That's kind of a shitty deal, considering if they ran it all over again Obama would probably beat Hillary, according to the polls, and common sense for that matter. If they are going to split it they might as well do it 50/50, because his name wasn't even on the ballot there the first time around, while hers was, and he didn't have the opportunity to campaign there, while Hillary was default so she didn't have to. The results of the original primary are meaningless, they are tainted and void, so there is no reason to mark Obama down just because of those results. Split it 50/50 or do a revote.

Any plan that cuts Hillary's advantage in Michigan and Florida would likely be as unappealing to her as it would be appealing to Obama.

I am already on record as favoring a re-vote wherein everybody gets to vote (regardless of whether or not they voted in the Jan republican primary). As such, I am definitely not one of those strict discipline types who want to insist that Michigan be taught a lesson by not seating any delegates from that state. That said, I really cannot understand the sense of any of these compromise plans being floated like the one above or Dodd's 50/50 split. How are these any better than not seating the delegates at all? I am not a Michigan voter, but assuming that I was and that it was possible to alienate me from my party, I think that a bunch of party big-wigs substituting their judgement for my own would do that much more effectively than the current "you knew the rules..." line would. Why would Michigan's democrats be pleased to see a delegation seated with their name on it, but which was chosen by the nation as a whole, not by their own votes? I do not think that the rest of the nation should get to select my delegates from Missouri; why should the nation as a whole get to select the delegates from Florida or Michigan?

Anything that removes FL and MI as an issue will be rejected by the Clinton campaign.

Doesn't matter. After NC, when his lead is insurmountable, Obama will graciously give the Clinton camp pretty much whatever they want on FL and MI.

Delegates seated, Obama the nominee, Clinton deprived of her hypocritical complaints. Hat trick.

I'd modify this to split 84 delegates 50/50 and split the remaining 72 delegates according to the national popular vote.

I'm so over this. I'm from Florida. Hey, MI and FL Dems, you screwed up, deal with it (I have especially little sympathy for MI, at least the FL party can say they were forced into it, though that's only half true).

This won't be decided until after the final votes (June 3rd?).

And it isn't enough for the vote to have a "minor" impact on the totals, it needs to have NO impact. That was the deal. They knew it, and they went ahead anyway.

You made your bed, lie in it. My mother taught me that when I was in diapers.

The MI and FL plans would result in a 30 delegate gain for Clinton. Not as much as she actually won but I suspect there would and should be not objection from either candidate. The DNC would be foolish to not acceptt it and move on.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VOHH3G0&show_article=1

These types of proportional proposals are non-starters because the Clinton campaign needs more than a 10 delegate swing from MI to stay viable at this point. Obama probably gets the short end, but I imagine his campaign would take the deal anyway since it removes one more justification for Hilary's continuing candidacy. That, of course, is the same reason why the Clinton campaign will nix the proposal and continue to loudly spin that MI/FL were disenfranchised. They'll happily hold onto any justification to stay in the race that they've got at this point. Even if a deal like this clears up the delegate situation, the "popular vote" is still mud.

I still think the best deal would to seat FL/MI based on the delegates won in the remaining primaries. That gives both of them a fair fighting chance.

A Modest Proposal.

Add up the selected delegate counts in all those States that Florida and Michigan jumped ahead of by violating the agreed upon order. Divide those two states delegate totals between Hillary and Obama in the same ratio as cumulative delegates were won by the candidates in the States that were cheated out of their proper turns by Florida and Michigan.

That would deprive both States of having gained any advantage over the States that played by the rules.

It's all going to be irrelevant.

According to Chuck Todd, if Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana go as they're trending, Obama can GIVE Hillary Michigan and Florida and STILL win the election outright.

Besides, the act of charity will make him look gracious, especially to MI and FL, and make her look even more pathetic than she does now trying to change the rules.

And it will shut up the trolls.

The body count that the mainstream media has regurgitated out of Florida and Michigan is that 2.3 million Democrats voted in primaries that broke the rules, leaving the DNC with no choice but to level both villages, even if the collateral damage might include the party's prospects of carrying those disenfranchised states in November. The DNC and the MSM appear to have simultaneously concluded that even Clinton's 300,000-vote win in Florida, where both candidates competed on a level playing field, shouldn't be counted in the popular vote tally, a calculation that appears nowhere in DNC rules and turns 1.7 million Democratic voters into ghosts.
The irony is that the drumbeat for Clinton's withdrawal -- coming on the heels of her recent wins and right before what may be her biggest in Pennsylvania -- is rooted in the collapse of the effort to redo Michigan and Florida. The theory is that she should quit because there is no way she can win, and that there is no way she can win because two states she could win, at least one of which she actually did win, will not be counted until she gets out. Barack Obama would thus become the nominee -- not because of an honestly earned if precariously narrow lead in the final national vote, but because of two elections he would not let happen.
If that sounds like a curious way to end a nominating contest that 30 million to 33 million voters will participate in before it's done, even stranger is that the DNC is following only some of its rules -- and that the real culprits who caused this debacle are Republicans, who are now relishing the catfight they provoked.

Let the MI and FL delegates present their credentials in Denver and take their chances.

Everybody knew going in what the rules were. If Clinton was concerned about the DNC rules disenfranchising the voters, she should have said so at the beginning instead of changing her position when she started falling behind.

Obama's position was to follow the rules, and to defer to the DNC on any deals with the two states. Obama should stick by his guns and the delegates should make their case to the credentials committee in Denver.

Forgot to add:

Bold prediction that I made in another thread about this...just watch the following unfold:

Obama campaign: ok we'll seat MI. You get 55%, and I get 40%...

Clinton campaign: whoa, whoa, wait. You don't get 40%, those went to "uncommitted" so I should get half of those, too...

I'm absolutely positive that this is will happen, and I dare you to say "no way could she be that brazen..."

Clinton also followed the rules.

It was the state officials that violated the arbitrary rules.

The solution should neither penalize the candidates nor the voters.

The Dem state officials who approved the dates should be banished from the DNC. The delegates should and must be seated in a formula that roughly follows the vote.

Any other solution will result in the nominee being considered illegitimate which will split the party and result in a McCain victory.

How legitimate would it be to count votes in an election where only one candidate's name was on the ballot?

So, early last year, all the states' Democratic representatives put together a joint venture via the DNC, a primary calendar for all member states and all candidates to use. At that time, all candidates and states agreed. Florida and Michigan months later threw their monkey wrenches into the calendar agreement and defiantly refused to retract their usurpation in spite of being warned of the consequences. Anyone else notice that Hillary supporters in Florida and Michigan were the very leaders who led the usurpation?
We are still dealing with those same monkey wrench throwers, except now their subject has morphed from 'unfair calendar' to 'disenfranchised voters'. I suspect that the same Hillary supporters who originally threw the wrenches are the very ones putting forth 'solutions' that would only benefit Hillary. Talk about extortion. Those Hillary supporters in Michigan and Florida knowingly kidnapped the rights of their own voters who they now hold hostage waiting for us to ransom them.
There aren't any of us who don't want to return those voters' rights to them, but the 'do it or else' extortion message to the DNC, to Obama, and to the rest of the country is disgusting.

Real live Michigan voter here.

The proposals based on allocating all or a portion of the illegal primary are ridiculous. The DNC did not disenfranchise our voters. Our Clinton-supporting state leadership did.

I initially believed a revote in the state was our best option until I heard that voters that voted in the Republican primary would not be allowed to vote in the new election. Large numbers of voters (particularly Obama and Edwards supporters) crossed over to vote in the Republican primary since we were all aware that the Democratic election would not count.

There is no way to have a fair election at this point. The only fair thing is to split the delegates 50-50 or not seat them at all. The state leadership broke the rules, and the superdelegates should not be able to vote at the convention.

One nitpick I have with his plan is that he seems to want to count the superdelegates in his split. If anyone in the delegation deserves to be left out its the people who caused and failed to resolve this problem in the first place. Michigan has 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates.

I say no superdelegates at all, award half the pledged delegates on the basis of the original primary, giving Obama the uncommitted votes. Award the other half split based on the national pledged delegate totals after all the primaries.

You can't split them based on popular vote since some states have caucuses, Washington had a caucus that awarded delegates and a primary that did not, which do you count? Like them or not caucuses are part of the process and if you are awarding extra delegates based on national vote totals then caucus states have just as much of a right to participate in that alocation then those that have primaries. Besides the Clinton argument on caucuses is essentially "That damn Barack Obama out worked and out organized us in caucus states. Shame on you Barack Obama for running a better campaign." Not exactly an argument that should be rewarded. Once all is said and done you will essentially have a 50/50 split but in more democratic means and the issue is off the table for Clinton.