Hillary's Michigan Co-Chair: Revote Probably Wouldn't Affect The Race Much
One of Hillary's most important supporters in Michigan, former Governor Jim Blanchard, went way off message in a conversation with me moments ago, saying that even if a revote were held in the state, it would likely be so close that it wouldn't make much of a material difference in the delegate count.
"I think if we had a vote in Michigan, it could easily be close," Blanchard told me. "The amount of delegates wouldn't make much difference."
Blanchard's claim is significant, since the Hillary campaign points to a revote in Michigan as one of their key routes towards closing the delegate gap.
Blanchard made the comments in the context of a conversation about the Obama camp's posture towards a revote, suggesting that the Obama campaign's hesitancy over it was surprising, since (in his estimation) it probably wouldn't affect the race's overall outcome that much.
Blanchard also made something of an inflammatory accusation, saying that Obama's two Michigan co-chairs -- state senators Tupac Hunter and Buzz Thomas -- were deliberately slowing the progress of the revote in the Michigan legislature at the direction of Obama national headquarters.
Hunter has said he has concerns about the logistics of the current revote plan, and earlier today the news broke that it didn't have the support in the state legislature it needs to pass. Blanchard suggested that the opposition was being orchestrated by the Obama campaign via the two state senators.
"They're very talented state senators; they're obviously operating under instructions to prevent a vote," Blanchard said. "Preventing a vote is a huge mistake [that could prevent] winning in the fall. I hope they reconsider."
Finally some straight talk on the Michigan situation! Uncommitted won 55% of the Michigan caucus vote. Obama can be sure to pick up the vast majority of those delegates, so why he and his supporters have taken this bizarre hardline stand against seating the Michigan delegates is really bizarre. I hope they change their tune.
Yes, Michigan broke the rules. So penalize Michigan by taking away 50% of the delegates if need be, but Michigan voters have to be represented at the convention. We are Democrats aren't we? We're supposed to believe in enfranchising voters, not taking their votes away. Not unless we want to risk losing Michigan in November.
March 18, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uncommitted was 40%.
And I don't think Obama or his supporters have had a hardline stance against a re-vote. Obama just wanted to see the details before he signed off on it.
March 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe,
Michigan did indeed break the rules. They can not be a changing of the rules in the middle of the game.
The rules further say that having broke the rules there are 2 options...a re-vote or a decision make by the Credentials Cmte at the convention.
The latter option makes the most sense in this situation as it follows the rule initial set in place.
A very reasonable option on the part of the those who followed the rules to begin with.
The only individuals trying to force changes of the rules is the HRC campaign.
It is a disgrace and should not be rewarded.
March 18, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an op-ed piece by Sen. Levin states today, Michigan broke the rules after New Hampshire broke the agreement where it would be the 3rd contest. Instead, New Hampshire hopped to 2nd again and wasn't punished.
Levin Op-ed on Michigan
Here's some interesting background on the caucus vs. primary debate back in Michigan, for those who ask "why didn't Hillary complain about caucuses before?" She did. This is from August 2, 2007:
Michigan Primary Moves
===================================================
Before you zone out, consider this:
The state Senate estimates that a primary, for both parties, would draw more than 2 million voters to the polls.
It estimates that a caucus, on the other hand, might draw just 100,000 Democrats and, incredibly, just 4,000 to 6,000 Republicans.
That’s obviously just a fraction of the state’s eligible voters, of whom 4.8 million voted in the 2004 presidential race.
Now ask yourself, why on earth would a state consider doing something like holding a caucus, which would severely limit the number of people who might vote?
We’re shocked - shocked! - to discover politics at the heart of this debate.
Here’s how it breaks down:
On the Democratic side, those behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is running ahead in the polls in Michigan, want a primary. They think a wide-open process would encourage first-time voters, including the women and minorities who support Mrs. Clinton, to come out and vote for her. Plus, Mrs. Clinton will have plenty of money to run as many ads on television as she wants.
Those backing former Senator John Edwards prefer a caucus. Why? Mr. Edwards’s campaign manager is David Bonior, the former Michigan Congressmen, who has strong ties to organized labor. The unions can be highly influential in a caucus, which depends largely on ground organization. They would have much more control over a caucus, which is too complicated and time-consuming for the average person to attend.
As for the Republicans, they’re along for the ride. They say they’d prefer a primary, but they have a contingency plan: a presidential preference convention. This is a really arcane, multi-stage process that relies on delegates, essentially shutting out the average voter.
The whole dynamic has produced some hilarious moments. Look at this, from Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who supports Mr. Edwards. He’s written a letter to the governor opposing a primary. He says a primary would be “fiscally irresponsible” because it would cost the cash-strapped state $10 to $12 million. He then makes a modest proposal: He’ll support a primary only if the presidential candidates pay for it themselves. Either that or the state parties pay for it, but not the taxpayers.
The biggest force behind the Michigan move is Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who has been irritated for years that a big state like his has been taking a back seat to smaller states. Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention, in addition to millions of dollars from the campaigns and the media, who keep their restaurants and hotels full, their rental cars on the road and their television stations flush with cash from ads.
March 19, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently only 2 out of 17 senators were willing to sign off on it. Putting this all on Obama is ridiculous
March 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the re-vote is the best possible solution to this mess. That said, if (as seems dismally likely) a re-vote is impossible, I think that the next most hopeful solution is that the superdelegates get behind one candidate or the other en masse. If this were to happen, then that candidate would enjoy a margin of victory so substantial that Florida and Michigan could be seated without affecting the outcome. I really hope that this does not arrive at the point where there is one winnner with FL and MI and another without, however. No one (but McCain) really wants the fight that would ensue if such were the case.
March 18, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops (my bad) 40%, not 55%. The report suggests that Obama IS working to prevent a revote, not just waiting for details. Of course, the report could be wrong.
March 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama's people are delaying a revote, then they should cut it out. But if they're not, then this is a reckless short-sighted slander. If the revote falls apart, and Blanchard pins it on Obama, that could cost Obama MI in November which could cost him the election.
March 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. I always liked Gov Blanchard. It is disappointing to see him playing with fire like this. No democrat, not even the Clinton partisans, would benefit from a McCain administration. Gov Blanchard should choose his words more carefully.
March 18, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis says:
If Obama's people are delaying a revote, then they should cut it out
I disagree. The Obama campaign has the moral high ground as they DID follow the rules. As such they get to choose which option they prefer.
Rule Breakers do not get to strongarm rule followers.
I beleive it is wise to wait until the convention.
Just as Hillary beleives it is OK to continue campaigning despite being behind in the popular votes, pledged delegates and superdelegates.
Losing rule breakers do not get to set the terms of agreement.
March 18, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe and Genghis,
I was raised in Michigan and I love Jim Blanchard, BUT...
1) Why would anyone sign off on the hint of legislation that they haven't seen? Would you trust an executive who would sign off on something LESS than an agreement in principle?
2) Jim Blanchard isn't a neutral actor in this. It is easy enough for him to suggest that the delay is being held up by directives from Team Obama HQ, but he has no proof of that because there IS NO PROOF of that. This is not the time for casual smearing with "IFs" on either side.
3) The majority of the party establishment in Michigan are HRC Supporters. I find it hard to imagine that the majority of the Democratic State Senators are allowing two of their colleagues who happen to support Obama to hijack the process. If there isn't a bill that has been drafted and hacked at by now, I'll eat my hat. There's at least draft legislation on this. You don't need everyone in a deliberative body to write a bill. You don't need everyone to pass a bill.
4) A central sticking point in this discussion has been who would pay for a re-vote. As you may have heard, the Great Lakes are not filled with gold bullion or anything. I would caution everyone following this to listen to what individual surrogates say very carefully. Blanchard may be qualified to express the position of the Clinton campaign, but he certainly can't be trusted to speak for Obama.
March 18, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly Genghis' (and my) complaint here. By pushing the storyline that Obama torpedoed the re-vote, Gov Blanchard (whom I also used to like a lot) could alienate Michigan voters from Obama's candidacy in the GE. This is a very reckless strategy, because if MI goes red then it becomes a lot harder for us to win the overall electoral college majority.
March 18, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, people (addressed to both campaigns). Just split the MI delegates equally, do teh "half Nelson" in FL, and get this horseshit over with.
March 18, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
I liked the 50/50 split until I learned that will be used by the Clinton folks to argue that since the delegates are being split it is an affirmation of the flawed voting process thus allowing her to push for acceptance of the popular vote.
So, if there is a 50/50 split it should split both the votes and delegates. Furthermore the superdelegates should not be seated as they are the ones who pushed to break the rules to begin with.
Superdelegates from MI and FL should not have any say in the process.
March 18, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooops.
March 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I didn't read the post in detail. I take blanchard at her word, just like I take the clintons at their word. Why on earth would obama be opposed to a michigan revote? That's silly.
The point is that it won't make a difference in the outcome of the nomination and it would be a huge, huge waste of money. I wish the supers would step in and put a stop to this nonsense.
March 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a troubling accusation, but seems ridiculous. As Blanchard himself stated, what would be the point of blocking a revote if it wouldn't amount to a large swing of delegates either way? All this tactic can do is piss off Michigan voters and put an otherwise blue state into play for the general election.
This guy obviously shoots from the hip, so additional explanation is needed....from him, and from the Obama camp.
March 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dom76
Who pays for the revote that will not amount to any greater difference in outcome than a 50/50 split?
Sounds like a lot of money wasted for not much differnce so why pay that cost?
March 18, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Blanchard says
"They're very talented state senators; they're obviously operating under instructions to prevent a vote," he is expressing her opinion. Adding the word 'obviously' adds no proof to the spin.
Obviously Hillary is behind Blanchard's tactics. (see how it works?)
March 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see, God damn America vs eliminate Islam.
Our country has lost its freaking mind.
Insane.
March 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you laboring under the impression that Jeremiah Wright is the presumptive democratic nominee and John Hagee the presumptive republican nominee? If so, perhaps I can offer you some welcome reassurance - they are not. No leading candidate in either party has called for God to damn America or for Islam to be eliminated. I hope that helps.
March 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary can create a hue and cry to change the votes in the middle of the game.
Then surely it is more than fair for the Obama campaign to use the rules to delay their wishes.
Isn't that how a football game works? The team with the ball gets to run out the clock when the score is tied.
The tie can be settled at the convention according to the rules in play when the game started.
No rewarding of rules breakers.
March 18, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth, if any of this were more than just an assertion, it would theoretically be the team with the lead AND the ball running out the clock...
March 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good analogy, but I don't believe that that's the obama camp's game plan, notwithstanding the clintons' whining.
March 18, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever the facts on the ground are re the legal ramifications, Obama's team cannot lay passively back while Penn and Ickes conduct spin warfare to make Obama look bad. Axelrod and his guys need to fight back, and I don't understand the relative silence from the campaign re this issue.
For one thing, if I were they, I would be making a big point that Ickes is one of the Credentials Committee members who voted to nullify the votes of MI and FL in the first place, and now he is whining about disenfranchising the voters. May him take some heat for a change.
March 19, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink