Michigan Dems Suggest Compromise Delegate Plan
We may be on the verge of a compromise on the Michigan situation -- with the key being that a new solution wouldn't actually change the overall delegate race.
The Michigan state party's executive committee voted to submit a proposal to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, to send 69 delegates for Clinton and 59 for Obama.
The +10 margin for Hillary would be a significant cut from her +18 over "Uncommitted" in the state's rogue January primary, would take away any chance of getting at any of the 55 slots for Uncommitted, and would still allow the seating of a full delegation.
Meanwhile, the Wall St. Journal points out that we might soon see a softening of Obama's position on this issue. With the likelihood of his nomination now significantly increased, he is free to approve any plan that would seat delegates but wouldn't swing the nomination over to Hillary.















Hmmmm. Votenic doesn't seem so bad after all.
May 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about the Popular Vote?
May 8, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not really as popular anymore now that Obama has it in the bag.
May 8, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The popular vote should be awarded in the same way, Obama should get uncommitted and they should give them all half a vote. It works out for everyone, they get punished, but they still get to vote, Hillary gets to shut up, and Obama doesn't get too penalized for following the rules.
May 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What rule?
Also, perhaps Obama could make up his mind -- he is not obliged to follow the principles of small d democracy with regard to the wishes of the Michigan voters because it is not in the rules but the superdelegates are obliged to follow the wishes of the majority of the primary voters (unless you live in district which voted for Clinton in which case you are still entitled to vote for Obama) despite that fact that nothing in the rules requires this and the historical fact that the superdelegates were installed in the first place to override the primary outcome if it would result in a candidate who would be unelectable in the fall.
May 8, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama leads in the popular vote, by all reasonable metrics.... so yes, what about it?!
May 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...by all reasonable metrics"
That's shady as it comes. Either he leads or he doesn't. There are ballots, you count them. You look at the number each person has. That's the only "reasonable metric" in an election. This voodoo vote counting is what messed y'all's heads up back in 2000, some of y'all still haven't recovered from that.
May 8, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about it?
It has never meant anything other than an argument to Superdelegates. Once the Supers are in Obama's camp, why would it matter if she got to count every vote by the number of ovaries or lack of melanin.
May 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should support deals like this, and put Hillary on the spot to get her to back them, as it destroys her argument about electability and makes her look like a goat for refusing deals that are more than fair and reasonable.
May 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
She should reject this out of hand. She won the vote. If they are seated then she should have them all full stop. He was the one that didn't support another Primary in Michigan. He can live with the result.
May 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't she (as well as all of the other candidates) agree not to support Florida and Michigan?
May 8, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I absolutely hope Hillary does reject *ALL* reasonable offers, because I want to see her campaign self-destruct as a result of her egotism, to the point that many of her supporters start to reject her.
I would love to see the people of Michigan and Florida react to Hillary Clinton refusing to allow their delegates to be seated!
...and it won't do her any favors with the superdels or in upcoming states, either!
May 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't spin so hard. You might get dizzy and fall-over.
May 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) It didn't matter whether or not Obama supported it. The state legislature shot it down and the state Democratic party said they wouldn't have had enough time to put one together anyway. Although, I'm sure you've heard that before and just don't want to let it get inside your head.
2) Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. The DNC told them it wouldn't count. Therefore, there was no vote for her to "win". You'll just have to live with the result.
May 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michiganders, on the other hand, are a shifty lot, who tend to dress and talk like Ted Nugent and/or Michael Moore, depending on ethnic background. Their food (pasties, Bell's Beer) is smelly and crude. Don't be fooled by their overly polite manner, eventually they'll say something blunt and call you on your bullcrap.
Anyway, as a Michigander who voted Uncommitted because Obama wasn't on the ballot, I approve of this compromise.
May 8, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is, of course, none of my business how Michigan's delegation gets seated. If Michiganders like this proposal then I hope it passes. That said, there is one portion of the proposal (not addressed in Mr Kleefeld's brief uptop) that I do not like: the supers get seated with their votes intact. As far as I am concerned, it was the supers who caused the problem in the first place and thus it is should be the supers who pay the price. I would like to see them not seated at all, but at the very most they should be seated with half a vote each. To monkey with the pledged delegate division while leaving the supers untouched punishes the innocent while letting the guilty off the hook entirely.
May 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now its up to Obama to try and "discipline" the Superdels of Michigan. Your dance towards fascism is interesting Greg.
May 8, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about Obama? Certainly not me. It is the party's job to exercise such discipline, not Obama's. Meanwhile, you will have to excuse me if I am not quite able to follow the rather facile leap of logic by which "party applies sanctions as per stated rules" equals "dance towards fascism." Care to unpack that a bit?
May 8, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facisicm ? Coming from a Hillary supporter, that is hilarious. No wonder your gal lost. With supporters like you, who needs enemies ?
May 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually not a bad idea. Sorry Sen. Levin, we respect you, but you don't get an invite to the party in Denver.
May 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how the only plans submitted always penalize Obama for following the rules.
LESSON FROM 2008 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY: Breaking the rules is always to your advantage because the DNC will roll over and let you break the rules.
I'm looking for to the first in the nation for the 2012 season Georgia primary to be held on July 14, 2009.
May 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, let her reject it, and infuriate more on-the-fence supers with her selfishness and hypocrisy. I hope she does reject it.
May 8, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much exactly what I predicted would happen.
May 8, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wake up fools. Obama is a politician. he will do what is expedient and works for him. It's all about him.That goes for his excuses about Wright, Rezko, Oil company donations and on and on.
He's a politician, just like the rest of them.
Politics as usual. The difference is, he's deceived you
May 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he's deceived you. He made you believe that he deceived us when he didn't. That's how devious he is. Your powers are useless against him. Give up now.
May 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
and Hillary's not?
Please. You're just arguing Obama is "just as bad" as Hillary...
which bothers you why?
Obama beat the Clintons. Now he will beat McCain. That's all that matters.
May 8, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
End..justifies...means.
Politics as usual.
May 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, this Clinton lady... she's a politician too, eh?!
May 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And as a supporter I knew that. She is not deceiving her supporters.
Obama the Deceiver promised the end of the old politics...change!
He's the same as Clinton but worse in that he claimed to be one things and has turned out to be another. Rude awakening dead ahead.
May 8, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Wake up fools" said the sleeping man.
May 8, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
May 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again with the "wake up, fools" line? Given the rather obvious failure of this approach to convince anyone, it is hard to understand your insistance on reiterating it so frequently.
May 8, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think loodmila is a troll who wants to see how quickly he can get banned. I very rarely see posts that justify the internet's bad reputation but this hits the ball out of the park. I feel slimed.
May 8, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason loodmila keeps changing its name is that it keeps getting banned for its racist spam. Just ignore. The TPM staff have this well in hand. It'll be banned again, and come back as l00dm1lla, or something. It posts on a liberal website presumably because it enjoys the angry response it gets from liberals.
Just listen to the good doctor Troll Critic 3000, and take his advice.
May 8, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is OK with me, on condition that before the deal is signed, Terry McAuliffe be required to read aloud, in front of the TV cameras, the following passage from his memoir What a Party!:
May 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, Obama's lead is so great they can seat both the 38 delegates from Florida, and the 18 from Michigan!
What's the big deal? Seat them and nominate Obama.
May 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No +10 or plus anything deals with HRC until Obama get over 2024 and the nom is sealed.
May 8, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign should accept the compromise with one condition - that the uncommitted popular vote be counted as Obama votes. I realize this is something that Michigan Dems can't "officially" do, but they can publicly acknowledge that this is the case.
Then Obama can sit back and wait for the Clinton campaign to reject the compromise, gain the moral high ground and question Clinton on why she wants to disenfranchise Michigan voters.
May 8, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
As long as they are tacking on conditions, if I were Obama I would insist that Zingerman's from Ann Arbor do the catering at the convention. ;-)
(If the reference is lost on most of you, I feel fairly confident that my fellow Wolverines at least will appreciate it.)
May 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think having the MI/FL situation resolved when it's irrelevant to the nomination process is a fitting punishment to two states who tried to set their primaries early to give themselves disproportionate influence on the process.
May 8, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
No thanks. We do not reward those who willfully violate the rules that they signed on to. Fifty fifty split of the delegates is all that is acceptable. Otherwise, Michigan get rewarded for their bad behavior, and Hillary gets rewarded for her intentional cheating. No deal. No deal. No deal. Never bribe snatch and grab thieves.
May 8, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
No thanks. We do not reward those who willfully violate the rules that they signed on to. Fifty fifty split of the delegates is all that is acceptable. Otherwise, Michigan get rewarded for their bad behavior, and Hillary gets rewarded for her intentional cheating. No deal. No deal. No deal. Never bribe snatch and grab thieves.
May 8, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly ! This is such bullshit. They made the decision to not comply with the rules, so they should STFU. This is wrong on so many levels. What happened to common sense with MI and FL sealing their own fate and dealing with the consequences? I think they should be ignored. Besides, if the voters are upset in those states, and rightly so, deal with your state party leaders. This is a state issue, not a national problem.
May 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the kind of deal that must be done, to finish dealing with the silliness of the 48 states argument from HRC camp.
It is enough for me, as an Obama supporter, to know that he would have won Michigan if it had been truly contested, and that he would have come closer in Florida than he did if he had been able to campaign there. The results elsewhere bear that out. So, yeah, cut the deal. Seat them. Move on. And let's start clearing the way to look squarely at taking the WH in November. Time to stop being distracted with stupid shit like this.
May 8, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama won't make a decision on Michigan/Florida till after May 31st - I'm betting on it. He needs to know exactly where he stands at that point.
May 8, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
And at that point if it would put him over the top Clinton will put up a roadblock.
Nope. It's now or never for him on FL/MI.
May 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wake up and support your presumptive Democratic candidate.
May 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that was supposed to be in response to fogu2 up there.
May 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said, I cannot support a nephyte who appeals to a racist constitueny and continually deceives his own supporters and the public at large.
I'm not saying I support McCain. Like a lot of Clinton supporters, I just may not vote at all.
May 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
fogu2 - I see you've either ignored or missed my reply to the "racist" charge yesterday.
It's not about race. Obama wins 60% of those under age 64.
It's about AGE. And, frankly, I'd go with the person who wins the most votes, period: Obama.
May 8, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. That is, after all, the beauty part of the American system. I get to cast my vote as I see fit and you get to cast yours (or not cast it) as you see fit, and in the end someone wins. I know that I am not going to lose any sleep one way or the other about what you do (or do not do) with your vote. It is good that people be happy, so if it makes you happy to sit at home, I hope that is what you do.
May 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take the 59-49 split, but give them half-votes for breaking the rules.
May 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, make that 69-59. Rather, 34.5-29.5.
May 8, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why accept any offers/suggestions/compromises from Michigan or Florida - if they aren't accompanied by legislation that returns their primary dates to their original ones? We'll just have to go through this again in four years, right?
I've got relatives in Michigan and Florida, and I love them, but both these states seem populated by folks(my family included) who will cut in line at the donut shop or the grocery store given half a chance, and they'll continue to do it with the primaries if the DNC doesn't make it clear that cutting is unacceptable.
It's Parenting 101, people!
May 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you reward Michigan and Hillary for their violation of the rules they had signed on to, then you will have set a terrible precedent. How will you ever enforce the rules in future national campaigns, if you reward Hillary and Michigan now. No deal, No deal. No Deal. A fifty fifty split of delegates is all that is acceptable.
May 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that, but in a way, MI and FL were punished.
They has no effect on the race whatsoever.
Rewarding them delegates that won't matter hardly seems like a "reward."
May 8, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
had*
May 8, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. It's all moot now anyway. Obama's the nominee, let people do what they want, just get on with the general.
May 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole MI/FL thing has all along been been an extortion racket, by those state parties and by Hillary's campaign. I say never reward extortionists, or you'll just get more of the same rule breaking pressures in the future.
Thanks, Subliminability above [10:35 am] for bringing in that quote from McAuliffe's book. That gives a perspective on the fact that Michigan threatened this when McAuliffe was heading the DNC, and tried again against Dean's DNC in this primary cycle.
May 8, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We'll just have to go through this again in four years, right?"
I think EVERYONE learned a lesson from this! Having an early primary is like leaving a party before midnight: you never know what you might miss! I bet California wishes they were still a June 5 state!
May 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink