Michigan Exists!

On Meet The Press for Sunday, May 1, 2008, Tim Russert asked Harold Ickes, Senior Advisor to the Clinton campaign, about the campaign's claim that "seventeen million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton, more than for any primary candidate in history." This exchange ensued:

MR. ICKES: Well, we're going by the AP projections, and we're counting both Michigan and Florida. And, and in our...

MR. RUSSERT: You're counting Michigan when...

MR. ICKES: Yes, we're counting Michigan.

MR. RUSSERT: ...Senator Obama's name wasn't on the ballot?

MR. ICKES: We're counting Michigan. He voluntarily took his name off the ballot, Tim. There was no party rule, no exhortation from the Democratic National Committee. He, he--it was a voluntary, strategic choice that he made. He could have kept it on there.

MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Clinton said it didn't count for anything...

MR. ICKES: Well...

MR. RUSSERT: ...but now it counts for everything.

Tim is very skeptical of the idea of counting the results of Michigan's primary in calculating the total popular votes nationwide of the two candidates.

That was a legitimate, and perhaps sound, position as of May 30, the day before the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee met in a Washington hotel and decided that the delegates and superdelegates from both Florida and Michigan would be seated, with each individual granted a half-vote. Of Florida, Clinton was granted 105 (52.5) and Obama 67 (33.5) delegates. Of Michigan, based on exit poll and other data (which favored Obama), Clinton was granted 69 (34.5) and Obama 59 (29.5) delegates. Delegates won by Clinton in the two primaries were allocated to her while Obama was allocated delegates won in the Florida primary and in Michigan, the vast majority of the "uncommitted" delegates. The two primaries were held, the party has decided that the delegations will be seated and delegates will vote. And now....

The Michigan primary never happened?

Sorry, folks, but the Michigan primary occurred. The party now has acknowledged that it did and has acted accordingly. Hillary Clinton won those popular votes in Michigan. Barack Obama and John Edwards, in part to curry favor with Iowa voters, took their names off the ballot. And the ploy worked. Not only did Obama win the Iowa caucus (admittedly primarily for other reasons) but HRC came in behind Edwards. It was effective strategy in the critical first-in-the-country vote, with the only downside that Obama has no popular votes (but a lot of delegates in a state he probably wouldn't have won, anyway) to count toward his national total. All in all, a good tradeoff.

A Proposal Selfishly Rejected

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today, May 9, 2008, that the executive committee of the Michigan State Democratic Party has proposed a plan to give Hillary Clinton 69delegates and Barack Obama 59.

As I would have expected, the Clinton camp, which has proposed that the New York senator receive 73 delegates and the Illinois senator 55, rejected the proposal. Clearly, Clinton needs a nearly cataclysmic event, a major Obama scandal, or the reemergence of Jeremiah Wright to have a realistic chance to overtake the frontrunner. Apportioning Michigan's delegates on a reasonable and/or fair basis, as suggested by the state party, would barely help Clinton. Neither would apportioning California's 211 pledged (non-super) delegates as they were won, 105 for Clinton, 67 for Obama, and 13 for Edwards, help her much.

The response of Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker to the Michigan offer is revealing: "This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted." An official accounting of the votes in Florida (where the candidates signed, and honored, a party pledge not to campaign) and in Michigan (ditto Florida, and Obama and Edwards had honorably taken their names off the ballot) would be necessary (though probably not sufficient) for an effective bid for HRC.

As the Michigan proposal would do little to help Clinton, it actually would bring Barack Obama one major step closer to nomination. Further, the Obama campaign will need to blunt the GOP's expected charge this fall that the Democratic Party didn't care enough to consider the sentiments of voters in these two pivotal states. And the Obamites had to have known that the Clintonites would reject the proposal, which would have left their own guy as the one candidate apparently willing to compromise in the cause of party unity.

Why, then, did the Obama campaign reject this possible solution? Perhaps it figured it was unnecessary, given the defeatist remark ("I don't see it going to the convention") of Clinton campaign manager Terry McAuliffe on the Today show on 3/8/08. Still, one could have expected Barack Obama to be a little magnanimous, even as he triumpantly, and dismissively, proceeds with his victory lap.