I figure this is as important to the race as any recent primary. Prediction: They will seat all the delegates, their vote will count half, Florida's delegates will be bound to the results of the primary there, and Michigan's delegates will be unbound.
I totally agree with your prediction. I never thought I'd see the day that some random DNC Rules committee hearing is covered live on the major news networks. So freaking bizarre. The nice thing about this is hopefully it will end the certainty of it all and get this over with.
So Hillary will pick up around 18 delegates from FL? Any thoughts on the popular vote? Florida seems easy. But Michigan? The Obama campaign seems to be open to the FL arrangement but how do you seat uncommitted delegates? One story I heard is that the DNC will ask the other candidates (Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Edwards) if they agree to seat uncommitted to Obama and if they agree, that's what they'll do. And so freaking boring!
Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards already have endorsed Obama. Biden said a few days ago that he's involved in the campaign, so the rumor is that everyone has agreed to give their delegates to Obama. So they'll probably have the same solution as Florida and Hillary will gain about 10 delegates. All in all, it's great. Hillary gains about 30 delegates, and we get to stop hearing about MI/FL.
via TPM -- In Blow To Hillary, DNC Agrees To Seat Florida And Michigan Delegations At Half-Votes By Eric Kleefeld - May 31, 2008, 7:35PM In a huge blow to Hillary's hopes, such as they are, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has now voted in favor of a compromise measure for Michigan, giving 69 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama at a half-vote each. This effectively ends Hillary's bid to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations in full -- which she was hoping for in a last-ditch effort to close the delegate count and, more importantly for her campaign's moral arguments, to try to narrow Obama's unofficial popular vote lead. Still, Hillary's chief delegate counter, Harold Ickes, seemed to signal that there's still a possibility that she might fight on. In a harsh tone of voice, Ickes told the committee that Hillary personally informed him that she reserves the right to take the dispute over Michigan to the Credentials Committee in Denver, on the grounds that the committee had no right to transfer "Uncommitted" votes over to Obama. The 69-59 measure was put forth by the state party's leadership, with Sen. Carl Levin arguing for full voting rights for each delegate. It remains to be seen whether he will fight on over the question of half-votes, or whether the matter is now effectively over. The vote was 19 in favor to eight opposed, less than the unanimity received by the Florida half-vote compromise. Hillary's total advantage in pledged delegates for Michigan and Florida is now set at +24 -- well short of the advantage of more than +100 that she once hypothetically enjoyed. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Via kos... Yesterday, Obama needed 41 delegate votes to clinch the nomination; Clinton needed 244. Today, Obama needs 64 votes; Clinton needs 240.5. There are 291 delegates remaining.
I don't think it is fair to give Obama any votrd from Michigan, a primary in which his name was not even on the ballot. The DNC Rules Committee basically made an assumption that any voter that cast a ballot for "Uncommitted" was casting a vote for Obama which is a logical assumption, but in my opinion oversteps the power that the DNC should have. In my opinion, the only fair way to have dealt with Michigan would have been to throw all of the Michigan votes out or have a revote. The DNC should not be given discretion to interpret voter intent under ANY circumstances.
Whoever's in the RBC are provincially minded halfwits who are likely behind the disastrous Gore and Kerry campaigns. Can this simple situation end any worse? Were they trying to rub it in to put her in her place? WTF?? Obama’s Pyrrhic Michigan Victory By Thurlow Weed Yesterday’s DNC decision to award Obama delegates in Michigan even though he was not on the ballot surely seemed plausible to Democratic leaders trying to find a way out of their dilemma. The idea of splitting the baby in Michigan and Florida, seating the delegates while cutting their voting strength, was always a natural one, and in and of itself will cause little problem. But the Michigan decision is a jaw dropper. By setting aside election results to Hillary’s disadvantage, the DNC has saddled its likely nominee with an enraged opponent who now has every incentive to carry the fight through the summertime. Simultaneously, it has told Michigan voters that the DNC – and by extension, its nominee, Obama – is willing to set aside election results it does not like. That cannot have a positive effect on Michigan swing voters – and Obama needs to carry Michigan in the fall to have any shot at victory. The Clintons’ unwillingness to accept defeat is legendary. Yet the DNC has thrown sand in the face of a candidate who is already claiming sexism underlies the opposition to her campaign. Never underestimate the fury of a woman scorned, the adage goes. Now she can stay in the race with yet another rationale for her candidacy - she is fighting for democratic principles. And her working class voters in Michigan will hear that message. This decision violates a cardinal rule of warfare first promulgated by the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu in his classic The Art of War – always give your enemy the opportunity to retreat. The corollary to a political campaign is that one must always give one’s opponent the opportunity to bow out gracefully. Manipulating the rules to ensure Hillary cannot possibly win does not give her that opportunity, and given the psychology of the individual in question, virtually ensures a continued battle. In Obama’s favorite game, basketball, trash talk and demonstrating your dominance by dunking the ball over your opponent is expected. Employing these tactics in politics, particularly intra-party politics, is not very good sense. It is particularly poor sense given that Obama was going to win the nomination anyway because the clear sense of the superdelegates is to back Obama and end the fight. This decision was as unnecessary as it is inflammatory. It is exhibits even poorer sense because Obama is unlikely to win a close general election without Michigan. Look at the map. If McCain keeps the Bush states, he wins. Florida looks like a lock for McCain for many reasons, which make Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, and the Rocky Mountain states the keys for Obama. Of those, even now McCain generally leads in the first three (he is behind in the Real Clear Politics Ohio poll average only on the strength of one poll which frankly I don’t believe – Obama cannot be ahead by 9 in Ohio, a GOP leaning swing state, and by only 1-2 nationwide) and the demographics of those states suggest he is likely to win them so long as McCain keeps his national popular vote percentage in the 48-49 range, which the polls suggest he can. Obama then wins if he can take the Rocky Mountain states (Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico) where the polls now show him ahead, plus hold New Hampshire and take Iowa. This is all plausible – here the demographics or state effects all favor Obama (except New Hampshire, which seems even or slightly favors McCain). But note this assumes he holds the swing states of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Recent polls show Obama leading in three of those four. But McCain leads in all three of the most recent Michigan polls. Any guess what might be the reason? Any guess as to whether the swing working class whites Obama needs to carry Michigan will be more likely to back him after yesterday’s vote? The depth of Obama’s Michigan problem becomes even clearer when one looks at electoral history. Michigan and Pennsylvania are the Bobbsie twins of American politics. Both states were between 1.5 and 2 points less Republican in each of the last three presidential elections. They are demographically similar, with large working class populations who provide the crucial margins for Democratic Presidential candidates. In fact, the last time these states voted for different Presidential candidates when there was not a Michigan native (Ford in 1976) on the ticket was 1940. Yet today, Obama leads in PA by an average of 5.8 percent while trailing in Michigan. One does not need to look far to ascertain why. This ill-advised decision should hearten McCain backers everywhere. Come November, they might look to May 31 as the day their candidate locked up the election. Thurlow Weed is the pseudonym of a Washington D.C.-based political analyst.
What kind of message would it send to children if they saw that the didn't have to follow the rules. What kind of message does it send that a potential President is out there saying that the rules agreed upon shouldn't really count. It is really strange, and sets a bad example.
even worse, what kind of example would it have set if obama followed the rules and got screwed for following them.
I don't think it really pissed off Michigan voters. They know their primary was all messed up. Turnout estimates suggested that if Michigan voted in similar %'s to other states in the area, turnout would have been around 2 million - it was around 600,000, I believe. So if you had made the primary count, you'd be screwing over the substantial majority of voters that listened when the DNC said the primary doesn't count. Florida, it seems, is much more angry. Given their history with 2000 and that both candidates were at least on the ballot there, they were a bit more upset. And their turnout was much higher due to some big state ballot initiatives (relating to property taxes, I believe).
