Jane has me fairly persuaded that some good will come out of seeing the Democratic primary process extend for two more months. Except for one thing. As a Michigander, I see how the posturing about MI's DNC delegation is exacerbating the wounds of having had our January 15 presidential primary turn into a Clusterfuck of grand scale. More and more, I see volunteers who have been critical to our GOTV success in recent years tuning out of the party, utterly disgusted by the state and national politicians posturing about our vote.
There have been a number of solutions proposed--but they're really just more cynical attempts to game the Clusterfuck primary which, like the posturing, is only exacerbating the wounds. So yesterday, I proposed my own solution, one that accomplishes what everyone says they want, and one that has been pretty well received in the blogosphere. Today, I'm started a petition to collect the names of people who would like the MDP and the DNC to adopt this fair solution for the seemingly intractable problem of how to seat MI's delegation.
My proposal is this: you seat the 83 delegates selected (plus alternates) on April 19 with full voting strength. That would net Hillary 11-16 delegates from having won the Clusterfuck in January. It would also ensure that the only reasonably democratic vote Michiganders got to cast this year--April 19's district caucuses--counts.
You treat the PLEOs (spots for locally elected officials) as is. This would net Hillary another 3 delegate advantage from the primary.
You split the At-Large delegates 50-50 (that is, 14 each). This would give Obama the opportunity to influence the selection of 14 of the delegates in Denver (his campaign did not vet any of the people who ran as uncommitted delegates on Saturday and at least some of the delegates selected are not solid Obama supporters). It would also partially incorporate Obama's demand that the delegation be split 50-50.
You do not seat the super-delegates, at least not as super-delegates. The campaigns are perfectly free to use their 14 At-Large delegate slots to give to the people who would otherwise be super-delegates, but they will be delegates just like any other.
This solution accomplishes everything everyone has said they want to do. It would give MI's voters--the people who will do the grunt work to get our Democratic nominee elected in the fall--a say at the Convention. It rewards Hillary, slightly, for having won the Clusterfuck. It penalizes Obama, slightly, for taking his name off the ballot in January. And it penalizes MI, 28 total delegates, for having broken DNC rules and moved its primary up.
But it focuses that punishment on those who played Chicken with the votes of MI and lost, last year, rather than punishing those who had no choice in the matter and lost their ability to cast a vote in a truly fair election. It penalizes the super-delegates, many of whom were instrumental in the decision to defy the DNC and many of whom are engaging in the worst posturing right now.
Even I don't love this solution. I consider it simply less terrible than all other solutions. But I find it far preferable to continuing to treat MI like a political football for the next two months, all at the expense of the great grassroots work MI has done in recent years.
Please sign the petition asking Michigan's Democratic Party Chair, Mark Brewer, and DNC Chair, Howard Dean, to adopt this proposal. If you live in MI, please make sure you provide your address so we can at least track those signers who are Michigan residents. And if you really like this proposed solution, please consider asking those you know in MI to sign it too. I will collect signatures over the next few days or weeks and then deliver it to Brewer and Dean.
Thanks!
photo by slushpup
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Thanks for this proposal, EW. You might want to define PLEO’s for folks.
Right On EW
signed petition I trust your judgement as I am not up on this important issue. Thanks for helping solve this nationally important quandry.
Does Michigan have a “normal” primary (one that will decide other races) soon? If so, it seems like the best solution would be to include the Presidential primary in that one as a “do over”.
Is it really the place of Howard Dean to adopt a specific proposal? Isn’t this a matter between MI Democrats and the credentials committee?
Not till August. But there are a bunch of legal reasons (and Republicans) that make that an impossible solution, anyway.
Signed the petition. It seems a reasonable and even-handed solution to a thorny problem.
Michigan’s primary is held in August.
Oh, and OT, I just LOVE the new “show text” option. No more copying and pasting!
First and foremost, it’s a matter for the rules committee–heavily influenced by Dean–(in May). I’m doing the petition to try to change the debate right now into real compromises that will stop the posturing.
Digg It
To me, that solution is not fair. Was Obama on the ballot? If not, Hillary did not win anything, and therefore, should not get more delegates.
I think voters would enjoy seeing the stupid officeholders who created this problem punished by denying them a seat on the convention floor. This proposal isn’t going to make emptywheel popular in Michigan, but it makes a lot of sense. And it’s populist: the people don’t suffer but their idiot overlords do.
True, but the only alternative I can see that is fair is another primary, which seems to be out the window at this point (see my #4 and EW’s response #6). Michigan’s just left with a bunch of solutions that all sound pretty Solomonish to me.
Signed.
Seems like a fair compromise, good luck with the petition!
Nothing is fair at this point. But on the ground, we’re very close to alienating the party activists badly enough that November is at risk. So, even though I’d rather my vote not count, I also think it’s time to find a solution that takes MI out of the news and allows us to heal from a very ugly process.
I would reject ANY allocation that acknowledges Clinton winner of the non primary. How could you even suggest such a thing. Seat them as non-voters.
Is there any information on the net about the rules committee and how it will work? So far, I’ve only read about the credentials committee, from Chris Bowers:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3704
dugg and signed. Sounds reasonable to me. *applauds emptywheel*
I could suggest it because doing anything else will ensure that the top object of discussion for the next two months will be how Hillary “won” MI. This is a compromise. NO one wins, but at least we get to move on.
Clinton sez she’ll campaign until Michigan and Florida are resolved, so it’s in the party’s best interests to resolve both quickly. The sooner it’s clear there’s no path for her to the nomination, the quicker we can all unite to turn our sights on Old Lord McCain.
He is dangerous.
Signed. Good job, EW. I think the best part of your proposal is this:
To me, whatever Hillary and Obama get/lose is secondary to the voters themselves and making a point to the super-delegates who stepped over the line. IMHO, it makes the best of a bad situation. Kudos for making lemonade out of all the lemons.
I guess because of my life experience in competitive events, understanding the “conditions of contest” is essential. So for such a high stakes “event” to be screwing with them is absurd. It’s really less about my horse than the absurdity of moving goalposts. I think its a grave error to reward such tactics.
Signed, and agree it’s an imperfect solution.
It’s better than what is shaking out, though,
p***ed off voters staying home in general.
This must be avoided at all costs.
I think this is something that Obama supporters should embrace. It limits Clinton’s gain to those 11-16 delegates. That would still leave her roughly 100 votes behind in total. She’d do pretty well among the superdelegates, and I doubt that Obama would do much better in a rematch at this point. He hasn’t been doing well in the Rust Belt. At most, he’d be ahead by roughly that same number of delegates, minus Hillary’s advantage among superdelegates. Meanwhile, this keeps Michigan in the game, which will be very important for the Democratic nominee.
The only truly fair solution is another primary, and that isn’t happening. So it’s risk losing one of the biggest states in the country for a doubtful benefit, or do something like emptywheel is suggesting.
How can this party let one person do this? You say, quite rightly, that she will campaign for this until ….. Face it — if not this, it will be something else. (Look at McAuliffe and others flip-flop, from 2-4 years ago.)
Where are the strong Democrats? Why are they all wimps, involving Clinton?
And I’m not actually convinced Hillary CAN’T win this. A lot depends on IN and Puerto Rico, I think. But this solution doesn’t give her enough to really use it to swing the election. We become–as we were intended to be–a non-issue. But at least the people sent to Denver–83 of them, at least–will have been selected via a democratic process.
Democrats’ inability to focus on the big picture, preferring to squabble about whose side is purer, has resulted in a generation of election losses.
I’m in favor of a new approach — Marcy is showing the kind of leadership we would like to see in the party.
She’d actually get about 14-19 in the solution (including the PLEO net). And honestly, the PLEOs on the uncommitted side are not reliable Obama supporters–most would be Edwards supporters, if I had to guess.
As am I. I’ve signed the petition. Thanks, EW.
I don’t like the idea of helping Hillary Clinton out in any way at this point. She personally did not break the rules in these two primaries, but she sure as hell went along anyways knowing full well none of it would count or she thought her last name and other influences would make it count for her at some point.
To me, the only clear option would be to do these two primaries over again with each candidate on the ballot. To me it’s the only fair way. The cost too should come from the parties in each state since they’re the ones who ignored Dean when he said ‘don’t do it early’.
To me, the only clear option would be to do these two primaries over again with each candidate on the ballot. To me it’s the only fair way.
That’s a dead option at this point. Totally dead. So we must move on to considering other options.
Forgot about those guys. Even so, Clinton’s still not going to get anywhere near the number she needs. If she’s going to close the gap, she’ll have to do it in the remaining primaries.
I appreciate what you are saying. I understand giving Clinton some compromise victory in both states probably will be a Pyrrhic victory for her. I guess I object to the idea that they are changing the contest after both campaigns signed off on the penalty. It is a precedent that will haunt them.
Well, I am certain I am confused here. I thought Obama was doing the right thing by not putting his name on the ballot because that was agreed to. I mean I really THOUGHT that based on what I have read. I do NOT mean that I thought that as an opinion. I hate to sign anything I don’t completely understand and I’m not happy with this as a solution nor do I think we all have to jump through any hoops because Clinton states she’ll remain in until MI and FL are resolved. This was agreed to by all originally, and it stunk to high heaven when that happened, to very begin with.
i.e. the point of this stupid post by me is that I AM SO CORNFUSED HERE! and I WANT to help and support and am a huge fan of emptywheel, but don’t like to “John Henry” what I do not understand.
sorry.
*squirming here*
hehe
cough,
*know well that i look stupy!*
If it’s a dead option at this point, then Hillary gets no delegates, Obama gets no delegates, Hillary wins nothing, and neither one of these states count during this primary season. Case closed. Now we can moved forward…
And I’m not actually convinced Hillary CAN’T win this. A lot depends on IN and Puerto Rico, I think.
Over the last few years, you’ve demonstrated a fantastic ability to dive into the details of a complex situation. But this makes no sense to me. What is the math that allows Clinton to win?
What bystander@22 said.
It’s not cost that’s preventing it. It’s 1) legal issues, 2) the Republicans, 3) the fact our Clerks think it can’t work, 4) that no one could figure out how to allow Democrats who crossed over to vote in the GOP primary in January to vote.
Number 4, actually, is a sub-debate very similar to the one going on about MI in general. Hillary, because she knows anyone who supported her in January didn’t cross-over, wants to exclude them. Obama, who knows that hsi supporters–and Independents and REpublicans who might support him–may well have crossed over, insists they should count. And no one could come up with a good solution for how you count them but prevent Rush from his chaos.
Had everyone agreed to do a firehouse caucus in February (which is how we did our caucus in 2004), then it might have been feasible. But now it is simply not going to happen.
Kay,
If I’m understanding things correctly, if we do what you just suggested, it’s a recipe for having voters stay home. This is an opportunity to re-energize the MI voters so that they WILL be willing to work for the eventual nomination in November.
Possibly, but as emptywheel points out, this solution has the advantage of punishing many of the folks responsible for this decision in Michigan. That ought to send a message. As for Florida, everyone played under the same rules there. Clinton won. It might be different now, but it also might not.
I sort of agree with you–no reason to punish Obama.
But in MI, there are a lot of people who ARE really mad that Obama pulled his name. So that language is in there to appeal to MI’s prejudices, rather than national perception of what went on.
Consider it this way: Obama pulled his name so as to not piss off NH. So in MI, he chose NH over MI.
Again, it’s a compromise. Least worst. It’s not perfect, but it’s good.
So, we teach our kids now to not go by the rules and when our children go ahead and participate in something & win it without an opponent, then we will fight for our child’s right to be declared the winner, even though our child was fighting against no one in the race?
Oh please.
Hillary can suck eggs. She wasted her time in MI & FL as did the voters that day, so get over it. If everyone wants to be fair, then a re-do is in order. If no one wants to pay for it and everyone wants to point fingers at each other, then no redo is going to happen, SO WE ALL MUST ACCEPT WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND FOCUS ON THE ROAD AHEAD.
Maybe I’m just a bad mother? Could be. I see things differently. Trying to make Hillary feel good right now by calling her the winner is the kind of parent I can’t stand. She lost and she needs to accept it.
Even if this is to be enacted, nothing should be done before the regular primaries play out. I believe in the rule of law, so I don’t like any compromise on this. And if some compromise fans momentum for Clinton, then all the more reason to reject this.
My understanding was the only agreement was not to campaign in MI or FL. Obama (and Edwards and Richardson and Biden) taking the name off the ballot was a strategic choice by the campaign(s).
If I were a mother, I wouldn’t think it smart to punish my youngest children because their older brother forced them into doing something they didn’t want to do.
The older brother in this case is the supers. This solution advocates punishing teh older brother, but not the younger children.
One small thing to remember about the primary and general election. A large number of voters, particularly those who didn’t vote in a primary, won’t be paying any attention until after the conventions. It’s the nature of the American electorate beast. We political junkies are “on” every waking moment while many are playing with their debt-ridden toys and probably couldn’t tell you who’s running for what at this point. That’s not to take anything away from the import of the current turmoil within the party.
Good call.
Except it is the activists in MI that are paying attention right now that will be needed to help with things like GOTV in November.
Which is kinda why it’s an important issue.
I can’t imagine Michiganders falling for McCain in a recession, but I can imagine McCain campaigning there in the fall for their votes. Maybe making Michigan a fall battleground would have an unexpected benefit? McCain wouldn’t bother unless he thought voters there were pissed at the Democrats.
That’s true.
But I’m coming from a position where 1) MI has won the last two Presidentials solely through the turnout of CDs 13, 14, 15. Washtenaw and Detroit. Washtenaw kicked ass in 2004–but we did it with hundreds of volunteers–tons. Those volunteers are checking out right now–they ARE high information, and they’re checking out. Uncommitted won Washtenaw, but the folks here I’ve talked to would be satisfied with this.
DEtroit (CD 13 and 14) is another issue. They’re more low-information (and distracted at the moment by Kwame’s personal Clusterfuck). But if they get pissed off, they will not turn out. None of Hillary’s solutions will work. But neither will letting it fester for two months.
Obama wins anyway, as long as the MI + FL delegations are awarded reasonably, so I have no problem with compromises being made.
I have this nagging feeling that “helping” HRC out will embolden her to say “see, they love me, they really really love me”, when it’s just Democrats trying to be fair (and not act like republicans).
Every time she gets any support, she turns on her patented whining about how someone loves her, therefore she’s entitled to stay in the race even if it means destroying Obama by using Karl Rove’s playbook (which he inherited from Lee Atwater).
Just because she feels entitled does not mean the math will suddenly break in her favor… unless she just got the “new math” from a member of Beloved Glorious Leader’s Faith-based Math and Science Team. Which at this point is always a possibility.
I don’t think it can get much worse than Hilary counting MI’s pro-Hillary votes in her bogus popular vote totals, without counting uncommitted for Obama.
Oh, and I really want to see HRC sit down with some netroots folks and answer some hard questions about her MoveOn comments. No BS, no spin, honest answers sans any filter. If she’s written us off, then I vote we return the favor completely.
My objection has less to do with the good folks of Michigan or the fine candidates vying for the nomination, and more to do with the party as a whole.
What happens when the next cycle comes and NY and Cal announce their primaries on jan1? the stiff spines warn them of dire consequences..and they laugh. Or there is a state with the same penalty, as a candidate do you take them at their word? Do you commit precious resources now? Or pray they really mean to uphold the banning, and wait til later to build structure their. And then theres the strategy of I’ll ignore that and just sue to get my share.
The people who would do such a thing in NY or CA are the superdelegates. If they know they, personally, would lose their vote (along with the money and the schmoozing that comes with it), they would have a big discincentive not to do it.
You know at this point with the endless primaries and all this crap I suspect that if you said “all presidential primaries for Democrats in 2012 will end by the last week in January” you’d probably get a Medal of Freedom or sent to GITMO.
OMG! I was just writing almost the exact same post! As a mother, I thought of the same things.
I agree with you 100%!
I’m not talking about the activists. To me, comparing the activists with the apathetic voting block is apples and oranges. The activists are engaged, the others are not. I’m not much into martyrs. Just because FL is in the same boat doesn’t mean we’re not out there plugging. This is bigger than any one group of people, it’s about the whole ball of wax. Want to be pissed at the party and its minions for this fiasco? Fine, but don’t walk off in a huff, pointing fingers and all that other stuff (a generalization, not directed at anyone.) I’m furious at the Dems here in FL but I can’t change the past and we’ve got good people to help get elected here and that’s what I’m doing. The national and state parties can do as they please. I’ve got work to do.
Yeah, I’m sure they’d be brutal with half of their electoral votes.
They’ll do something, probably wrong. Then we move on.
As for the poor Michigan voters — they should live and learn. I live in California and have had many problems with CA Democratic leaders. Do I whine and demand a do-over? Do I vote GOP because of it? No. I work to fix it — most likely by working hard to get rid of those who made the mistakes.
Michigan has to blame the party leaders for making this decision. If they get free votes for Hillary, they learn nothing. And it WILL happen again. Trust me.
1,823 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Emptywheel and the Firepup Patriots:
Yo Citizen Emptywheel, great proposal and great work turnin’ up the heat for a settlement. Have you had any kind of feedback, either formal or back-channel, from Dr. Dean and his DNC folks. This proposal does exactly what needs to be done to punish the Democratic establishment in Michigan by shuttin’ out the supers but I’m not sure that McClinton doesn’t get away with a gift because, in fact, her people were the ones that pushed ta break the rules in the first place.
I would be VERY surprised if Dean didn’t take most of your proposal unless he’s locked in to solvin’ both Michigan and Florida at the same time.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE’RE OUT HERE FOR YA IF YA NEED US!!
I really don’t understand those that are for against this proposal, and resolving the Michigan/Florida problem in general, out of some animus over Clinton. do you really believe that your personal political desires and likes supersede the fundamental fairness of insuring that two large and critical states actually get to participate in the election process? I fully agree that Clinton has been disingenuous on her portrayal of the votes in Michigan and Florida, but she broke no rules; so just exactly what is your basis for the fevered desire to “punish” her at the expense of the citizens and voters in Michigan and Florida? That is a remarkably cynical and warped thought process. should we bother to have any other elections this year or are you going to decide all those in your infinite wisdom too?
Thank you, ew, and thank you for all you do, your work and your site are just so astounding and I do learn so much from reading both. So, although I’m still a bit in the dark here, I trust ya, so I’m signing. At this point, ANYTHING that would accelerate this primary process and assuage Clinton and her mandates, and hopefully get her OUT of this ASAP, I gotta JUMP!
And to Clinton supporters, No offense to you. She offends meand that is not about any of YOU.
peace out.
I appreciate your efforts but I’m not sure I see this as fair. Sure it gives a voice to those voters but it flies in the face of my life long understanding of ‘following the rules’ which neither michigan or florida did. Maybe it is primary fatigue that is preventing me from seeing this in a different light.
No, it is not “animus over Clinton.” It is fairness. I heard not one bit of outcry about this BEFORE Obama went ahead of Clinton. Does that tell you something?
And I would like to know how Clinton was punished. Her name was the only one on the ballot — ah, the Soviet Union type of “democracy.”
And again — voters in Michigan and Florida will never learn until they suffer. This does not mean I love suffering, but if you are warned, you thumb your nose, and then what you were warned about HAPPENS, who can claim surprise?
FL is NOT in the same boat. The problem with MI, that FL doesn’t have, is that Hillary is out there claiming she “won” a primary in which she was the only candidate on the ballot. That, plus the fact that MI’s Democratic supers were (as far as I understand the FL process) much much more active in pushing the early primary. The same supers are now trying to spin the election based on their affilliation with Hillary.
Actually, a lot of folks were trying to resolve this issue from the very first, way before Obama took the lead in delegates.
And Clinton was NOT the only name on the ballot. Dodd, Kuchinich, and Gravel also kept their names on the ballot.
Obama, Biden, Edwards, and Richardson made strategic choices to remove their names. The only agreement was to not campaign in MI and FL.
I heard from a Floridian (take it with a grain of salt), that the Dem party in Florida made a deal with GOPers, who are in control of the state. If they (Dems) didn’t make a squawk about the early primary, Dems could change the method of voting — i.e. paper ballots allowed.
Has anyone else heard this? Or is it just BS?
1,824 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen bmaz:
McClinton could’ve stayed off a the ballot in Michigan but she chose not to in order to be in this very position if it came to this. Her surrogates in Michigan, the Democratic Party establishment, are the reason there is a problem in the first place.
What we have playin’ out here is the dismantling of the McClinton-corporatist political machine that has Balkanized the national party and taken for granted the progressive, labor and minority base. If Howard Dean had won leadership of the DNC we would NOT have taken back either the House or the Senate in ‘06 and we would have McClinton as the nominee of a rump Democratic Party with John McCrazy as our next president.
McClinton’s end game now, as articulated by that oracle from the McClinton toilet bowl Rahm Emmanuel, is to blackmail Obama and national party into givin’ her and the DLC some concessions in the new administration or she’ll play it all the way out into Denver to split the party and get McCrazy elected.
The bad guys here are the corporatist fascist fellow travelers in the McClinton camp…there is no way that this would have come this far if McClinton had jest told her folks in Michigan and Florida to take a pill when the DNC made it’s original decision.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, YA DON’T COMPROMISE WITH PEOPLE WHO DON’T GIVE A SHIT!!
It seems reasonable. We need to keep activists engaged all across the country, and if this solution will do that for the folks in MI, then I’m for it.
But the”voters” were not, and are not, responsible for the problem in either Florida or Michigan. The deal in both states was almost solely the work of a small set of Dem. party bigwigs with a little intermeddling by Republican State legislators. That is why Marcy’s idea to pimp these party bigwigs by leaving them out of her solution, while letting the common voters be counted, is attractive. And EW is dead nuts right about the fact that Obama, Biden et al taking their names off the ballots was not only not required, it was done out of sheer political ambition and calculation, not to mention a whole lot of suckupery to whiny New Hampshire.
Oh, by the way, did you know that the almighty New Hampshire also broke the clear letter of the same rules Michigan and Florida broke, but there was not even any mention, much less action taken, of punishing New Hampshire. Why are two large and critical states being completely taken out of the game when nothing whatsoever has been done to a small state that violated the same rules?
This is politics, where compromises are necessary. Obama wins the nomination anyway, so it is in his interest to push a reasonable compromise. Why alienate any voters? Forget Clinton. She’s done. It’s about getting every voter’s vote in November.
Oops, here is the link on the New Hampshire rules violation.
BTW, thanks emptywheel for doing this.
No, I think that’s correct. So 1) at least they got something important out of it, and 2) it wasn’t the Dems in the lead, like it was here in MI. Also, no Dem turned down the opportunity to veto the early primary.
The DNC gave permission to NH to move.
Just give all the delegates to Hillary. It’s her party and she won’t stop until she wins. If she gets all of Michigan’s delegates she will be closer to winning and when she wins the nomination, she’ll be happy. And when she’s happy, we’ll all be happy because then she might shut up about the only votes that count that are the one that are for her.
The woman has no morals and no soul. Unfortunately, people in this country are rewarded for living such an existence (see Rice, Condi).
Alternatively, as an Oregonian I say “Never give a[n] inch”. Everytime someones yield to Clinton, she wants more. Obama and the Dem party should play by her rules. Concede nothing and fight everything. There is no way in the world she will accept an ~ 15 delegate pickup in Michigan. She want her 55% and she wants the 40% uncommitted as well. After going back on her pledge, I say give her nothing.
But that’s not how it went down. Howard Dean was perfectly clear to these two states and they decided to go ahead and do it anyways. Hillary played the game without an opponent and wants to be rewarded for that. That’s not how a child should be raised.
Because it is in their state law that they are the first as well as Iowa (primary and caucus) and there are ules adopted by the party that deals with states who are bound by their state law and would break the party rules by moving up their voting dates.
Should we, the voters, not have voted?
If the insistence is on following rules, the rules state that the credentials committee gets to decide how the delegates are seated. Those are the rules.
Appealing to the principle of following the rules doesn’t answer the question. I’d say that both MI+FL should have their delegate votes reduced by half. The FL delegates should get seated as is and the MI delegates get split 50/50. Obama wins the nomination and beats McCain in November. :)
Is that really a fair vote when the other candidate(s) name is not on the ballot and so many voted uncommitted?
I agree that some gesture has to made toward Michigan and Florida; my fellow Obama supporters who want to keep the maximum penalty because “those are the rules” need to keep their eyes on the ball: Democratic victory in November. And a fair treatment of Michigan and Florida is not going to put Hillary over the top; only an unfair treatment would. Seating the delegations with no penalty would be unfair treatment, especially for Michigan.
As an alternative to your idea of seating the delegation but not the superdelegates, another possibility is to seat them as is (with the superdelegates), but give them 1/2 vote each. Then, since both parties will be treating Michigan and Florida exactly the same, there’s no argument in November for McCain to make in those states about the Democrats treating them unfairly.
In addition, it should not be permitted that an “uncommitted” delegate could become a Clinton delegate, as voters who picked “uncommitted” rather than Clinton were voting for “anyone but Clinton”. It should be Obama or abstain.
However, Obama’s side would be wise not to make concessions on this issue too early, because any concession he makes will be treated by the other side as an opening position for negotiation.
But they then moved it to 11 days earlier. The rules were crystal clear, the New Hampshire primary was, by declared rule, to be held “no earlier than January 22″. New Hampshire then unilaterally moved it’s primary to January 8. Contrary to your assertion, there was no amendment to the rule to permit this.
Granted, the on-ground situations are different but the overall picture isn’t. She’s claiming that she won the popular vote in FL as well, which is part of her strategy of switching the emphasis to the total popular vote vs delegate count. My point is simply this: the presidential election is not the only game in town. In theory, every House seat in FL and MI is on the block. Are the activists going to leave these people swinging in the breeze because they’re miffed at the party over the presidential primary? They’re willing to abandon candidates who had no say in this fiasco? Collective punishment for the sins of the power brokers? If they choose not to continue working on a presidential campaign, fine. Go work for a congressional candidate. They’re the ones who have the greatest chance to effect change in government. The overall goal is the same.
Oh, another thing: it isn’t Howard Dean’s call. The rules say that it’s up to the credentials committee. What this is going to mean is that if Hillary Clinton doesn’t have enough delegates to block an Obama victory before any MI or FL delegates are seated, then she’s lost, since Obama would then control the credentials committee. Clintonites can whine about the unfairness of this all they want, but if the shoe were on the other foot, could you imagine someone as competitive as Hillary Clinton giving away the nomination out of a sense of fair play?
What’s going to happen is that Obama will have enough of a lead that he’ll be able to make a gesture to MI and FL that won’t change the result. At that point, Clinton backers will have to decide if they want to go to war, and elect President McCain, over this.
Even with MI and FL, the only way Clinton can claim to have won the popular vote is to pretend that caucus states cast zero popular votes, and that votes for “uncommitted” in Michigan count as zero votes for Obama, despite exit polls showing that the uncommitted voters in MI were overwhelmingly for Obama. Otherwise she’s still behind.
It wasn’t an under the table deal. The original bill only moved the primary date to January. The Dems, who are in perpetual minority in the legislature, agreed to go along with the bill provided the bill was amended to provide for paper ballots statewide. Sarasota County had already voted to go strictly paper by 08 in the Nov 06 election so the R’s saw the writing on the wall. That does not, however, release the Dems from responsibility for allowing this fiasco. What irks me more than anything is that the Dems didn’t have the votes to stop the primary date move anyhow, but they were willing to go along with it for the paper ballots. It was disgraceful and the Dems know they’re going to pay for it next time around.
Two points.
First, my proposal is better than the “half each” in two ways. MI still gets punished, which I think is absolutely critical to end this madness with the Christmas primaries. I also think it would make voters in MI happiest, because they’re none too please either about the way the Clusterfuck worked out.
Second, if you think McCain would try to turn this into a campaign issue, by seating the elected at full strength and the supers not at all, you’re actually giving MI MORE representation in Denver than MI will have in MN at the GOP convention.
Also, to be fair about the uncommitteds, a number of those people were voting for Edwards first. We have no way of saying whether they would have chosen Hillary or Obama as their second choice. The few (5, probably) people who are NOT known Obama supporters are mostly labor people. Several of them committed to vote for Obama. Others, I suspect, might go however the UAW said to go. Frankly, Hillary fucked over a lot of teh intended UAW delegates here (don’t ask, it’s complicated, but trust me on this), so there are likely to be some miffed UAW people in MI right now.
We’re one of the most gerrymandered states in teh country. So yes, people will come out to work for Schauer and PEters (MI-7 and MI-9), but in a lot of the other areas, what you’re talking about is getting people out to vote in state house races, if that is close. That’s pretty far down teh ticket to generate excitement.
From what I read it appears Clinton is going to try to use any measurement she can to claim victory. I’m not going to get worked up about it either way. Neither do anything for me but I’ll vote for whoever the nominee is. The DNC and the state power brokers created this mess, let them fix it. I will say this. The DNC and all the state parties agreed to the rules long before any of this date moving nonsense started. So are the DNC, FL and MI going to abide by the rules, which also include going to the Credentials Committee, or is the DNC going to change the rules, which would favour one candidate over another? That’s my concern. It’s here that I have to agree with a number of comments about is this what we want to teach our children. Do the rules apply to everyone or to everyone except a select few?
We’ve got people knocking on doors for County Commission seats.
First it goes to rules committee in May, where there are already two challenges that are much worse than this one.
But the result is pretty much teh sme as you’re saying–Obama makes a concession to Hillary but moves on. But it 1) punishes MI’s supers, and 2) moves on sooner rather than later, taking off all this MI posturing.
Also, one of the goals here is to call peoples’ bluffs. In truth, Hillary is just as interested in seating the supers as she is in seating the delegates (she would get a big difference in the supers). So this calls her bluff and says, if you could seat delegates with an emphasis on the outcome of the crappy January 15 election, but without the rest of your built-in advantages for having the MI leadership in your pocket, would you do it? My guess is no, and I’d like