Posts
It seems that Michigan is close to deciding on a re-vote that will take place in June. The DNC is in favor of the plan and Clinton surely would be also.
The question is why should the Obama be in favor.
First, Michigan state law says those who've voted in the Republican primary from voting in the re-vote and "about 32% of the those who vote in the GOP primary, according to the exit polls, were Democrats or independents. It's a fair bet that many of them were Obama supporters, as he was not on the original Michigan ballot."
Second, by agreeing to the re-vote Obama would mean that the race would definitely lasts until June. Clinton first said the race would be over by February 5th. After she failed to meet expectations, her campaign then said that Ohio and Texas was do or die. After that contest, the new firewall is Pennsylvania. If Michigan held a re-vote in June, Clinton would then assuredly hold out until then.
If his back is against the wall then Obama would have to be for a re-vote. There would be no good outcome of Obama standing in the way of a re-vote and it would hurt his chances in the state in the general.
A better compromise for Obama would be to split the Michigan delegates in half and then seat Florida existing delegates, with each having half a vote.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama and the Michigan Re-vote
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You make good points, however I dont know if Clinton's lead (being as she was the only one on the ballot, Edwards was still in and Obama hadn't won state after state) is all that secure. But only time will tell.
Vote Fallon!
http://www.equalitygiving.org/
Chris Bowers makes a stronger case that Obama should be for a re-vote in MI, because that would allow him to wrap things up in June.
If he does not agree, there's a better chance of things going to a floor fight at the convention in August.
If he is confident about his lead in pledged delegates, he should not be calling for Michigan Democrats to be disenfranchised. We need to have a prayer of carrying this state in the fall. Right now Obama and Clinton both trail McCain in polls in MI, OH, and PA.
Link to Bowers:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4597
I was thinking that even with a Clinton win in Penn. Obama could pull further ahead with big wins in medium sized states like North Carolina, Indiana, and Oregon to put the contest away.
The Michigan/Florida re-vote is indeed a political quagmire, and I hope it's not a symbolic microcosm of the Dems shooting themselves in the foot once again in the general election.
I'm not too sympathetic for Michigan, but I do realize that exluding the delegates by not counting them may affect the general election.
It's the irony of the whole thing that chaps my hide. Michigan agreed to the DNC rules, chose to break the rules and move their election up, opting to sacrifice their actual delegates in lieu of casting their symbolic voice, only this was silenced when the candidates agreed not to campaign there and remove thier names from the pledge to uphold the integrity of the Dem. process already agreed to, so the results really meant nothing at the time. When Hillary left her name on the ballot, it was clear she was running for the general election at the time, thinking she was poised to seal the deal early on.
Meanwhile, Michigan presumed the race would be over by the time it hit their state. Had they stuck with their original date, they would have had more power/influence on th race. Now, for breaking the rules, Michigan may get a do-over and could possibly have even more influence on the election. So in the end, they end up getting what they wanted in the first place, and all they had to do was break the rules. Only they're going to have to fork over somne more cash if they want to hold another election.
This is why I would never play Monopoly with the Clintons, let alone elect them back into the White House.
If and when Hillaryloses, I can only imagine what she'll say: "C'mon Barack, best two-out-of three?"
Post a Comment