Explaining Michigan and Florida

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 13:50


In my previous post today, I argued that Michigan would be seated at the convention with a pledged delegate breakdown of Clinton 73 and Obama 55, while Florida will be seated at the convention with a pledged delegate breakdown of Clinton 105, Obama 67, and Edwards 13. Since this argument was met with virtually universal horror in the comments, I thought I would provide a straightforward explanation.

  1. Florida and Michigan will have a delegation seated at the convention. Everyone knows this. Howard Dean has said this. As such, pretending that 2,024 is the magic number doesn't make any sense. With Florida and Michigan included, the magic number is 2,208.

  2. The Florida Democratic Party will send a delegation with a pledged delegate breakdown of Clinton 105, Obama 67, and Edwards 13 to the credentials committee. This is already a done deal. The Obama campaign has not offered an alternative delegate slate.

  3. The Michigan Democratic Party will send a delegation with a pledged delegate breakdown of Clinton 73, Obama 55 to the credentials committee. Not only has the Obama campaign not offered up an alternative slate, it is working to cement the 73-55 delegation:

    Thousands of Barack Obama supporters will converge Saturday on union halls, high schools and hotels across Michigan, trying to make sure he gets his share of delegates to the national convention -- even if his name wasn't on the ballot for Michigan's tainted presidential primary.

    Obama's only remaining obstacle to the nomination -- New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only major Democratic candidate on the Jan. 15 ballot -- is assured of getting 47 delegates and 13 alternates based on her victory. But the remaining 36 delegates and two alternates are up for grabs. Those delegates represent people who voted Uncommitted in the primary.

In summary, Michigan and Florida will be seated, and there is only one delegation from each state for the credentials committee to consider. Not only is the Obama campaign not proposing different delegate slates, but they are actively working to make certain of the above delegate slates. Given all this, you tell me--what will the Michigan and Florida delegations look like at the convention?

We can sit around and debate whether or not this result is fair or acceptable all day. Hell, we have already been doing just that for three months now. However, this is not an abstract argument anymore. Michigan and Florida will be seated, and their delegations are taking shape as you read this. If the Obama campaign plans to dispute these delegations at the credentials committee, then it should say so and offer up a counter delegations. It has done neither. Until that changes, I am assuming pro-Clinton delegations of 73-55 from Michigan, and 105-67-13 from Florida.

Besides, Obama is still up by 73 delegates even with Michigan and Florida seated. If he can't hold onto that lead with only 915 delegates to go, then his campaign will be in freefall come June anyway.

Update: I forgot to mention that the Obama campaign has argued for a 64-64 pledged delegate split in Michigan, instead of 73-55. However, this proposal seems vague right now, as it is not accompanied with an alternative delegate slate. So, I grant that it is possible, even likely, that at the credentials committee the Obama campaign will challenge 9 of Clinton's 73 pledged delegates from Michigan, and propose replacing them with 9 of their own. Still, even if that is the case, it means we are only arguing over 9 delegates right now, which really isn't that big of a deal.
Chris Bowers :: Explaining Michigan and Florida

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Explaining Michigan and Florida | 56 comments
Yep (0.00 / 0)
Besides, Obama is still up by 73 delegates even with Michigan and Florida seated. If he can't hold onto that lead with only 915 delegates to go, then his campaign will be in freefall come June anyway.  

Yep, and by now they know there will be no superdelegate coup, so they're more worried about playing extremely fairly so as to not block reunification.  

Me | My Work | Future Majority

Eh... (4.00 / 4)
At the very least, Michigan and Florida should be stripped of half of their delegates. To seat them in full is a complete joke.
And it does not bode well for 2012 (4.00 / 3)
As a result of the stupendous mishandling of FL and MI, the primary for the 2012 nomination will begin, in Iowa, sometime next Spring.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
If that is your position (0.00 / 0)
Then you should push the Obama campaign to publicly adopt it. Until they do, I'm assuming the above delegations.  
[ Parent ]
That's a little bit strange... (0.00 / 0)
I've been trying to figure out what bothers me about this post, and I think that hit upon it - you're equating silence on an issue with support.

The Obama campaign, as I understand it, has from the beginning said that Michigan and Florida would not count. It may not have been militant (and they may be willing to engage in talks) but I have seen no evidence that any activity they have understaken represents a shift in posture.

I wonder if you aren't falling into the trap of believing it should be so and for that reason convincing yourself it is so.

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
Personally, I think the most likely outcome is that the delegations are seated at 1/2 strength.   The idea of a 1/2 reduction is mentioned in the rules, it is what the Repubs did and what some Clinton supporters have been arguing for.  Moving 1/2 of the way is always the most natural compromise.  1/2 seating preserves some penalty for misbehavior, whereas 100% seating says that "anything goes" in 2012.  

Of course Obama isn't publically advocating that position now, it would be stupid to do so unless Clinton were ready to agree to it now and she probably isn't (she needs 100%, not 50%.)   The fact that she says to respect the unauthorized vote 100% and he says 0% is a fine predictor of a 1/2 split.      

 

[ Parent ]
A MI uncommitted delegate can be a Hillary supporter. (0.00 / 0)
Here's a direct link to the list of names of uncommitted delegates. Vet carefully.

http://www.michiganliberal.com...

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Not Only (0.00 / 0)
will both delegations be seated but Clinton could still pickup a number of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan further narrowing the gap.

BTW - from TPM:

"Gallup finds that Obama is leading Hillary 47%-44%, down from an 11 point lead earlier this week. The tightening numbers suggest Obama was hurt by Wednesday's debate."

[ Parent ]
The real question isn't whether they (0.00 / 0)
will be seated, but How they will be seated. It is highly unlikely that both state's delegations will be seated in their entirety--especially if it changes the outcome of the results of the DNC certified primaries.
[ Parent ]
convention delegates (4.00 / 2)
Given all this, you tell me-what will the Michigan and Florida delegations look like at the convention?

But this isn't really the question, is it? The question is: how will the nominee be decided, and that decision will be made before the convention, probably in May or June, based on delegate totals that don't count Michigan and Florida.

Also, in re: point 3 above: this makes it seem really strange that the Obama people didn't go along with a re-vote in Michigan. There's no way he would have lost a re-vote by 18 delegates, and I think he would actually have much better than even odds at winning the state. So why didn't they try for a Michigan re-vote?  

Yes... (4.00 / 1)
At this point virtually everyone has said the race will end in June. Both campaigns have said it, Dean and Pelosi have said it, a whole wide range of Congressfolk... hell I think even Gore has said this.

Doesn't it seem likely she will drop out in early June at the latest? I'm not so sure counting delegates even matters much any longer. There will either be a huge scandal that can dwarf Wright, a mass defection of the Supers to Clinton, or she will drop out in June. I can't imagine any other scenario outside of these three.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
But this isn't really the question, is it? The question is: how will the nominee be decided, and that decision will be made before the convention, probably in May or June, based on delegate totals that don't count Michigan and Florida.

And what authority will decide the nomiantion without Michigan and Florida? The only authority to decide the nomination is the roll call at the convention. I utterly fail to see how the nominee will be decided without one of the following:

--Clinton drops out
--Obama reaches 2,208
--Roll call at the convention

If you have some other idea on how it will be decided, please, enlighten me.  

[ Parent ]
it won't get to the convention (4.00 / 3)
Obviously, the roll call at the convention will technically ratify the nomination. But it will only decide the nomination if there is no presumptive nominee by that time. But there will almost certainly be a presumptive nominee by that time, and it will be Obama, once he reaches 2,024 (or after he wins Indiana). The magic number is 2,024, because pretty much every media organization, as well as the Democratic Party, have not been counting FL and MI in their delegate counts. And once he gets this number, there just won't be any way for Clinton to stay in the race. So, yeah, I think it'll end when Clinton drops out, but she'll be dropping out because of the delegate count - a count which won't include Florida and Michigan.
[ Parent ]
This all goes to how smart (4.00 / 1)
or not Obama really is.

First he removed his name from the ballot. Not smart.

And then when he had the chance to personally recognize the voters in Michigan by calling for a re-vote he didn't. Not smart again.

He may give good speech.

He may give a good stand up comedy routine that people eat up.

But smart?  

[ Parent ]
Yeah your right-- (0.00 / 0)
Editor's of the Harvard law review and constitutional law professors from the University of Chicago have historically been pretty stupid.


The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
I can't see the Obama campaign accepting this... (0.00 / 0)
...unless and until he actually has the 2,208 committed delegates to guarantee him the nomination, and Hillary has publicly conceded.

Otherwise, as Chris pointed out earlier, it narrows the race just enough to open the door for an Edwards endorsement of Clinton to make the difference.

If Obama accepts this compromise before he has the nomination in hand, he's too stupid to be our nominee...and he won't be.

[ Parent ]
Iirrelevant (0.00 / 0)
I clearly didn't say he was not smart on all things.

I said he was not smart on the two things I mentioned - facts that you obviously cannot dispute.

But by extension if he is not smart enough to make the right decisions on those two things one must wonder what other things he is not smart at.

For instance his desire to form a new less partisan kind of politics:

"It's absolutely vital we form a new political coalition in this country".

Meaning he will bring Republicans into the fold and water down Progressive ideas with Republican ideology...

Well as a progressive I don't see that as smart either. Do you?

[ Parent ]
So your telling me Hillary Clinton is your barometer for (0.00 / 0)
progressivism?  Whatever.  I guess assessing the relative progressiveness of political figures is an area I'm "not smart in."

Good one.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Go to Progressive Punch (0.00 / 0)
and you will see she is rated #18 overall out of 100 Senators for being Progressive.

She is #1 for being most Progressive against Corporate Subsidies.

She is #7 for being Progressive for Government Checks on Corporate Power.

She is #1 for being most Progressive in Housing.

As a comparison Ted Kennedy is #6 overall.

Obama is #24 overall. So Clinton is more Progressive than him and has a longer record to judge by.

You see many people believe the lies they read on blogs. Where if one did there homework and went to a long standing non-partial organization like Progressive Punch they would see exactly how people voted on issues overall and on individual issues.

So if Clinton gets the nomination you can rest assured that she is more Progressive than Obama.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/

[ Parent ]
Give me a break (0.00 / 0)
There's about a billion different ways of tabulating these things.  They cherry pick a small sample for their specific advocacy purposes.  I've seen rankings that had Obama as the #1 most liberal senator last year.  You are just cherry picking one that serves your purposes.  

Were you not paying attention for the last eight years while she made friends with and co-sponsored legislation with all the country's most important fascists?  You seem to be conveniently forgetting how she sold us "progressives" down the river in the lead up to the Iraq War for no other purpose than barnishing her national security creditials when she ran for president, and then continued to defend the war for years afterward.  In fact, if you want to know what she really thinks of "progressives," go check out Huffington Post right now.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
You have no standing (0.00 / 0)
to minimize Progressive Punch. They are the gold standard for non-advocacy progressive ratings. You can't find anything anywhere that has credibility that says any different. They rate here as fairly as they rate everyone else.
[ Parent ]
How can you be the gold standard for a flawed methodology? (0.00 / 0)
If you interested in a far better try Poole, et al's DWNominate methodology which factors in all their votes cast.

Here's the link:

http://voteview.com/

According them, Obama is slightly more liberal.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it is flawed at all (0.00 / 0)
If you read progressivepunch's methodology the only votes they do not factor in are non-ideological votes like voting for something Groundhog day. LOL. Obviously such votes are worthless in determining a members progressivism.

And as a baseline they use a list of six hard-core progressive to measure all others by. It is a very simple system without complicated algorithms used by the obvious computer geeks a voteview whose methodology and website is so complicated it spins ones head.

Further Progressive Punch actually breaks out different categories of votes so you can see where congress people are more progressive or not on those issues. As far as I can see voteview does not do that but rather is a catchall. Not only are they a computer driven algorithm catch all but they combine both the House and the Senate instead of separating the two. That methodology is bound to be flawed because even when voting on the same issues the House bills and the Senate bills are very much different in what they contain as you know. So right there their combining the two Houses makes no sense at all.

Further voteview only shows one Senator difference between Clinton and Obama so it hardly make a case for you. Add to that voteview puts both Clinton and Obama smack in the middle of the pack of Democratic Senators which is ludicrous. Both are clearly more Progressive in their votes than only half of the Senate and progressive Punch reflects that more accurately.

Rating Senators should not be a complex process. We can all pretty much do it in our heads if we pay attention to every vote they cast. For goodness sakes voteview adds to their algorithms past presidents starting with Eisenhower!!! There is no need for such complexity and in fact because times and issues change going back in history Eisenhower to measure 51 Dems today is silly.

You made no case for voteview. And made no case against Progressive Punch other than to say they don't include every vote and I have explained why they don't for you because you obviously didn't take the time to research it yourself before posting which tells me you are just grabbing at straws to find something/anything to show Obama as more liberal. Well take Obama's yes vote for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill that gave Big oil 6 billion dollars in subsides and figure out how to tell me that was a Progressive vote.

Progressive Punch has been used by many online for years an is considered the gold standard for it's simplicity, for it's site layout, for it's ease of use, and for a persons ability to look up rankings by congress person and by issue. No where have I seen anyone every try to make a case against Progressive Punch. No where have I read that the overall rankings of Senators was grossly inaccurate - until you. You are one biased person out of millions so your stab at trying to make a case for Obama is meaningless. And then for you to use a site that only separates Obama and Clinton by one Senator is laughable.

[ Parent ]
One more thing (0.00 / 0)
for anyone who thinks Clinton is full of it on helping people effected by trade...

She is #1 in Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements.

# f'ing 1!!!

#1 on General Union Rights

#1 Voting on bills against Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas

And people don't think she is Progressive?

[ Parent ]
Ranking (0.00 / 0)
You notice all those superscript T's? They mean the ranking is a tie, in many cases with a huge number of other senators, because the subcategory is based on so few votes that there's not any way of differentiating between them. So "# f'ing 1!!!" doesn't necessarily mean much. Practically any senator is going to be #1 on a few things if you have enough subcategories.
[ Parent ]
Oh really (0.00 / 0)
then why is obama #39 as opposed to tied for #1 with Clinton on Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs???

Because he didn't vote as progressive as her obviously.

And tell me this genius. What is so wrong with a tie for #1? Would that be a good thing that other Senators are voting the right way?

And ties still don't explain why Clinton is #18 overall and Obama is behind her at #24. It's because overall his votes are not as Progressive as hers.

For instance he voted YES to give Big Oil 6 Billion in subsidies. Clinton voted NO on that same bill. Which is the most Progressive vote there?

[ Parent ]
Healthcare? (0.00 / 0)
#12 overall.

And out of 15 sub-categories under Healthcare she is #1 in 14 of the 15...

and #22 in Preventing Injuries Before They Occur.

Obama. He is # 31 overall in Healthcare compared to Clinton's almost #1 across the board on Healthcare.

That my friend is Progressive.

So much for you "whatever". Now you know. Go check it out yourself you have the link.

[ Parent ]
You, my friend... (0.00 / 0)
That my friend is Progressive.

...are a perfect example of a "Hill's Shill."

[ Parent ]
Oh My! (0.00 / 0)
How original.

[ Parent ]
Do you always have to have the last word? (0.00 / 0)
Come on man, lighten up.  Your opinion has no more standing than anyone else's, and getting in someone's face usn't helping your cause.
[ Parent ]
Yeah your right-- (0.00 / 0)
Editor's of the Harvard law review and constitutional law professors from the University of Chicago have historically been pretty stupid.


The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Dear Super Delegate; (0.00 / 0)
Saying that Obama is stupid is a dead end argument.

There are legitimate reasons why Obama didn't got for a second revote in Michigan. These reasons are out-lined here.

A small snippet to wet your tongue:

Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative-questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.

And by the way, please don't try to insinuate that Obama knows nothing about election law.

thanks.

[ Parent ]
Jon Ausman et. al. (4.00 / 1)
FLORIDA: You're forgetting the challenge Jon Ausman put to the DNC -- to seat HALF the Florida delegates. DNC is still, as I understand it, examining his petition.

MICHIGAN: It seems unreasonable that since the Michigan law enabling the January election had a non-severability clause AND the Court struck down part of that law, that the delegation can be seated as is. ESPECIALLY since it is inherently unfair that only one of the remaining candidates had her name on the ballot.

PROCESS: I can see them seating SOMETHING -- but NOT the whole delegation. If the DNC does that, they will cease to be an actual organization because all the states will just do as they please.  

ok, how about this (4.00 / 1)

Given all this, you tell me-what will the Michigan and Florida delegations look like at the convention?

How about the credentials committee deciding to count these delegates slates for 1/2 of their totals? How about the delegates are seated, but not allowed to vote on the nomination ballots? How about not seating the delegations at all, Dean be damned?

The credentials committee can quite literally do anything they want with the delegations. And the majority of the people on the credential committee will be Obama supporters. So how exactly would they be allowed to count in this way if it had any impact at all on the nomination?

Actually (0.00 / 0)
I don't think the majority of the credentials committee will be Obama supporters.  A plurality, yes.  But Howard Dean's appointees make up a swing group who, if they vote as a bloc, should be able to decide any vote split between Obama and Clinton supporters along candidate lines.

Of course, two of the co-chairs that Dean appointed to head the credentials committee were the co-chairs of the rules and bylaws committee that stripped the delegates from Michigan and Florida in the first place.  (James Roosevelt Jr. and Alexis Herman)

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I agree both will be seated and probably like this (0.00 / 0)
They still won't count towards the nominee though in the sense that I don't see Hillary taking it all the way to the convention. I think after every jurisdiction has had its say she will suspend her campaign because it will be clear that she can't win. The convention ballot will then be the formality it always is. Now what that means for the future of the primary calendar is another matter but at least the mess for this year will have been sorted.
I thought Obama campaign proposed the 50/50 split in MI... (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps that was just the public statement and not some "official" means of doing so, but I definitely remember it being proposed...  What exactly does the Obama camp need to do to convince MI to send a 50/50 split?

Also, I still thought the fact of the matter is that the "standing" decision is still that they won't count, and the credentials committee would have to overturn it.

They proposed it (0.00 / 0)
But they did not offer a delegate slate.

It is possible that they will challenge nine of Clinton's Michigan delegates at the crendentials committee. But really, that means all we are arguing over is nine delegates.

[ Parent ]
Of course they could do the same thing for Florida (0.00 / 0)
Or there might wind up being some compromise solution. Whoever has the most votes at the convention will likely get something acceptable to them (in game theory terms, something within their 'win set.')

The super delegates are going to continue to flow to Obama between now and then, making this all somewhat academic.  

[ Parent ]
Obama ahead in Indiana now, too (0.00 / 0)
Which makes things even more academic.  
[ Parent ]
Don't believe that (4.00 / 1)
Do you? Really?
[ Parent ]
Why not? (0.00 / 0)
The last two polls say so, including the supposedly omnipotent Survey USA.
[ Parent ]
A difference of nine delegates (0.00 / 0)
has a practical impact of up to 18 delegates.  For arguments sake, let's say both candidates have 18 delegates and one candidate successfully challenges nine of the delegates of the other candidate.  This would mean one candidate's delegates will be reduced by nine, leaving that candidate with nine total delegates (18-9=9); it also means the other candidate's delegate count will increase by nine, leaving a total of 27 (18+9=27).  This has a practical effect of 18 delegates.  Clearly, the nine delegates are worth the challenge.
[ Parent ]
I can't tell you how vanishingly unlikely I find the possibility that (0.00 / 0)
the Obama people would accept this outcome in any situation where Clinton had not already dropped out.

The Politics of Bruno S.

If they have an alternative (0.00 / 0)
Then they should propose an alternative delegate slate. They haven't done this.

They can abstractly accept or not accept this outcome, but since a Michigan and Florida delegation will be seated, and since right now there is only one delegation from each state for the credentials commmittee to vote on, the outcome seems pretty much set.  

[ Parent ]
Why would Obama do this at this point? (4.00 / 1)
He gains tremendously in terms of press coverage and establishment pressure on Clinton to drop out by not having the FL/MI total be the marker for victory.  While he obviously will want to eventually have them seated, if he pushes for a specific number, he is opening the door having the debate over it for the next few months which will have all sorts of negative consequences for him: alienates further Clinton supporters, alienates the two states, and gives Clinton further exuse for staying in.  

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Exactly... (0.00 / 0)
The last thing the Obama campaign needs to do right now is agree to anything that makes it more likely that Clinton can catch up -- all that will do will be to encourage her to stay in the race and ratchet up the scorched-earth tactics even more.

Agree for the delegations to be seated only after you've got the 2,208 delegates in hand to clinch the nomination and after your opponent has dropped out.  Until then, the word from the Obama campaign should be a flat 'no' to seating delegate slates chosen in illicit primaries where he followed the rules and did not campaign, while his opponent did.

[ Parent ]
Re: Alternative Delegate Slate (0.00 / 0)
Chris, forgive my ignorance of the delegate selection process, but how would the Obama campaign propose an alternate slate?  What criteria would they use to justify their selections?
[ Parent ]
50/50 (4.00 / 1)
I always took Obama's support for a 50/50 split in MI to be an opening offer.  73-55 would be just fine with them, I assume.  It takes MI off the table and doesn't really help Hillary.
This does not address my criticism (4.00 / 2)
My point, addressed to the earlier post, was that it made little sense to discuss the percentage of remaining delegate votes needed based on a calculation that already includes Michigan and Florida; for the eventual inclusion of Michigan and Florida is undoubtedly dependent on the assumption that Obama will win where he is already expected to win.

In other words, Michigan and Florida will be seated as you say only if Obama and others know he has already locked the nomination up.

They must be seated (0.00 / 0)
and they need to be able to represent how the people voted or some breakdown of who they choose.

It's so bad, watching the supposed People's Party where you have this group of insiders (regardless of choice), choose the nominee.  I just shake my head but not seating FL and MI, I think ya all can kiss it good-bye in the general over that issue alone.

I also agree, esp. watching this latest absurdity of the last debate, sorry this is just wimp city doing some complain campaign..
I mean where is the complain campaign against MSNBC that has been going on for mouths, or the foaming at the mouth love for Obama on the Situation room?  Now we have this so instead of moving on they are trying to make it an issue?

All it says is what a bunch of wimps, can't handle a fight in the playground with the local bully.

What's going through my mind right now, John Kerry.  How many people tried to get him to take on more true Populist/Progressive positions and so on in 2004.  Nope and add to that the wimp factor.

This latest Obama whining on the last debate is to me, almost guaranteeing a character race in the general, similar to '04.

There is a fundamental other issue going on here...you cannot let McCain win, period and I'm sorry, I know those conservatives and they sure as hell will vote on American flags, service record, a perception of national pride, and yes guns, God, pickup trucks, beer and bowling and especially Patriotism.  I don't know where ya all have lived but Patriotism is a very strong American value in the heartland.  How else do you think they get people who take pride in their country to volunteer for an illegal war beyond they are desperate for opportunity and hope to get some through service?  Well, it's the love of country, right or wrong, and the value of service.  

They are also putting the candidate behind that White House desk mentally and just as an overall view on who they believe represents America best.

Think about that and then think about this latest Obama speech where his middle finger scratches his face when referring to his Democratic rival?  hmmmm.....

When Dems run on the economy, yet don't have policy to truly change the economy (Kerry) you've got a 50-50 split again and people then turn to American flags, Patriotism and personality.  

Vetting that person for the general, if you want to win, well, take off some blinders and just contemplate this.

(also, Obama's tax policy answers, Good God, is anyone going to realize the power of the right to scream they will raise your taxes and just how much influence and power that has in a general?  We've only seen it now multiple general elections and the tax code doesn't fit into a sound byte and Dems need to make it fit in a sound byte real fast!)

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

who says it's a done deal? (0.00 / 0)
Chris, you still haven't provided any evidence for any of this. Do you have a secret memo from Howard Dean stating that he has changed his mind and doesn't want these states to pay a penalty for violating the calendar? I don't expect no delegates to be seated from these states, but it's still very much up in the air how many total delegates they will have (all or 1/2) and how those delegates will be apportioned (according to the January straw polls or evenly between Clinton and Obama). Now in reality Clinton is going to drop out sometime in June after the bulk of the undecided superdelegates commit to Obama. At that point, Barack won't have any reason to stand in the way of seating the Florida and Michigan delegates regardless of whatever penalty they face or how their individual delegates are apportioned. But in the meantime, I am not sure what useful information it gives us for you to include these states in the nomination at a glance.
Please cite, or link (4.00 / 2)
"Florida and Michigan will have a delegation seated at the convention. Everyone knows this. Howard Dean has said this."

Please cite, or link to, where Howard Dean has said this. I ask this with no malice or sarcasm in mind. I am not doubting you, nor am I arguing that these delegates shouldn't be seated. However, your contention that the seating of these delegates is a done deal, and that Howard Dean has confirmed this, deserves a citation.

Last I heard from Howard Dean on this - which was a month to six weeks ago on NPR - he was indicating that, since he was not on the credentialing committee, he didn't have any say as to what occurred there, and that all he was empowered to do was enforce the pre-convention party nominating rules as written.

As I said, I am not arguing or being snarky here. I am legitimately curious as to your source on this.

Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Chris --

The vast majority of what you write is well thought out and defensible. But between the lawsuits and the bickering, there has NEVER been anything said by ANYONE in a position of power at the DNC that the delegations will be seated WHOLE.

While I remember hearing Dean say something about making some accommodation for Florida and Michigan, it was never a done deal for the delegations as they stand. In fact, seating them would be a violation of the rules in place.

All of us out here in the left-sided blogosphere work to keep "the other side" honest, make them cite sources, and back up what they say.

Aaron is right -- with no malice nor sarcasm, and on my end great respect for you -- tell us how you "KNOW".

[ Parent ]
Edwards delegates? FL vs MI (0.00 / 0)
I'm curious why these proposals indicate that Edwards would getting delegates seated in Florida, but only Clinton and Obama divvy up the delegates in MI.

There is a huge number of MI voters who were Edwards supporters and voted Uncommitted (like me). A lot didn't bother to vote, too. Since both Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot here, it doesn't make sense to assume those "uncommitted" delegates should be automatically voting for Obama, particularly if Florida is seating Edwards delegates. Of course, in Michigan's case, we have no real idea what the vote breakdown would have been between Edwards, Obama, Clinton, and the other Democrats running at that time.

All of this probably moot, anyway... I think a deal will be struck before the convention, giving Clinton a graceful way to back out of the race (though she sure isn't indicating interest in a graceful exit yet. I expect she'll soften up a bit after PA). It seems Obama really has the nomination pretty well wrapped up, even if he doesn't win PA (which I don't expect he will).

Bowers... (0.00 / 0)
Why do you assume that a deal must be struck about Florida and Michigan? Clinton wants a deal to be made because they have the ability to shift the nomination to her (if Obama does not get any delegates from Michigan), which is exactly the reason why there can never be a deal. Clinton can't accept anything less than seating the delegates as is (with Obama getting zero delegates) otherwise Clinton's got nothing to go on. If Clinton won't accept any deals, then things will simply remain as is (with Florida and Michigan having zero votes in the convention).

It's completely absurd to assume that a deal will be made because it presumes that both candidates will be viable when it happens, and that won't ever be the case.

Explaining Michigan and Florida | 56 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox