Michigan State Dems agree on delegate-seating plan for DNC

Posted by Associated Press May 08, 2008 03:25AM
Categories: Election News, State News

LANSING — Michigan Democratic leaders have settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the delegates seated at the national convention.

Clinton won the Jan. 15 Michigan primary and was to get 73 delegates under state party rules. Obama was to get 55 delegates. The state also has 29 superdelegates.

The state party's executive committee voted Wednesday to ask approval for the plan from the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee. It would shrink Clinton's delegate edge from 18 to 10 and allow the 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated at the convention.

The DNC stripped Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates for holding their primaries before Feb. 5.

<snip>
http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/05/state_dems_agree_on_delegatese.html

I support the Michigan Dems' solution. I hope both campaigns and the DNC move swiftly to accept it. My guess is that Hillary supporters will not accept it. They should.

I wonder if FL has moved past their junk? Is it going to take their delegates being seated with half vote before this is over?

I do think that SDs from both states should be punished by only having half a vote- or none. Many of them are the primary cause of the primary mess.

Some DUer had a good idea about how to handle something like this in the future. Instead of not seating the entire delegation, only the Super Delegates from the offending state would not be seated. Since, like you say, they are the ones who cause the problem. I'd go even further to say not only would they not be seated, they'd be barred from the Convention floor and events. Let them sit at home and watch it on TV. There's no way they'd suffer a punishment like that so you'd never see a state move their primary up in opposition to the rules again.

They are the people who caused this mess, make them pay.

How many Obama voters stayed home because it wasn't supposed to count and he wasn't even on the ballot? There's no way you can come up with a scenario for MI delegates by pulling numbers out of the air.

A redo is the ONLY fair resolution.

according to the actual vote--in a word, Wolfson ruled out this compromise, and said, "NO!"

n/t

This is a reasonable solution and I don't see how any reasonable person could dispute it. In any case, what Hlll wants is for Obama to get 0 delegates from Michigan because his name wasn't on the ballot. Her campaign has argued, I believe, that Hill should get all the MI pledged delegates.

If it's true that Obama has an unsurpassable lead, just seat them. I believe Clinton has argued, at wort, that she get 73 and the 55 get seated as uncommitted. If what I read here is correct, it doesn't matter. Just seat them. This is a petty fight with major consequences.

I think the bigger problem is how many other states will try this stunt in 2012? We'll all be having Primaries in November 2011!!

And come up with something other than Death Star penalties. Personally, i think the penalty should be to seat them but with no vote on the first ballot.

and I hate to point out that it was pretty easy for the repugs---you get 1/2 your delegates. no debate. I think our solution was more like punishing ALL of us, and not very well thought through.

Its hard to just hand her about 100 delegates,
because Hillary loves delegates more than Obama.

:toast:

1/2 vote per delegate was minimum penalty by the rules.

The Base penalty was 1/2,

It can be found in Section 20.C.1.A

and there was allowance for further action (which lead to the complete removal of delegates).

It can be found it Sections 20.C.5 and 6

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

20.c.5 and 6 are rules too.

To better answer your question, write to the Clinton campaign c/o Harold Ickes and ask him why he voted to strip MI and FL of all of their delegates rather than simply stick with the minimal 1/2 delegate penalty.

if MI and FL don't pay some kind of price the DNC message becomes one of rules not counting. If no price is paid the next democratic primary will be a literal free for all with no rules (but you seated FL and MI when they cheated...)

rewarding misbehaviour leads to more misbehaviour. Both states were warned, now they have to pay the consequence of flouting the rules.

GK

.

of doing it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if RBL and Credentials accepted this solution. Alas, Hill probably won't.

Michigan is off Hillary's table of complaints.

And is totally unfair to those who stayed within the rules.

tells states that the rules will not be enforced to the letter..

I could just imagine the response if the situation were reversed, and Hillary was getting delegates from an election she didn't run in.

The rules are only important when they hurt Clinton, I guess.

you don't explain why you object to this solution. And if the dems in MI support it, why should it bother you? You completely mischaracterize the MI situation. Typical. Obama and Hill agreed with the DNC decision that MI wouldn't count. Now something needs to be worked out. YOU seem to believe that Hill should be rewarded for this situation. I simply think that something that's roughly fair to both should be worked out.

ran in an election that he agreed NOT to run in---then wanted all the delegates.

This doesn't hurt Clinton as much as it should. I think a bigger deal should've been made about WHY she agreed that it wouldn't count...but NOW is desperate to count them. I know it is a big deal on DU, but hasn't been covered adequately by the MSM. (IMO)

but nobody agreed not to be in the michigan race. It doesn't matter how much you guys lie about it.

don't count me in that lump sum.

here's the text from the 4 state pledge signed by Clinton:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.


Obama & Edwards took it a step further and removed their names from the ballot.

someone here had a link to that information... it wasn't followed by some, but... they did ask that that be done.

"not participate"....

press releases from both campaigns:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2008/01/clinton_wins_michigan.html

interesting mess...

to remove names from the ballot.

Shocked me to see it... considering.

THAT is what should be publicized. I know the video was floating around where Clinton clearly says that the MI votes are not going to count.

Obama complied.
Hillary (and Dodd, I believe) said "fuck you DNC". For that, she should be rewarded?

Kay.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/7/214434/6554

Or if Clinton got a couple hundred superdelegates before the primaries even started.

Hillary's campaign agreed to the rules (one of her campaign managers even voted them into being). She only wants new rules now because she thought she would win it all by Super Tuesday. There has been no evidence that Obama has ever suggested the game shouldn't be played by the rules that were agreed to from the outset. The difference is that Obama chose to learn the rules and play the game with that in mind. Clinton had a game plan that failed, and now the only way for her to win is to retroactively change the rules. Or as she is fond of saying "Those aren't the rules of my campaign" That quote is the one that pushed me from hoping to see Clinton as the nominee straight to Obama. The primary has rules, Clinton succinctly stated that she will break the rules, the insight into her persona with that statement shows that she has little interest in governing and a lot of interest in wielding power.

GK

Michigan should be 50-50 since Obama was not on the ballot.

seems viable. Hillary gets more delegates than Obama, but not such a huge chunk more as to be unfair. Why not go with it? It won't change the dynamics, and it solves the MI problem.

their plan. I applaud them. The problem will always be getting both campaigns to accept it as well as the DNC. But it seems reasonable to me or least a variation.

To me a 60-40 split with the SDs being reduced to 1/2 a vote would be more or less fair.

Sorry, but MI and FL have not right whatsoever to seat any delegates. They know what they were getting into, and said "Fuck it."

I can live with the MI proposal, but no way should their SD's have a seat. They're largely the ones that created this clusterfuck in the first place.

Why is she getting rewarded for staying on the ballot, when almost all others took their names off? And don't forget that she agreed that the MI votes wouldn't count.

Also, let me say that the RACE IS OVER. Obama has won.

The problem I have is with someone getting rewarded with a victory when it was a sham election. It doesn't set a good precident for future elections.

Good job Democrats. You're fucking up another one.

There were probably votes that went to Hillary that may have went to Obama if he were on the ballot. Yes, uncommitted was on the ballot, but sometimes people feel the need to make a choice and not just go with "none of the above". That's why I think Hillary's margin of victory in Michigan is unreasonably portrayed.

her name on the ballot against the wishes of the party! That type of independent thinking and Goalpost Agility Initiative is just what need to take on McCain in the fall!

one iota since they broke the rules.

However, after Obama has the nomination and Hillary has formally dropped out, I don't really care. Until then, I don't trust what the other campaign is going to try to come up with.

it's certainly fair. Though, I share the OP's opinion that the Clinton camp will refuse.

They should split the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama. Rules are in place for a damn reason and they "knowingly and purposely" broke the rules. Their votes SHOULD be counted but should also me meaningless.

rules is 2025.

It will only make Hillary look more petty than she already does.

50-50 pledged delegate split in Michigan AND Florida. If Hillary manages to take this to a convention floor fight, which seems to be her full intention, there would be no advantage to her from these states, nor should there be.

NO superdelegates allowed from either state. Many of them are the DLC'ers who caused this shit in the first place, and they deserve NOTHING.

Personally, I don't believe either state should be let off for breaking the rules, but at least this plan allows the voters in these states to participate, while also penalizing the guilty parties. More than anything, I just want the MI/FL question taken out of Hillary's bag of tricks.

I really don't mind about the individual numers since they won't significantly alter his lead. The only thing I was objecting to was the calims of a few Clinton supporters that She should get all her delegates and he should get none because he wasn't on the ballot, which was ridiculous on its face.

It was a silly-assed measurement anyway.

  Merely sprinkle a few here, move a few there, see if everyone agrees and that's it. I guess I'm not going to erupt into flames over this but, seriously, how sad are the sate of affairs when really important numbers like this are basically "fiddled with" with little rhyme or reason?

PB

It just finalizes things all the faster. One less thing for the Clinton campaign to complain about or use as an argument for how somehow things might turn around, and once they're factored into the totals it just makes it even more clear how insurmountable his lead is. 10 delegates will make zero difference at this point. He'll make that up in superdelegates again in 3 or 4 days. And it will put to bed this "Obama wants to disenfranchise you!!!" idiocy once and for all.

There's no downside here for him.

Her spokespeople came out denouncing it...big surprise.

that's what her sicko campaign is arguing for. Screw her.

No, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE FUCKING CROWNED QUEEN


GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The Bad Seed" come to mund?

or not vote. They shouldn't have a big say in those two states because of the states breaking the rules.

I didn't vote because they said it wouldn't count. THe main point is why does she get more they should be split in half. I need to look into this it this is the first time I have heard of this.

Whatever. It's all BS.

That's what they're really fighting over.

David

not bc of the split between the candidates, but bc you do have to somewhat punish Michagin, otherwise whose gonna listen to the DNC in 2012 if they move their primaries before "feb 5th".

Hell it might cause a ton of states to move their primaries!