Where's the DNC memo?

Nobody seems to actually have the entire memo -- TPM has 7 pages dealing with Michigan. Michigan is a fairly clear-cut case, because it has a Democratic governor and house. The Michigan Democratic party can't very well claimed they did their best to prevent the primary from being moved up. Florida, however, can make that claim, however implausible. And the DNC rules allow the Rules Committee to reinstate delegates in that case. Now, I've written that Florida doesn't really have a case. I still think that. But the Rules Committee should be able, theoretically, to overrule itself and decide that Florida does have a case. I think they shouldn't, but I don't think it's a matter of law.

Is McCain really even with Obama?

The Times has a piece on McCain's slow progress in campaigning. Mentioned as a positive is that, despite a highly-damaged Republican brand, McCain is running even with Obama in national polls. But how much is going to change once Hillary drops out and her supporters are really, truly convinced that she's gone? How many of her supporters are going to (maybe grudgingly) accept Obama? Once Obama gets nominated, he's the Democratic candidate, not a Democratic candidate. My guess is a 5-point boost, at least -- and we're seeing some of that already in the more recent polls.

Irrational cable pricing

Cable companies claim that if they offered a la carte pricing, each channel would get more expensive, because each channel depends on the fees that come from subscribers. But the per-channel fee should be calculable so that this doesn't matter. Just take the total fees currently paid by subscribers, and divide by the total number of channels times the total number of subscribers. That's how much each channel should get for each subscriber. If the claim is that people won't ask for more TV, but will watch it if they have it, make canceling channels an opt-out. If the claim is that TV sucks people in, well then the cable companies should be forced to make that argument.

Three-way Left Irrationality towards Obama: from Sekhar

There is a view on the left that Obama should be rejected as a sell-out and that a left candidate should be supported instead. Leaving aside the arrogance and self-destruction of working to defeat the first black president, there is also the idealism - Obama is opposed for his stands on certain issues despite his long service to the poor people of Chicago, while random people are supported for their position papers, regardless of their actual record. Leftists who want to oppose Obama should, at a minimum, compare his community work with what the "left" candidates have done.

The second line of attack is that Obama was progressive once but has sold out. This is again idealism, ignoring the real-life problems faced by a radical and how one manages to deal with them while remaining progressive. McKinney, for instance, has so little political savvy she could not even hold on to her seat against another black candidate.

The Sunday NY Times has a long article on Obama in Chicago. It can be read in multiple ways. A pure leftist can read it as the story of a sell-out. I read it as how a man with good politics learned how to work in the system to do good. I was at a local community function on Sunday. They were honoring local people who were "good neighbors." The person who runs the group gave a talk, whose main point was that Obama's rise is about the importance of community organizing from the bottom up. I found one of his points very interesting - when Obama went to Chicago and began his community work (1984?), he found few takers for militant action; local blacks pointed out they had just elected the first black mayor, Harold Washington. Obama had to adapt to a reality different from what he had imagined for an oppressed black community.

The third line of attack is to call the Obama movement personality-based or charisma-based (the left may be too polite to say cult), and not a movement for social change. I am sure there are a few teens (and some older) who are like cult-followers. But the people who put their careers on hold to work for Obama are not just following the personality. Frank Rich has a vastly better-written account, also in the Sunday Times.

When one and a half million people contribute to a political campaign, and when, in quite a few states, more people vote in the primary than Kerry got in the general election in 2004, the Left should take it seriously.

The issue that drives so many is Iraq. The anti-war movement chose Obama because he was an early and consistent opponent. The NY Times article expresses surprise that, in his 2002 speech, he said he didn't oppose all wars. The reporter doesn't realize that people against the Iraq invasion are not anti-all wars. I was reminded of Cindy Sheehan who does fit the reporter's idea of an anti-war figure. A few years back, she spoke at the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade program in New York. Speaking to an audience of people who had supported the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War (many with their lives) and then enlisted in the Second World War, and their descendants and admirers, Sheehan expressed her opposition to all wars, including the Second - not the best venue to express such a stupid thought. But I digress.

Returning to Iraq, moveon.org is a good example. I understand it was started by people who opposed Clinton's impeachment, the name coming from the sentiment to criticize Clinton for his behavior but to "move on" to other issues. The organization was supportive of the Clintons for several years. But Hillary's support of the Iraq invasion and general saber-rattling led to their endorsing Obama. This happened because Move-On is in fact a democratic organization.

Obama has just launched Vote for Change, a 50-state effort to energize the public, not just for this election but beyond it. One has to wait and see how these movements evolve. But to deride them for not fitting in with a preconceived notion of a "social movement" is to jump to conclusions prematurely.

The Sunday NY Times also had an article claiming that the negative campaigning by the Clintons with help from Jeremiah Wright has made Obama a better candidate for November. I think that is correct; it is far better that Wright came out now and not later. However, for whatever reason, the Clinton campaign did not raise the Palestinian question. We can be sure that will be a big issue for the Republicans, both to move Israel-supporters away from the Democratic party and also to link Obama to Islamic terrorism. McCain is already talking about Hamas endorsing Obama. The Times Obama profile gives a reasonable account of Obama's interactions with Palestinians.

Clinton's loan

In paying off her $11 million loan to her campaign, Bloomberg reports, as others have, that she cannot do so after the Democratic convention, making it more likely that she stay in. It does raise an interesting possibility, though -- she could ask donors who have given to her general election fund to redirect their contributions towards her 2012 Senate run. She could then pay off the vendors, etc., through that fund.

clinton pre-mortems: from Sekhar

There is a lot of analysis on why Clnton lost, but it is mostly about
details. Time has "The Five Mistakes Clinton Made," but there is no mention of Iraq. Others have discussed her refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.

But it is still about tactics. That she authorized Bush because she would want similar powers if/when she became President, that she continued to support US occupation - these are not mentioned.

Even on a tactical level, that she relied on large donors instead of using the Internet, and that she focused on large primary states instead of smaller states and caucus states are viewed as tactical errors. Thisanalysis is fundamentally wrong. Over a year ago, I met friends of my daughter who were already working full-time for Obama, willing to travelfrom state to state, spending a few weeks in each place. There have been repeated stories in the media about graduate students (including Indians) who have suspended their careers to campaign for Obama, and about people in different communities spontaneously organizing support groups (with advice from barackobama.com). It is this groundswell of support that made it possible for Obama to rely on the Internet and to campaign in every state, small and large. The media completely overlook the movement aspect of the Obama campaign, focusing instead on details, as if Clinton could have matched Obama on the Web if only she had a better site, succeeded in caucus states if only she had spent some money there, etc.

I also found the NY Times story I posted earlier very interesting - that the tactics associated with Bill Clinton in the 90's were often executed with Hillary's enthusiastic participation. That explains the ruthlessness of the present campaign as not just Bill's doing. It also explains her continued negative campaign. She has released a letter to Obama on resolving Florida and Michigan, but it has more attacks than any actual solutions. More significant is the USA Today interview with the explicit racial comment (below).

From the letter:

When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported.

Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.

But not just any resolution:

It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver.

The Michigan Democratic leadership, which supports Clinton, have made a proposal but Clinton has rejected it. Clinton is urging not only that delegations from those two states be
seated, but seated in full (and without Obama receiving any delegates
at all from Michigan, where his name was not on the ballot).

USA Today has an audio link to the racial comments, which are remarkable for suggesting that (1) all hard-working Americans are white, and (2) poor whites will not vote for Obama. Jon Stewart had a good segment on it last night. Daily Kos has a post challenging the factual basis of Clinton's comment that Obama's vote share in any white group is declining, but I am skeptical that he has the right subgroup data. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Clinton supporter, is saying the same thing:

Senator Clinton continues to demonstrate that she has what it takes to win the Presidency ... while Senator Obama does well in areas and demographic groups that the Democratic nominee will win anyway. She has my full support, as she is the best candidate ... and would be the best President of the United States.

This is the argument reduced to its essentials. Blacks will always vote for a Democrat, so you worry only about the white vote. One commenter at the tboblogs site says:

Posted by Justin Randolph, Miami, FL on 05/09 at 11:26 AM

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is very confused if she thinks that African-Americans will vote for Clinton if she walks into Denver trailing by every measure and walks out the nominee because enough people buy her argument that America is just too racist to vote for the black guy. Not only wouldn’t African-Americans come out to vote, the next generation of Dems who are lining up in droves to vote for Obama wouldn’t come out either. Democrats would lose the ability to win the presidency for at
least a generation.

Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post also writes about Clinton's arrogance.

Buying time

And, following on the heels of my last post, why is Clinton trying to buy time? A May surprise? There are two options. One is that she really, really doesn't want to admit losing -- the Bush rationale for staying in Iraq. The other option is that she is going to ride the bash-Obama train as far as it will take her, in an effort to wound him for the general and set her up for 2012. That really seems too Machiavellian, especially for a campaign too incompetent to find an economist ready to shill for Clinton's gas tax holiday (and too incompetent even to come up with their own pandering idea). But we'll see. Clinton has no discernible motive anymore for bashing Obama -- it's not going to convince the superdelegates, the voters don't matter anymore -- so if she does, then something is up.

June 15th is too late

Who can say how reliable this is (not very), but the Huffington Post has an interview with an unnamed Clinton adviser who says the nominee will be chosen by June 15th. There's no reason to believe them. Obama is going to have a majority of the pledged delegates on May 20th. If the FL/MI delegates are seated at half-strength, Obama will pick up 33 delegates from FL, and Clinton 89 from FL and MI (I'm not counting any MI uncommitteds as Obama). That cuts his lead to about 105. That means Clinton has to win around 2/3 of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up -- still impossible. In fact, after May 20, Obama has a pretty good chance of having an insurmountable lead even counting FL and MI -- there are 86 pledged delegates remaining at that point, and so long as Obama has lost fewer than 20 from KY, WV, and OR, he still mathematically wins. It'll be close -- KY and WV are going to be huge for Clinton, and she could easily run up 25 delegates in those states, and it's unlikely that Obama will get 5 in OR. But this is not looking like a good week for Clinton. If he can hold her to within 5 delegates in WV, he can make the case on May 20th that, even if you count FL and MI at half-strength, same as the Republicans did, there's no way she can win. All of which is to say, that June 15th is silly, even if the superdelegates let it go on that long, and there's no reason they should. It's just the Clinton campaign buying time.

Definitely not 2,209

Clinton's camp has started hitting the 2209 number (of necessary delegates) harder, as it becomes obvious to everyone that she can't make 2024.5 (she couldn't even before IN and NC, but whatever). But where does this 2209 (actually 2208.5) come from? It assumes that FL and MI delegates -- pledged and super -- will be seated in full force by the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), or after some appeal. But there is absolutely no reason for that to be the case. The Delegate Selection Rules say that states that have their primaries too early are penalized 1/2 their delegates. The rules also say that the RBC can impose harsher punishments, which is what happened in this case. The RBC may lift the punishment, assuming they find that the state party made every effort to hold the primary on the proper day, but they specifically found that not to be the case earlier. Thus, the only easy way for the RBC to help Clinton is to do the minimum of the rules' sanctions -- loss of half the delegates. Moreover, the rule in question (20.C.1.a) states that all superdelegates from that state lose their votes. If that's the case, then we're just adding 93 delegates from Florida and 64 from Michigan, for an additional 157 delegates. On top of the 4048 that we have now, that makes 4205, of which "more than half" is 2103, not 2209.

Post-election: from Sekhar

Obama won by holding Clinton to a very narrow win in Indiana (margin under 2%) and sweeping North Carolina. This despite having to deal with the crazy AIDS-conspiracy-Farrakhan-all-right Wright, not to mention Clinton's populist gas tax holiday. At least the cheap-rice schemes in India benefit the very poor; the gas tax holiday was only going to enrich the oil companies.

The Washington Post's election results -- Clinton is claiming 2209 is the number of delegates now. Another article from the Post about Obama's campaign strategy after Pennsylvania. The Huffington Post has an article comparing Obama's willingness to admit imperfection with his opponents' cut-throat style. The AP story about nuns turned away from a polling place. TPM on Clinton's continued obfuscation about her husband's foundation. The Guardian's Michael Tomasky on Hillary's right turn. Carl Bernstein on Hillary's Bill Ayers tactics. Juan Cole on "obliteration." John Pomfret (great name) blogs at the Washington Post about Hillary's China-bashing. Daily Kos on Hillary's "50 years in Iraq" quote. Ellen Ladowsky at the Huffington Post thinks Hillary is delusional. The NY Times on Clinton's fighting style.

Kentucky now an important state

In Clinton's bizarre concession/we will go on/we will unite/I will get to the White House if I have to tunnel into the White House using a crack team of criminals assembled from around the world/bad Myanmar!/seat Florida+Michigan speech, she revealed that her campaign now believes she can win Kentucky. No, not against Obama in two weeks -- that's a given. In November. So the list is now: 1) obliterate Iran, 2) dismantle OPEC, and 3) win Kentucky in November against McCain. In case you're wondering, Kentucky went for Bush in 2000 by 16 points, and by 20 points in 2004.

That was not a shot

Ok, I wasn't going to post on this, because it's so asinine, but Terry McAuliffe is trying to hammer this story. Problem is, Hillary did not "do" a shot. She drank a shot -- look at the source video. She gets the shot glass, and takes a small sip, although she throws her head back a bit. But then the shot glass is clearly visible with almost all of its contents. She later finishes the glass in two more swallows. I have no problem with Hillary using this episode to show her conviviality, or common touch. But don't say she "did" a shot. It's just not true.

Predictions

Obama has failed in blowing out Clinton in NC, so he won't make up Pennsylvania, but he will come out of the night with more delegates and a gain in his popular vote lead. Pollster has Clinton up by 4.4% in IN, and Obama up by 7.8% in NC. Since the NC trend has been down for Obama, and Indiana has stayed fairly steady, these might edge closer -- say 5 for Clinton in IN, and 6 for Obama in NC -- but there's no reason to think Clinton's margin in IN will be larger, percentage-wise, than Obama's in NC, since every poll has shown Clinton stronger in IN and Obama stronger in NC. Plus, once you factor in the state sizes, it's not close. IN has 72 delegates, NC has 115. 115/72=1.58, so Clinton has to win IN by something like 1.5 times Obama's margin of victory in NC -- a 4-point Obama victory in NC means Clinton needs a 6-point victory in IN just to stay even.

Fractions!

I noticed today that Demconwatch's delegate count (taken from Greenpapers) says that Obama and Clinton both have a fractional number of pledged delegates. Turns out this has been the case at least since April 12, when Democrats Abroad finished their allocation of 4.5 to Obama and 2.5 to Clinton. There are 4048 total delegates total. Usually, "50%+1" is a majority, but here, because DA split their votes fractionally, and there are still more superdelegates with fractional votes undecided, 2024.5 is a majority that either of the candidates might achieve. Currently, Obama has a fractional pledged count and a whole superdelegate count, while Clinton has fractions on both, and so a whole total.

Unfortunately, 1/2 is the smallest fractional delegate allowed for the convention -- although on the Credentials Committee, Guam has .25 of a vote.

Prosecuting racism

The Times has a piece on a Human Rights Watch report about racism in drug arrests and prison time. One implication of the statistics is interesting, because it puts the lie to conservatives who argue that police are going after drug use that leads to violence, and therefore leave suburban white kids alone, while harassing inner-city youth. That is as follows: According to the report, 35.1% of drug possession arrests are of blacks. But felony convictions for drug possession are split 50-49 between blacks and whites, according to the Bureau of Justice. That can't be due to emphasis on policing certain areas. Yet:

Some crime experts say that the disparities exist for sound reasons. For example, said Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, blacks and Hispanics are more often involved than whites in the distribution and sale of heroin and cocaine.

Ms. MacDonald said it made sense for the police to focus more on fighting visible drug dealing in the inner city, largely involving minorities, than on hidden use in suburban homes, more often by whites, because the urban street trade is more associated with violence and other crimes and impairs the quality of life.

Don't throw sand in our eyes by talking about distribution and sale! Let's talk about simple drug possession. Of course, we need the breakdowns by drug and by prior record to really make a case, but let's not confuse the issue -- on drug possession alone, blacks are treated unfairly.
And that unfairness isn't limited to likelihood of arrest -- it extends to likelihood of conviction given arrest.

More credentials minutiae

To throw another twist on things, the Credentials Committee has jurisdiction over the following challenges (Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee of the 2008 DNC, 1):

A. Any challenge brought before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and not resolved before the 56th calendar day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention; and,
B. Any challenge alleging:
1. Failure to implement a final order of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee; or
2. Failure to implement a plan approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, if such challenge is initiated on or after the 56th day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention, except with regard to Rule 19.E. of the Delegate Selection Rules.

Thus, if the RBC rules against Clinton, it's not clear from this text that Clinton can appeal it to the Credentials Committee -- it won't be a challenge at all, first off, because you "challenge" the credentials of seated delegates, which is the opposite of what Clinton wants. And a challenge alleging failure to follow RBC orders won't work, because that's what she's appealing in the first place. On the other hand, if the Rules and Bylaws Committee does seat the delegates, Obama can appeal back to the RBC, and, so long as the appeal isn't resolved by June 30 (56 days before the convention starts), the Credentials Committee will hear it. Of course, I may be reading the above passage too narrowly, in which case any challenge, whenever made, will be heard, and not just ones that went through the RBC.

"Nuclear" option

The Huffington Post has an article today on the possibility that Clinton will get Michigan and Florida seated via the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), on which she has more members than Obama. I posted on this in March, but now Demconwatch has a nice list of the RBC members, and their endorsements. Edsall, at Huffington, has an estimate that's off -- Clinton actually has 12 declared supporters on the committee. There are 30 members on the committee, but members from a disputed state can't vote on that state's being seated. That means there will be 29 members voting on each state, since there is one member each from Florida and Michigan. Will Clinton be able to get 3 votes from members who haven't endorsed her? Possible. But there's more.

The next stage, as Edsall says, would be a challenge at the Credentials Committee. There, Obama is leading by various amounts -- here's a spreadsheet with the numbers. Obama is leading by 11.5 with all state delegates included (bizarrely, FL and MI will be seated on the Credentials Committee), and MI's three uncommitted going for him. However, FL members cannot vote on the FL challenge, and likewise for MI members. Obama's lead goes up to 13.5 for the FL challenge, and stays even for the MI challenge, except that the "uncommitteds" now in his column go away, as do 3 members in Clinton's column. Since Obama's lead will almost certainly stay the same through the rest primary process, that means that Dean's 25 appointees would have to break 19-6 for Clinton to seat MI, and 20-5 to seat FL. That is clearly a very unlikely scenario.

Thus, we can see that, even if Clinton wins the RBC fight, she will almost certainly lose the Credentials Committee fight. What happens after that? The Credentials Committee report, along with a "minority report," dissenting from the decision, goes to the full convention. And here's where things get more tricky: by VII.B.1. of the DNC's Rules,

The Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall determine a Temporary Roll of delegates to the Convention which shall consist only of those persons selected and certified as delegates in accordance with the Rules and pursuant to this Call, unless a credentials contest shall have arisen with respect to any such person(s), in which case the Secretary shall include on the Temporary Roll the name of the credentials contestant recommended for inclusion by the Credentials Committee in its report.

Since Obama will win the Credentials Committee fight, the delegates voting to approve the Credentials Committee plan will not include FL and MI (who wouldn't be able to vote on their own states' delegates anyway).

So where does this leave us? Clinton can't win this battle as it stands. She could drop a nuclear bomb by convincing the RBC to seat FL and MI as they stand, but it would almost certainly be overturned by a Credentials Committee controlled by Obama, and upheld by Convention delegates supporting Obama. More likely would be some sort of compromise -- penalizing FL and MI half their delegates, etc. That might be politically harder to overturn. The question will be, if the RBC denies her, will she continue to fight it, knowing that she will lose at the convention? That will say a lot about her goals for this campaign.

Clinton's Indiana-China problem

McClatchy has a good summary of the events, as well as a link to a rebuttal by Clinton. Basically, Clinton ran an ad attacking Bush for allowing a factory making magnets for weapons to be "moved" to China. It turns out, however, that the initial sale of the factory to the Chinese company was approved by the Clinton administration. Clinton's rebuttal is that the factories were required to remain in the U.S. That doesn't take account of the fact that the requirement was only until 2005, but that's not even the biggest problem.

There were two factories, in Anderson and Valparaiso (note the misspelling in the Clinton press release). The Anderson factory was closed in 2001, and there was no fuss at all about it. I have a link to the original AP article text, with no mention of any legislators protesting. The protests came when the Valparaiso factory, which the Chinese company hadn't bought until 2000, after the original sale had gone through, was closed. So here's the question. If the factories were supposed to remain open until 2005, then why weren't there protests when the Anderson factory was closed? Because, according to a disreputable-looking source from 2003, the source of the guarantee was just an agreement the union had with GM, and tried to have with the Chinese company. It wasn't negotiated into the sale agreement.

Let me be clear: I don't really care that the Chinese make our magnets -- various experts have said that it's not really a risk. The issue is just about plant closings, and there, Clinton is being disingenuous. There was no government-enforced guarantee that the Anderson plant would remain open. Now, even on the subject of the plant closings, I'm not disagreeing with the Clinton Administration's actions, but Hillary Clinton is misrepresenting those actions. The Valparaiso protests by Bayh and others were on the grounds of national security, not job loss -- and this is not a national security issue, it is a job loss issue.

Switching sides

Numbers are quoted here and there on the percent of each candidate's supporters who will support the other candidate. But these numbers are wrong in a crucial way. For Clinton's supporters to imagine her losing via pledged delegates doesn't take much -- the steady trickle of superdelegates continues. to both sides, and at some point Obama passes 2025, probably in mid-June. The Obama superdelegates can argue that all they did was ratify the pledged-delegate lead. But to really find out what Obama supporters will do, you need to ask them, "Would you support Hillary Clinton if she won the nomination in a floor fight at the convention after finishing behind in pledged delegates?" I think the numbers will change then.

Black groups are already warning that this would be unacceptable -- Sam Stein at Huffington says that a group called Color of Change is starting a petition to tell superdelegates not to deny Obama the nomination, and McClatchy has an article about black voters staying home if Obama doesn't get the nomination. We'll see whether everyone finds it unacceptable.

The way, of course, that people make it "unacceptable" that Obama loses is by turning on their elected politicians who didn't help. Now, Clinton needs those elected politicians -- she needs basically every DNC member who hasn't declared just to draw even, and so she has to hold on to her congressmen, governors, etc. Will superdelegates who represent populations that went 65-35 for Obama really be willing to stand up to that? Maybe Charles Rangel, but he's somewhat unique.