Hillary Supporter Lanny Davis Suggests Proposals For Florida And Michigan
In a piece for The Politico, prominent Hillary supporter Lanny Davis lays out what he calls compromise proposals for Michigan, and urges the Rules and Bylaws Committee to act accordingly:
The Rules Committee has several options. The fairest would be to allocate those 57 [uncommitted] pledged delegates, to Clinton and Obama by the same ratio of their standing to one another in the average of the most recent Michigan statewide polls prior to the Jan. 15 primary. Or perhaps one Solomonic compromise, more generous to Obama than to Clinton, would be to divide the remaining delegates approximately 50-50 between the two of them, 28-27 (giving Clinton the extra delegate since she led in all the latest statewide polls prior to Jan. 15).
On Florida, Davis proposes allocating the delegates based on January's voting. The Hillary camp is officially insisting that the delegations get seated according to the voting in both states, so this piece by Davis can be taken as a hint of compromises on Michigan that the Clinton team might be willing to embrace.
The two solutions Davis proposes above for Michigan will be a tough sell. That's because they both would give her a sizable chunk of the "uncommitted" vote, which is to say that she would get a significant portion of voters that didn't vote for her, even though she was one of the choices on the ballot.
Separately, many of you have asked why it is that Obama won't simply agree to seat the delegations according to the voting, since that won't erase his lead in pledged delegates. One reason, as I understand it, is that Obama advisers don't want her to even come close in the pledged del count (not to mention the popular vote, which is another matter). This could make it that much easier for the Clinton camp to try to spin super-delegates into thinking that no popular verdict was rendered in the primary. It's far-fetched indeed to imagine that folks will buy that argument at any rate, but this is part of what drives Camp Obama's thinking.
I'm looking forward to Lanny Davis receding from the spotlight. Seriously. I wish he could take Joe Lieberman with him into retirement.
As for this:
"Far-fetched"? From the outside, I don't see superdelegates judging the Clinton argument to be far-fetched, if she comes closer in pledged delegates and keeps making the claim that she won the popular vote. The Clinton theme will be "I'm close enough in pledged delegates, AND, I won the popular vote, therefore, I'm more electable". This will be repeated ad infinitum, and become a "truth". Add a few sprinklings of "Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky!!!!" into it, and superdelegates may just start believing the story.
So from the outside, looking in, and reflecting on how this nomination process gets covered, the Obama campaign seems rightly cautious about seating the delegates according to those completely misleading election results.
Y'all have been getting slammed recently. Let me just say that I appreciate the work you do, and I don't think anyone here (outside of the commenters, of course) has some sort of pro-Clinton or pro-Obama axe to grind.
May 26, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, appreciate that. I still don't see her closing the gap, and super-dels won't be receptive to the argument no matter how small his lead in both categories...that's my view, anyway
May 26, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, on another matter, could you give us some more information regarding the press release (?) you reference earlier that is purported to be from the Obama camp and contained the Olbermann comment on Assassingate?
In particular, was it an actual press release and has Obama's camp confirmed that they are indeed the ones who sent it?
Thanks.
May 26, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
click through to the Times article that is the source for that
May 26, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Times article failed to name verifiable accounts of sources and people involved.
May 26, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
george stephanopoulous directly confronted axelrod, saying that they'd been circulating the olbermann thing. axelrod didn't deny it, and steph constitutes a second source for it (in addition to the Times reporter, who reported it being circulated)
May 26, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he didn't know anything about the email being sent, would he deny it at the risk of having someone come back and call him on it? I doubt he would.
As for the source, are we sure that the NYT reporter wasn't just taking George at his word?
May 26, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Times article says, "The Obama campaign had also e-mailed to reporters a transcript of a harsh critique of Mrs. Clinton on 'Countdown With Keith Olbermann' on MSNBC." It doesn't give a source for that information.
Was TPM sent this email?
May 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't answer that question
May 26, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
busted.
May 26, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
not busted at all, sorry. I can't share whether I was confidentially sent things by campaigns. you all will have to decide whether you trust the reporting here or not. if you decide you can't, and that other sources are more trustworthy, that's your right. I can't stop you.
May 26, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reason why the Obama camp doesn't just seat the delegations as voted is because he's honoring the pledge that they signed along with the other Democratic candidates (including Senator Clinton v1.0). Recognizing these two rogue primaries and including them in the total changes the rules. It would be like agreeing that caucus only award 75% of the delegates of a primary contest.
While I know these are DNC events and the rules are only as enforceable as the DNC decides, there have to be SOME principles. And frankly inflicting an unnecessary wound because you complied with the rules seems awfully damn foolish. And one last point, all of this would assume that the Clinton camp is going to be reasonable after they are seated. They aren't. That will give them one more reason to keep "fighting" past June 3.
May 26, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You use to convey "an email just sent by the Clinton campaign" in many of the articles during the election. We didn't know that there existed "confidential" emails being sent to bloggers. Sounds more like campaign strategy should be "confidential". And that's what we're questioning.
We are asking perfectly legitimate questions that would inform us make the determination if this will be a trustworthy news source. The direction of our questions are no different than any news source would receive towards investigating the truth of information.
May 26, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
all I can tell you is that we -- and many other reporters -- constantly receive stuff sent to us confidentally. happens pretty much every day, sometimes multiple times
May 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
really?
Stuff.
So without investigating the sources of information in the original article, you say that the alert that you received is "confidential" yet you do no verification on YOUR source, nor weigh the accuracy of the original?
ok
May 26, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to bust in, but aren't you admitting to being part of the problem? Do you have rules for when you grant confidentiality? Perhaps you should post them. Why would you ever grant confidentiality for unsolicited email regardless of any claim of confidentiality included in it? Isn't a very large part of the problem with American press that it is all too willing to allow powerful people to claim confidentiality for the flimsiest of reasons?
May 26, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that lots of people are posting general defenses of you and the other TPM staff. I want to be clear that I am not making a general complaint about TPM. I am asking about the casual acceptance of claims of confidentiality. I recognize that not tolerating such casual claims will not make your work any easier, but I wonder who will step up to the plate.
May 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Obama email was confidential?
Why would Obama's camp specify that a commentary that had played on MSNBC a day earlier be confidential?
And come to think of it, Greg... why wasn't this email mentioned in the article you posted Sunday morning, an article whose premise would have been bolstered by such information?
My own take: George Stephanopoulos invented the email.
May 26, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't you talk about it when Stephanopolous can? Was it confidentially shared with you but non-confidentially shared with Steph?
May 27, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
just to clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that the Olbermann script was a confidential email. both Kit Seelye and Steph made public reference to this email, and we wouldn't be repeating it if we had any doubt whether it was true
May 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify, the Olbermann piece was publicly available, as was the original piece, and was in reaction to Senator Clinton's statements and not Senator Obama's campaign's one line comment. Just to clarify.
May 26, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, Greg.
May 26, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"you all will have to decide whether you trust the reporting here or not."
I don't.
It's already been reported at HuffPo that Sidney Blumenthal might have Josh's ear. The boss man's silence on that matter combined with your Sunday morning AssassinGate kubuki dance does nothing to quell my worst suspicions.
And I've been a loyal TPM reader since Media Whores Online was still drawing breath.
May 26, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get the points that everybody above has been making.
But God, it sounds like so much more of the "Fox News" inside-baseball claptrap.
And this time it's not even about what some campaign insider personally promised some pundit-reporter.
It's about the transcript of an Olbermann rant!
Like it was a secret?
Like anyone didn't see it live?
Or view it after the fact on YouTube?
Who the fuck cares?
Meanwhile, morons like Liz Trotta are joking about offing the presidential nominee.
(Which is why, Greg, Hillary's remark was a big F-ing deal in the first place.)
The backroom, horse-race political-insider shit is interesting. Give us some more, Greg.
But don't lose sight of the fact this election is about real issues -- life and death issues.
And Lamont, I don't give a fuck if Greg is a secret Bob Barr or Ron Paul supporter.
Use the free space, let's have civil discussions (more civil than this one, I hope) and get on with saving the world from George Bush, Cheney, and McCain.
Geez, it's so simple!
May 27, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Greg - two important points I'd love to see you mention in your posts:
1) The DNC needs to have SOME sort of punishment in order to prevent states from doing whatever they want in the future - and that decision has nothing to do with what Obama wants.
2) Please please please - every time you mention the popular vote - can you PLEASE remind everyone that it is irrelevant metric because if it had any element in selecting a nominee THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS A CAUCUS STATE.
May 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just irrelevant - it's Mythical.
It doesn't exist.
In Texas, they counted the caucus votes as soon as the voters finished voting in the caucuses. The votes weren't certified, but the chairwoman of our caucus told us they would have the percentages figured by the end of the caucus and if we wanted to know them - stick around.
I believe the votes - which were a total, the caucuses added into the poll votes - were certified, I believe at the end of March, but I'd have to check that for sure, as I've read two dates.
Be that as it may - the Popular Vote meme is really a myth that the Clinton campaign came up with and it's damaging, AFAIC - and people continually refer to it, anyway.
Which also puzzles me.
But it doesn't puzzle me as much as Lanny Davis expecting the Democratic Party to accept a proposal to depend on polls to seat delegates.
May 26, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis isn't basing his proposal on polling at all. He wants Clinton to get 80% of Michigan delegates even though she only got 55% of the vote.
May 31, 2008 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary who?
May 26, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what life will be like for Clinton after the elections in Nov. if she hands victory to the Republicans? I think it may be a bit hellish but then she has said she likes the "heat in the kitchen".
May 30, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best solution is to subtract away all SUPERDELEGATES from both states, seat Florida pledged as voted and give the 57 to Obama and EDWARDS (who can then cast them free or do whatever he wants). Clinton should not get ANY of the UNCOMMITTED as they were clearly cast AGAINST her.
May 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems reasonable to me.
May 26, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another argument that needs to be made is that Hillary no doubt got many second or third-best votes that would have otherwise gone to Obama or Edwards. Thus, not only is her claim to any uncommitted delegates ridiculous on its face, but any compromise should also deduct from her totals under the straw poll.
May 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you lost me at "Lanny Davis."
May 26, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!
May 26, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, II.
May 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful! And exactly right. I can't wait until I never have to read another Lanny Davis comment again.
May 26, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the polls prior to illegal primary? Why not current polls? Oh, because they show Obama beating Hillary in Michigan, of course. Stupid question.
I say split MI 50/50 and seat FL as is. Fuck it. Obama still wins and Clinton is out of excuses.
May 26, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama shouldn't accept any proposal that offers her a reason to stay in the race hoping for a miracle. She has already hurt him and the party. More importantly, she has been greatly annoying.
May 26, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or use Poblano's demographic analysis, which found
May 26, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just seat them as voted Obama.
May 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
bleat.
May 26, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not?
We little people are held to our signed pledges, but fuck it...
...the rules don't apply to she who wouldn't dare ponder assassination to get her way.
I say sit 'em as they voted and then have ALL of the Supers (even the ones pledged to Hillary) jump to Obama.
They are, after all, supposed to be tasked with excerising their best judgement.
Why any of them want to support a conniving, double-crossing, delusional, divisive, back-stabbing former first-lady with fabricated experience is beyond me.
What I REALLY want is for California to get another vote. I assure you that if California got another chance to speak our minds, Hillary would be blown out by almost 10 points.
CALIFORNIA HATES HILLARY NOW.
LOSE WITH DIGNITY.
May 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Jaysin 1414:
Hey, why don't you just go into a theatre and yell fire ? To state as some sort of fact that Hillary Clinton would like to see Obama assasinated only illustrates the gutter your mind moves in, not hers.
May 31, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not?
We little people are held to our signed pledges, but fuck it...
...the rules don't apply to she who wouldn't dare ponder assassination to get her way.
I say sit 'em as they voted and then have ALL of the Supers (even the ones pledged to Hillary) jump to Obama.
They are, after all, supposed to be tasked with excerising their best judgement.
Why any of them want to support a conniving, double-crossing, delusional, divisive, back-stabbing former first-lady with fabricated experience is beyond me.
What I REALLY want is for California to get another vote. I assure you that if California got another chance to speak our minds, Hillary would be blown out by almost 10 points.
CALIFORNIA HATES HILLARY NOW.
LOSE WITH DIGNITY.
May 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Clinton campaign was interested in fairness, if they had the best interests of the party in mind, Hillary would have conceded the election.
If you give them an inch, they'll take a yard. Do not negotiate with terrorists or the Clintons.
May 26, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The super delegates aren't going to be spun into thinking anything. They've already decided. They're just waiting for every vote to happen so they don't appear to be pushing her out.
They certainly aren't going to be spun by Obama giving Clinton whatever she thinks she needs to be able to say she pursued every avenue of victory and lost anyway.
In fact, I'd be more concerned that any compromise that doesn't give Clinton the largest margin of benefit would be seen by her supporters as proof that it was stolen from her. He's going to beat her anyway. I imagine they'd rather be making this decision after PR just to remove any uncertainty, but I'd still give her every latitude here just to prove she lost.
May 26, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary can withdraw from the race and they can sit whereever they want. I'm fed up with this charade. She lost. It's over. All that's left is her making a fool of herself.
May 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel ya.
May 26, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's unbelievable the MI thing is even an issue, since she can't possibly catch up to Obama's delegate lead anyway.
Hillary's theatrics remind me of the scene in Woody Allen's "Deconstructing Harry", in which Harry's eyesight, suddenly goes out of focus. His solution is to make his family wear glasses that make everything blurry, so that they see the world the same way he does.
May 30, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
the best solution is to force the legislatures of Florida and Michigan to pay for a re-vote. the DNC needs to stop being chickenshit and actually do what it sets out to and says it's going to do. if they had any backbone at all, they'd have forced this solution in and we wouldn't be having this destructive nonsense going on at the end of the primary season when we should be pivoting to John McCain.
the Florida and Michigan legislatures, both Democrat and Republican, voted these measures through. they should be punished for breaking the rules, regardless of their states' importance in the GE. isn't deferential treatment for "important people" one of the abiding injustices of American life?
May 26, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you intend to force them to pay for a re-vote?
May 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those who might be interested, here's a link to the live blog done by the El Paso Times for Obama's appearance in Las Cruces earlier today:
http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/best/
May 26, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest musical chairs for the settlement of the Michigan/Florida compromise. The Obama team should be David Axelrod, Bill Burton, and the Clinton team, Howard Wolfson, and Mark Penn. Whoever gets the last chair left shall prevail in the settlement.
May 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes about as much sense as Douchebag Davis' proposal.
May 26, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the Obama people not to give Hillary her way to shut her up. I don't want her to be able to have any more delegates than necessary. I wouldn't trust her or the superdelegates, and would not want the margin closer than it has to be.
May 26, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink