Risking the ire of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton and Dodd campaigns decided to remain on the Michigan Primary ballot. The DNC has promised Michigan Dems their delegation will not be seated if they hold to the early date the state approved recently. The state organization has howled in protest - even though the position of the DNC was made absolutely clear well in advance of Michigan's decision.
This decision by the Clinton campaign would seem to be trying to highlight her toughness and independence (I guess) - but there is an arrogance about it which could backfire.
Democratic organizations and voters in at least the four first primary/caucus states implored the presidential candidates to take a pass on contests not within the national party guidelines. Most listened, including John Edwards and Barrack Obama.
If you're a voter in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada, what would you think of a candidate who acts with complete disdain towards what you hold near and dear. My reaction would be that there's a heck of a good field this time and anything that helps narrow the choices is useful.
For the Dodd campaign, it makes the distinguished Senator look like a bit of a bottom feeder (I'm sorry to say). As for Ms. Clinton...well it seems Hillaryesque. The whole tone of her run has seemed tinged with a low level arrogance and indifference which people may find grating.
I think it is a big mistake, and has the potential to cost Ms. Clinton the nomination. She's been running strong in New Hampshire and recently pulled herself into the thick of the Iowa race thanks in large part to an aggressive television campaign there. But we've all seen opinions change sharply and suddenly in past years in the early states.
The only potential upside I can see is that the Clinton campaign has made the calculation that the DNC will relent and seat the Michigan delegation. And they'd of course have just about all the delegates. It seems a completely cynical and arrogant view. The DNC cannot do that without grevious damage to the Party. The layers of betrayal in decision like that takes one's breath away.
I guess we'll see. One thing's for certain - there are no "take backs" on this one. The date one can withdraw one's name from the ballot in Michigan has now passed.
Don Wheeler
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
this is a real interesting question, as it has the potential for sliding under the radar ("some technical campaign crap..." the average voter might say) or being a big issue twice: once when she snubs the "four state" voters, and again when just her name appears on the michigan ballot (watch that one the last 4 weeks as the word really gets out that edwards, obama, etc. are not there).
beyond that the potential exists for this to be used against her again in the general.
if i'm hillary i would try to create the impression that i'm standing up for michigan democacy and "the will of the people" by heroically standing up for their "right to vote". (note how neatly those statements fit in a sound byte...)
here's some electoral math to add to the mix: total population of the four states: 10.944 million. population of michigan: 10.120 million (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html)
electoral votes: 4 states, 24
michigan 20
finally: this could backfire on edwards/obama as the michigan voters either buy into the "heroic hillary" meme or fail to understand the edwards/obama logic behind their absence. ("we chose not to appear on the ballot because of a longstanding electoral tradition that upholds the best expressions of our democracy..." and the channel is changed. in the sound byte war, hillary has the advantage here.)
it would be possible to interpret a large (60% +) vote for hillary against all others as "momentum" (we assume that will be her spin on events); and it might be difficult for edwards/obama to counter that perception.
Post a Comment