Thursday, May 29, 2008

Instant Coffee

1. It's interesting that the Scott McClellan story is the first real Washington story to intrude on the campaign coverage. I find the story fascinating, but I also consume way more political coverage than most people do, and it's possibly the case that the confessions of a former press secretary are liable to be treated with outsized importance by the press pool he was engaging with.

2. In the credit-where-credit's-due department, that was a clever little boxout the McCain campaigned performed on Barack Obama's visits to Iraq.

[UPDATED] 3. If you have the time and the tolerance for legalese, the DNC lawyer memo prepared for the Rules & Bylaws Committee is worth a read. The particular section to pay attention to is "Issue 3", which is covered on pages 5-6. The memo hints that the preferred solution to Michigan's "uncommitted" delegate problem would be to give the four candidates whose names did not appear on the ballot (Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden) the collective right to vet and approve the uncommitted delegate slate, through a means they "could work out among themselves". Since Edwards and Richardson have endorsed Obama, this would very amount to the equivalent of giving Obama control over the uncommitted delegate slate.

One thing the RBC won't do is to apportion the uncommitted delegates based on extrapolated exit polling results -- based on my reading of this document, there is no legal authority to do something like that. They will either effectively hand those delegates to Obama (through the means described above) or they will let the selection of the individuals to fill those delegate slots fall to the state of Michigan, which has already selected its district-level delegates, all but a couple of whom are officially or unofficially committed to Obama.

30 comments

justinjacobson said...

On #2, I agree, but the timing was ill-chosen (from McCain's standpoint). It's clear, since they never mentioned it, that Obama was not planning on an overseas visit. McCain could have waited another month or two to trot this out. This would have (1) made the length of time even greater and (2) made it more difficult for Obama to just do the overseas visit and deflate the issue. As it stands now, Obama has already announced plans for an overseas visit.

Anonymous said...

Actually, justin, you are wrong.
They had mentioned it several times before - anonymously because they did not want to seem cocky about the nomination - but they could not do it before Hillary dropped out.

Anonymous said...

I think McCain will be sorry for bringing up Obama's length of time away from Iraq, because the Dems will come up with a "boxout" of their own. ksh01

Anonymous said...

The last time McCain traveled there he couldn't keep his Sunnis, Shiites, Iranians, and al Qaedas straight.

A time before that he bragged about strolling around freely in the streets and markets, and that General Petraeus traveled without using an armored vehicle. Both were far from the truth.

I wish he'd go back again soon, because he provides good fodder for the Democrats every time he goes there.

Anonymous said...

What is a box-out, and can someone put #2 in context (what did the McCain camp do to Obama). Thanks! I really enjoy this site, keep up the robust analysis.

Anonymous said...

Anon above:

McCain made an offer to give Obama a "tour" of Iraq, to show him how "conditions on the ground have improved." Reasonably not wanting to look like he's being led around by the nose and lose national security cred, Obama declined. McCain's camp then pointed out that Obama hasn't been to Iraq since 2006 and claimed he should lose security cred there. Now when it comes out that Obama has long been considering a trip, it seems like he was "prompted" by McCain. At least that's how I see what happened.

Obama (or the DNC, as the below post maybe shows us) should recall McCain's flak jacket flap.

lilnev said...

Epic-MRA poll of MI: McCain 44, Obama 40 (McCain vs. Clinton not polled).

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/METRO/805290372/1374/POLITICS01

Alex said...

3 certainly makes sense. I read a while back that Clinton supporters have a strong backing amongst supposedly "uncommitted" state convention delegates in Michigan, which means that if they were truly just set adrift, it is likely that she would pick up a significant fraction of them. Though she'd like that (and argue that it is the only correct interpretation), to give her *more* delegates than she won in an uncontested primary is on face ridiculous.

Ben said...

Here is a March 8th story where Obama aides tell the WP they will travel to Iraq as soon as they have the nomination sewn up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703318_pf.html

Anonymous said...

More and more as I listen to Hilary Clinton and her supporters, I think they are fighting this all the way to the convention. Since according to the memo, the RBC can only hand out ½ the delegates in Michigan and Florida now (100% can be awarded at the convention), this will not be good enough for Hilary Clinton. This will give them the excuse to fight on to the convention using the disingenuous every vote must count talking point. (FYI, I just heard it again on MSNBC where a Clinton delegate said they would take it to the convention). They will not be satisfied unless they are given a facsimile to the Lanny Davis solution, which is overwhelmingly favorable to Hilary Clinton. So, unless superdelegates overwhelmingly move toward Barack Obama and give him the 2210 delegates needed counting Florida and Michigan in full, there will be a fight on the convention floor. Fighting on the convention floor for the nomination has always meant a loss for the candidate. Hopefully, for the good of the nation, superdelegates will give him the 2210 needed or I fear we will have a McCain presidency.

Anonymous said...

The McCain presidency is already more than 50% likely.

The strange thing is that Hillary and her supporters seem to think that, after all that's transpired, that she can somehow still win the election in November.

John H said...

Re poll mentioned by lilnev, again quite a lot of undecided votes, at 16%. Pretty odd.

Simeon said...

New Rasmussen polls:

Mississippi
McCain 50%
Obama 44%
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mississippi/election_2008_mississippi_presidential_election

Alabama
McCain 60%
Obama 32%
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alabama/election_2008_alabama_presidential_election

Mississippi might be a longshot swing state... but it looks like Alabama definitely won't be.

Jack Foster said...

I've got a question. How likely will it be that the Rules Committee will actually make a decision on Saturday? I've read somewhere (I think) that the Committee won't make a decision without the agreement of both campaigns. But the Clinton campaign doesn't seem inclined to compromise. In that case, there can't be a compromise, can there be? Or will the Rules Committee attempt to force a compromise on the Clinton campaign? Thanks for your opinion, in advance.

Anonymous said...

I wanted to ask why Obama's Rasmussen unfavorable ratings are always so high?

It's evident in the RCP Favs-Unfavs ratings that since February, Obama's unfavs with rasmussen have been around 45% or higher.

No such high unfavorability rating is recorded for him by any other polster.

Anonymous said...

I agree with #2. It was very well done.

About #3- I'm no expert, but I thought parties could choose the nominee however they want and that there are no legal due process rights for the process?

fl dem said...

on #2. . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/axelrod-exclusive-obama-s_n_104064.html

Anonymous said...

The McClellan thing is interesting. We have the Bush people reading from the same script about being "puzzled" by McClellan, and trying to imply that the guy has had a nervous breakdown. There seems to be some interesting stuff there, such as Bush being the one who personally authorized leaking the Plame information.

I have always thought that George W. himself is the political slash-and-burn artist there. I don't think it's been so much a Karl Rove operation as it's been a partnership between Rove and Bush. I think George W.'s fingerprints are on a lot more levers than people think.

One thing I'd love to know more about is the Jeff Gannon rentboy-turned-White House-reporter scandal that was so effectively swept under the carpet by McClellan and the White House press corps. I doubt anyone will ask about it, but it would be fascinating if someone would.

Ben said...

Rasmussen has McCain only +6 in MS with 36% AA. What do you think?

Anonymous said...

On First Read today Chuck Todd points out that the net delegate allocation in FL\MI will be different depending on whether the RBC cut their delegates in half or seating them fully with 1/2 a vote each. Is this the case? Poblano Could you do an article explaining further?

Many thanks

Alex said...

Cutting the number of delegates propagates rounding error more than giving each delegate half a vote. If the state gets half the total delegates, that means each CD, the at-large and PLEO delegates are all cut in half, changing the breakpoints where you ca