Michigan

Seen in the New York Times:

Democratic Party lawyers have determined that no more than half the delegates from Florida and Michigan can be seated at the party’s August convention, dealing a blow to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s efforts to seat the full delegations from those states.[...]

In asking that the full delegations from these states be seated, Mrs. Clinton hopes to narrow Senator Barack Obama’s delegate edge and make the case that by including the votes from these states, she will have more of the popular vote in the nominating contests, an assertion that has come under some dispute. But the legal analysis, based on party rules and contained in a 38-page memo to the committee, says the committee can either seat only 50 percent of the delegates or seat them all but give them only half a vote, which amounts to the same thing.

Letting Michigan and Florida delegates cast half-votes, the same sort of penalty that’s being imposed by the GOP for the states’ decision to have their primaries so ridiculously early, is actually the most sensible compromise in my mind, if only because it’s half way between “the rules are the rules” and the strategic folly of not seating the delegations from two potentially large swing states.

The rules committee is meeting Saturday, and the pundits think a decision will be made that day.  Personally, I think it would be more strategically appropriate to withhold a ruling until late next week — after the final primaries have been held, and undeclared superdelegates have an opportunity to chime in.

The way Obama’s been collecting superdelegates recently, if the rules committee postponed their decision, it’s entirely possible that the outcome of the primary season could be cleanly settled, without having to touch the question of Florida and Michigan.   If that were the case, any decision could be rendered moot, allowing for easier compromise.

With the potential of a 31 May ruling…well, the Dems have a shot at looking more like their nominee is being determined by party bigwigs in the (admittedly semi-transparent) back room….an image the D’s should be shying away from, unless they really are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In the wake of the vigor the Clinton political machine has been putting into Hillary’s campaign since Indiana, I’ve been wondering “why”?    I’ve seen various pundits talking about different scenarios in which Hillary could stage a come-from-behind coup…but I haven’t yet seen a nice, clean description of how it might occur.

So, borrowing data from RealClearPolitics, RedState (which I might frequently disagree with, but their projections on the remaining primaries pass the sniff test), and Wikipedia, I’ve put together the following table:

Read the rest of this page →

There has been quite a bit of discussion on many blogs and other media about what to do with the Florida and Michigan delegate mess.

Although I still think that a policy of “the rules are the rules; to change them retroactively would be unfair” is the best policy, it seems increasingly unlikely that political pressures would permit such a stance.

As a result, there are all sorts of schemes proposed on how to “fairly” seat the delegates from those two states. They range from letting the primaries and delegate rules stand as-is, without sanction (significant benefit to Clinton); to counting FL and MI delegates as half-votes; to enforcing FL and MI delegates to vote either a 50/50 split, or according to the national popular vote.

I offer one other idea: Permit Michigan and Florida Democrats to pick their delegations in the usual way, seat the delegates, permit them full votes…but do NOT require the individual delegates to be bound to vote for the candidate they would normally be pledged to.

To the extent that Obama may have been disadvantaged by actually honoring the pledge to not run in states violating party rules, he would have the opportunity to woo over a few of Clinton’s delegates, much as he likely would have fared a little bit better in those states, if he had actually campaigned there. And, of course, Hillary, could campaign to protect her delegates…or even sway a few delegates that would otherwise go to Obama.

It’s not as clean as holding a new vote, and changing the rules mid-campaign is still unfair to Obama…but this would have the advantage of allowing a reflection of popular sentiment in those two states, while giving Obama a chance to do something akin to retroactive campaigning in those two states.

TalkLeft relayed an interesting portion of a CNN interview with Karl Rove, regarding how to solve the MI/FL delegate mess:

I actually think Senator Obama has the capacity to resolve this situation in a way that gives him a big advantage, but it would have to be a gutsy call.

And that is, at some point, probably in June, after the delegates have all been elected [...], it would be a gutsy call if Senator Obama stepped forward and said, I want to seat Florida and I want to seat Michigan. I know they did the wrong thing, but we did the wrong—but we should not compound our error by not seating them. Seat the entire delegations.

Now, if he is ahead by 100 to 150 votes at that point, by my calculations, she picks up 54 delegates on him if these two delegations are seated, and it—but it is a gutsy call. And he—you know, if he is 150 ahead, he suddenly becomes 100 ahead. If he is 100 ahead, he suddenly becomes 50 ahead.

But I think it gives him—it makes him look like a leader. It resolves the situation. It helps him in the fall in these two states. And it probably gets a lot of the superdelegates to step forward and say, that was a courageous move, and I am going to support him as a result of him doing this.

I could actually envision that happening…especially if Obama maintains his perceived 100-plus delegate lead.

Failing that, another alternative would of course be to hold the superdelegate caucus in June that Governor Bredesen has called for. If, after the the superdelegates have weighed in, Obama has a margin of comfortably more than 54 delegates…seat Michigan and Florida, and make sure there’s a plank in the party platform calling for primary reform to prevent such silliness from happening again.

It’s also probably worth noting, as an aside, that Electoral-Vote.com has started posting its running electoral vote projections, using hypothetical Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain matchups. In both cases, McCain is ahead, although the Hillary-McCain matchup is closer than Obama-McCain. However, how much of the Democratic weakness is the result of intraparty bickering remains to be seen.

Even though I’d prefer to see divided government (if the Dems will control Congress, I’d prefer to have a Republican in the White House), I’ll try to not pay too much attention to the electoral vote projections until convention season; the numbers have to be distorted by the Hillary-Obama brawl.

Judging by this story in the Courant, the threat of failing to determine a nominee until Denver is causing some rational thought to occur:

So that the votes would count, officials in the two states are saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That’s a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how their delegates are allocated.

Clinton has been insisting that the desires of more than 2 million people who cast Democratic ballots in the two states should be reflected at the convention, which would help her catch up to Obama in the race for delegates. Obama has said he wants the delegates from the two critical swing states to participate, too, but not if Clinton is rewarded for victories in boycotted primaries.

Now the Clinton campaign has begun expressing openness to a do-over. “Let’s let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it,” Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday night on MSNBC. “Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let’s do it.”

This time the talk is coming from the Wall Street Journal:

Because they voted earlier than they were supposed to, the two states have been denied a say at the Denver convention. But leaders of the state parties—backed by Hillary Clinton, who did well in the nonbinding votes—are agitating for a voice.

That’s putting pressure on the two states to come up with a new delegate-selection process, perhaps a caucus or convention, that satisfies party rules.

A do-over has political risks. It would mean tossing out 1.8 million primary ballots cast in Florida on Jan. 29 and 600,000 ballots cast in Michigan on Jan. 15, possibly angering voters who could take their revenge in November against the Democrats.

But the alternative of sticking with the status quo and excluding the two states is equally risky. Michigan is a reliable Democratic state with big African-American and union populations. Florida is a toss-up state that the Democrats hope to win this year.

Somehow, I think the Dems are already in dangerous waters, due to the potential backlash from the perception of superdelegates picking the nominee, given the extreme unlikelihood of either Hillary or Obama getting a majority of the non-superdelegates due to the closeness of the race.

A revote would grant both Florida and Michigan what were (officially) trying to achieve from the early votes—extra attention from the candidates and relevancy of their contests.

Now, here is an elegant way out of the standoff on the Democrats’ boycott (and Hillary’s quasi-boycott) of Michigan and Florida due to their unauthorized early primaries. From the Caucus:

Democrats in Florida and Michigan are increasingly concerned that their primaries, held in January, will not factor into the nomination fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The Democratic National Committee stripped delegates from both states after they violated party rules by moving up their primary dates.

The states have two options. They can petition a party committee to reinstate the delegates, a decision that would go also before all of the delegates at the Democratic convention in August. Or the two states can, in essence, vote anew, by holding caucuses this spring and assigning the delegates to the winner.[...]

Some Democrats in Michigan have begun saying that the national party is pressuring them to hold a caucus, but party officials deny that.

Obviously, Hillary, who won the beauty contests in Michigan and Florida, who hasn’t done well in caucuses, and who is getting press currently for being in a cash crunch, doesn’t seem to be a fan.

Obama, who’s having recent success on the fundraising front, and who honored the boycott and didn’t even appear on the ballot in Michigan, would presumably favor the idea.

Personally, while I’m aware of the perceived unfairness of having to “vote again” in those states, it does clean up nicely the headache raised by the DNC choosing to strip both states of their delegates due to voting too early. And, considering how they wanted to be early for the added media and candidate attention…a revote or a caucus would seem to be the best of all worlds.

The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader (whose editorial board favors the GOP, FWIW), has an interesting editorial on Hillary’s not-campaigning in Michigan and Florida (states that Democratic nomination contenders agreed to boycott, and which are supposed to have their delegates stripped from them):

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to “campaign or participate” in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

“I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida,” Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.

I’m not sure that I’d say that New Hampshire Voters were played for suckers.

I’d just remember that the Clinton family is the institution that brought us contortionistic interpretations of reality and weaselly statements, including my all-time favorite: “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”

Listen, I think that Bill Clinton was a pretty good President, even if I wouldn’t leave my hypothetical daughter in the same room alone with the man. And, I don’t mean to deny, discount, or dismiss some of the really scuzzy things the GOP has done in recent years.

But why don’t I see some Dems remembering the scandals and the non-stop spinning that too place around Bill Clinton when they consider attempting to put another Clinton in the White House?

Seen at Insurance Journal:

A proposal by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to create a state automobile and homeowner insurance consumer advocate is being called “unnecessary and duplicative,” by one property/casualty insurance trade association.

“We believe it is the role of the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS) Commissioner to advocate for consumers,” said Pete Kuhnmuench, executive director, Insurance Institute of Michigan (IIM). “Funding an additional position at taxpayer expense may not be the best use of the state’s limited resources.”

The IIM questions why the position is being suggested when auto and homeowners insurance rates and complaints against insurance companies are all declining.

I know I’ll be run out of the actuarial guild for saying this, but I actually think that a case can be made for the having a consumer advocate involved in the regulatory process. True, the consumer advocacy role is theoretically supposed to be borne by the Insurance Commissioner and his/her staff. But something can be said for having a particular individual to highlight, um, creative assumptions in rate filings, and to direct sunlight on insurer operations that don’t necessarily work as well as they should.

Of course, that being said, I do still believe that excess regulation and bureaucracy still should be avoided, where possible. In many cases, the free market should take care of many (if not most) games insurers might play.

Seen in PowerLine, the text of a robo-call in Michigan:

Hi. This Senator Joe Lieberman. I’m calling for John McCain.

As you may remember I was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2000. But this year I’m supporting Republican John McCain for President because he is the person best qualified to lead our country forward. He’s a straight talker who will always do what’s right for our country regardless of partisan politics and he’s the only candidate prepared to be commander-in-chief from day one.

There isn’t a competitive Democratic primary in Michigan this year and all registered voters are able to participate in a Republican primary. So I’m calling today to urge you to vote in the Republican primary on January 15 for Senator John McCain. He’ll break through the partisanship and make our government in Washington work for all the people again.

So, a little bit of Jomentum added to the campaign, yes?

I’ll remind politicians of my promise to vote against any candidate who robo-calls me. Politicians are welcome to make a sales pitch to me over the phone, but only if there’s a real, live human on the other end of the line.