Michigan Dems propose Clinton 69 / Obama 59 delegate split

[Mr. Morden]

I see no reason why Obama wouldn't go along with this, as he'll win the nomination anyway:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-michigan-delegates_N.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Nutmeg]

Yeah, it seems like a good deal for Obama.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That punishment seems very misplaced to me.  The superdelegate-class of partisans were the ones whose actions caused this mess - they should be penalized more than should the pledged delegates.  But I suppose things like this are what happen when you allow a group of elites so much power in the process.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Sounds good to me, that means Obama would only need 50 or so more if the states play out that we think they will.

[Joe Republic]

Any idea where they plucked those numbers from?

[Mr. Morden]

Any idea where they plucked those numbers from?

Probably by cutting the Clinton/Obama margin approximately in half.  If it was to be Clinton 73 / Obama 55, then going to Clinton 69 / Obama 59 is like cutting the margin in half.  (Not exactly half, since they have to use an integer number of delegates that adds up to 128.)  So really, it's as good as using the original numbers, but counting each delegate as a half vote....except, this way, the Michigan delegates will get to feel better, as they won't actually be casting half votes.

[Beet]

I see no reason why Obama wouldn't go along with this, as he'll win the nomination anyway:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-michigan-delegates_N.htm

Mr. Morden, an easy, effortless acknowledgement from you that it makes sense to take one position on this controversy if the outcome is likely to be significant and an entirely different position when the outcome is likely to be insignificant. Had Obama's supporters extended the same common sense courtesy to Sen. Clinton, they would have realized that her willingness to cede the full punishment for Michigan in mid January but not by late January was not some horribly immoral betrayal of principle, but merely an acknowledgment that the controversy deserved a much closer look if those delegations were indeed going to be decisive, and it was her role, even responsibility to those voters, to push for the more liberal interpretation.

[Verily]

I see no reason why Obama wouldn't go along with this, as he'll win the nomination anyway:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-michigan-delegates_N.htm

Mr. Morden, an easy, effortless acknowledgement from you that it makes sense to take one position on this controversy if the outcome is likely to be significant and an entirely different position when the outcome is likely to be insignificant. Had Obama's supporters extended the same common sense courtesy to Sen. Clinton, they would have realized that her willingness to cede the full punishment for Michigan in mid January but not by late January was not some horribly immoral betrayal of principle, but merely an acknowledgment that the controversy deserved a much closer look if those delegations were indeed going to be decisive, and it was her role, even responsibility to those voters, to push for the more liberal interpretation.

*Snort*

If Obama had been the one on the ballot in Michigan, would Clinton be pushing to have them seated? You have your answer.

[Beet]

I see no reason why Obama wouldn't go along with this, as he'll win the nomination anyway:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-michigan-delegates_N.htm

Mr. Morden, an easy, effortless acknowledgement from you that it makes sense to take one position on this controversy if the outcome is likely to be significant and an entirely different position when the outcome is likely to be insignificant. Had Obama's supporters extended the same common sense courtesy to Sen. Clinton, they would have realized that her willingness to cede the full punishment for Michigan in mid January but not by late January was not some horribly immoral betrayal of principle, but merely an acknowledgment that the controversy deserved a much closer look if those delegations were indeed going to be decisive, and it was her role, even responsibility to those voters, to push for the more liberal interpretation.

*Snort*

If Obama had been the one on the ballot in Michigan, would Clinton be pushing to have them seated? You have your answer.

Of course not, but Obama probably would have (assuming that he was also behind by a similar narrow margin). I don't think you understand what I wrote at all.

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is very obviously not what Clinton's motivation was: her motivation was victory. Otherwise she would push for them to be seated even if doing so would cost her the nomination.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is very obviously not what Clinton's motivation was: her motivation was victory. Otherwise she would push for them to be seated even if doing so would cost her the nomination.

Of course her motivation is victory. That doesn't change the fact that the controversy deserves a much, much closer look if its resolution is decisive to the overall outcome than if it is not. We are not really regressing to elementary school understanding of politics, are we?

[Alcon]

I recall reading a Clinton quote from before this all where she said it was "clear" that Michigan will not count.  What was the substance behind that?  (Or exact quote, for that matter)

[Beet]

I recall reading a Clinton quote from before this all where she said it was "clear" that Michigan will not count.  What was the substance behind that?  (Or exact quote, for that matter)

It is from an interview with a New Hampshire radio show she gave last October

The exact quote is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most subsequent references omitted the second part of her sentence, which makes it clear that her main point was that she thought the party would do better if its nominee was not seen as abandoning Michigan. I'm guessing at this point she felt pretty confident she would be the nominee. Her opponents probably felt that she would win Michigan and took their names off the ballot out of fear that media coverage of the Michigan results would influence the early primaries. Of course that did not happen.

My point is just that last October, it really looked as if Michigan would not make a difference, since no one thought the nomination battle would be so close. So it made sense for Hillary not to make a big deal out of it, even if she felt there was something not quite right about it, just as it would make sense today for Obama not to make a big deal if Michigan was seated with a 69-59 split.

[Mr. Morden]

My point is just that last October, it really looked as if Michigan would not make a difference, since no one thought the nomination battle would be so close. So it made sense for Hillary not to make a big deal out of it, even if she felt there was something not quite right about it...

It also made sense for her not to make a big deal out of it because she wanted to pander to IA/NH/NV/SC like the other candidates were.  But the second those states have already voted and she doesn't need to worry about them anymore, FL & MI have to be seated.

[Verily]

Her opponents probably felt that she would win Michigan and took their names off the ballot out of fear that media coverage of the Michigan results would influence the early primaries. Of course that did not happen.

The DNC asked the Democratic candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot; otherwise, why would Biden or Dodd have bothered? Clinton and Kucinich left their names on in defiance of the DNC. (The same was not asked in Florida because the deadline to remove names from the ballot had passed by the time sanctions were imposed.)

[Mr. Morden]

The DNC asked the Democratic candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot; otherwise, why would Biden or Dodd have bothered? Clinton and Kucinich left their names on in defiance of the DNC. (The same was not asked in Florida because the deadline to remove names from the ballot had passed by the time sanctions were imposed.)

No, the DNC never asked them to do that.  That was pure "let's suck up to IA/NH/NV/SC" and "let's deny Hillary Clinton any bragging rights for winning even a delegate-less Michigan".  Biden and Dodd bothered because, assuming they even thought they had any chance of winning, that chance would have depended on strong showings in the small, early states where they could afford to compete.  So anything that diminished the role of FL/MI would have benefited them.

[Beet]

The DNC asked the Democratic candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot; otherwise, why would Biden or Dodd have bothered? Clinton and Kucinich left their names on in defiance of the DNC. (The same was not asked in Florida because the deadline to remove names from the ballot had passed by the time sanctions were imposed.)

No, the DNC never asked them to do that.  That was pure "let's suck up to IA/NH/NV/SC" and "let's deny Hillary Clinton any bragging rights for winning even a delegate-less Michigan".  Biden and Dodd bothered because, assuming they even thought they had any chance of winning, that chance would have depended on strong showings in the small, early states where they could afford to compete.  So anything that diminished the role of FL/MI would have benefited them.

Pretty much. You can tell that Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel were not really trying.

[exopolitician]

It doesnt matter I guess because Clinton hates the proposal. I just read the article about it now I cant find it....if I do i'll post it.

[Verily]

The DNC asked the Democratic candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot; otherwise, why would Biden or Dodd have bothered? Clinton and Kucinich left their names on in defiance of the DNC. (The same was not asked in Florida because the deadline to remove names from the ballot had passed by the time sanctions were imposed.)

No, the DNC never asked them to do that.  That was pure "let's suck up to IA/NH/NV/SC" and "let's deny Hillary Clinton any bragging rights for winning even a delegate-less Michigan".  Biden and Dodd bothered because, assuming they even thought they had any chance of winning, that chance would have depended on strong showings in the small, early states where they could afford to compete.  So anything that diminished the role of FL/MI would have benefited them.

I guess I was misremembering. My apologies, Beet.

[Mr. Morden]

I guess I was misremembering. My apologies, Beet.

Well, misremembering on the whole FL/MI mess is understandable, since the media has repeatedly screwed up the facts in their reporting.

Here are the points the media repeatedly gets wrong:

IA & NH cheated too, but the DNC rewrote the rules for them rather than punish them.

The DNC never asked the candidates not to campaign in FL & MI, and they never asked anyone to remove their names from the ballot.  That was all done by the candidates to appease IA/NH/NV/SC.

Clinton suddenly started complaining about how FL & MI should be seated right around the end of January, when she no longer had to worry about pandering to the four chosen early states.  (This isn't misreported so much as it's never mentioned....at all.)

[Erc]

One problem about this plan is that the by-CD delegates have already been selected in Michigan---and only 25 'Uncommitted' delegates chosen so far are definitely for Obama.  This can, of course, be reversed in the At-Large count, but it would have to be decided upon by May 17th.

[Lief 🗽]

This is as good a solution as Obama is going to get. He should take it now and end this nonsense about Michigan and Florida as soon as possible.

[jimrtex]

I guess I was misremembering. My apologies, Beet.

Well, misremembering on the whole FL/MI mess is understandable, since the media has repeatedly screwed up the facts in their reporting.

Here are the points the media repeatedly gets wrong:

IA & NH cheated too, but the DNC rewrote the rules for them rather than punish them.

The DNC never asked the candidates not to campaign in FL & MI, and they never asked anyone to remove their names from the ballot.  That was all done by the candidates to appease IA/NH/NV/SC.

Clinton suddenly started complaining about how FL & MI should be seated right around the end of January, when she no longer had to worry about pandering to the four chosen early states.  (This isn't misreported so much as it's never mentioned....at all.)

There is a difference between Michigan and Florida law.  Candidates did not have to file in either State, with the SoS putting anyone on the ballot who had a credible candidacy.  A candidate could also file if they were left off this initial list.

In both States, a candidate could then file to get off the ballot.  In Florida, there was a requirement that the candidate had abandoned their quest for Presidency.  So if a candidate had told the Florida SoS that they wanted off the ballot, the Florida SoS would investigate. 

When the Michigan primary was initially overturned on the voter list issue, and the Michigan legislature was trying to reinstitute it, they included a similar clause to that in Florida.   They were unable to get a 2/3 majority for an emergency clause that would let the law take effect in time for the primary, and ultimately were unable to get the House to pass the bill at all.  But then the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, and it was all moot - except for which candidates had self-excluded themselves from the ballot.

[Mr. Morden]

One other reason why this compromise benefits Obama.  As I mentioned before, they are *effectively* counting the delegates from the primary results as half votes, but not doing it explicitly.  Officially, the 69/59 split is a number that was pulled out of thin air.  That means that by agreeing to it, Obama would not have to concede that the January primary was in any way a legitimate expression of the voters' will.  If Obama were to agree to any kind of remedy that conceded that the January votes were valid in some way, then that would strengthen Clinton's argument that the FL/MI primary votes should be counted in the "popular vote", and that that reflects that she is the real "choice of the voters".

Not that that would be enough to deny him the nomination, but it would be an unnecessary headache for him.  He wants to wrap this up as soon as possible, and that involves convincing the supers in short order.  Part of that process is making the case that he has a "moral claim" on the nomination because he's the choice of the voters.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Horsesh....

Let Florida be seated as is.

MI can be seated at Clinton +1 to shut up the total fools who as pushing Hillary to win MI.  This is not Iraq, Russia, or China.  You can only win if we have more than 1 candidate on the ballot.  To give her a win is a disgrace for American Democracy.  Plus 1 is the maximum or go to hell

[Verily]

Technically, she did defeat Kucinich in Michigan