Why Obama Doesn't Want Michigan and Florida Seated or Re-voted

[rodeodance]

good post.

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Why Obama Doesn't Want Michigan and Florida Seated or Re-voted
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5169997#5169997
5169997, Why Obama Doesn't Want Michigan and Florida Seated or Re-voted
Posted by kennetha on Thu Mar-20-08 08:26 AM

It has nothing to do with "the rules." It has everything to do with the fact that if Michigan and Florida are seated as voted, his "lead" practically evaporates. HIs pledged delegate lead would be reduced to something like 100 and his overall delegate lead would be reduced to something like 60. Also his popular vote lead would be instantly cut in half.

Supposed that happened tomorrow. The "narrative" of this race would instantly change. No longer would there be talk of an "insurmountable" delegate lead. No longer would there be the illusion that he was likely to be leading in popular vote at the end of the day -- especially with his declining poll numbers as a result of the Wright hit. The whole buzz would change.

Even if the Florida and Michigan are not seated as already voted, the prospect of late primaries in these two states would have a very similar effect on the narrative of the campaign -- especially if there was any chance of Hillary replicating her earlier margins in these two key states, as the bloom started wear off the Obama rose.

So you can see that it's absolutely vital if Obama is to maintain control of the narrative that Michigan and Florida must not be allowed to be seated as voted or re-voted. Of course, the Obama campaign can't come flat out and say that, since that would utterly doom them with voters in Florida and Michigan and probably also with super delegates in Florida and Michigan. Instead the dissemble and chatter about the sanctity of "the rules." But I think people are finally starting to see through that empty self-serving chatter and dissembling.

You can accuse Hillary of "playing politics" on this one for sure. But I'd rather be in a position where my political self-interests converge with those of the voters (Hilary's position) than in a position where my political self-interest diverge from those of the voters (Barack's position). Ultimately the latter is losing proposition and the former is a winning proposition.