BartBlog

June 2, 2008

The BIGGER, bigger picture…

Filed under: Uncategorized — macrobank @ 11:01 am

Man, it’s so easy to get distracted in this whole thing.  Full disclosure?  I’m an Obama guy.  That said, I’m going to just cut to the chase and stipulate that Barack did, in fact, choose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot.  Although I’m not privy to Obama campaign strategy sessions, I would acknowledge the possibility that he did so as some kind of “hat tip” to Iowa.   I would agree that such a strategy would constitute a “political calculation”.  I would submit, however, that Hillary’s choice to leave her name on the ballot also constituted a “political calculation”.

But the premise that Barack “traded” 17 votes for 7 is incorrect.  At the time the Obama camp was developing that strategy, Michigan’s votes were understood to be excluded, so he “traded” 0 votes for 7.  To me, that means he was able to make what amounted to a grandiose gesture to Iowa because the DNC (not Barack and not Hillary)  had decided to punish Michigan and Florida.  I would agree that it was a “calculation” and I would even submit that it was a mis-calculation.

It depends on an extremely broad definition of “campaigning” in Michigan to include the idea that even appearing on the ballot constitutes “campaigning”.  I think having one’s name on the ballot is simply standing for election and does not qualify as “campaigning”.  Therefore, I think Barack’s grandiose gesture to Iowa may have been based upon faulty reasoning in interpreting the DNC’s rules as extending to having one’s name on the ballot.

But…so what?  Barack based his strategy – made his “calculations”, if you will – on his understanding of the rules.  Hillary also selected a strategy – made her own “calculation” – to leave her name on the ballot based on her understanding of the rules.  Whether Barack’s was a clever or faulty strategy in that regard, neither party disputes the fact that everybody understood Michigan’s primary votes would not count and that, it seems to me, is the salient point.  The rules said Michigan’s votes wouldn’t count.  It’s reasonable to accept that the Obama camp would have developed a different strategy had Michigan’s votes been “in play” at the time, although I again acknowledge I am in no way “authorized” to speak for “the Obama camp”.

So what are we really left with?  HE made a calculation; SHE made a calculation.   HIS calculation indicates a belief that the rules that existed at the end of the campaign would be the same as the rules at the beginning of the campaign.  HER calculation left open the possibility that…well…rules change…

But the rules shouldn’t change in the middle of the process and that’s really all there is to it…

4 Comments

  1. But why would any politician with a brain take his/her name off a ballot?

    So the Rules Committee could help him snatch the votes of a state he couldn’t win?

    Comment by Bart — June 2, 2008 @ 11:04 am

  2. The RBC changed the rules in the middle of the game. They awarded Obama delegates that he didn’t earn based on exit polls, people who already voted for Repubs, and warm fuzzy feelings. Donna Brazile’s momma says that’s cheating.

    I’m glad I don’t have to defend that. Especially when Obama’s slim 100 pledged delegate lead depended on millions of people being shut out of all those red state caucuses.

    I can’t lie and say Obama’s shit tastes like sunshine. What would my momma say?

    Comment by Danger Bear — June 2, 2008 @ 12:34 pm

  3. Turns out the stupid move was the smart one.

    If Obama’s name had been on the ballot he would have received those delegates proportional to his vote count.

    Instead he received more delegates proportionally than he would have if he’d been on the ballot as we would have been beaten pretty soundly. If the other candidates at the time had likewise remained on they would have taken some of Obama’s more than some of Clinton’s.

    Great deal, the quitter wins…

    Comment by zenferret — June 2, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

  4. But was this not inevitable from the moment the rules committee decided to change the rules? For the record, I disagree with the decision to “appoint” votes to Barack just as much as I disagree with the decision to change the rules mid-contest.

    But Barack didn’t make the rules and Barack didn’t change the rules. Once the door was opened for change, though, one can hardly blame the Obama camp for trying to garner as many votes as possible and “fair” doesn’t enter into the question since “fair” goes out the window with a mid-race rule change…

    Stupid DNC…

    Comment by macrobank — June 3, 2008 @ 7:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress