The next race is this Saturday (0.00 / 0)

Iowa, that is, and what will happen to Edwards delegates. I believe that according to Iowa rules, Edwards cannot get any delegates and either Obama or Clinton will get those delegates. The margin may be bigger than Ohio was, so it's something to keep an eye on.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 20:29:38 PM UTC

Clarification (4.00 / 3)

Apparently the rules do allow for Edwards delegates to bubble up through the process and remain as they were, so it's only a question of whether they will. It all depends on whether Edwards county delegates will choose to vote for Obama or Clinton, or if they'll try to vote for Edwards delegates and end up with national delegates who are committed to Edwards and thus delay their choice of Obama vs. Clinton. Another question is whether they will be motivated enough to show up and meet the 15% threshold.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 20:56:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

just wondering (0.00 / 0)

In the unlikely event that the current Michigan delegation is seated, who picks the uncommitted delegates and do they get to vote on the first ballot for President?

---

by: redwards95 @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 20:30:56 PM UTC

A question about campaigns (0.00 / 0)

Several of the articles I've seen about Geraldine Ferraro state that she is on Clinton's "national finance committee".

What does this mean?

---

by: mcc @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 20:40:03 PM UTC

convention (0.00 / 0)

Thank you Chris for all your analysis and projections. If I was deciding on how to seat MI & FL, I think I would consider this compromise: seat Florida by the votes, tell the Clinton campaign- sorry that's the best deal you are going to get and split Michigan 50-50, which is what the Obama campaign has indicated they would go for. This seems like it might benefit Obama more but then there also would be more super delegates for Clinton to work with, also. I would cut the supers from these states to the bare minimums however- gov, reps and senators, maybe party leaders you can't leave out. Nobody would be completely happy but it might at least end the in-fighting on this issue. I think it might be able to be done but what do I know?  

---

by: miesque @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:03:49 PM UTC

One change (4.00 / 1)

Seat 50% of FL's delegation.  This is what should have been done in the first place.  Damn Republicans are making us look bad.  They don't have a MI and FL problem, do they??

This whole hold your breath til you're blue in the face mentality is really quite shocking.  It would be quite the interesting game of chicken to watch were you simply an interested observer.

---

by: tvanniman @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:29:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Better yet (0.00 / 0)

as I suggest here, seat 50% of Florida's delegation according to the primary results and at the state's discretion let the other 50% be split 50-50 or else not seated at all.

I speak only for myself, not for those voices in the next room that won't leave me alone.

---

by: SenecaDoane @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 00:44:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure it "worked" for Republicans... (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, they don't have a FL/MI problem, but on the other hand... the race was still taken very seriously by the media despite the halved delegates.  The point of the DNC removing their delegates completely was to remove their importance in the selection process entirely.

However they're counted, they absolutely need to be penalized somehow for it, which, barring a new identical election (which isn't going to happen for cost reasons), is why the 50/50 solution probably makes the sense (and, theoretically, the super delegates from the states, who in many cases helped create the problem, should be removed as well).  They get to participate in the convention, but their importance in the selection process is thus removed.

Giving them a full slate of delegates now just means that breaking the rules worked to their benefit, and other states in the future will just jump ahead knowing full well that they'll either just count the original vote or allow them to do a re-do (if it's close) for a vote that is even MORE important than the original one.  If there's any kind of re-vote, they have to be at least stripped of half their delegates, and supers should probably lose their vote as well (or count as half a vote).

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:21:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see Clinton getting 82 votes out of Mich. (0.00 / 0)

Best case is 50/50. He. Wasn't. On. The. Ballot.

Holy Hell shoud be being raised over this suggestion.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:11:39 PM UTC

HRC Superdelegates current #? (0.00 / 0)

Chris, i believe HRC's SD # currently is about 237 not 242 as you indicate above. She has lost about 5 or 6 SD's that had pledged to her and BO has gained almost 50 or more since super Tuesday. As per CNN the SDs are divided up as follows: BO 207 and HRC 230.

---

by: jaxmax @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:25:07 PM UTC

The Obama Spreadsheet (0.00 / 0)

Chris, could you tell us what these numbers would look like if  you plugged in the remaining contest results from the Obama spreadsheet.  It has been amazingly accurate.  One might also be able to extrapolate some popular vote numbers from that.

Thanks for this post...I've been waiting for it all day.

---

by: tvanniman @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:31:16 PM UTC

That would be 283-283 for the remaining (4.00 / 1)

The Obama spreadsheet predicts a gain of 283 pledged delegates for each of Clinton and Obama in the remaining races.

They have indeed been amazingly accurate so far, though they have underestimated themselves pretty consistently.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:28:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I did end up tracking it down myself.  While in general the spreadsheet does seem quite conservative, I noticed that they think (thought) they really would be able to hold their own in PA.  Boy, the current polls sure don't show that.  We'll see.

---

by: tvanniman @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 17:42:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Polls (0.00 / 0)

In Ohio, Clinton was up by 21 points closer to the primary than this.

---

by: KCinDC @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 19:22:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Six Weeks (0.00 / 0)

Is six weeks long enough for superdelegates to realize that the only path to the nomination for Clinton involves sundering the Democratic Party?

I don't actually want them to move en masse to Obama, which would take the decision out of the hands of the voters. But if exactly one half of them committed to Obama, making it clear that Clinton couldn't be the nominee based on the SD's, that would be helpful in a number of ways.

---

by: Chachy @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:31:30 PM UTC

It is a little strange... (4.00 / 1)

The fact that they seem to be "frozen" now solely because of the OH and TX wins is sort of ridiculous, especially given that they were supposedly going to defect en masse if Obama had won one of the states, and Obama is now in an even stronger position than he was pre-March 4 (actually gaining +1 pledged delegates over Clinton for the month).  So why aren't they defecting?

My worry is that, quite simply, a lot of them may like Clinton better, and are just waiting to see if there's ANY excuse for them to vote for Clinton... popular vote, huge error by Obama, or whatever.  Obviously, this is probably more paranoia than anything, but it is sort of strange.

Hopefully they'll continue the slow and steady process of endorsing Obama, and perhaps he'll have as many Super Dels as Clinton does by the time he gets to PA.  If that happens, he can basically just point out that Clinton has no lead in and there's no win that can help her overcome it.  I think once he reaches parity with super delegates, the race is basically over (again, barring some major shift).

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:27:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What excuse will it take? (0.00 / 0)

If dozens of supers didn't jump to Obama after the Ferraro dust-up, it just doesn't seem there is much to push them over to Obama until clarity has been achieved.  It is worrying to think they are just biding their time until Obama makes the slightest mistake or gaffe to jump on the Clinton bandwagon.

I really hope they are for the most part agreed that the party building aspects of letting this run its course (or at least through Pennsylvania) is better overall for the party than just moving to Obama now. Or perhaps they hope Clinton will campaign with less vitrol if she still feels she has a shot and by not moving to Obama now they avoid backing Clinton further into desperation that could cause problems for the party.

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 14:08:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A suggested compromise (0.00 / 0)

For states that moved primaries to the rear of the calendar, an incentive was added, that offered as much as 30% more delegates.

Since FL and MI went the other direction, it seems that 30% serves as the benchmark, so"

DEDUCT 30% of the existing delegates from Florida as their penalty. (30% of Clinton's totals, 30% off of Obama's). That would give FL 73.5 delegates for Clinton and 47 for Obama.

For MI, as Obama was not on the ballot, a revote's essential. Do one.... then deduct 30% from those totals, too.

Some penalty must be maintained. But the voters should not have to feel disenfranchised because of the errors of their elected officials. At this point, polling suggests Florida voters are angry at Obama for their disenfranchisement, though he merely went by the rules others defined, and had nothing to do with the rulemaking.

---

by: Kevin Hayden @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:31:50 PM UTC

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

It just really shouldn't be this hard, eh?

When will Howard Dean get all the valid interested parties together in a room and tell them nobody's leaving til they have a solution?  I mean, we put a man on the moon, we built an entire military industrial complex from scratch during WW II.  This isn't that hard!

---

by: tvanniman @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:43:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Love Howard Dean (0.00 / 0)

but how long is he going to let this cluster fuck go on? He was talking about avoiding a brokered convention months ago, and yet all they have done is let this thing drag itself out toward a self destructive ending.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:26:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read something last night (0.00 / 0)

...about Chuck Todd announcing a shift in Ohio delegates to Obama with the release of the certified totals. Is this true? I couldn't find anything on this.

---

by: dwbh @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 21:46:20 PM UTC

Yes, it's true (0.00 / 0)

Clinton was originally believed to have a net advantage of 11 delegates coming out of Ohio but one delegate actually went to Obama making it a 9 delegate margin. The detailed results of Ohio can be found here.

I would also add that this has been happening elsewhere too, notably in California where 4 delegates moved to Obama as the results were certified and decreased Clinton's margin by 8.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:35:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama spin (0.00 / 0)

I'm pretty disgusted with the Obama campaign spinning the shit out of MI/FL for it's pretty obvious they are afraid that means they lose, trying to do some arbitrary "split" versus just have a do-over primary or mail in primary.

To me it's a brazen disenfranchisement of voters, a real turn off to any Obama candidacy period for me.  


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:21:35 PM UTC

I don't get it. (0.00 / 0)

   Why is Obama blamed for the disenfranchisement of voters?  It wasn't Obama's decision.  Last time I checked that silly FL Democratic delegation rejected a re-vote.  The DNC may or may not abide by its own rules.  How can you possibly hold Obama responsible for this disaster?
  Is it spin to say that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan?

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:29:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, (4.00 / 1)

Right now, Obama is the #1 thing standing in the way of Mich. and Fla. delegates being seated. That is not debatable. If it weren't for his opposition to it, we wouldn't even be talking about this and the delegates would be seated at the convention, just like everybody assumed they would be from the beginning.

Now, that's not to say Obama is wrong to oppose the delegates, but he's got to take the bitter with the sweet. His position necessarily precludes Mich. and Fla. voters from having a say in the nomination.

As for Obama not being on the ballot in Michigan, it does of course spoil the results. But it should be noted that it was his own stupid fault. Nobody told him he had to take his name off the ballot.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 23:30:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re-votes (0.00 / 0)

   He has not gone on record opposing a re-vote.  The Florida Dems (the ones moaning about disenfranchisement) have gone on record opposing the re-votes.  What is it that the FL Dems want?  They don't want to compromise on anything.  First they vote unanimously to move up the primary, and then they cry when the DNC punishes them as they had warned.  Now they refuse a re-vote.  
  Obama AND Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot because, silly them, they thought that the DNC would honor their own rules.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 00:35:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama says he will follow the DNC decision... (0.00 / 0)

He's essentially tried to remove himself from the process.  His campaign, for good reason, opposes a re-vote by mail.  However, if the DNC ends up allowing it, Obama would theoretically go along.

The point being... there's likely going to be a compromise that both parties may not like for one reason or another, but both will just have to deal with it.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who assumed they would be seated? (0.00 / 0)

I don't know who assumed they would be seated, since the DNC said they wouldn't.  I think a lot of people assumed something would be worked out where some portion might end up being seated or a revote or caucus might take place to get legitimate delegates, but if everyone really assumed these delegates would be seated without prejudice the first people to react would have been the campaigns.  Edwards and Obama would have had their names on the MI ballot and all the candidates would have told the DNC to f* off and would have campaigned in both states!

I have elderly relatives in Florida who didn't vote because they didn't have the energy to vote in what they considered a straw poll.  They certainly didn't think the primary was valid and they are almost certainly Clinton voters!

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 14:15:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

did you read the numbers (0.00 / 0)

even if Hillary gets every single advantage including Michigan as is, he still WINS in pre-super numbers. Which means Hillary still then needs the supers to over turn the people's votes you think are so precious. Jeez Robert, I know you think Hillary is the golden child who will end NAFTA (a notion which could pass for standup comedy). But good lord, disenfranchisement from Obama? I mean, if you want to get into it how about preventing students from voting in Iowa, suing to end caucuses in Nevada, and most of Harlem not casting a single vote for Obama? Not that I want to get into this, just that - its cool to be partisan, but its going to be a lot easier if we try to avoid sanctimony with blinders.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:35:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Selective outrage aside (0.00 / 0)

It would be nice to note that a mail-in primary is not a common method of holding primaries and is very much fraud-prone. It is however strongly espoused by Clinton supporters since it would benefit elderly voters more than others. I would expect Clinton to carry Florida by a 10 or 15 point margin, but a mail-in primary would increase turnout and translate a 10 point margin to an even greater margin in raw popular vote. This would help her argument on why superdelegates should discard the pledged delegate advantage that Obama has and give her the nomination, which is another reason she favors a mail-in ballot.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:40:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

they have also said primary (0.00 / 0)

and I've voted in Oregon and the system works great.  This is bogus spin now claiming "fraud".  One congressman went and claim that Florida now doesn't have voting machines...it's pure spin.  Caucuses are sure not Democratic yet those are allowed and they are clearly fighting this because they don't want those votes to count.

It's plain uncool.  I'm sorry I find it really disgusting considering what happened in 2000.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 23:34:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You sound like the type of person who would be outraged (0.00 / 0)

If superdelegates were to step in and change the winner. Am I right?

---

by: bmozaffari @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 23:39:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have no idea (0.00 / 0)

what you are trying to infer but because both of them will sell out professional workers on a dime, I don't like either of them.  This is about the vote.  

I'm disgusted with the entire thing, supers, caucuses and the absurd "punishment" of FL/MI.  Who the fuck do they think they are and I thought that from day 1.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:10:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The disenfranchisement argument is bogus (0.00 / 0)

The elections were illegitimate so no one was disenfranchised.  If I spend $20 million and get everyone in my state to vote in an election I set up, should the results be recognized just because I held an election?  This is your argument.  The two primaries were not sanctioned by the party, so there is nothing to disenfranchise.  Is it a damn shame, yes!  Does the DNC deserve blame for not having thought this out better, yes!  But just because there was a ballot and people voted doesn't mean it was a real election.

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 14:21:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not counting (0.00 / 0)

US citizens is disenfranchisement, end of message.  It was a rude stupid thing to do from day one from the DNC.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 19:58:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll let you know when I run my next election to get your endorsement (0.00 / 0)

This has nothing to do with the argument.  The election was no more a valid election than if I bring in a ream of paper with people jotting down who they want to win the election.  The DNC made a bad decision but the decision was made before a ballot was cast.  Just because I voted it doesn't mean it is binding or legitimate!

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 20:26:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ (0.00 / 0)

That's what i think of the Obamamaniacs who retort over and over with these empty arguments trying to spin not counting the voters of two large states.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 21:42:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MI and other random delegate thoughts (4.00 / 1)

I have consistently believed and posted here that we simply cannot disenfranchise voters.  We need to find a solution, and I am okay with many of the ones I have seen here.  50% penalty.  Fine with me.  30% penalty.  Okay.  

I think that this works well with FL because everyone was on the ballot and, I believe, there was spillover campaigning from other parts of the country even if the candidates were not there in person.  Not a pure campaign, though, and, that probably hurt Obama.  Though, it gave him time to focus on South Carolina, which was huge for him, so not sure that it had a significant net effect.  

MI, though, is a huge problem.  The vote was fundamentally flawed given that Clinton was the only one on the ballot.  However, no one can be blamed for that but Obama and Edwards, both of whom voluntarily removed their names from the ballot.  So, I have no sympathy for Obama's team when they complain that they were not on the MI ballot.  I believed that it was a dumb move then, and I still feel that way (one of the few dumb moves that Obama has made in this campaign).  Also, I understand from hearsay that Obama surrogates campaigned in MI for people to come out and vote "uncommitted".  Not having been in MI, I cannot confirm this.  However, given the actual results, I have no reason to doubt that it is true.  I did not hear the same rumors about the Edwards campaign, but who knows?    

So, I would not redo FL, but I would dock them 50% of their total delegates.  This would give Clinton 52.5 and Obama 33.5, or a net gain of 19 for Clinton.  

I would be in favor of a MI do-over as a primary - not as a caucus, which I strongly believe are not democratic - either by mail or in person.  I would also dock them the same percentage as FL, even on a do-over.  Alternatively, I would be okay with giving Obama the uncommitted vote from MI and Clinton the rest (again, reduced accordingly).  Given the "uncommitted" campaigning, this seems fair to me.  Using a 50% reduction and Chris's numbers from the post above, this would yield 36.5 for Clinton and 27.5 for Obama, or a net gain of 9 for Clinton.  

Also, I would strip both states of all Super Delegates.  

I am absolutely against, however, a 50-50 split of MI (or FL for that matter).  This is tantamount to disenfranchising the votes the same as stripping them entirely because unaccountable people from other parts of the country are telling those voters how their votes would be counted regardless of any actual expression of voter intent.  

The elections that were held were fundamentally flawed.  The responsibility for this belongs to the DNC for imposing the total disenfranchisement penalty from the beginning, and the state party in MI.  I don't lay as much blame with the state party in FL given that this was the product of the Republican legislature and governor and I understand, again from a distance, that the FL state party tried to get a date that complied with the rules.  However, I believe the penalties should mirror each other, which is why they would lose Super Delegates as well.  

Either way, though, we need a solution that does not continue a message that the Democratic Party encourages voter disenfranchisement.  The DNC's indefensible position has tarnished the party too much already.  

---

by: BlueBear @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 22:37:34 PM UTC

Michigan (0.00 / 0)

I read somewhere, either here or on Marc Ambinder's blog, that the Michigan delegation cancelled their hotel reservation because they assumed they weren't going...In that case, I don't think they plan on showing up unless they are guaranteed that they'll be coutned.

---

by: boomersun @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 23:19:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

your solution to me does (0.00 / 0)

This is easy, just do it over, primaries, end of story.

It's really better for Obama because when they were held he did not have the name recognition that Hillary did, didn't story now.  

But, keep it simple, redo it, count the damn votes.  

This screwing around plus the supers and all of caucuses only says they are not interested in a Democratic process.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 23:36:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This would be the best... (0.00 / 0)

Although a penalty still needs to apply. I don't know what that penalty should be, although stripping the supers seems at least like a reasonable start (as many of them are responsible for the mess).  

Also, while a straight-revote is the best option, it's not a very realistic one given the cost concerns.  I'm not sure what the best option is... a mail-in primary seems just as fraught with potential problems as a caucus does, and both candidates have refused these.  A "firehouse" caucus, which MI has supposedly done before, seems like it'd be a fair compromise, as it's basically a primary anyway... but supposedly Clinton has rejected this too, I think.

And this is why it seems like there will probably be no revote, and instead there's just going to be something done with the current situation... It doesn't seem like the DNC is going to budge on seating them, so it comes down to either 1) They don't get seated at all or 2) They get seated 50/50 (so as not to affect the outcome).  Those just seem like the two most likely options at this point.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:36:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question about supers... (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but does Bowers' delegate count take into account Michigan and Florida supers who have already endorsed?

---

by: Left Leaner @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:07:38 AM UTC

Yes (0.00 / 0)

They are included in the Michigan and Florida totals, along with the pledged and add-on delegates.  

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:59:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

DC delegates (0.00 / 0)

I had thought like most other people that the DC pledged delegates were going to be split 12-3: two "congressional districts" with a 4-1 split, at-large delegates split 2-1, and PLEOs split 2-0. However, it appears that the 2 PLEOs are actually being split 1-1, which doesn't correspond to the DNC delegate allocation rules, as far as I can tell (though I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something).

Following the steps in rule 13.D with two delegates and a 76%-24% vote split suggests that 1.52 Obama and 0.48 Clinton works out to 2 Obama and 0 Clinton.

The explanation I'm given is that since Clinton reached the 15% viability threshold she must get at least 1 delegate in every group, but I haven't been shown a rule supporting that. There's certainly a rule saying that if you don't reach 15% you don't get any delegates, but I see nothing that guarantees that if you do reach 15% you definitely get delegates.

Anyone experienced with delegate allocation rules have any input?

---

by: KCinDC @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:28:47 AM UTC

Michigan Seeing Red (0.00 / 0)

As a Michigander, Democratic precinct delegate, former Democratic candidate for county commissioner, a frequent poster at MichiganLiberal.com and Chair of Mid-Michigan DFA, perhaps I can shed some light on the state of the Michigan Democratic electorate.

First, it is my understanding that while the DNC cancelled the Michigan delegation's hotel reservations at the Denver convention, the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) immediately re-booked them.

Second, the current plan to select delegates is still based on the January 15th election; the actual delegates (i.e. the particular people chosen to physically vote in Denver) for both Hillary and Uncommitted will be selected at Congressional District conventions scheduled for March 29th.  There was indeed an active campaign in Michigan for Uncommitted in January; it would not have cracked the 40% margin otherwise.  The Uncommitted camp was (I'm guessing) 2 parts Obama supporters, 1 part Edwards supporters, and 2 parts neutral.

More importantly, it is viewed by all party activists that there must be a re-vote that determines the delegates sent to Denver.  The DNC has consistently said it would accept Florida and Michigan delegations that were selected according to a DNC-approved plan.  Thus as long as the DNC approves a new plan -- either a party-run "firehouse" primary, a party-run "mail" primary, or a party caucus -- those state delegations will be seated in Denver and allowed to vote, barring any obstruction from a campaign-controlled credentials committee.  

However, Obama surrogates -- State Senators Buzz Thomas and Tupac Hunter, Co-Chairs of the Obama for Michigan campaign -- announced yesterday that they are opposed to a mail-based re-vote and favor the 50-50 solution.  Since I have heard that Obama supporters will be controlling the credentials committee at the convention, that would leave the decision on whether to seat a re-vote-based delegation up in the air.

It is crucial to Michigan activists that our delegation be seated based on a vote, not a 50-50 plan.  While we are divided as to the form of the re-vote, we will consider it both undemocratic and un-Democratic if our delegation is either not based on preferences determined by a vote or if our delegation is not seated at all.  Many activists wouldn't care if we were stripped of our superdelegates (PLEOs), although our superdelegates naturally feel differently.  

Still, it is the opinion of a clear majority of the activists that failure to seat an election-based Michigan delegation in Denver will result in our 17 electoral votes going for McCain in November.  And that includes both Obama and Clinton supporters.

---

by: Ted Kilvington @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 14:59:04 PM UTC

So the surrogates are in positions to decide? (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the info.  Does either campaign have any real say in this?  If Michigan puts forward a vote-by-mail primary and the DNC approves, it wouldn't matter what Obama or Clinton think, right?  

I find it galling that Michigan Democrats would be so selfish as to let their state turn red and all because their officials tried to cheat and got called for it!  This is the first time in my life I have ever voted by Super Tuesday and therefore had any real say in who our party's nominee was, but that never stopped me from voting for our candidate in the general election even when I didn't support them in the primary.  Did I feel disenfranchised because Iowans and New Hampshirites had more of a say in who our nominee was than I did, damn straight! Did I cry and take my ball home, no!  Why should voters in Michigan feel disenfranchised now when the whole exercise in moving the date up was to correct what they saw as disenfranchisement by calendar?  They should be used to the feeling, it is what most of us feel every 4 years when the nominee is determined before any candidates even stepped into our states!

---

by: Ricky @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 16:41:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan is already a tossup... (0.00 / 0)

...denying Michigan an election-based delegation in Denver just might put us over the edge.  Kerry only won the state by 3% in 2004, and the SurveyUSA 50-state polling for the general already shows McCain edging Hillary, although it also shows Obama edging McCain.  Many groups, such as my own, are choosing to focus on state and local races instead of national ones.  I'm not saying Michigan progressive activists will vote for McCain, just that they might not volunteer or contribute to his opposition.

---

by: Ted Kilvington @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 17:59:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's the hypocracy that's bothering me here. (0.00 / 0)

Not yours, Ted.  Or even Michigan and Florida.  The DNC, for better or worse set out a schedule, and told states "here are the parameters you must use in selecting a date to hold your primary/caucus."  

By disregarding DNC rules, the primaries in Michigan and Florida became UNSANCTIONED elections.  No delegates would be awarded.  ALL the democarats running for President issued statements that they supported the decision of the DNC and would abide by the ruling.  

The hypocracy is HRC's.  She is now claiming these unsanctioned delagates in both states should be seated at the convention.

No question in my mind that these two states are too important to November to snub at the convention.  We need to find a way to seat delegates from these two states.  But we cannot allow the earlier results to stand.  It's no accident that the only two states that had a higher republican turnout than democratic turnout were Michigan and Florida.  Many democrats stayed home, because they were informed that their votes did not count.

Some penalty needs to be applied, but we must have Michigan and Florida present in Denver.  Howard Dean MUST sit down with representatives from both candidates and find a way to vote AGAIN.  The longer this goes on, the greater the damage done to the eventual nominee.

---

by: War Horse @ Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 17:09:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]