The Morning Dose---4/7

Today's Morning Dose comes from New Jersey Governor and Democratic superdelegate, Jon Corzine.  In a article that Corzine wrote for the Huffington Post, Corzine argues why listening to the will of the people in Michigan and Florida is not just an issue of process, but an issue of Democracy:

________________________________________________________

There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.(...)

(...)I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.

My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.

Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.

For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.

Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.

Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.

The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.

I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.

When we listen to all (emphasis added by me) of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.  

Obama's America:

Credit to Taylor Marsh for the photo; It speaks for itself.  

Count Every Vote!

-"One of our most sacred rights as Americans is the right to make our voice heard at the polls." (11/8/05)

-"Working as a civil rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted." (11/20/07)

-"There is no place for politics in this debate, no room for those who feel they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls". (1/31/07)

-"That we can participate in the political process...and that our votes will be counted." (7/24/04)

Those were the words of Senator Barack Obama, a man now apparently opposed to all that he stated previously.  The third quote really speaks to the essence of the problem with not holding revotes in Florida and Michigan.  It is now well known that it was the attorneys of the Obama campaign who blocked revotes from happening.  Why?  Because they might put him behind in the popular vote, and Obama didn't want to risk losing.  

The point is that silencing people is not the way to go.  I, as I'm sure the people of Florida and Michigan feel, could not care less about the process; couldn't care less about the DNC's stupid rules.  After all, the people of Florida and Michigan didn't choose to move their primaries up.  They didn't choose to have their delegates stripped.  But they did, however, choose to show up in huge numbers to vote for the candidate of their choice.  

Why should the American people have to suffer for the DNC's rules?  Since when did PROCESS become more important than PEOPLE in America?  There is no positive excuse for Obama to make.  He, for his political benefit, is refusing to let the people of Florida and Michigan have a say in this election.  

Just remember, first, when asked if he would allow the delegates to be seated as they were, he said no, because his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't get to campaign in Florida.  Then, last month, when confronted with the opportunity to have his name on the ballot and to campaign in those two states, he rejected the plan.  Why so scared, Barack Obama?  That's really all this is---cowardice.  But let me pose a question to Obama and his supporters---Is it winning if the only way you can win is to silence millions of Americans?  I think not, but apparently Obama disagrees.  

The Morning Dose---3/29

Here's a new series, The Morning Dose,  which I would like to continue every few days, where I take an interesting article and simply post excerpts from it.  Instead of commenting on the article in my post, I'll let you, the reader, form your own opinion on it.  If necessary, I'll post a comment I have on it in the comments section.  

The Morning Dose today comes from Mark Ambinder, over at the Atlantic.  It's titled, How to Count the Popular Vote:

___________________________________________________________

So -- my fairly conservative calculation has Clinton netting about 446,000 votes between now and June 3. Under all scenarios that exclude Florida and Michigan votes -- and count the votes of Washington's primary -- Obama still retains a popular vote lead of not more than 330,000 -- or an advantage of less than one and a half percent.

Under a scenario that includes the Florida and Michigan votes for Clinton, gives Obama all of the uncommitted Michigan votes, estimates the votes for all the caucus states and includes the Washington primary, Clinton wins by about 16,000 votes -- or about a tenth of one percent.

Which scenario is "right?" Under DNC rules, until the credentials committee figures out which delegations to seat, Florida and Michigan do not exist. But the voters in those states certainly do in the existential sense -- and if we're answering the question by figuring out how many Democrats voted for Obama versus how many Democrats voted for Clinton.

Are there historical precedents? Well, Democrats like to count every vote. So -- advantage Hillary? But there has to be some tempering factor to account for Obama's name not being on the Michigan ballot. Ok, but then there has to be some tempering factor to account for the fact that Obama's campaign made the decision to stay off the Michigan ballot as least as much because they feared losing the state to Clinton as they wanted to make a statement to Iowans about the integrity of the calendar process.

So...This Is How Obama Wins...

Having some extra time on my hands, and still outraged at the Obama campaign's refusal to cooperate with revotes in Florida and Michigan, I began running the numbers to see just how Sen. Clinton would fair if Michigan and Florida were counted as per the January results.  What I found was pretty interesting:

Okay, by counting Florida and Michigan, you also count their superdelegates.  I estimate that Sen. Clinton would get a 40-50 superdelegate bounce by counting those two states.  Then you look at the pledged delegates.  I have to estimate she would get a net of about 50.  All together that would bring Sen. Clinton within about 20 delegates of Sen. Obama heading into the convention, just as things stand now.  Considering big enough wins in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia, and Clinton could potentially overtake Obama even in pledged delegates.

The problem still stands though.  That problem is Barack Obama.  I love how he claims that the people should decide, while at the same time having his lawyers stand in the way of millions of Americans voting.  Same thing with Pelosi.  She said, just today, that the will of the American people must be honored.  Well, how about applying that standard to Florida and Michigan.  They are, after all, people and Americans, aren't they?  So is this how Obama wins?  By silencing millions of voters?  Is this democracy?  Cause let's face the current outlook: the only way Obama ends with more popular votes, and potentially delegates, is if Florida and Michigan don't vote.  Sad, really, really sad.  

Florida & Michigan: What Should Be Done?

As is well known, the Democratic National Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates for moving their primaries up before February 5.  Now, with the race essentially tied, Democrats are looking to Florida and Michigan to help decide this nomination.  I think we can all agree that Florida and Michigan need to be seated at the convention, the only question is how. Several proposals have been put on the table and here are my take on each of them:

1) Let the Florida and Michigan Delegations be Seated According to their January Results.

I myself would be fine with this solution.  It wouldn't waste any of Michigan or Florida's taxpayers' money nor would it force the DNC or the candidates themselves to put out valuable money.  

Florida was a fair playing field.  Neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned there and both abided by the rules. Their names, however, remained on the ballot.  Over a million Democrats showed up to the polls and voted. Some argue that Obama wasn't known to the Florida voters, and therefore had no shot at winning.  Well, with that logic, neither did Sen. Clinton.  But the truth is that both were well known by the end of January. Obama had received an overdose of media attention, all positive for that matter, following his big wins in Iowa and South Carolina.  By January 29, I'm sure that 99% of Democrats in this country knew who Sen. Barack Obama was.  With all that being known, the voters of Florida still showed up in enormous numbers to have their voices heard, and their voices should be respected. 

Michigan is a different story.  Obama did not have his name on the ballot there. He had taken his name off even though this act was not required by the DNC pledge and although Gov. Granholm had asked all the candidates to remain on the ballot.  But come election day, Obama and Edwards urged their supporters to show up to the polls and vote "uncommitted".  "Uncommitted" received 40% of the vote, a speculative combination of the votes that Obama and Edwards would have received.  Here's what I would be willing to do: have all of those "uncommitted" delegates vote for Sen. Obama.  This would make the state total 40% Obama, 55% Clinton.  This would be a fair way to seat Michigan delegates.  The only problem I see with giving 100% of the "uncommitted" vote to Obama would be that some voters, who voted for Edwards, would have voted for Clinton had Edwards not been in the race.  But with that being said, I still believe that would be a fair way to sort through the mess with Florida and Michigan.  Keep in mind that I was against this penalization of Florida and Michigan back in the fall, before this mess was even started.  It's not as if I'm flip-flopping to help one candidate over another.  I always had thought that the original votes should have counted, even before they happened.

2) Split the Delegations 50-50

Some have suggested that the Florida and Michigan delegations be split: half for Obama, half for Clinton.  I say that if you're going to go that route, you might as well not even count Florida or Michigan.  The point of a primary election is to let the people of a particular state vote for who they want to be President.  If you're going to not even worry about what the people decided, why even bother seating the delegates?  It's just as disenfranchising to voters to discount their wishes as it is to not even ask them what their wishes are.

3) Caucuses to Determine the Delegates

Again, this is the wrong way to go.  Caucuses are, in many ways, undemocratic.  Those who can't get out of their houses don't get their voices heard.  Those who would normally vote absentee don't get their voices heard.  Those who work shifts that occur during the caucus time frame, don't get their voices heard.  Those who are uncomfortable with sharing their political opinions in front of their friends, neighbors, bosses, etc., don't get their voices heard.  And to top it all off, Florida and Michigan are not used to caucuses.  They don't have systems, like Iowa, that have been perfected over years. Many things could go wrong and many traditional voters, who are unaccustomed to caucusing, might just not show up. This election is too important for all those things; caucuses are the wrong option.

4) Hold New Primaries

I'm open to this.  Again, I don't think that the taxpayers of Florida and Michigan should have to pay for another election, nor do I think that the DNC or the candidates should have to either.  But at the same time, this is the next best solution, next to having the delegations seated as they were originally determined.  Primaries wouldn't disenfranchise voters and would give all voters a chance to participate.  

____________________________________________________________

All in all, I don't think there is one perfect solution, but there are those which are better than others.  We must make sure that the people of Florida and Michigan have their voices heard and respected.  For that reason alone, not to mention that Florida and Michigan are crucial swing states come November, a solution to this mess must be figured out and Florida and Michigan must have their delegations seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. 

A Big Mistake for Some Democrats

Today was the deadline to withdraw your name from Michigan's Jan. 15 Presidential Primary and thats exactly what some candidates did. Every Democrat except for Clinton and Dodd will not be competing in the Michigan Primary, something that could turn out to be a huge mistake.

Apparently, because Michigan moved it primary up when the DNC didn't want them to, some candidates want to "punish" Michigan. Well I got news for the candidates, they could be punishing themselves.

Michigan falls just one day behind Iowa and has more than double the amount of delegates Iowa has. It certainly isn't as important as winning Iowa, but it could be extremely important for some candidates. For example, if Obama wins Iowa, he will not doubt get a boost of momentum, but by ceding Michigan to Hillary, she would basically cut off his momentum just one day after he gained it. Obama needed to ride out of Iowa with an upset victory and go on to win New Hampshire. But Clinton will undoubtedly stop, at least some of, Obama's momentum if he was to win Iowa. It was a huge mistake for some to skip Michigan and it could now be the deciding factor in this election.

If Florida doesn't begin to comply with DNC requests to move their primary back, will Obama and the others skip Florida as well? If they do, I will be ready to call the primary for Hillary Clinton. Whoever wins Florida will win the primary, Obama and the others can certainly not afford to skip it. With skipping Michigan, the candidates could be setting a precedent that they don't want to have to live up to.