Remember a few weeks ago, when I couldn’t stop blogging about the Michigan and Florida delegate controversies? And yet now that those controversies are all over the front pages and the mainstream blogs, I’ve gone silent on this issue. Why, you ask? Well, a big part of the reason is basketball, of course. But, as I was thinking about this the other day, I realized there’s something else to it. When it comes to obscure procedural issues like delegate credential battles, the forgotten election calendar, the primacy of superdelegates, etc., I’m sort of like the uber-nerdy equivalent of an indie music snob who only likes a band when it’s "undiscovered," then stops paying attention once the band goes "mainstream." I was blogging about Michigan & Florida before it was cool to blog about Michigan & Florida! And now that it’s cool to blog about Michigan & Florida, I’ve sort of lost interest. :)
That said, there have been a bunch of major developments on this issue recently. I haven’t found a good general roundup of what’s happened, but the bottom line is that re-votes look increasingly unlikely in either state, which is bad news for Obama, IMHO (though he doesn’t seem to see it that way; it’s been largely his people who have been either actively or passively resisting re-votes, from what I understand). I realize Hillary would likely win Florida and might win Michigan, but I think it would be in Obama’s best interest to get this issue settled, even if it costs him two dozen delegates or whatever, because frankly, those delegates aren’t going to make the difference, but as long as the issue is still hanging out there, unresolved, it contributes to the general media storyline of this nomination battle being unsettled, which benefits Hillary. (Also, a possible re-vote victory in Michigan would have given Obama one of those much-ballyhooed "big states.")
|
Categories: Election 2008
|
March 20th, 2008 at 12:56:39 pm
Hee hee :} You’re right you know :) But look, it’s not altogether your fault. (1) It’s a Heritable trait :>, plus (2) It’s Cultural: they can take the Boy out of New England but they can’t take New England out of the Boy. You just needed to find the most appropriate Subjectmatter for your Snobbery :].
But No: Obama doesn’t want the [stubbornly misdesignated :] Do-Overs. He, as well as his people in FL & MI know exactly what they are doing, and doing very Well at that: Running the Clock. From the Getgo these various & sundry schemes for the malheadlined Revotes have ranged from the Legally Cockamamie to the Administratively Absurd anyway ~~ and the longer the Democrats Dither, the larger looms the likelihood of Meltdown if the plans [sic :] proceed. (IOW: TOOLATE!!! :)
OTOH I have a Plan :} ~ tentatively ~ for the Two State Solution; but I’m not ready to Announce it yet :> because, uncharacteristically, I want to do a little Research first ;]. To quote former Governor Spitzer, I will report back to you in short order. :)
March 20th, 2008 at 4:17:38 pm
I think one of the problems in Michigan was the open primary. If you were a Hillary supporter, you voted for her. If you weren’t, you voted Uncommitted or asked for a Republican ballot. With the current rules, anyone who voted Republican (whether Republican or not) cannot participate in the re-vote. If they remove that limitation, will registered Republicans be able to re-vote? At what point does the Limbaugh plan influence the results? How many Republicans would vote again - for Hillary - just because they can?
March 20th, 2008 at 4:26:54 pm
Teresa, suppose the answer is “a lot.” How is that any different from Republican voters in Texas, Ohio, or the remaining “open primary” states (Indiana, West Virginia, Montana), in which the Meddlesome Dittoheads Brigade — who already know they can’t influence their own party’s race, since it’s effectively over — have every opportunity to meddle in the Dems’ race, if they so choose? The objection to open-primary voting that you’re voicing is not specific to Michigan, it’s just a general objection to open primaries in a situation where one party’s race is decided and the other’s isn’t.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:11:33 pm
I agree. But now, I wonder if there’s more of an incentive to Meddle. And, could that be one of the reasons the Obama campaign is reticent to re-vote, using Texas as an example? Many people assume a vote for Uncommitted was a vote for Obama. Maybe it’s best to leave that impression.