Trailhead: A campaign blog.

The Florida-Michigan Repair Kit

Over the last two weeks, pressure has been building to get both Michigan and Florida’s delegations seated at the Democratic National Convention. Florida has set a self-imposed deadline of Monday to sort itself out, while Michigan has to reach a resolution by Thursday (before the state legislature goes on vacation). People have been proposing all sorts of solutions, from splitting the delegates to mail-in revotes. Because we can barely keep track of the proposals ourselves, here’s a guide to what’s on the table:

1) A Florida in-person primary. A classic do-over. Democrats show up to a polling place, vote for somebody, and go home.

Cost: An estimated $25 million. That’s a serious chunk of change for a state that has already paid for a primary. The only way that they could come up with the money is if Clinton supporters and Govs. John Corzine (New Jersey) and Ed Rendell (Pennsylania) followed through on their promise to raise money.

Whom it helps: Hillary Clinton. That’s why her campaign is the only group who wants this to happen.

Why it won’t happen: Nobody wants to shell out $25 million for a vote that’s likely to look very similar to the last one. On Jan. 29, Clinton won 55 percent to Barack Obama’s 33 percent. (John Edwards—remember him?—was still in the race at the time.) Currently, polls say she pulls 59 percent of voters and Obama grabs 39 percent. With other options on the table, Obama will never agree to this one.

2) A Florida mail-in primary. All registered Democrats would be sent a ballot in the mail at least two weeks ahead of the June 3 primary date. Ballots must be received by June 3, not postmarked by then. There would be only 50 in-person polling places across the state.

Cost: Originally, the plan was quoted at $4 million to $6 million. Now it’s inflated to $10 million to $12 million because of security precautions. The funding would almost certainly have to come from soft money, which means Corzine and Rendell may be involved, again.

Whom it helps: Clinton, but Obama could live with this option. For Obama, it gets the delegations seated and the mail-in procedure favors fervent supporters who will remember to mail in the ballot. For Clinton, she gets to grab the delegates she thinks have always rightfully belonged to her.

Why it won’t happen: It’s still unclear whether an all mail-in primary is even legal. There’s a huge hang-up on how to verify voters’ signatures that would take an emergency piece of legislation or an executive order to mollify. The Miami Herald has a great article on why that probably won’t happen. Plus, the people who like the idea—GOP Gov. and possible McCain VP Charlie Crist, Sen. Bill Nelson, and the state Democratic Party—are outnumbered by the nine Florida congressmen who don’t like the idea.

3) A Michigan in-person primary. It’s the same story as it was in January, except this time both Obama and Clinton are on the ballot.

Cost: It could run as high as $12 million, which would be paid for by soft money in one way or another. Corzine and Rendell could get tapped, or Obama and Clinton’s campaign could go dutch and split the bill 50-50.

Whom it helps: Obama. He’s already polling at a tie with Clinton, and he hasn’t stumped there. (Neither has she.) If he wins a populous swing state like Michigan, it would help him make the case to superdelegates that he’s the stronger November candidate.

Why it won’t happen: If Michigan Democrats can’t agree on the best approach, then it could fall apart. Otherwise, the outlook is good.

4) Seating Florida’s current delegation and arbitrarily tying Michigan. Everybody would agree to give up on the revote idea and come to a compromise. Florida’s delegation would be seated at the convention based on January’s vote, but each delegate would cast only half a vote as lingering punishment for cutting the line in the first place. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton would agree to split the Michigan delegation 50-50. If you’re thinking that that doesn’t make any sense, you’re right. More on why below.

Cost: The best part of this plan: It’s free!

Whom it helps: Obama more than Clinton, most likely. He gets the Florida/Michigan monkey off his back and takes half the vote in Michigan. Obama’s campaign is on the record in favor of a 50-50 split. Plus, he gets to limit the damage in Florida, which Clinton would have won again.

Why it won’t happen: This is actually somewhat likely to happen if Michigan can’t figure out a way to stage a revote. But that doesn’t make it a good option. The idea behind seating these delegations was to make sure the two states’ Democrats weren’t disenfranchised. But splitting the vote 50-50 in Michigan essentially does disenfranchise them. Michigan would then have no impact on the race; its delegation would be window-dressing at the convention. Heck, even if you gave Michigan a bajillion delegates, it still wouldn’t matter if the candidates split its delegates 50-50. (See Slate’s delegate calculator for an illustration on how this would work.)

Democrats for Romney!

When all is said and done, Michigan Democrats may have more viable choices on the ballot than most other voters. Originally, Michigan residents thought that they would only be able to vote for Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel at their primary on Jan. 15. Then came word that anti-Hillary Michigan residents were launching a renegade campaign to get people to vote for “uncommitted”—a post-modern rebellion if there ever was one. Now Michigan Dems are being given yet another option: Vote for Mitt Romney.

Markos Moulitsas—the Daily Kos guy—thinks that the Demcorats are damned if they do and damned if they don’t in the choice between uncommitted and Clinton. So instead, he’s rallying Democrats behind Mitt Romney, hoping that Mitt’s presence will help create more inner strife in the GOP. 

As we see it, Michigan Democrats have four options, and each has its pros and cons.

1. Vote for Hillary – Pros: If you like Hillary, there’s the chance you can float her above the 60 percent mark, which is necessary to help her avoid derision from the press. Cons: How boring—especially when so many other devious options exist.
2. Vote for uncommitted – Pros: Support the Obama-Edwards axis of change; be an ironic cog in the movement founded upon apathy; screw with Hillary’s head. Cons: Unless you really hate Hillary, it’s a wasted vote; may prove even her own party hates her, which won’t help general-election unity.
3. Vote for Romney – Pros: Kos’ ego doesn’t need to get any bigger, but he’s right—a vote for Romney messes with Republicans’ heads and weakens the party; if there’s any candidate whom self-aware Democrats should vote for, it’s Romney; a Democrat-fueled Romney win in Michigan is worth it just to see the spin. Cons: It splits the uncommitted coalition up, which will make for a quieter and harder-to-track rebuke of Clinton.
4. Vote for Dennis Kucinich. – Pros: It’s better than not voting at all; the guy is due for a karmic boost. Cons: Voting for Romney or uncommitted does more mischief; you might as well shred your ballot—it has the same effect in the overall scheme of things.

Michigan "Beauty Contest" Could Get Ugly

Ever since Michigan violated Democratic Party rules by moving its primary up to Jan. 15, thereby getting its delegates stripped, people have been calling the race a “beauty contest.” And considering that the only Democrats still on the ballot are Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, it’s not hard to guess who’s the fairest of them all.

But a new campaign to get voters to check “Uncommitted” on the ballot could prevent an otherwise inevitable Clinton victory. Ben Smith has the promo video here.

A group pushing this move, Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, suggests that an “Uncommitted” vote is a vote for Obama. But really, it’s a vote against Hillary. And that’s why it has the potential to hurt her so badly—it might attract people who currently support Edwards and Richardson as well.

But no matter what happens, she’s sort of screwed. If she does win a decisive victory, it will look hollow (and maybe even vaguely Stalinist, given that she’s the only viable candidate on the ballot), considering her main opponent is a nameless, faceless concept. People can say the movement never gained traction. If she loses to “Uncommitted,” or even wins by only a small margin, it will humiliate her campaign. If she can't even win against "Uncommitted," how can she expect to beat Obama? the thinking will go. According to a pollster for the Detroit News, “anything less than 60 percent in Michigan would be a black eye for Clinton.”

Who knows where that cutoff comes from, but that’s the point: No matter what the result, anyone can spin it against her. Perhaps staying on the ballot was not the wisest choice.