Let’s at least make one thing clear: Hillary Clinton’s claim that she is ahead in the popular vote for the Democratic nomination, based upon her having “won” the renegade “primaries” in Michigan and Florida, is both nonsense and potentially fatally destructive of the Democratic campaign.
First the nonsense. In both states, because the local parties decided to hold primaries out of order and much earlier than scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, those votes did not count, and the delegates chosen will not be counted at the August convention.
In Michigan, Obama honored the rules of the game and asked that his name be removed from the ballot. Clinton, already plotting for a fall-back scheme, left her name on the ballot (her campaign disingenuously claimed they “forgot” to remove it). So it was Hillary against Nobody. Even so, Nobody did pretty well back on Jan. 15, grabbing 40 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 55 percent. Moreover, turnout was an abysmal 20 percent. Clearly most Democrats and independents (who in Michigan, unlike in Pennsylvania, were allowed to vote in either party’s primary) didn’t bother to even go to the polls. It’s safe to assume that the Clinton machine in Michigan was quietly encouraging its backers to go cast ballots, too, while Nobody didn’t have any campaign staff, and so could not do that, so even Clinton’s numbers, such as they are, are questionable. The idea that the results of that joke of a primary could be counted, and that the delegates and vote totals could be assigned to the Clinton column is beyond preposterous.
Florida, where another renegade primary was held on on January 29, is not all that different. In that case, turnout was still low—just 34 percent,--but unlike in other “real” primaries, where Democrats were consistently turning out in numbers that swamped Republican turnout, in Florida, more Republicans participated than Democrats. That makes it clear that many Democrats simply stayed home, knowing that they were wasting their time voting for a presidential choice. Clearly too, overall turnout was as high as it was not because of the presidential primary, but because there was a controversial and hotly contested measure also on the ballot, and it did count: a proposal to change the state’s constitution to increase the homestead tax exemption (it passed by a 2:1 margin). Again, this vote indicates that most primary participants were Republican, since more Democrats were opposing the deduction, because it cuts funds for schools and other services, and more Democrats tend to be renters, for whom the exemption would be no benefit. Both Clinton’s and Obama’s names were on the ballot in Florida, but while Obama honored a DNC request not to campaign there, Clinton made a last minute, highly publicized dash to the state before the voting, putting in an appearance at a fund-raising event and getting her name and face in the media. Even with this unfair edge, Clinton only won 49.7 percent of the votes, compared to Obama’s 33 percent. But even that result is unreliable because John Edwards’ name was still on the ballot too, and he garnered 14.4 percent. Arguably, many of his votes, in a real primary later in the season, would have gone to Obama. In any case, it is clear that this was not a valid measure of sentiment among the state’s Democratic voters. Clinton, in January, was already a well-known figure, while Obama was still new and unknown, and without any campaigning, it is understandable that voters who did show up at the polls would vote for someone they knew.
I’ve talked with Florida residents—very politically active people who would not miss a primary—who said they stayed home on Jan. 29. As one (a Clinton supporter as it happens) said, “Why go to all that trouble to vote when it doesn’t count?” Given that this must have been a widespread sentiment, how can anyone say that the vote that was conducted should now be counted? Again, as in Michigan, it would be more unfair to count that election than to ignore it.
The Clinton machine is demanding that Michigan and Florida voters and delegates be counted. If they were, she’d be competitive in delegates (Obama wouldn’t even get any from Michigan, which is absurd on its face!) and could claim to have an edge in the national popular vote, but it would be a sham. Everyone, however, would know this to be a sham. If she went on to win the nomination, everyone would know it was a fraud. Many Democrats and independents would abandon her and the party, and the election would go to McCain.
It seems obvious that this desperate gambit by Clinton—one which her campaign has been planning on since the beginning—is a scorched-earth strategy designed to get her the nomination at all costs, including the cost of insuring a Republican victory in November. The media love the idea, however, since, like the continuing pointless campaign in the remaining primary states, is boosting TV ratings just like a World Wrestling “Smackdown” program.
If the Democratic Party were, in the end, to allow the counting of these two unsanctioned, and uncontested primaries to determine the party’s nominee, and if the result were to reverse the decision of the voters in the legitimate primaries and caucuses, it would be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.
Hey, hold on! Now I’m thinking maybe this might be a good idea after all!
Hmmmm. Here’s an idea: Say Clinton manages to bully party leaders into allowing the Michigan and Florida sham primaries to count, and she “wins” the party’s nomination. She would then face McCain, who is himself unpopular among certain factions of the Republican Party—notably the Huckabee populists, and the Paul libertarians.
Suppose then that Obama, who has already demonstrated his strong appeal among young and minority Democrats and among independents, and who has also demonstrated a remarkable fundraising ability from individual contributors, were to announce that he’s running as an independent Third Party candidate, or perhaps as the nominee of some existing third party—say the Reform Party.
He might just go on to win that three-way race, and in the process reshape the nation’s sorry political system. ___________ DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is ‘The Case for Impeachment’ (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback. His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
"Spoiling" the Dem Party would be immensely constructive,
but it's just a tantalizing daydream to imagine Obama actively helping to bring this about. He has some decent qualities, but he's no revolutionary. On the contrary, he's a genuine "play-by-the-rules" and "work-within-the-system" kind of guy -- actually very conservative, in many ways.
If he even thought about running as an independent, his whole "unity" shtick would be gone in an instant. The media would gleefully brand him as a dangerous subversive, "now revealing his true intention to destabilize American institutions." They'd have a great time -- it's painful to even think about what they'd do to him. (As we saw on ABC last week, they're itching to do this to him anyway -- whether or not he gives them any solid reason to view him as threatening to their interests.)
A mass exodus from the Democratic Party would be immensely salutary for the prospects of the former Republic, however. If the DP is brought down, the 2-party system is brought down. The system has terminal arteriosclerosis, & desperately needs to be brought down. The DP is the system's weaker link. It would be easier to destroy it than the RP, because the gap between what its supporters imagine it represents, and what it really represents, is much larger than is the case with the Republicans.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1013 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM
Sean Wilentz wondered how Obama can be "winning" when Hillary actually leads. His article on Salon.com 4-07 "Why Hillary Should Be Winning," is case in point. But due to apportioned delegates, the picture gets skewed in the media and in the public mind. (Not to mention in the weight-measuring of potential funders--a very signifcant factor, indeed.)
Wayne Barrett also brought to our attention: the whole brouhaha over MI and FL's debacle lies on the doorstep of Republican stategists who decided to micromanage not only their campaign but the Dem's as well. Now there is a shocker! He breaks down the game plan over on Huffington Post. The truth has a way of rising to the surface; just hope it is in time to pack Obama's flimsy resume all the way back to Illinois via D.C.
Wilentz says in a winner-take-all system, Hillary would lead even without the MI and FL delegates. And that the Obama camp is employing the same dirty tactics GW Bush people used in Florida in 2000. They seem in good company--birds of a feather, you know....
At Real Clear Politics online as of Wed. this week, Hillary has gleaned more of the popular vote by 121,000 if you count the certified votes in MI and FL. That means more voters want Hillary to be the Party nominee. Obama left his name off the ballot; his choice, according to some observers. I think one of them was Sen. Levin; but I would have to double check on that.
Since when is it unconstitutional to demand the people's votes be counted? Who is making the rules to disallow our voice to be heard? Seems it is an odd collaborative effort between those who want Obama to be the nominee. In both Parties. (Dean denies any bias; however, it has just surfaced that the Dem Party and Land of Lincolner funding have reached a joint plan to allow money to go to both Obama's camp and into national Party coffers. Now who is being coy?) Found at noquarterusa.net/blog/
Terry McCauliff, Clinton's campaign manager, is urging Hillary supporters to let Howard Dean know we mean business; two superdelegates from Florida have filed a complaint and Dean refuses to refer it to the rules committee for arbitration, as would normally be required in a fair process. The superdelegates were not chosen by primary vote and therefore should be exempted from the rules barring the Florida delegation. But this is not an ordinary election season...cider house rules seem to apply.
Dean wants to pull rank and demands the delegation dilemma be settled by June. He doesn't speak democratically for the voters; he speaks unilaterally for the Obama people who fear further scrutiny will damage their limping runner.
by
Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments)
on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 4:20:13 PM
