Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

As Clinton moves forward, Democrats may have taken a step back

By Ed Brayton | 03.05.08 | 4:28 pm

[COMMENTARY] Tuesday night was not a good night for the Democratic Party.

There were two possibilities going into the key primaries in Ohio and Texas: either Sen. Barack Obama was going to distance himself further from Sen. Hillary Clinton, all but cripple her campaign and assure himself of the Democratic presidential nomination, or Clinton was going to make just enough of a comeback to keep her campaign limping along into Pennsylvania and the remaining primary states.

The second outcome — Clinton won both Ohio and Texas Tuesday night — is the worst possible result for the party as it heads into the general election because it brings back into the realm of possibility a whole range of nasty fights that could damage the party in the months ahead. Had Hillary lost ground, the odds of those fights happening would have been greatly diminished.

At this point it is all but impossible for Clinton to win the delegate count or the popular vote. She made some small gains Tuesday night, but she’s still well behind in both and would have to win by very large margins in the remaining states to overtake Obama by either measurement. Obama is almost certain to go to the national convention with the lead in pledged delegates, popular vote and number of states won.

Continued -

But it also means Clinton will arrive at the convention close enough in delegates and votes to make the argument that she won the larger states, and the big swing states that will determine the November general election. She will then make that argument to the superdelegates to vote for her and swing the nomination in her favor. That would be a disaster for the Democratic Party this fall.

Al Gore, Howard Dean and many other Democratic leaders have been terrified of that eventuality for weeks, but with Obama’s recent momentum it looked like the worst was going to be avoided. It appeared Obama would have a large enough lead by the time of the convention that Clinton could not justify a push to get the superdelegates to swing the vote in her favor.

But if the gap is fairly small, if the superdelegates do give Clinton the nomination over a candidate who got more popular votes and more pledged delegates during the primaries and caucuses, it will hand the Republicans a huge issue in the general election and scare swing voters away from voting Democratic.

If Clinton were to try such a move and succeed, it would rightly be seen by both Republicans and Democrats as undemocratic, a power grab by party officials to ignore the will of the rank and file. Exit polls in Texas Tuesday showed that two-thirds of Democrats want the superdelegates to vote for whichever candidate wins the primaries. It would also reinforce the perception that Clinton is ruthless and power hungry and will do anything to win, even if it’s hypocritical (remember the mantra of 2000: every vote counts) and even if it violates the will of the rank and file.

The ones who can avoid that outcome are the superdelegates themselves. If they decide, en masse, to vote to ratify the will of the voters rather than negate that will, this dystopic outcome will be avoided. The fact is that the superdelegates already have had the only vote to which they are entitled — the vote in their own state primary or caucus. If a bunch of bigwigs and power brokers from the party get a second vote and use it to reverse the clearly expressed will of Democratic voters, I predict that Clinton will lose the general election in the fall.

Basically, Obama needs to go to the convention with a lead of more than one touchdown to prevent Clinton from trying a “Hail Mary” pass that, should it succeed, would do enormous damage to the Democratic Party’s prospects for winning the general election.

That might still be avoided if Obama wins the remaining primaries in dominant fashion. But Tuesday night’s results make it a lot less likely. And that means the chances of a nasty convention fight over whether to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates and over the superdelegates is far more likely today than it was two days ago. And if that happens, the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Comments

  • mimike

    The Will Of The People Hmmm…I think I’ve heard this story before…power brokers and political mucky-mucks over-riding the will of the people in an election.

    The Democrats have whined incessantly (and perhaps rightfully so) about the Bush/Gore vote and how the will of the people (as expressed in popular vote) was ignored.

    If the Democrat power brokers do the same and choose Clinton over Obama (presuming he stays ahead in popular vote) then they will have proved that there really is precious little difference between the two parties.

    And some of us have been saying that for years.

  • Celeste Whiting

    Politics and power grabbing, are like bread and butter I hope you are not arguing that it is unseemly for a strong candidate to persist in her effort to win.  Or that strategic thinking about big swing states in November is crass. 

    And what’s wrong with a good old fashioned convention fight? It could make for good television, high drama, proof that the convention has a purpose other than being a rubber stamp process. The GOP may be ready to march lockstep into November, but that just isn’t the Dems way in the world. 

    Let Clinton go for the “Hail Mary” and let the Dems show their resilience in the face of diverse opinion.

  • Celeste Whiting

    I’m from Chicago… …so watching a messy election unfold is mostly interesting. 

    I’m not sure one can characterize the popular vote accruing from state Democratic primaries as the “will of the party rank and file.” There is a hodge podge of open, closed, and semi-closed primaries and caucuses across the country. And in early elections, some of the rank and file supported other candidates, like John Edwards. The enigmatic ‘Uncommitted’ won in Ann Arbor. In open elections, non-party members cast votes. So this thing we are looking at is inherently a messy, inconsistent, imperfect process — nothing close to a direct primary.

  • mimike

    The Will Of The People Hmmm…I think I've heard this story before…power brokers and political mucky-mucks over-riding the will of the people in an election.

    The Democrats have whined incessantly (and perhaps rightfully so) about the Bush/Gore vote and how the will of the people (as expressed in popular vote) was ignored.

    If the Democrat power brokers do the same and choose Clinton over Obama (presuming he stays ahead in popular vote) then they will have proved that there really is precious little difference between the two parties.

    And some of us have been saying that for years.

  • Celeste Whiting

    Politics and power grabbing, are like bread and butter I hope you are not arguing that it is unseemly for a strong candidate to persist in her effort to win.  Or that strategic thinking about big swing states in November is crass. 

    And what's wrong with a good old fashioned convention fight? It could make for good television, high drama, proof that the convention has a purpose other than being a rubber stamp process. The GOP may be ready to march lockstep into November, but that just isn't the Dems way in the world. 

    Let Clinton go for the “Hail Mary” and let the Dems show their resilience in the face of diverse opinion.

  • LoRayne Apo-Joynt

    More going on than meets the eye If this primary campaign remains this close for the duration, the chances of going strongly negative increase dramatically (as we've already seen in Ohio, with the “3:00 am” ads and NAFTAgate).  This is NOT good for Brand Dem.

    If the fight goes all the way to the convention, it won't be settled on the convention floor.  It's going to be behind the scenes maneuvering by old school machine politics that will settle this — and that's not democratic (little d).  Again, NOT good for Brand Dem.

    There's an enormous difference between being lockstep within a top-down organization, and party unity in a bottom-up organization.  The Dems are emerging from a time when machine politics “offered” the rank-and-file their choice of candidate, to a time when the grassroots selects and support its own.  What we are seeing is this messy, generational shift, with the future of the Democratic Party literally on the line, with two strong candidates on either side of this shift.  Unless both old school and the newly emerged populist factions of the party can remember how successful party discipline has been for the opposition party, and learn to employ such discipline while picking their candidates, there will be a gaping crevasse in the party come January 2008.

  • Ed Brayton

    Celeste… I am suggesting that it's unseemly for a strong candidate to attempt to win in an undemocratic manner by convincing the superdelegates to overrule the will of the primary and caucus voters. I'm hardly alone in that. Those superdelegates simply should not exist. They have already had the only vote they are entitled to, the one in their individual state contests. I stand by my opinion: if that happens, if the superdelegates elevate the 2nd place candidate in number of delegates and number of votes and make them the nominee, it's going to be a disaster for the party. It will make the Democrats lose the least losable election since 1976.

  • Celeste Whiting

    I'm from Chicago… …so watching a messy election unfold is mostly interesting. 

    I'm not sure one can characterize the popular vote accruing from state Democratic primaries as the “will of the party rank and file.” There is a hodge podge of open, closed, and semi-closed primaries and caucuses across the country. And in early elections, some of the rank and file supported other candidates, like John Edwards. The enigmatic 'Uncommitted' won in Ann Arbor. In open elections, non-party members cast votes. So this thing we are looking at is inherently a messy, inconsistent, imperfect process — nothing close to a direct primary.

  • LoRayne Apo-Joynt

    More going on than meets the eye If this primary campaign remains this close for the duration, the chances of going strongly negative increase dramatically (as we’ve already seen in Ohio, with the “3:00 am” ads and NAFTAgate).  This is NOT good for Brand Dem.

    If the fight goes all the way to the convention, it won’t be settled on the convention floor.  It’s going to be behind the scenes maneuvering by old school machine politics that will settle this — and that’s not democratic (little d).  Again, NOT good for Brand Dem.

    There’s an enormous difference between being lockstep within a top-down organization, and party unity in a bottom-up organization.  The Dems are emerging from a time when machine politics “offered” the rank-and-file their choice of candidate, to a time when the grassroots selects and support its own.  What we are seeing is this messy, generational shift, with the future of the Democratic Party literally on the line, with two strong candidates on either side of this shift.  Unless both old school and the newly emerged populist factions of the party can remember how successful party discipline has been for the opposition party, and learn to employ such discipline while picking their candidates, there will be a gaping crevasse in the party come January 2008.

  • Ed Brayton

    Celeste… I am suggesting that it’s unseemly for a strong candidate to attempt to win in an undemocratic manner by convincing the superdelegates to overrule the will of the primary and caucus voters. I’m hardly alone in that. Those superdelegates simply should not exist. They have already had the only vote they are entitled to, the one in their individual state contests. I stand by my opinion: if that happens, if the superdelegates elevate the 2nd place candidate in number of delegates and number of votes and make them the nominee, it’s going to be a disaster for the party. It will make the Democrats lose the least losable election since 1976.