The only reason to split the delegates is to prevent Hillary from catching up.

Via Real Clear Politics:

Hillary won Florida by 294,772 votes.
Hillary won Michigan by 328,309 votes

Hillary won 150,000 more votes than Obama last night in Kentucky and Oregon. She won Kentucky by 249,224 votes while Obama won Oregon by 102,144 votes.

Let's add it all up:

Popular Vote Totals (w/FL & MI)Hillary leads by 174,047 votes (.48%.)

Popular Vote Totals (w/FL & MI and Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA): Hillary leads by 63,825 votes (.18%)

I would not acknowledge "votes" from corrupt, fraudulent, and un-democratic caucuses.

Regardless of what the DNC does on May 31 with FL and MI delegates, the popular votes were certified by the states. Their numbers are real and they must be added to her popular vote total.

MI: No one knows who Obama is. State is undoubtedly going to Clinton, as she is popular here, esp. among the AAs. Obama removes his name from the ballot (though this was not required) and encourages Edwards to do the same in order to delegitimize the results (did Obama and Axelrod plan to later claim all of the uncommitted vote?). FL: Clinton is hugely popular, with the lg elderly and Hispanic population. Obama breaks the rules by running ads here, but does not take his name off the ballot. These two states had a combined pledged delegate total of 313.

Iowa went for Obama, in line with DNC wishes. NH? Clinton pulls an upset. Obamaites get nervous-- SC is on the horizon and he needs to win to remain viable. Solution? Painting the Clintons fraudulently as racists (as evidenced by the leaked SC memo). In a normal world, these claims would not have held water, because Hillary Clinton has fought for the AA community, and Bill is loved by many AAs. However, these claims gained credibility as Donna Brazille (DNC) expressed her anger towards Bill's "fairytale" comments and James Clyburn stoked the fire. The only way Obama has his lead today stems from the fact that he had to cast Clinton as a racist to convince the AA community to vote in ungodly precentages for him, delivering his SC victory (and GA, NC, VA, MD, etc).

I realize this is a conspiracy theory, but it does have some validity, no?
Hillary Clinton was never supposed to win. The Dnc had annointed Obama before the primary process had even started. Dean is not scared about the fallout from not counting MI and FL, this was the plan.

This is why MI and FL will not be counted. Because Donna Brazille sits on the rules committee.

Called on their feckess disregard of their own rules, now, the RBC want to impose a resolution--after Obama's campaign stalled and obstructed a revote--which provides delegates to Obama that he did not earn in Michigan because he CHOSE to take himself off the ballot voluntarily to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire [which also violated the rules but were not punished for doing so]. And, they want to ignore the fact that Obama violated the pledge in Florida by running ads and doing a press conference, and still give him delegates he should have "stripped" from him because of it.

Can there be ANY DOUBT whatsoever that Howard Dean has conspired to turn the entire Democratic primary process into a fraudulent, reckless and wanton disregard for the Democratic Party and its voters? Not in my mind.

I might have been able to, at one point, find a way to see this process as fair--but only if Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina had also been sanctioned along with Florida and Michigan; or if the RBC had sanctioned according to the rules, which stipulate a 50% punishment. Or if the party had imposed a revote ruling.

But this entire debacle has undermined any faith I had in the Democratic Party as the party of justice, civil rights and equality.

Moreover, to install a nominee on the basis of rules fraud and ignore the clear fact that red-state caucuses of a few thousands of voters do not represent the will of the Democratic voters, while disenfranchising the officially recorded votes of Democratic Party voters in Florida and Michigan is a breathtaking--and brazen--breach of both the spirit and the letter of the rules of the DNC.

Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina violated the rules, but were not punished for it--and the popular vote in South Carolina and New Hampshire are counted in the official tally. This is a stunning hypocrisy.

DNC Delegate Selection Rule 11A [PDF], states the following:

No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

Thus, the rules were not only broken by Florida and Michigan, but also by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Iowa held their caucus on January 3, 2008 instead of January 14. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8, 2008 instead of January 22. South Carolina held their primary on January 26, 2008 instead of January 29.

The penalty for violating Rule 11A, according to DNC Delegate Selection Rule 20C1a [PDF], states:

In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

According to Rule 20C1a, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida should have had their delegates reduced by 50%. However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were not penalized at all to protect their first-in-the-nation status, while Michigan and Florida were stripped of all their delegates. Thus, the DNC is applying the rules arbitrarily.

More Rules:

Michigan:
Refer to the DNC Delegate Selection Rules, specifically Rule 13.A. "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference."

Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters.

Obama did not reach the 15% threshhold to receive delegates in Michigan. Awarding him delegates would not reflect the legal and certified vote.

Also see Rule 20.C.2. This addresses what happens when delegates are awarded in violation of Rule 13.

Florida:
Rule 20.C.1.b. of the Delegate Selection Rules.
"A Presidential candidate who campaigns in a state in violation of the timing provisions of the rules,... may NOT receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state."

We all know that Obama had TV ads running in Florida and that he also held a press conference there. Both of those activities violate Rule 20.C.1.b.

I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

Hillary would net 123 pledged delegates.

If that happened, and Hillary still had less pledged delegates in the end would everyone be satisfied?

Which one is his maiden name?  Segovia?  Why is he representing Hispanics?

Anyone representing Hispanics should be going Hillary.  She gets their votes 2:1.  

16 needed for a majority

13 supporters +
Mark Brewer, chair of the MI Dem party

Alexis Herman, served in Clinton administration, eventually appointed as Sec. of Labor (the first African-American to hold that cabinet position).

Then we have Alice Travis Germond, who was political director for California Clinton/Gore in 1992, and rose within the DNC during Clinton's administration. She has been active in several women's organizations. Bio is here:
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/germond.html

James Roosevelt, Jr is CEO of Tufts Health Plan in Mass.  He was the associate commissioner for Retirement Policy for the Social Security Administration under Clinton.

I haven't been able to find much about Jerome Wiley Segovia, except he started Latinos for Dean, and was subsequently appointed to his at-large post by him.

The RBC next week will simply decide on the issue of the penalty, currently stripping both states of all their pledged and superdelegates.  They can leave the penalty as is, or lessen it, or remove it entirely.  They can decide seperately for pledged and supers from the two states.

Feel free to correct me if I'm in error.

The comments are interesting too.

My completely uneducated guess is that FL will be seated as such (perhaps the supers' will be halved?) and MI with some kind of split (67 HRC-57 BHO?), with Edwards' delegates going to Obama.

At this point in time, in any event, it looks as if Sen. Obama ends up ahead in every scenario even if FL gets everything and he gets zero out of MI.

The demconwatch.blogspot.com lists the Democratic National Committee permanent committee on rules, which does include Brazile, et alii, & is the list Jeralyn references here.

Further confusions: if either the Clinton or the Obama campaign disagrees with the ruling of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the DNC, either may take the issue(s) to the convention floor.

At that point, there may be some dispute as to whether the "standing" Rules committee or the parallel Credentials committee will deal with the specific issue(s) in question, depending upon the exact nature of the things in doubt.

The appropriate "standing" committee of 186 people, with 183 votes because the chairs don't vote, would then settle the dispute(s).

This is so byzantine that it makes ancient Instanbul/Constantinople look like a model of efficiency.

"On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)"

(Of course, Clinton also signed the 4 state pledge, too, and made her infamous statement about "we all know Michigan isn't going to count."  But we're not supposed to mention that.)

It may (or may not) be "the right thing to do" to support full reinstatement of FL and MI with no penalties whatsoever.  But let's not pretend that Team Clinton is pursuing this purely out of high-minded principle.

I still think that if they made a concession on the apportionment of Michigan's uncommitted delegates, in whole or in part, to Obama, then a deal could be struck whereby Team Clinton gets everything else it wants--full reinstatement of pledged and supers for both states, her popular vote lead from Florida officially counts(for whatever that's worth), and her lead over Uncommited from Michigan counts as well.

But then, Obama would clinch 2210 shortly after June 3, and she would lose.  She's still likely to lose anyway, but if he gets awarded any significant share of the uncommitteds, her chances to win evaporate.

I agree with Yvonne Gates. She hit the nail on the head. There was no election in these states because there was no campaign in these states. Both candidates were prevented from going to these states until after the February 5, 2008, deadline. They didn't run television ads and they didn't hold  campaign events in these states. As such, it's unreasonable to seat the delegates based on the "vote" when it was clear at the time of the vote that the vote didn't mean anything. Indeed, it's highly likely that people in FL and MI didn't vote because they were told their vote didn't matter. It's just crazy to assign delegates based on vote counting.

As for the 50/50 split, I think this is a fair approach. I would probably favor something along those lines and I think a majority of the members of the rules committee will go along those lines. There will be some die-hard Michigan/Florida supporters, for sure. But anyone standing back from the process has to conclude that neither the candidates nor the voters had a fair shake in Florida or Michigan. The party didn't want to allow the primary to take place before Feb. 5.

I make this final point: for months, Hillary's people have been trying to make an end-run around the process.  Instead of figuring out how to win Oregon by 17 points or figuring out how to win South Dakota or Montana (both of which she may lose) or Puerto Rico, she's focusing on Florida and Michigan delegates. The campaign is much worse than the candidate.

Campaigns do and say what's opportunistic; that's what they do. No respect for reality, for rules, logic and common sense. Do we have to carry this here?