Open Left: FL And MI Will Be Seated At Convention

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:21:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

If Chris Bowers is right about this:

In summary, Michigan and Florida will be seated, and there is only one delegation from each state for the credentials committee to consider. Not only is the Obama campaign not proposing different delegate slates, but they are actively working to make certain of the above delegate slates. Given all this, you tell me--what will the Michigan and Florida delegations look like at the convention?

We can sit around and debate whether or not this result is fair or acceptable all day. Hell, we have already been doing just that for three months now. However, this is not an abstract argument anymore. Michigan and Florida will be seated, and their delegations are taking shape as you read this. If the Obama campaign plans to dispute these delegations at the credentials committee, then it should say so and offer up a counter delegations. It has done neither. Until that changes, I am assuming pro-Clinton delegations of 73-55 from Michigan, and 105-67-13 from Florida.

Then never mind about all my dire predictions. But if Bowers is right, why doesn't Obama say so? The good will he would reap would be tremendous. I'll tell you why, cuz it is not true. That's why.

< Now You Know, Not All Polls Are Equal | Boehlert's Revenge: Now They Notice? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Open Left: FL And MI Will Be Seated At Convention | 76 comments (76 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Is there no chance (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by americanincanada on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST

that it is true except for the part that the Obama campaign wants it?

It Obama wanted it to be true (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST

it would be true. Hillary has no possible argument agaisnt this.


Except that she should get some MI uncommitteds (none / 0) (#44)
by ineedalife on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:14:26 PM EST

Why shouldn't somebody who was uncommitted in Feb not be a Hillary supporter now? I think they should split the uncommitteds.


: The uncommiteds get to commit (none / 0) (#48)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:38:50 PM EST

to whoever they want this weekend at the MI convention. The numbers Bowers cites are how he has heard they are going to break. Of course he names no source for any of this.

Assuming it's true (5.00 / 5) (#22)
by sister of ye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:46:40 PM EST

I wonder if it could be that the DNC is been getting a lot of financial pressure. I sent back my DNC renewal form with a fake $100 bill and a note explaining that it reflected what the DNC told me my Michigan vote was worth. If a lot of others are doing similar things, the DNC could be hurting real bad.

Hey, I sent them another (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:53:20 PM EST

email about my FL vote and my monthly contribution just today! Maybe they've finally heard enough.


: I stopped my contributions (none / 0) (#66)
by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:42:23 PM EST

which were monthly, and told them Noo More Money from me until they accept the MI and FL votes or do primary (not caucus) re-votes.

Great Idea (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:55:30 PM EST

Now who said that Clinton supporter weren't part of the "Creative Class." That gesture seemed real creative to me, but what do I know. I'm one of those poorly educated, low information voters.


: Just plain facts (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST

I'm not that creative!!!
They want my money, they have to seat my delegates!

Ha ha ha ha ha!! Righteous. (none / 0) (#25)
by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST

He May See the Writing on the Wall (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by BDB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:20:59 PM EST

in terms of seating the delegates. Check out this - Donna Brazile got removed from the Rules Committee.

But not seating any Florida and Michigan delegates was always about taking them out of the reporting cycles. The wins didn't matter when Clinton won them and they have been kept out of the news report delegate counts, permitting Obama to make the claim that Hillary can't win.

This is as much about that as anything else. If Obama admits the delegates will be seated, then the delegates and popular vote go into all the reporting.

Brazille is out? (none / 0) (#60)
by magisterludi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST

That would seem to be a big deal to me. I hope it was unceremonious. I have nothing nice to say about DB these days.


Wow (none / 0) (#65)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM EST

That's an interesting post from Corrente. Thanks! Sounds like there's a lot more stuff Dr. Dean is doing behind the scenes than we were really aware of.


: off Rules since January (none / 0) (#67)
by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:47:48 PM EST

according to that Corrente article. Hmmm. Seems like she's been plenty vociferous against MI and FL since January tho. It looks like her name just got removed from the list, and no official announcement of the change was made.

That Post Said That Donna Brazile Wants To (none / 0) (#68)
by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:50:44 PM EST

be head of the DNC. Donna as DNC Chairwoman would guarantee that the DNC would not get another penny from me for the duration of her term.


BDB... (none / 0) (#74)
by IzikLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:35:02 PM EST

I Absolutely agree with this assessment, and I really wish someone, anyone in the media would talk about this. It has hurt Clinton immeasurably in my opinion that the story has been allowed to play out this way.


Of course they will be seated (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:49:11 PM EST

it's a question of when. I doubt it will happen before the nomination is settled. I think the Obama campaign's only objection has been that the seating not affect the outcome of the election or confer "momemtum" to any candidate.

When Fl and MI are seated, wouldn't Clinton still be at least 100 pledged delegates behind? I think from reading the tea leaves, anything less than catching or supplanting Obama in pleded delegate count means Hillary does not get the nomination. Her arguments on electability, experience, strength, being vetted, etc, have not worked with the superdelegates. I think even a 10 delegate margin will win it for Obama.

If FL and MI are not seated (none / 0) (#55)
by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:58:26 PM EST

before the nomination is settled, then those voters had no voice in the nomination. I can't see how Democrats ever stand on principle about counting all the votes again.


Those were the rules (none / 0) (#58)
by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:08:36 PM EST

that everyone agreed to.


: No (none / 0) (#64)
by eleanora on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST

the rules stated that only 50% of the delegates from each state would be seated, apportioned by the direct vote. I'm fine with that, as long as they get a voice.

: I didn't agree (none / 0) (#71)
by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EST

I didn't agree.
In fact, since it wasn't stated in the rules that 100% would be removed, it is fair to say that no one outside of the RBC agreed.

Obama and Dean would take credit for what Clinton (3.50 / 2) (#49)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST

has been advocating since January.

I think we know what that "face scratch" was all about.

Notice what happens to THE MATH (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:38 PM EST

if that's true. Especially the popular vote. Suddenly Hillary isn't out of it--not even close.

Of course this is wrong, though it probably should be right, absent revotes.

Kind of amusing to see BTD (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by oculus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:27:25 PM EST

give the answer in the actual post!


Our Darling Armando... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:40:33 PM EST

an enigma wrapped up in a tepid O.

Perception is all that matters in politics. Actually, let me branch out and say it's all that matters in anything.

When Clinton takes PA, the entire landscape of the race will have changed overnight.


: Accepting this deal (none / 0) (#24)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST

is the only thing Obama can do to change that dynamic. Maybe he will annoucne it on MTP and that is why they are floating it today?

: But (none / 0) (#69)
by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:51:29 PM EST

remember, a loss by Obama in PA is really a win for him unless he's down by 10. Or 19. Or whever # they pull out of the air.
How is he going to spin what the math is from the MI and FL delegates in his favor if/when that becomes official? Maybe he'll just say he's got more without acknowledging that Hillary is right next to him now.

: Kathy, do not ever (none / 0) (#76)
by oculus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:33:06 AM EST

lose your optimisim. As you may recall, mine is somewhat dampened. Plus, the internet cafes here close by 11:00 p.m. I need immed. PA results!

Because he's always so opaque, right? (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST

most likely if the seat the (none / 0) (#9)
by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST

delegates as is, the the decision is based on the Delegates, since that is the rules, and all 50 states will have their delegates based on the votes.


: I think the math is such that SDs (none / 0) (#34)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST

are still needed to put either over the top.

Nothing happens to the popular vote (none / 0) (#33)
by AF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST

Why would negotiations about which delegations to seat affect the popular vote?

The popular vote is a purely symbolic number -- it has no direct effect on the nomination, but is something to be taken into account by superdelegates.

A compromise over seating the MI and FL delegations doesn't affect the popular vote count at all. It is what it is.


I already include FL in my pop vote (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:58:50 PM EST

calculation, but some do not. If the Fl delegates are seated, then the FL popular vote will have to be considered by any superdelegate with a brain who actually cares that the nomination reflect the popular will.


Your conclusion does not follow from your premise (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by AF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST

The argument you make for considering Florida -- that it reflects the popular will -- is exactly the same whether or not the delegation is ultimately seated.

The Florida results reflect the will of the voters who voted in the January primary, in which the candidates pledged not to campaign.

Superdelegates can decide for themselves whether or to what extent that reflects the will of the people. But whatever they decide, there is no reason that an after-the-fact decision to seat the delegation should affect their thinking.


: They should (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:09:07 PM EST

if those who are up for re-election (especially in Florida) want to get re-elected.

Bowers has a good new delegate (none / 0) (#40)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM EST

count based on these (still hypothetical) FL and MI numbers here.

As much as I think many of his opinions are out to lunch, he does count delegates well.

Hillary would need about 53% of the remaining unpledged delegates, to Obama's approximate 48%


Obama won't take a stand (none / 0) (#2)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM EST

I know--shocking.

His strategy at this point is to keep pressing for Clinton to drop out. Mentioning FL and MI, giving them legitimacy, only harms Obama. It's best for him to do what Dean does, which is to just let it float along and hope Clinton gets pushed out.

If she wins big in PA, which I think she will, then the whole game changes.

: He should hope she stays in (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by oculus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:29:31 PM EST

to divert the attention of votes from the Weather Underground associations. I suppose younger voters do not know anything about these terrorists of an earlier era though.

I went to the link (none / 0) (#6)
by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:29:02 PM EST

and saw no source for Bower's write up.
What the heck?
I'll go look again, but is he being coy, making stuff up, or what?

: Bowers is (none / 0) (#61)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:30:58 PM EST

a well-connected Dem. Party insider and knows whereof he speaks. Opinion, not so much, facts pretty much always right. I wouldn't accept it as gospel, but he's got better sources than any journalist on this kind of thing.

DNC is still hoping Hillary will wither... (none / 0) (#8)
by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST

...on the vine. Even though saying now would be a big help for the super delegates and would be a big boost for the Clinton campaign.

So confusing! (none / 0) (#10)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST

Is doing nothing in this case really the same as doing something?

Is absence of evidence the same as evidence of absence?

Oh, wait...

I read it all, including the previous post (none / 0) (#11)
by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST

I think I get it now.
Smoke and mirrors.

And I got so excited! (none / 0) (#12)
by Klio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST

until I read the kicker, that is. Still afflicting the comforted, eh? :-)

ah, this explains Dean's statements today (none / 0) (#13)
by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST

for all SD's to declare themselves immediately. I assume even before the PA vote. That's because if they can end this with SD's now, then the MI/FL to say nothing of the up coming primaries won't matter. And if it's "all over" and "old news" no one will dwell on the fact that Clinton had more popular votes.

But if enough SD's don't come out for Obama, I predict the FL/MI seating won't happen.

: Super delegates (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by sister of ye on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:41:59 PM EST

Ah. If that's so, I predict we'll hear a quick turnaround from "super delegate votes are cheating" to "super delegates are in the ROOLZ."

: No (none / 0) (#62)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:32:01 PM EST

Dean is being misquoted by virtue of sound bite. He says they should all decide by the last primary on June 3.

Wasn't this claimed once before? (none / 0) (#14)
by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:39:47 PM EST

If Obama is as smart a poltiican (none / 0) (#17)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:43:17 PM EST

as he needs to be to win in Nov. he will come out in favor of this immediately. I've been saying it for at least a month, and I'll say it again - the rewards he will reap from the SDs will far outweigh what he will lose in the pledged delegate count. If he accepts this right now, and PA is less than a 12 point Clinton win, there will be an avalanche of SDs coming out for him next week and this thing will be over.

I only say it will have to wait until next week because so much time and emotion is already invested in PA.

I think the benefits (none / 0) (#21)
by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:46:37 PM EST

would be to his public image and to the Party.

If he does not win in PA, though, I don't see the SD's pouring in immediately no matter what he does about MI and FL. They are seriously considering HRC's electability argument, especially after the debate on Wednesday - unless they are total idiots.

Which might be the case. ;-)


: Heh (none / 0) (#27)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:51:44 PM EST

I always forget about the total idiot factor!!!!

Ok... (none / 0) (#18)
by kredwyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:45:05 PM EST

I know I have a headache...and just got kicked out of my napping curl up by Danger Kitty.

I'm confused. Is this real? Accurate? Complete and utter hooey Chris pulled out for a late April Fool's Joke?

Slow news day.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:51:10 PM EST

except for the NBA approving the Sonics move today...

So...with too little news to chew on, speculation and what-if themes run rampant.

With too much time on our hands, you just can't keep people from ruminating about how in Hell we save the Democrats, the country, the world from this incredible mess.

Me included.

Ever see the movie "The Best Man" with Henry Fonda?


Haven't seen that one... (none / 0) (#38)
by kredwyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:01:52 PM EST

Though I just had my students watch "12 Angry Men."


The Best Man (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by pie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:11:50 PM EST

walked away from the nomination. He's not perfect, but he also decides the presidency is not the most important thing to him, and he refuses to win at all costs. He gains much more as a result, but the viewer, maybe selfishly, realizes the loss to the country.

Rent the movie. It'll be well worth your time.


You left out the hook... (none / 0) (#53)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:49:05 PM EST

WHY did he walk away and how did he do it?

There's a parallel here...

And it could happen...if...the DLC gets its act together, calls and meeting and cuts the deal.

I'm counting on it. Can't see how else we survive this as Democrats.


The only deal (none / 0) (#56)
by pie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST

I see that would work is a combination of Clinton and Obama. I prefer her as the president and him in the second slot.

Unlike the movie, there is no third alternative candidate at this point.


Wrong. (none / 0) (#57)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:04:04 PM EST

Use your imagination.

Revisit the movie plot.

The whole point of forming the DLC was to form a 'new progressive realistic politics' by Democrats...a Third Way.

It's there.

Just waiting for Al to call the meeting...or Hil...or Bill...or...Rahm...

Actually, it's probably already happened, decision made, waiting for the timing...


Too far-fetched (none / 0) (#59)
by pie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:20:48 PM EST

for me. Sorry. What has the DLC done lately?

Desperate times need deserate measures. Maybe it will surprise me.

Or not.


: Heh. (none / 0) (#73)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:03:33 PM EST

If you think a solution is far fetched, what about this:
A newly-minted US Senator who nobody ever heard of, the only AA in the US Senate, suddenly (before he even finds all the committee rooms including his own) decides to run for POTUS, convinces his wife it's a great idea, and goes out and raises $250M all by his little old self.
Picture your self in the theatre watching THAT movie...and on the way out, you say what to your escort?
"THAT could never happen!"
Right.
And it didn't. Not exactly.

yeah, the Sonics move (none / 0) (#70)
by Klio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM EST

is BIG NEWS here in Oklahoma.

Professional sports, woo-hoo!


: You're welcome to them (none / 0) (#72)
by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:57:42 PM EST

we're tired of giving public money to pay multimillionaires to run around after balls.

new tactic (none / 0) (#19)
by pluege on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST

perhaps the some of the "top librul bloggers" have started to hear what they sound like and determined that they need a subtler, more nuanced approach founded on lying. Works for right wingnuts, why not left wingnuts.

I still do not (none / 0) (#28)
by americanincanada on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:52:38 PM EST

believe he will be the nominee. The race is too close for Obama to get behind that deal.

Of course that doesn't mean the deal won't happen anyway.

: They are within a (4.25 / 4) (#51)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:42:25 PM EST

single digit percentage of each other! Of course Obama is the clear winner! If someone was beating you by one percent and there were ten more contests to go, wouldn't you quit, too?

Just going by what I read (none / 0) (#29)
by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:52:47 PM EST

but Michigan is just going ahead with
the process, hoping their delegates will eventually be seated.
Chris is claiming they will
be seated.
Nowhere did I see where Chris is getting this assurance from.
I coulda missed it; but I think Chris is talkin' out of his arse.
I have a suspicion BTD might feel the same way. ;)

Sure, he will do it then (none / 0) (#31)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:54:55 PM EST

But I think he could vastly hasten the day the SDs come his way by doing it now.

If 'vastly hasten' is a valid phrase ;-)

: I think you'll be waiting a while for that (none / 0) (#50)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:41:36 PM EST

My likely scenario is that Clinton sweeps PA, takes IN, etc, and seats the delegates.

What abut the Super D's? (none / 0) (#37)
by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:59:51 PM EST

If these delegations get seated, that means their super del's also get a vote. I know the Governor and Lt. Gov of Michigan are strong Hillary backers. John Conyers is a big Obama backer. From what I've heard Kwame Kilpatrick (mayor of Detroit) was neutral, but insiders say he's for Obama (which can't be good for Obama - tie him to another scandal).

Anybody have any info on other Michigan super d's or any Florida Super D's?

FL SuperDs (none / 0) (#42)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:09:28 PM EST

Sen. Nelson is for Clinton...I think she has a majority of the others, but it is not a huge differential.


Super Ds (none / 0) (#46)
by BDB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:22:12 PM EST

or more accurately automatic delegates are a separate issue. There's a decent chance they'll be seated regardless of the rest of the delegation because they get seated pursuant to the DNC charter which outranks any rule committee ruling. They have a pending appeal.


: True, but (none / 0) (#52)
by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:46:37 PM EST

For the most part, (unless they committed way early), all the other automatics have remained neutral to this point. It will be interesting to see who comes out and when.

If they get seated? (none / 0) (#47)
by Mark Woods on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:26:14 PM EST

As a Florida Democrat I can't imagine them not being seated, contrary to anything Dean might say. And seating them late, if and when Obama gets the nomination would be equal to giving McCain FL outright, IMHO.

I notice many of our Miami friends watched the debate this week and are 'tuning in' for the first time -- and they all cheered about Hillary looking 'presidential', etc.

There was also a lot of simmering anger about our votes being 'stolen' by party 'goons'.


MI SD's...... (none / 0) (#63)
by michitucky on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST

Senator Stabenow has endorsed HRC......Senator Levin is uncommitted, but IMO is more of a HRC leaner. Rep. Dingell and Rep. Kildee have also endorsed her. Debbie Dingell (integral part of who started this mess) is a SD, but has yet to endorse.


My Congressional district (none / 0) (#75)
by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:38 PM EST

will meet in convention tomorrow (19th) to elect delegates. My understanding is that Clinton delegates, uncommitted delegates will be elected in proportion to the vote in the district.

Only Clinton loyalists will be elected for Clinton's share. Uncommitted are just that, uncommitted. Don't know the fate of Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd.

Obama (none / 0) (#77)
by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:31:56 AM EST

will lose Pa, Ind, Ky, W Va, PR.

He will win NC, Ore.

SD, Mont are close.

She will not drop out.

He will not "win" the nomination.