No Easy Way For Dems To Fix FLA

(Until Obama wins it, I mean - and I shouldn't forget Michigan either.)

Paul Krugman (pictured) reminded me in the New York Times yesterday that the issue of Florida and Michigan’s Democratic electors still has not been resolved, as follows…

…mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party.

One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes — which at this point wouldn’t change the outcome of the nomination fight.

The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight.

I have yet to read any statement from the Obama campaign that he opposes seating Florida’s electors (shocking that I have to point this out to Paul Krugman, of all people). What I have read are words to the following effect…

The Obama campaign has proposed a 50-50 split of both states' delegations, an option Clinton advisers have resisted.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed Clinton's latest call to recognize Florida and Michigan's results.

"Senator Clinton herself said these contests 'didn't count for anything.' But now that it serves her own political self-interest, she's trying to change the rules and count the results of contests where she and every other candidate pledged not to campaign," Burton said. "In Michigan, Senator Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Our focus should now be on seating the Michigan and Florida delegations in a fair manner."

I think a 50-50 split is more than favorable, especially since Clinton ran effectively unopposed in both primaries (going against the wishes of the DNC, with Dr. Dean seeking to punish MI and FLA for moving up their primary dates, which I think is fair) and she can’t statistically catch Obama anyway in the delegate total, which has been the case for some time actually (Obama needs less than 100 delegates to wrap up the primary at long last).

And as far as offering Hillary the VP spot, I don’t see why the Obama camp is obliged to do that, especially since he already presented an “olive branch” of sorts here (unfortunate that Krugman has cast his lost with fellow Times pundit MoDo, who apparently believes that that team is “set in stone” - HRC doesn't give Obama as much as others do in that position IMHO, particularly this guy). Unless of course it is because Krugman and others believe that that is the best way to reel in those wayward, “hard-working white votes” upon whom the very future of civilization depends, apparently (snark).

I don’t know if Krugman read this column by fellow Times correspondent John Harwood yesterday, but Harwood interviewed Democratic analyst and author Ruy Teixeira, who has written extensively about white Democratic voters, and Teixeira answered the following question…

…how much blue-collar support would Mr. Obama need? Not a majority, said Mr. Teixeira. Though blue-collar Democrats once represented a centerpiece of the New Deal coalition, they have shrunk as a proportion of the information age-economy and as a proportion of the Democratic base.

Al Gore lost working-class white voters by 17 percentage points in 2000, even while winning the national popular vote. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts lost them by 23 points in 2004, while running within three points of President Bush over all. Mr. Teixeira suggests that Mr. Obama can win the presidency if he comes within 10 to 12 percentage points of Mr. McCain with these voters, as Democratic candidates for the House did in the 2006 midterm election.

In recent national polls, that is exactly what Mr. Obama is doing. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Mr. Obama trailing by 12 percentage points with working-class whites; a poll by Quinnipiac University, showed him trailing by seven points. In each survey, Mr. Obama led over all by seven points.

It feels strange to criticize Paul Krugman (MoDo is beyond hope), but I would like to see him tone down the “doom and gloom” rhetoric on this; caution is one thing, but pessimism is another (and to help the Obama campaign, click here).

Update: Sad also that Krugman would have a common cause with someone like Lanny Davis, as noted here (h/t Daily Kos).