CNN: Half of FL/MI delegates to be seated, probably

[Qwerty 42]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democratic Party is likely to meet rule-breaking Florida and Michigan halfway when it comes to seating their delegates at the national convention, two members of the rules committee said Wednesday.

Such a move may help Sen. Hillary Clinton close the delegate gap with front-runner Sen. Barack Obama but not overtake him, said sources familiar with party deliberations.

The sources did not want to be identified because the full committee has not discussed the problem or ruled on it.

The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee meets Saturday in Washington to consider what to do with Florida and Michigan, which broke ranks to hold primaries earlier than party rules allowed.

As punishment, both state parties were told that they would not be represented at all when the party officially nominates a presidential candidate at the August convention in Denver, Colorado, and they are challenging those sanctions.

Clinton and her supporters have been pressing for a compromise that seats as many delegates from the two states as possible. Clinton's Web site encourages people to write to the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

"There is one number that we are going to be satisfied with, and that is 2.3 million people having their votes counted," Clinton supporter Tina Flournoy said. About 600,000 people voted in Michigan and about 1.7 million in Florida.

The party needs "to recognize the January primary votes in both of those states," Clinton campaign co-chairman Harold Ickes said Wednesday.

"Pledged delegates fairly reflect the will of the voters," Ickes said, referring to delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses.

Ickes and Flournoy are both members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Watch more on the Democrats' dilemma »

Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady, won decisively in both states. But all candidates initially agreed not to campaign in either state after they broke party rules.

Obama and some other candidates had their names taken off the Michigan ballot, but he was on Florida's ballot.

In addition to deciding how many, if any, Florida and Michigan delegates to seat at the convention, the rules committee must determine how the delegates would be allocated between Clinton and Obama.

Various formulas have been suggested, most of which would give Clinton more delegates than Obama, but not enough to overtake his lead, which CNN currently estimates at about 200.

Ickes said Wednesday that he expected Obama's lead over Clinton to be "over 100" pledged delegates when primary season ends June 3.

Counting the two states' votes could bring Clinton close enough to Obama's total among pledged delegates which in turn could help persuade the party's "superdelegates" that she is the more electable general election candidate.

Superdelegates are party officials who can cast their ballots for the candidate of their choice. They hold the balance of power in the party at the moment.

The Obama campaign says it is willing to compromise on how Michigan and Florida delegates are seated, portraying its position as a gesture to party unity.

"Any compromise is going to benefit Sen. Clinton," Obama strategist David Plouffe said Wednesday. "We're hoping there can be some reasonable resolution on Saturday that can allow us to move to the general election."

The Obama campaign was dismissive of efforts by the Clinton campaign to have supporters demonstrate outside the rules meeting.

"We're not going to turn this thing into a circus," former Democratic Party Chairman David Wilhelm said.

A memo prepared for Rule and Bylaws Committee members says the party was within its rights to strip both states of all their delegates. CNN obtained a copy of the confidential memo, which committee members received Tuesday.

Party rules require that states lose at least 50 percent of all their delegates for the violations Michigan and Florida committed.

The documents are intentionally neutral, according to a senior Democratic Party official with knowledge of the rules and bylaws discussions and who is not aligned with either Clinton or Obama.

They do not make specific recommendations. The analysis seeks to provide a rules framework for each argument and the issues raised within each challenge.

Separately, a federal judge in Tampa on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit challenging the party's decision not to seat delegates from Florida.

Political consultant Victor DiMaio and his attorney, Michael Steinberg, had compared the decision to prohibitions against allowing African-Americans to vote. And they invoked the trauma of the Florida recount in the 2000 contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

"This is nuts. This is not right. How can they remove Florida after all the things that Florida has suffered through? Hanging chads, through Bush v. Gore, and they're sticking it to us again," DiMaio said before the hearing.

But DNC Chairman Howard Dean said the situations are not comparable.

"You cannot violate the rules of the process and then expect to get forgiven for it," Dean said.

Judge Richard Lazzara sided with the DNC, saying political parties have the right to make their own rules. It is the second Florida lawsuit protesting the party's decision to be thrown out of court, following one filed by Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings, both Florida Democrats.

DiMaio may appeal to the Supreme Court.

This is an interesting turn of events. Although Obama's pledged delegate lead will remain insurmountable, this could have an interesting effect on the popular vote, which has been shown to be a powerful force in deciding superdelegates.

[Qwerty 42]

As an aside, the Google Ad at the bottom is encouraging a date with Clinton to help pay her debt.

[sketerpot]

Wait -- Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, and they're trying to include Michigan's results anyway? Am I reading this correctly?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Bullshit. Of the highest order. If they do this, the undecided delegates and others should "exercise their discretion" and vote Obama. An increasing number of Clinton delegates, provided they're not all total partisans everywhere, should do the same.

[Pu-239]

Not good, I think all the delegates should be seated as is, but stripping the superdelegates from the states; otherwise the Clinton campaign will just continue bitching and moaning about disenfranchisement. We shall see.

[Hawkwings]

Just seat them all but let the delegates exercise their own judgment on who to vote for.

[Knife]

Just seat them all but let the delegates exercise their own judgment on who to vote for.

Why, they purposely went outside the party rules on the primary. Why should they be seated at all?

[Teebs]

Why, they purposely went outside the party rules on the primary. Why should they be seated at all?

I'd imagine it's because if they're not seated in some way then the voters in Michigan and Florida will be pissed off and not vote Democrat in the real election. Obviously this doesn't change the moral rights and wrongs, but I assume the Democrats are more interested in winning the election.

Apparently a lot of the delegates for uncommitted or whatever the 'not Clinton' option was in Michigan are actually Clinton leaning too.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Apparently a lot of the delegates for uncommitted or whatever the 'not Clinton' option was in Michigan are actually Clinton leaning too.

What's your basis for that? Why would someone vote "not clinton" if they supported Clinton?

[Teebs]

http://politicalbetting.com/

Not the best source ever, but I've found its contributors (as in authors of articles, not the people who comment on them) generally know what's going on and make very accurate predictions.

[General Zod]

Apparently a lot of the delegates for uncommitted or whatever the 'not Clinton' option was in Michigan are actually Clinton leaning too.

I've heard from Michigan voters themselves that they were told to mark down uncommitted if they wanted to vote for Obama or one of the other candidates but didn't want to write down Clinton. So your source seems questionable at best.

[Teebs]

When I said not the best source ever I was using British understatement I've found it reliable in the past, but I'll happily admit that that's pretty meaningless to other people, so ignore it.

[xerex]

the people who VOTED undeclared were Obama/Edwards supporters.


the people who are going to be undeclared delagates arent necessarily going to be pro Obama. I'veread that a good many undeclared delagates are simply local union leaders some of whom are sympathetic to Clinton.

[General Zod]

the people who VOTED undeclared were Obama/Edwards supporters.


the people who are going to be undeclared delagates arent necessarily going to be pro Obama. I'veread that a good many undeclared delagates are simply local union leaders some of whom are sympathetic to Clinton.

Misread then, that makes a fair deal more sense. For some reason I was thinking individual voters as opposed to delegates.

[The Spartan]

*sigh* Are they trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Really, at this point, the best thing for the country and the Democratic party is to tell that stupid, selfish bitch to sit down and shut the fuck up. What the hell is Dean thinking? He's supposed to be smarter than this.

[Patrick Degan]

*sigh* Are they trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Really, at this point, the best thing for the country and the Democratic party is to tell that stupid, selfish bitch to sit down and shut the fuck up. What the hell is Dean thinking? He's supposed to be smarter than this.

He is. But Dean is in a tight spot: he can enforce party rules down the line and thereby give the GOP ammunition to use against the Democrats in the general election campaign (essentially putting the "Florida 2000" spectre back on them —and they are shameless enough to pull that one), or risk the party's chances while attempting to avoid organisational disintegration —which the untenable Option C, simply allowing Michigan and Florida a free pass despite their blatant violation of party rules, would entail; since a political party which cannot bring itself to enforce its own rules at all is one headed for fragmentation.

[Tanasinn]

Apparently a lot of the delegates for uncommitted or whatever the 'not Clinton' option was in Michigan are actually Clinton leaning too.

I've heard from Michigan voters themselves that they were told to mark down uncommitted if they wanted to vote for Obama or one of the other candidates but didn't want to write down Clinton. So your source seems questionable at best.

I can second this. Up at the University of Michigan, people were actually tacking up posters that explained that voting uncommitted was basically the only way to vote Obama.

[CmdrWilkens]

There is an excellent analysis here for looking at how you could best gauge exaclty how much support each candidate actually carried on the day of the primary itself based on exit polling.

The end result would be a 69-59 split to Clinton with a +50k vote total and that is without halving the delegates or anything so a +10 for seating 100% or +5 for seating a half delegation.

[Duckie]

There is an excellent analysis here for looking at how you could best gauge exaclty how much support each candidate actually carried on the day of the primary itself based on exit polling.

The end result would be a 69-59 split to Clinton with a +50k vote total and that is without halving the delegates or anything so a +10 for seating 100% or +5 for seating a half delegation.

Given that Obama is up by several hundreds, doesn't this mean precisely 0?

Assuming the uncommitted delegates for Michigan don't end up going to Anonymous instead of to Obama?

[D.Turtle]

At least 22 of the 36 "uncommitted" delegates selected so far support Obama. 19 still have to be chosen.

No matter the outcome of this entire thing, one thing is clear: This will not in any way change the situation that Obama will become the presumptive nominee in the week following June 3rd.

Clinton can shout and scream and cry all she wants, the superdelegates will not let her take this thing to the convention, and even less likely is the chance that they will give her the nomination. All this fear of having Clinton steal the election through superdelegates is completely ridiculous.

As proof, two pictures from the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch:



As a last note on the Florida & Michigan primaries: Was there ever any proof presented, that the voters in those states feel "disenfranchised"? Or that they would not vote for the Democrats if they aren't seated?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Give Florida and Michigan a half vote--anything more would be outrageous, as it would violate party rules. But as the OP stated, the party rules demand at least 50% of their delegates be stripped, but not necessarily all of them. The end result is that they're going to seat the maximum they can--50%. Anything else would break the rules. This will give Clinton a big boost, but since the uncommitteds from Michigan will at least slightly go for Obama, it won't be a disaster.

[Balrog]

Apparently a lot of the delegates for uncommitted or whatever the 'not Clinton' option was in Michigan are actually Clinton leaning too.

I've heard from Michigan voters themselves that they were told to mark down uncommitted if they wanted to vote for Obama or one of the other candidates but didn't want to write down Clinton. So your source seems questionable at best.

I can second this. Up at the University of Michigan, people were actually tacking up posters that explained that voting uncommitted was basically the only way to vote Obama.

Most people I knew didn't even bothered showing up, because they figured there wouldn't be any point since they'd been punished. Clinton's "victory" would not have been as large, or even possible, if it had been a normal primary.

Of course this whole thing wouldn't have been a problem in the first place if the process was organized reasonably and not centered around whiney New Englanders or sucking off some farmers' corn cobs...