because I think either Obama or Clinton would make a good president (though, after the last debate I have a clear preference for Clinton) but I think that, if Clinton actually tries this, she'll be handing the general election to the Republicans (most likely McCain). I say this on the grounds that I believe that nobody likes a cheater and I can just picture all those independent voters that have the potential to vote for either one of those candidates in the general election instantly making up their minds when they hear McCain say, "Who do you want as your president, the person with a reputation for straight talking or the person who got her nomination by reneging on her own party's rules?". Not that I believe the "straight-talking" rep is necessarily justified, but I do think a large segment of the voting population thinks it is.

What do you think? What would the consequences of Clinton engaging in such a strategy in the event of a fight all the way to the convention?

sweet tea · February 2008

mmm.... i'm not sure it would be such a bad idea, given that it is those two states. michigan and particularly florida are awfully valuable states to piss off -- the best explanation i've heard for the florida disenfranchisement is that the republican state house pushed the early primary through partly in an attempt to get the dnc to piss off the state.

i think it comes down to how she talks about using the votes. if it's negative/super-competitive ("those votes were there, so i went and got 'em"), i agree it would go badly. but if it's positive/inclusive ("i'm not going to let backroom political deals keep the good people of this state from making their voices heard" etc.), then i think it could play well in two important markets (MI and FL) and not be that big a deal to the rest of the country.

regardless of how all this ends up, i think mccain will be very tough to beat, for either candidate.

pitu · February 2008

My first reaction when FL was *punished* by the Democratic Party was
THAT SUCKS!
since it goes against the fundamental idea of people getting a vote that counts. I don't like to reminded of the machinations of our political system.

As SweetTea says, the trick for Clinton would be not attracting that same taint of big party control against voting populace, but to be seen as being on the side of enfranchisement.
BTW, the Clinton people were talking about making a bid for those delegates' reinstatement before the FL primary.

carnivore · February 2008

The fact is that she had agreed not to campaign there. All the other candidates didn't run campaigns there based on this agreement. Then she turned around at the end and did campaign there. And now she's trying to get delegates based on this uncontested campaign, where she was the only one campaigning because the other candidates kept their word. Maybe she can try to spin it so that it looks like she cares about the disenfranchisement of those voters, but spin is exactly what it will be. She didn't seem to care in the beginning when she pledged not to campaign there. She only started to care after she got crushed in South Carolina.

daver · February 2008

Carnivore wrote: The fact is that she had agreed not to campaign there. All the other candidates didn't run campaigns there based on this agreement. Then she turned around at the end and did campaign there. And now she's trying to get delegates based on this uncontested campaign, where she was the only one campaigning because the other candidates kept their word. Maybe she can try to spin it so that it looks like she cares about the disenfranchisement of those voters, but spin is exactly what it will be. She didn't seem to care in the beginning when she pledged not to campaign there. She only started to care after she got crushed in South Carolina.

What? I missed that. I know that Obama ran TV ads in FL, but I don't recall Clinton doing anything there. Although I believe a local union there ran ads on her behalf. What campaigning did she do there?

sweet tea · February 2008

i more or less agree with you about the unfairness factor, carny, but i don't think it will actually end up playing that badly in a general election, assuming she gets nominated.

carnivore · February 2008

Obama's ad that "aired in Florida" was in fact a national network ad. His campaign has made quite clear that it's not possible to run a national network ad and have it not appear in Florida.

As far as Clinton goes, check out this from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341

daver · February 2008

Carnivore wrote: Obama's ad that "aired in Florida" was in fact a national network ad. His campaign has made quite clear that it's not possible to run a national network ad and have it not appear in Florida.

As far as Clinton goes, check out this from The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=276341

I think both of them are a bit full of it. As far as Obama's inability to keep his ads off the air in FL, well, Hillary managed to do it somehow. As far as Hillary's "private" events in FL, maybe it maintained the letter of the agreement, but it definitely broke the spirit. As far as Howard Wolfson's comments? Positively shameful.

P.S. Did you notice that Brooklyn broke the closest in NYC on Hillary vs. Obama? 50% to 49%.

carnivore · February 2008

daver wrote: As far as Obama's inability to keep his ads off the air in FL, well, Hillary managed to do it somehow.

Has Clinton actually run any national network ads? I'm not sure she can afford to right now. Recently, Obama has been out-fundraising her at least 3 to 1.

sweet tea · February 2008

from the nation:

Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process.

i gotta say, i could give a crap about "insulting" iowa and new hampshire versus pissing off florida and michigan. 7+4 < 27+17 (electoral votes)

and it isn't the voters who "respected" the dnc; it's the legislators and party officials. at the end of the day (but, haha, not during the primary season! thanks, superdelegates!), it's the voters a candidate needs to impress. the dnc is phenomenally focussed on shooting itself in the foot, imo.

as i said, i think this was a bit shady on clinton's part. but honestly, it's refreshing to see a democrat who looks ruthless enough to win.

carnivore · February 2008

sweet tea wrote: from the nation:
Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process.
i gotta say, i could give a crap about "insulting" iowa and new hampshire versus pissing off florida and michigan. 7+4 < 27+17 (electoral votes)

and it isn't the voters who "respected" the dnc; it's the legislators and party officials. at the end of the day (but, haha, not during the primary season! thanks, superdelegates!), it's the voters a candidate needs to impress. the dnc is phenomenally focussed on shooting itself in the foot, imo.

as i said, i think this was a bit shady on clinton's part. but honestly, it's refreshing to see a democrat who looks ruthless enough to win.

It's more than a little shady. I'm sorry, but a candidate can't take the enfranchisement high ground on this issue after they've agreed to abide by the party decision and pledged not to campaign. It kind of reminds me of her stance on the Iraq war.

pitu · February 2008

Carnivore wrote: [quote=sweet tea]from the nation:
Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process.
i gotta say, i could give a crap about "insulting" iowa and new hampshire versus pissing off florida and michigan. 7+4 < 27+17 (electoral votes)

and it isn't the voters who "respected" the dnc; it's the legislators and party officials. at the end of the day (but, haha, not during the primary season! thanks, superdelegates!), it's the voters a candidate needs to impress. the dnc is phenomenally focussed on shooting itself in the foot, imo.

as i said, i think this was a bit shady on clinton's part. but honestly, it's refreshing to see a democrat who looks ruthless enough to win.

It's more than a little shady. I'm sorry, but a candidate can't take the enfranchisement high ground on this issue after they've agreed to abide by the party decision and pledged not to campaign. It kind of reminds me of her stance on the Iraq war.

And . . . didn't that happen after Obama started running TV ads in FL?

I don't think anyone has the moral high ground, and I think it is all based on reax to a questionable display of authority by the Dem national party.

carnivore · February 2008

pitu wrote: And . . . didn't that happen after Obama started running TV ads in FL?

I don't think anyone has the moral high ground, and I think it is all based on reax to a questionable display of authority by the Dem national party.

He didn't run TV ads in Florida. He ran a nationwide ad that couldn't be blocked from Florida.

And if Clinton tried to go back on her promise to support the party in its decision about the Florida and Michigan delegates just because it favors her, Obama can definitely claim the moral high ground. It's not like this was some arbitrary decision by the party to disenfranchise voters. Florida and Michigan went ahead and moved their primary dates despite the fact that they knew the consequence was going to be losing their delegates. Those who made that decision in those states bear the responsibility for losing the delegates.

pitu · February 2008

Carnivore wrote: [quote=pitu]And . . . didn't that happen after Obama started running TV ads in FL?

I don't think anyone has the moral high ground, and I think it is all based on reax to a questionable display of authority by the Dem national party.

He didn't run TV ads in Florida. He ran a nationwide ad that couldn't be blocked from Florida.
But the Obama campaign did that national buy knowing it would run in FL in violation of the pledge.
The Clinton campaign didn't do that, although they had the option. I don't think there is anything to build a case about, for that reason. They both did a little FLA.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-says-obamas-national-ad-buy-violates-fla.-pledge-2008-01-21.html

I want both of them on the ticket, as you know. Having read the reax here what sticks out to me is how we are reading/reacting to any of these situations depends on who we want to win.
(duh)

johnife · February 2008

pitu wrote: ..... what sticks out to me is how we are reading/reacting to any of these situations depends on who we want to win.
(duh)

On the contrary, in my case at least. I'd prefer Clinton to win the nomination. I just fear that if she does so by means that are perceived by independent and swing voters (on whom, let's remember, general election results are very largely dependent) as underhanded and sleazy, then we'll be in for another 4 years of a Republican administration and, per McCain himself, a resignation to the possibility of 100 years of war.

pitu · February 2008

johnife wrote: [quote=pitu]..... what sticks out to me is how we are reading/reacting to any of these situations depends on who we want to win.
(duh)

On the contrary, in my case at least. I'd prefer Clinton to win the nomination. I just fear that if she does so by means that are perceived by independent and swing voters (on whom, let's remember, general election results are very largely dependent) as underhanded and sleazy, then we'll be in for another 4 years of a Republican administration and, per McCain himself, a resignation to the possibility of 100 years of war.

I think the microscope in play here has nothing to offer the average voter. We are talking about some very inside baseball.

johnife · February 2008

I think you waaaay underestimate the capability of McCain, in particular, to magnify the issue to Jumbotron proportions, visible to every Joe Blow in the arena.

sweet tea · February 2008

i think john mccain will be tough competition for either obama or clinton. i think that would have been true regardless of florida.

but at the end of the day, i don't think this is going to be an issue that interests swing voters all that much. i could be wrong; it's happened before (once).

carnivore · February 2008

sweet tea wrote: i think john mccain will be tough competition for either obama or clinton. i think that would have been true regardless of florida.

but at the end of the day, i don't think this is going to be an issue that interests swing voters all that much. i could be wrong; it's happened before (once).

It s an issue that could keep Obama supporters from coming to the polls to support Clinton if she's the nominee. If they feel she weaseled her way to a nomination that should rightly have been Obama's, she's in trouble. She can kiss that amazing Democratic turnout that we've had in the primaries goodbye.

sweet tea · February 2008

Carnivore wrote: [quote=sweet tea]i think john mccain will be tough competition for either obama or clinton. i think that would have been true regardless of florida.

but at the end of the day, i don't think this is going to be an issue that interests swing voters all that much. i could be wrong; it's happened before (once).

It s an issue that could keep Obama supporters from coming to the polls to support Clinton if she's the nominee. If they feel she weaseled her way to a nomination that should rightly have been Obama's, she's in trouble. She can kiss that amazing Democratic turnout that we've had in the primaries goodbye.

interesting point. while you may be right about how people behave, my very special message towards supporters of EITHER of the candidates who wouldn't vote for the other one, given the very small differences in their policies is:

GROW
THE FUCK
UP

pitu · February 2008

sweet tea wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=sweet tea]i think john mccain will be tough competition for either obama or clinton. i think that would have been true regardless of florida.

but at the end of the day, i don't think this is going to be an issue that interests swing voters all that much. i could be wrong; it's happened before (once).

It s an issue that could keep Obama supporters from coming to the polls to support Clinton if she's the nominee. If they feel she weaseled her way to a nomination that should rightly have been Obama's, she's in trouble. She can kiss that amazing Democratic turnout that we've had in the primaries goodbye.

interesting point. while you may be right about how people behave, my very special message towards supporters of EITHER of the candidates who wouldn't vote for the other one, given the very small differences in their policies is:

GROW
THE FUCK
UP

I would like to endorse sweet tea for ward leader.

caseopele · February 2008

Pitu, I second that endorsement!

lilbangladesh · February 2008

as i said, i think this was a bit shady on clinton's part. but honestly, it's refreshing to see a democrat who looks ruthless enough to win.

No, what was refreshing was watching Chuck Schumer campaign against Al D'Amato, not being afraid to get as down and dirty as the Republican.

It's not refreshing to see a Democrat do something ethically questionable to win.

The more the campaign goes on, the more I really don't like Clinton, but yeah, I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. We can't afford another Republican in the White House.

livetotravel · February 2008

Maybe the Clinton's will go to court to get those delegates and steal an election. It's got a certain familiar ring to it doesn't it?

As a disillusioned leftist, a committed Hillary "disliker" (I view her votes for the war to be unforgivable immoral acts) and an admirer of Mr Obama, I have come to the conclusion that the only possible resolution to our current little problem with Democracy is the formation of a Dream Team. I know it's the only way I could actually vote for Hill and I am sure it would guarantee a victory in November.

Clinton / Michigan Florida

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories