If you can see this comment, it showed up.

So the meeting is about to get underway at the Rules and Bylaws committee -- the meeting at which a decision may be reached about what to do about the Florida and Michigan delegations, a decision that could effectively end the Democratic Primary.

:) You're such a tease!

Should I do a test post to see if it makes it?

Morning -

Florida: Seat as is with 50% votes.

Michigan: I say screw it an give Hillary 55% of Michigan's delegates and give them half-votes. Give Barack zero.

Lets just get on with our lives and elect Barack.

Hoo boy. The first argument is to seat the superdelegates, that the DNC has no power to punish them. They've got their priorities straight.

Seems that if they weren't concerned about catering to one or the other of the candidates, this would be pretty easy to fix. As Eric pointed out in that excellent post yesterday, a lot of people in these states didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count. And since candidates were not allowed to campaign in either state, the ultimate result of the non-binding primaries is more or less "whose name do you recognize?" rather than "which candidate do you think made the stronger case that he/she will address the concerns of MI/FL voters?"

I think the one thing that's been either lost or understated in this back and forth between the two campaigns and their supporters is this: there's a reason we hold elections; it's because it's the only way to gage the real support any candidate or issue has. People who really care, who really support a specific candidate, will make the effort to show up on the appointed day to make their preference known. With a poll, you're merely getting the opinions of random people who may or may not be well-informed or informed at all, and who may or may not care enough to actually go vote. Voting requires a minimal commitment to participate in that voters have to actually care enough to show up at the polls or obtain a mail-in ballot. This being the case, there really is no accurate conclusion that can be reached from a vote where voters were told the result would not count, because even those committed to a candidate are likely not to make the effort to vote. A skewed result is almost guaranteed, particularly in the case where candidates have not been allowed to campaign. And there is nothing "democratic" about certifying a skewed result - for several reasons, that's really less democratic than not holding a vote at all.

For this reason, anything that is "not a binding election" cannot in good faith be treated as a binding election after the fact. The campaigns and supporters can try to extrapolate what the results would have been based on demographics or any number of other factors, but it will never be a REAL result. As such, it should not be treated as one.

The only way in this type of situation, if there really is concern that the people of the states in question be represented at the convention, is to split the delegations in half (either by halving the number of delegates or by giving each 1/2 of a vote) and splitting them 50-50 between the candidates. It's the only solution that is fair under the circumstances, since it both follows long-standing party rules that dictate states breaking rules will lose half their delegations AND it's not crystal-ball gazing as to who won and by how much. Because who won and by how much cannot be determined on the basis of a "non-binding election" for all the reasons given. Particularly in the situation the Democratic Party faces with this primary year, the very worst thing to do would be to reach a decision that gives either candidate an edge. That would amount to allowing two "not elections" to impact or determine the outcome of the race instead of the 50 ACTUAL elections in which voters went to the polls/caucuses expecting a binding result. Allowing non-binding results to impact or change the overall outcome would be the worst possible decision, akin to determining the nominee on the basis of a poll or group of polls.

The meeting today will give us a better idea of the continuing strength of the Clinton brand than anything else. If anything other than the half delegations with a 50-50 split is decided upon, it will tell us that brand Clinton still holds a lot of sway with party higher-ups.