<p>Well, as an attorney I’m disappointed with Mr. Olson. I understand a partisan’s desire to take cheap shots at “the other side” but any lawyer should be able to recognize the difference between a political party choosing their candidate (which doesn’t have to involve popular votes at all) and the outcome of the general election which is run by the government under rules set forth in the Constitution, and the legal chasm between the two situations. Is he trying to de-educate the American public about basic legal matters?</p>
<p>Maybe it was supposed to be a humor column?</p>
<p>Kluge, I agree with you. He ought to be above this kind of gloating even if his point were valid, which (as you explain) it is not. He is WAY too smart to make this mistake by accident.</p>
<p>Because Michigan has a substantial Black population, Black leaders have already started a loud whisper campaign that if Hillary is awarded the delegates it will be a sign of overt racism. </p>
<p>i.e. Obama played by the rules and didn’t have his name on the ballot. Blacks will be disfranchised. Here we go again!</p>
<p>I wouldn’t mind if MI and FL had a do-over, but they can’t use the votes they had - they are completely unlegiitmate. I really don’t see why NH and Iowa always get to go first though.</p>
<p>Actually, it may not turn out to be that big of a deal. A little googling shows that Clinton only won 50% of the vote in Florida, and only beat “uncommitted” 55% - 45% in Michigan. There may be a way to resolve the issue which lets everyone save face. Could be a tempest in a teapot.</p>
<p>Yes, but at the time, Edwards was still in the running. There is no way of knowing to whom the other 50% in FL and the 45% in MI would have gone.</p>
<p>As well, it does not take into account the many who saw no point in coming out to vote if their preferred candidate was not on the ballot.</p>
<p>That’s true, Marite, but in a two-person race one way of accomplishing the same end as banning the delegates (which is the current solution) is to arrange that an equal number of delegates favor each candidate, giving neither any benefit from their presence. Voila - delegates seated, but the states actually have no impact on the outcome. (I know it’s more complicated than that, with potential second ballots, platform fights, etc., but the campaigns may be looking for a way to defuse the potentially ugly situation, and that would be a way to do it “behind closed doors.”) It doesn’t give every voter real “representation” but neither does barring the delegates.</p>
<p>mini - I was saying if they do it all over again, from scratch, which I think is unlikely. It’s the only way I would accept the outcome as fair.</p>
<p>I live in Michigan. I can understand if they don’t count the Michigan delegates because the primary was held before Feb 5. I can also understand how, now that it’s important, they want a do-over and hold a new election. But what would NOT be fair is for the vote as it was done before to stand. The only name on the ballot was Clinton. I can see how she’s desperate for those delegates, but it was most certainly NOT a fair election.</p>
<p>Her problem is that if she gets swept tomorrow by 10-20%, and in Wisconsin, and in Hawaii, and in Vermont, etc., she not only has to win in Texas and Ohio, but win really big to make up for the delegate shortfall, and that is extremely unlikely.</p>
<p>Simba, I don’t see much difference between a fund raising event for a campaign and campaigning for votes. Don’t they both involve speeches saying “vote for me”? Is there really a difference?</p>
<p>"Clinton advisers have said that superdelegates should support the candidate who they believe would be the best nominee and the best president, while Obama advisers have argued that superdelegates should reflect the will of the voters and also take into account who they believe would be the best nominee. "</p>
<p>I think Obama’s “reflect the will of the voters” is the more principled position and I think he would say so even if he ultimately does not get the most pledged delegates. </p>
<p>Hillary Clinton actually has the Democratic Party in a Herculean vice grip that will probably lead to her having the nomination. Look here, if she demands they seat the Delegates (1968 backwards) and the Democratic Party refuses (assuming she loses within the margin that these delegates would matter) Obama will lose these states in the general election. The localized support will be demoralized and he will not have the backing of the local machine politics (which she taps into beautifully and he has yet to exploit, like in California or New Jersey), all of whom are awarded usually as delegates to the DNC. He will be further hurt because McCain got a lot of independent votes in both states, and once you’ve voted for a candidate once in an election cycle, you are almost guaranteed to vote for them again in the same cycle. And, further more, Kerry only beat Bush in Michigan by 3.4%; a margin that could easily be made up by the more independent minded McCain. (and Kerry lost Florida by 5%, so that would basically guarantee a loss there). Let’s say that the Republicans lose Ohio (Clinton=definitely Obama=maybe) and Iowa (Clinton=maybe Obama=for sure), the electoral vote gap in Michigan would make up for both, leading to a McCain victory. I doubt Obama could take New Mexico with such depressed support amongst the Hispanics in his own primary, and McCain will do well in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (all of which were tight Kerry victories).So this scenario is decidedly terrible for the Democratic Party. And do you know the only Democrat who’d be happy with this (besides Lieberman) would be Hillary. So yeah. Don’t seat the Michigan and Florida Delegates. Make my day.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think Hillary Clinton is still the favorite to be president. I think John McCain would beat Obama (with the flight of Union whites and Hispanics) and lose to Clinton (who’ll keep those traditional Democratic voting blocks and do well in Redder states). Unless of course the nomination is so bloody they take each other out, in which case I will welcome my new McCainian overlord.</p>
<p>“Hillary Clinton actually has the Democratic Party in a Herculean vice grip that will probably lead to her having the nomination.”</p>
<p>Hmmm, then why so many endorsements for Obama from prominent party leaders? (e.g. Ted and Caroline Kennedy, countless influential governors and Senators, et cetera)</p>
<p>What, and if she ‘demands’ they seat the delegates from states that all the candidates agreed to not recognize using their early primary results, Obama supporters won’t feel demoralized?</p>
<p>Oh, she knows that seating the delegates based on the prior non-vote is a non-starter. She won’t even state it publicly. The issue is whether Florida or Michigan delegates get seated at all, not whether they are based on the previous non-vote. </p>
<p>As to Obama losing them in the general election, if the primaries were held today in either of those two states, without absentee voting a month in advance, I think he’d win both of them - Michigan quite easily (one rally in Detroit, and one in Ann Arbor and its over), and Florida closer.</p>
<p>'Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.</p>
<p>They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in those states.</p>
<p>“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.</p>
<p>Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. </p>
<p>Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.'</p>
<p>The logic of the paragraph that follows this statement is entertaining – and really out there, IMO. Hillary has the Dems in a vice grip? The Dems are moving away from her pretty rapidly. She has huge negatives, and has significantly less likelihood of beating McCain than Obama does. Unless something pretty dramatic happens – or superdelegates subvert the will of the people – I’d say HRC is toast.</p>