Lanny Davis Proposes Very Fair Florida-Michigan Solution

Here's the gist of Lanny Davis' eminently fair proposal for seating Florida and Michigan delegates.

In Michigan, Clinton received 55 percent of the vote. According to Thegreenpapers.com, she thus should receive 73 pledged delegates based on that percentage.

What about the 50 remaining uncommitted delegates, and 7 collectively cast for Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, who were also on the ballot? Some of those 50 delegates might have been for Clinton as a second choice to candidates other than Obama, so it would be totally unfair to award all 50 delegates to Obama....Obama was not forced by party rules to remove his name — he chose to do so.

The Rules Committee has several options. The fairest would be to allocate those 57 pledged delegates, to Clinton and Obama by the same ratio of their standing to one another in the average of the most recent Michigan statewide polls prior to the Jan. 15 primary. [More...]

Or perhaps one Solomonic compromise, more generous to Obama than to Clinton, would be to divide the remaining delegates approximately 50-50 between the two of them, 28-27 (giving Clinton the extra delegate since she led in all the latest statewide polls prior to Jan. 15).

Florida's compromise solution is even easier. Clinton won 50 percent of the vote, while Obama won 33 percent of the 1.7 million Democratic votes cast. According to Thegreenpapers.com, that would give Clinton 105 delegates and Obama 69 delegates. That leaves 11 elected John Edwards delegates yet to decide, as well as 13 still unpledged superdelegates. (Eight supers have already decided for Clinton and five have decided for Obama).

Lanny urges Obama to accept this solution. He ends with:

If more than 2.3 million Democrats in Michigan and Florida are told their votes didn't count even though their party leaders were willing to revote, that could anger them, to put it mildly. If they blame Obama for not supporting the revote while still blocking a fair solution by the Rules Committee, essentially not permitting their January votes to count, they are likely to be angrier still — if, that is, he is the Democratic Party's nominee. In a close election that could mean the difference between the Democratic candidate carrying or losing Michigan and Florida.

Is it worth risking the White House in November by not accepting this fair solution?

His final words echo what I wrote a few hours ago: The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.

Comments now closed.

< Number Crunching With Past Five Elections as a Guide | Obama On Puerto Rico, Status And "Enhanced Autonomy" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess fair depends on one's perspective... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by EddieInCA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    ...because of all the things I could call this proposal, "Fair" wouldn't be one of them.

    split the delegates 50/50 right (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    i mean it's OK to be unfair to Hillary, she's used to it

    what would be "fair" to you? (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:16:36 PM EST
    decreasing Hillary's delegates by 5% and increasing Obama's by 10%?
    Obama has always maintained FL & MI votes "didn't matter."
    But now he wants more MI votes.

    I guess fair depends on one's perspective, (none / 0) (#95)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:58:11 PM EST
    because of all the things I could call this proposal, "Fair" wouldn't be one of them.



    It's about (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:01:14 PM EST
    the best candidate, Eddie.

    Not the one that makes you get starry-eyed.


    No ducking fuh! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by goldberry on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:02:50 PM EST
    I proposed using the poll solution some time ago.  It makes the most sense.  Find out what the closest poll was to the Michigan primary.  Apportion accordingly.  
    To be honest, he deserves O delegates now that he's claiming that he never asked to be put on the Michigan ballot anyway.  He's got some nerve asking for anything.  

    he is aking for absured things (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:15:22 PM EST
    for one reason and one reason only:
    The DNC, the RBC and the more "Noble" party elders have give him the LICENSE to demand and get anything he wants.

    I was just reading this. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Iphie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:08:23 PM EST
    I'm glad you posted about it. A couple of people have said that this is needlessly complicated and that it isn't fair. I would argue that from a negotiation perspective, this gives them some room to move. Obama thinks that it would be fair to split MI 50/50, which I think is ludicrous. Lanny Davis throws out his proposal, which I'm sure Obama's supporters would find ludicrous, but it does give both campaigns room to come to something in the middle.

    I don't believe that Clinton should agree to any proposal that gives her fewer votes or delegates than she earned the day Michiganders went to the polls. I also don't think it's fair to give the remainder entirely to Obama -- there were other candidates in the race at the time, and we have no way of knowing their intentions or preferences. I think he should be given a percentage of the remaining delegates, perhaps based on the percentage that he received in the last polling done before the election and the rest should be uncommitted -- they can then decide between the two.

    I think Davis' proposal is a negotiating tactic, and is his way of acknowledging that there is no way Obama is getting any of Clinton's votes or delegates.

    That's how I read it (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:11:02 PM EST
    It's less a compromise and more of a mockery of the 50/50 scenario preferred by Obama's supporters. I'd say at this point, the most probable result is that Obama gets all the uncommitted delegates, and Hillary keeps all of hers. Both sides are clearly negotiating for more than their fair share.

    Who knows, maybe talks will devolve and we'll end up with a revote.


    I doubt that. (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:27:50 PM EST
    The revote, such as it is, will be at the Denver convention.

    I see your point (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    but I also like the simplest solution: seat FL and MI as is, including seating those uncommitted delegates. Then let 'em commit at the convention--or before, if they wish.

    My main interest is that the states's voters feel that their voices are heard, despite the bizarro machinations of the DNC and their state party leaders. And that means honoring the votes earned by each candidate.

    Obama didn't earn any votes in MI, so I'm not sure I'm comfortable with any entity attempting to divine votes for him by any "metric." So let's just accept what the voters of MI gave us: a sizable # of Hillary votes and delegates and a bunch of uncommitted delegates who can make up their own minds--which is the ultimate reality anyway, as one pledged delegate demonstrated last week by switching from Hillary to Obama.


    I agree. (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:55:21 PM EST
    I personally think dividing the delegates (=votes) according to regular or exit polls sets a very dangerous precedent.

    Voting is sacred.  Marking a ballot box is sacred.  Let it remain so.

    Give Hillary her delegates in Michigan.  Select a slate of uncommitted (they already have been).  Then, if most or all of uncommitted are for Obama, that's OK.  

    There is a big difference between RBC even giving half of the uncommitted to Obama, and the alternative of leaving them intact.  Even if that means every uncommitted goes to Obama side.  

    Again, my point is that RBC (or any other entity) should NOT start a precedent of giving votes to a candidate when none has been cast for him.  It may just be a symbolic difference, but a very important one.


    ...and the exit polls were sooooo (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    reliable this year (and in 2000 as a matter of fact). I thought they were'nt going to rely on them anymore?

    I concur with this. (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    Obama's decision to "not" run for President in Michigan was a short-sighted political ploy, designed to pander to the voters of Iowa.  Some of his closest advisors were against it, since reality and common sense suggest that the delegates would eventually be seated.

    d*amned typos--sorry. I know better than states's (none / 0) (#26)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:20:55 PM EST
    Big Dog speaks (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:10:51 PM EST
    on how crazy it is for folks to demand Clinton bow out when she still has a chance.

    Honestly, it is unAmerican to quite when you still have a chance.  I just do not understand that quitting attitude.  Wtf?


    Not a compromise (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    There's no justification for her to gain delegates representing voters who purposely voted against her. It makes no sense, and as a "compromise" it's a bad faith non-starter.

    Disagree (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:13:05 PM EST
    Lanny's point is that the "uncommitted" voter may have been an Edwards / Richardson supporter.  Thus, Clinton could have been there second-choice.  Regardless, giving Obama all the uncommitted's is unfair.  Particularly unfair when the Obama campaign refused to have a re-vote in MI.  That was not democracy.  Nor is selecting a nominee not based on the popular vote.  Nor is excluding the will of two of our largest states.  Nor is the caucus system, plagued by low voter turnouts and voter fraud ...

    Two things (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    (1) Edwards and Richardson both endorsed Obama. So, Obama has a stronger claim to their delegates than Hillary does.

    (2) We know for a fact that those "uncommitted" voters didn't want Hillary. Given the chance to vote for her, they didn't.

    So, there is absolutely no justification to give Hillary a single uncommitted delegate from Michigan.

    The sole purpose of this "compromise" is to serve as a bad faith negotiation, to move the middle more towards Clinton's preferred outcome. It's completely transparent.


    They didn't want her as a first choice. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:27:31 PM EST
    Thn again they may not have wanted Obama as a first choice either. We have no way of knowing sinc he took his name off the ballot how much of uncommitted is for him and how much was for the other three candidates. The cloisest thing wed have to go in is eit polls. They aren'texactly fool proof either.

    Personally, I support the uncommitted being uncommitted until the convention. Give Hill her delegates and let the others decide on the convention floor.


    Rebuttal (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:28:55 PM EST
    Do you have a response justifying Obama's decision not to have re-vote in MI?  Obama's and Obama's decision not to have re-votes, when Sen. Clinton vehemently lobbied for them, is the single greatest act of political cowardice since Ted Olson's and Bush's supreme court argument in 2000.  Are we not a democracy?  Do we want to exclude the voice of two states with millions of living breathing human beings?  Are the FL and MI people second-class citizens?  Honestly, I understand that Obama supporters are upset about the Lanny proposal but at least take responsibility for the fact that your candidate got us here and that Sen Clinton fought and lobbied to have votes in MI for this very reason.  Who has the better judgment now?

    I disagree. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Iphie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:51:13 PM EST
    Edwards and Richardson both endorsed Obama. So, Obama has a stronger claim to their delegates than Hillary does.

    I was an Edwards supporter before he dropped out. Obama was never even in my top 5. Edwards' endorsement is irrelevant to my choice. There is no way, and in my mind no reason for anyone to assume that my second choice was ever Obama.

    And although you seem pretty confident in your powers of divination, we have no way of knowing the reasons voters voted uncommitted. It could well have been as a protest about the invalidity of the process. We just have no idea.


    I also was an Edwards supporter (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by otherlisa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:21:29 PM EST
    and I do not support Obama.

    uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by cigan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:23:07 PM EST
    It is totally beyond the realm of reality to say the uncommitted voters were for Senator Obama.  NO one knows that!  But we do know how many voted for Senator Clinton.

    Pfffft. (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:26:57 PM EST
    (2) We know for a fact that those "uncommitted" voters didn't want Hillary. Given the chance to vote for her, they didn't.

    Edwards was still on the ballot.  And there had been no campaigning here at all.  For her to get 55% was incredible, giiven the circumstances.

    Obama announced his intention to run for president in May. 2007.  Then he took his name off the ballot in Michigan.

    I guess he figured he was going to lose.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#157)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    Edwards was not on the ballot. He also took his name off, along with Obama and Richardson. Here you go.

    Eeek. (none / 0) (#194)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    What I meant to say was Edwards was still running for president.  I know he wasn't on the ballot.

    There was no "not Hillary vote" (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:42:47 PM EST
    on the ballot. I know in Obamaland there is only not for Clinton and Clintn but in the real world some people actually voted "for" someone. An uncommitted vote may have been a vote FOR edwards rather than against Clinton. It's just as insulting that Team Obama seems to feel THEY are entitled to all the uncommitteds.

    This favors Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    Not that I'm averse to that. ;) That said, I don't think I'd call it any fairer than Obama insisting that he get all the uncommitted plus hers with his 50-50 compromise.

    This favors the voters in FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    and that's the important point -- count their votes.

    If they voted for one candidate over the other, that's life in a great democracy.


    I daresay (none / 0) (#83)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:51:21 PM EST
    half of the uncommitted were for Richardson, Biden or Edwards and had Clinton as their second choice. It's a stretch. Granted it's the same stretch Team Obama has been making bu it is a STRETCH.

    Well, since she won both (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:57:46 PM EST
    states any viable solution ought favor her.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:10:04 PM EST
    I agree 100% ... this is why this might go to the convention.  Obama will want half of the delegates in MI, even though he does not deserve half.

    biased... (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by vrusimov on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    there is no way that Lanny Davis can offer a solution because that solution is biased, not to mention faulty...he is a Clinton supporter and one of the more vigorous ones...neither deserve half.

    the state should find the est. 18 million to have another primary...they should've thought of all this when they were defying the RBC with the express intent of deliberately circumventing the rules...

    They knew what they were doing and the knew the consequences...Accountability is now the order of the day. Why should other states care about Michigan voters when their own "elected" representatives don't.

    this is the same foolishness that Republican Gov. Crist was proposing in Florida...why should others pay for his brazen circumvention of the RBC...he holds veto power in Florida.

    You have a Michigan state legislature that knowingly and deliberately defies the rules after seeing the results in Florida and yet the blame goes to Obama...any closed primary would disenfranchise previous voters who crossed party lines, no?

    this is an absurd solution...you can't award votes/delegates based on polling and have it be a legitimate, accurate method...once again you disenfranchise voters who decide at the last minute or who change their minds, etc. etc.

    Absolving both of these states of their responsibilities as representatives of their citizens gives approval to the tactics/politics that were employed in creating this mess.

    Florida has an argument and some room for mitigation...nothing that i've learned about Michigan presents an excuse for breaching the rules...revote or disqualify.

    this is not a country where a single viable candidate can run against oneself and it be legitimate, especially when this contest was agreed as "not counting for anything" well beforehand.

    Obama did'nt create this mess, no matter what opinion is offered to that effect...he was'nt in the Michigan state legislature last year playing poker with the DNC and betting on them not following through on the penalties.

    The citizens of both states should train their ere on the representatives who set this trainwreck into motion, knowing what chaos it was cause...they had a choice and choices involve consequences, it seems a few Americans are'nt bent that way.

    Once again Obama is made the scapegoat...HE is the one disenfranchising voters...he should fall on the sword and jeopardize his standing because he followed rules that others disregarded?...i don't think so.

    the rules of this process are on his side, not Clinton's...this is an exercise in sociopathic scapegoating.

    Obama should'nt get anything he did'nt earn?...HOW is that relevant to an illegitimate election (by RBC ruling) where candidates pledged beforehand not to CAMPAIGN or PARTICIPATE and "viable" candidates removed their names from the ballot?...this is indefensible.

    No one earns anything from an uncontested, illegitimate election, it may as well be a straw poll and elections are'nt certified in such a manner.

    The assumption is that Michigan and Florida have to be satisfied to win in November...this is the argument that Clinton is hiding behind but i don't buy it...

    i'm of the opinion that both these states should not be seated without penalties, and if that causes people to vote against their own self interests in November then so be it...they will only hurt themselves and their own situations...these states cannot be allowed to hold hostage a process that 48 other states conformed to.


    Um... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:32:45 PM EST
    the state should find the est. 18 million to have another primary...

    Didn't Hillary offer to pay for a revote, but Obama nixed it?


    Before anyone screams (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Regency on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:40:04 PM EST
    She offered to go halves on the revote. Her people put up half the money and waited for his side to do the same.

    They played dumb and thus we have no revote.


    They played dumb (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:48:44 PM EST
    and above it all.

    Too bad for you, Obama.


    NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:00:28 PM EST
    Then they offered to raise all the money, and Obama campaign sneered and said that Hillary's side was going to buy the election!!!

    I remember the clever rhetorical play.  They changed paying for one (with soft money) to buying one.


    comment (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by tedsim on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:45:49 PM EST
    Kind of lengthy!!

    Obama disenfranchised his supporters (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST
    when he took his name off the MI ballot - not for the purpose of following any rules or being a "good guy" - but specifically to make Hillary look bad in Iowa. And he orchestrated the scheme for other candidates to do the same.

    Jeez, seems fair to me. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by magnetics on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:10:21 PM EST
    It won't give her the nomination.  That will still be up to the SD's to decide.

    But -- IMHO anything which punctures the carefully inflated Obama victory narrative is called unfair by his supporters.  I think that's overly sensitive, and, dare I say, presumptuous.  This solution does not hand victory to Clinton.  All it does, I think, it put things back in Yogi Berra territory: "A ballgame ain't over 'til it's over.'

    I am getting mighty weary of hearing about the presumptive nominee.  As others have said, the balloons fall in Denver.  I'm getting mighty weary of being told my team should quit before we've had our 27 outs.

    Just sayin'.

    what's a fair solution (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    to both Obama and Clinton?

    I don't see anything resolving this short of a floor vote.  Neither one will budge.  FL and MI, the popular vote, and a tightening of the pledged delegates, must be extremely important to the remaining sd's, otherwise Obama would not be so against any and all solutions and Clinton would not keep suggesting them.

    Regardless of how they apportion delegates... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:09:47 PM EST
    Howard Dean has already acknowledged that the raw vote totals in Michigan and Florida do indeed count.  The DNC ruling was about delegates - they had no authority to strip these states of their popular votes.  Would have been nice if Dean had said this publicly - but it will be clear after May 31st.

    Can you say "double counting"? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Christy1947 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    According to Mr. Davis, Clinton is entitled to a share of Uncommitted delegates because in some manner when only HRC was on the ballot, they managed not to vote for her, so she should get them anyway. Lanny Davis has some issues as to who Solomon was, I think.

    it's based on the idea (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:30:42 PM EST
    that concievably Richardson or Edwards voters could have HER as a second choice. It's about as fair as the idea that Obama should be their default choice as his camp is suggesting(since there could have been edwards and Richardson folks in the numbers that Obama seems to believe they are entitled to).

    ;Some of those uncommitted (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:33:16 PM EST
    Chirsty 1947: Some may truly have been uncommitted, not quite ready to make up their minds. They could have later decided to support Hillary.

    I attended caucuses in IA and CO and there were  truly undecided voters in both places. Also, Hillary may be the second choice of those who voted for Kucinich, Dodd or Gravel or voted uncommitted for Edwards.


    My son said he didn't make up (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM EST
    his mind until he stood before the voting machine. Then decided on Hillary...unless you can tabulate a ballot or ask all the people, or leave your name so people will know who you're voting for, there really is no way to know the uncommitted total.

    Sounds About Right (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    Your son should be an example to many here who have turned this into a personal fight.

    The reason, I assume, that he was undecided until the last minute is because Obama and Hillary are almost identical choices. Why many are determined to create a chasm of difference between the two is beyond me.


    No, my son was a first time voter (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:43:39 PM EST
    and wanted to be informed. He ultimately said that his choice came down to experience and she won that criteria. He's 19, college, works and very uninfluenced by his mother (on purpose) as to the 2 candidates. He did his own research.

    Exactly My Point (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:47:10 PM EST
    He did his own research.

    After doing his own research he still was undecided until he had to pull the lever. Why was that? I can only assume that the candidates were soooooo close in every way, that it almost amounted to throwing a dart.


    No, altho' they have similar proposals, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    on some issues, he was torn. Being young, he understood how his vote affected the outcome. He also knew what sort of world we live in and he was entering into it as an adult and chose someone who he thought could lead the way. He, himself, is a leader, not particularly a follower, and so he chose using all resources available to him. He was quite matter of fact about it. I was very proud of him. Like my mother used to say: Bigger doesn't make you better, it only makes you bigger!

    OK (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:00:21 PM EST
    He was torn, but it was not because the candidates were similar?

    I guess it must have had to do with things that had nothing to do with the candidates then.


    Again, it had everything to (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    do with the candidates themselves and how each would affect us as president. He made what I would call an informed decision. He will probably vote for Sen. Obama in November, however, that is his choice. I do not try and influence him, I answer his questions honestly when he asks and there's plenty of info to be found. His dad is repub.

    Ah, the silence of the voting booth... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    hopefully we will all be granted that and caucuses will be eliminated for 2012.

    We Can Only Hope (none / 0) (#177)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    I guess that the only appeal is that they cost less than a regular vote.



    The problem is that he accepts the polls (3.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Knocienz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:42:06 PM EST
    By arguing that the polls showing a 50-50 split are a valid predictor of preference, Lanny is shooting himself in the foot.

    Either there is a strong correlation between the 55% who voted for Clinton and the 50% who support her in the polls (that Lanny Davis cites) or there isn't.

    If there is a strong correlation (almost certainly the case) then Lanny's proposal is ridiculous as there would be an equally strong correlation between the 50% who preferred Obama in the polls and those who voted uncommitted in the primary. Thus, the vast majority of uncommitted are Obama supporters whose will should be accepted.

    If there is not a strong correlation, then Lanny has made the case that the original primary has no correlation with the will of the voters and should be discarded as corrupted beyond usability.

    Either way, citing the polls made this a stupid, stupid argument.


    Oh look! Crosstabs! (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by Knocienz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:02:39 PM EST
    Poll results that show the correlation (PDF)

    Of those that voted Uncommitted, this April poll (if I'm reading it correctly) shows 68% would vote for Obama and 10% would vote for Hillary (with 15% undecided and the rest not voting)

    Generous to Hillary would be to split the undecided in half and normalize = assign 81%/19% of undecideds to Obama/Hillary.
    More accurate would be to leave the undecideds out and simply normalize = assign 88%/12% of undecideds to Obama/Hillary.


    Turnabout (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:38:30 PM EST
    Since the Obama camp has said theya re entitled to ALL the uncommitted(plus some of what Clinton has earned), how exactly are they being any different than Clinton?

    Lanny's agument is the same as Obama's team and it's hypocritical to suggest that just the Clinton camp is playing politics at this point. BOTH sides are looking for an advantage.


    Caucuses have 2nd choice. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by nycstray on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    just sayin'.

    i believe (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by cpinva on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:36:34 PM EST
    mickey mouse wasn't on the MI ballot. he meets the age and citizenship requirements of the constitution, so i think he qualifies.

    you assume, absent any concrete evidence, that someone who voted "uncommitted" had zero interest in anyone else on the ballot, otherwise they surely would have voted for them initially. prove it.

    it's possible that someone who voted "uncommitted" did so because, at that point in time, they had not reached a conclusive determination, not that they had no interest in anyone on the ballot.

    prove me wrong.


    Wow (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    You are starting to sound like ppj. Prove it? Geez.

    exit polling (none / 0) (#201)
    by manish on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:50:21 PM EST
    prove me wrong.

    look at the exit polling.


    The word "polling" not actual (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:18 PM EST
    votes. People lie, intentionally lead in one direction, all sorts of things. If we say we'll give him the black vote, for example, Hillary  was getting I think 7-10% of the black vote (nationally), should we assign her that 7-10%? There's no way to really know. Again, Edwards was also uncommitted. If he wanted to be on the ballot, he should have stayed on the ballot, imo.

    ok let me take this one step further (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:27:45 PM EST
    my cookie was left off the baking sheet....My opponent was there and they baked 50 cookies...I want half of them...No I didn't earn them but rumor has it that I would have earned them if I had continued baking....In my world, you have to earn things not just be given them....so he gets the benefit of Iowa loving him for dissing the Michigan vote by removing his name from the ballet, plus he gets delegates from Michigan anyway...Gee sounds fair to me....NOT...

    I really like this (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by DandyTIger on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    proposal as a complicated alternative to the move obvious solution: just seat them as the states have already decided. Perhaps the Clinton camp will push for this not terribly unreasonable but horribly complicated solution so the committee can "compromise" with the more obvious. Ha, like the committee will be obvious or reasonable or even close to fair.

    Is it time for us to start making bets on the committee results by the way? My bet is that they will do the wrong thing. They will do the 1/2 delegates solution for FL and they will do something really horrible with MI like 50/50 or something really convoluted that will be about the same as 50/50. Oh, and at 1/2 strength as well. And with that really bad solution, the Clinton team will really have no choice but to challenge it at the convention. Hey, we are talking about the dems after all. snark.

    I don't find it complicated at all (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:42:04 PM EST
    but maybe that's just the way my mind works. . . .

    I do think it is, considering who Lanny Davis is, a negotiating posture.  And we ought to have seen one or some from the Obama side by now.  Since all we have instead is the continued spectrum from his vague, warm fuzzies to his staff's obstinacy, I think we know what that means: No FL and MI, no way.

    And that could be, when campaign analyses look back, one of the fatal mistakes (of many) by Obama.


    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:31:11 PM EST
    What is need now is to think about 2 things - the most important is being seen as being fair to and CARING ABOUT Florida and Michigan.

    The other is related - what is best for helping us WIN florida and Michigan in November. Actually, I think this one is more important personally.

    If this ends up as the proposal (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:34:04 PM EST
    We will lose Michigan. This would be the DNC telling half of the "uncommitted" Michigan voters that the candidate who they expressly voted against will get their votes anyway.

    Um (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    I said I disagree with this proposal.

    I realize that (none / 0) (#72)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:47:14 PM EST
    I was commenting on your point that what matters most is winning MI and FL in the general. I believe that assigning uncommitted delegates to Clinton would undermine that.

    Why would this undermine that? (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:08:24 PM EST
    I live in MI.  It had better be resolved fairly.

    What is fair to FL and MI voters (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:44:13 PM EST
    is what I think you're saying, and I appreciate that you position it that way.

    What happens to either or both candidates is what it is.  Cookies crumble, etc.  That the voters' votes count, and fairly to them, is paramount.

    That is, if the Dems with a capital D care at all or even just want to look like they care at all for democracy with a lower-case d.


    Fair?? (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:40:49 PM EST
    How in the world can anyone claim this proposal is fair. Clinton got 50% of the vote in Michigan, but wants to be awarded nearly 70% of the delegates?? How in the world can that be considered fair???? Secondly, as for what is best for helping us WIN florida and Michigan in November, HILLARY should drop out of the race. Now, Im not one to push her out, it should be her decision. We all know Obama has won already, if Hilary would drop out we can seat all the delagates and start healing the party.  

    As a "compromise" proposal... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:32:07 PM EST
    ...this is hysterically funny.

    "Let's compromise.  Give me half of what you have, and then you can keep the other half."

    Everybody realizes that this would give the person who won 55% of the vote, around 78% of the total delegates there, right?

    Clinton was on the ballot. Anyone who wanted to vote for Clinton could vote for Clinton.  The exit polling suggested around 70% of uncommitted voters would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot.

    I'm pretty sure this proposal would be laughed out of both the RBC and the Credentials Committee if it were to be brought up at either one.  It's a naked and wholly unjustifiable delegate grab.  

    They must be really desperate if they're trying stuff like this.  

    Here's a counter-proposal.  Give Obama 31 of the 55 uncommitteds, give Clinton 2, and leave the other 22 formally uncommitted.  

    It's all going to be moot very very soon, thank goodness.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    It's a completely ridiculous proposal.

    How about talking about the number (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:17:03 PM EST
    of delegates he's won in states where he was beaten badly?

    You mean... (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:27:23 PM EST
    ...the delegates he's won by following the rules that all candidates agreed to?

    It's comments like this (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    that make it more obvious that Obama isn't following rules, but trying to game the system.

    As is Hillary.

    Sorry, dude.  Let's go to the convention.


    I think Michigan is ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    an ex post facto winner-take-all state.

    Uncommitted lost.  No other still viable candidates were on the ballot.

    All delegates should go to Hillary.


    Yeah... (2.00 / 0) (#142)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    ....that'll legitimize her victory.

    Agree w/ your logic (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:00:37 PM EST
    Don't know about the precise numbers you are propsing but your basic idea seems right.

    OTOH, isn't all this just basically cover for the fact that w/ these solutions Hillary is within 100 pledged delegates of Obama, and that has often been touted as the magic number for SD's to unbind and vote en-masse for her?

    Personally speaking, I doubt that 100 delegate mark will change much because of the MSM's continued anointing of the Chosen One, Obama's $$ for the SD's and pressure tactics behind the scenes. Sad state of affairs indeed.


    He leads her by 153 pledged... (2.00 / 0) (#148)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    ...without FL and MI included.

    She gains 178 to his 69, with about 64 delegates in question.  55 of those are the MI uncommitted delegates, of which my understanding is about 31 are actually already de facto Obama delegates.  19 uncommitted delegates have not been selected yet.

    There are 9 Edwards delegates, and from the pattern in other states, they are likely to follow Edwards' endorsement and vote for Obama at the convention.

    It does get her within 100 pledged or less, but he's already built a lead among supers and there will be fewer than 200 up for grabs when the voting ends on June 4th.  

    The other problem for her is that his polling numbers against McCain are improving(or at least competitive) and both tracking polls have been showing Obama at 50% or higher for the last week or two.  


    Here's how I see this ending (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:51:39 PM EST
    Obama will be ahead by less than 100 pledged delegates.  Clinton (I am operating under the assumption PR looks good for her by a good margin) will be marginally ahead in the pop vote including FL, caucus estimates, and MI (with the uncommitteds assigned to Obama, or at least 80% assigned to Obama).  

    This isn't a footrace.  The two have virtually equal support.  We have to offer each side that acknowledgment.  

    The superdelegates decide this.  I'll take Obama/Clinton.  Or Clinton/Obama.  Hopefully the platform we see will be a similar mix of the two candidates' issues.  


    They voted for Hillary, so what's the problem? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:36:53 PM EST
    Hillary is not going to get a fair shake no matter what happens, they'll find a way to give them to Obama...
    It's sorta like finding out other teams pitcher's mother is the umpire...
    Keeps on going like this and all McCain is going to have to do to get the Hillary supporters is to tell that he will treat them fair...

    Maybe this proposal (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:38:09 PM EST
    will result in Obama seeing the absurdity of his 50/50 proposal on Michigan. Maybe he will allow the uncommitted to remain uncommitted until the convention as a "compromise."

    I argued for months that should be the solution, Hillary gets hers and the rest go uncommitted to the convention.

    But with everyone calling for an end to the race in early June, Lanny's proposal is fair. Obama didn't have to take himself off the ballot and he did so, in my view and that of many others, because he was behind in the polls there and wanted to minimize the effect of her likely win.

    What isn't fair is to give delegates who voted for Hillary to Obama. That's vote stealing.

    Oops, just said almost the same thing (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:50:09 PM EST
    before scrolling down.  I feel so reaffirmed now, figuring this out as Jeralyn did. :-)

    thats so ridiculous (3.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    He was behind EVERYWHERE. By your logic, he should have taken his name off all the ballots.

    You, her, and everyone knows perfectly well that the great majority of MI uncommitteds were voting for Obama. Thats what the exit polls confirm, if you need confirming.

    All the talk about Hillary "winning" the popular vote is based on this fantasy that somehow those people dont count. Well, sorry, WE DO. Hillary will not win the PV because 150K-200K Michiganders voted for Obama through uncommitted.

    And giving our delegates to Clinton, as Davis proposes is a total outrage.


    How'd those exit polls work in 2004? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:56:06 PM EST
    They aren't always accurate.

    Pure conjecture. (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:14:26 PM EST
    You, her, and everyone knows perfectly well that the great majority of MI uncommitteds were voting for Obama.

    Where were they doing exit polling?


    If by the time the voting got (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:17:47 PM EST
    to KY and Obama said Clinton won because she had name recognition, how do you come up with that most of the uncommitted votes in MI were for Obama? They could have been for Edwards. The only way to really know was to have a re-vote of some kind, which Obama didn't want.

    Excellent point!! (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    hey they might have been voting for any(snark) (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:06:45 PM EST
    number of candidates besides obama. my cat georgie was seriously considering a run. i explained the rules, but he is a well known quite electable kitty and had good intentions. i also prefer his position on many critical things as they agree with mine. so how do i not know the voters might have known this and had him in mine when they voted.  

    50/50 (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    I though that he had already agreed to 69/59, no?

    The Dem Party in Mich (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    suggested 69/59. His campaign asked for 50/50.

    She won 73 with people who pulled the lever for her. He's not entitled to a single one of those.


    He agreed to 69/59 (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    which was stated by Michigan Dems.  50/50 was the compromise proposed by his camp a while back.

    Obviously, neither solution reflects the manner in which people voted.  


    Yes, he did (1.00 / 5) (#75)
    by independent voter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM EST
    but, of course, Hillary did not because she needs to keep muddying the waters so she can drag this out all the way to the convention.

    Obama muddied the waters (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:55:18 PM EST
    when he took himself off the ballot. Don't blame this on Hillary. Personally, I support her taking this to the convention.

    Solution works for Florida works but not Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by negriotude on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:51:39 PM EST

    It is the responsibility of the people of Michigan to conduct their elections. Is it fair to hold Obama responsible for the failure of the  revote to occur? It seems that there were many more factors than Obama's understandable reluctance.

    It's hard to say that the Michigan vote can be used to judge the comparative support for Clinton and Obama, simply because there was no opportunity to choose Obama instead of Clinton or the other choices. This distorts any ensuing data that can be gleaned from the exercise. Basically, the election is fundamentally flawed as a data set for a popular vote count.

    Finally, it doesn't seem in the spirit of democracy to punish Obama for removing his name from an election that was at the time universally agreed to be meaningless, while other decisions made months and even years ago are being revisited.

    It has been effectively argued that, given the closeness of the race, a consideration of the popular vote in addition to the delegate count is warranted. Also, the rights of FL and MI have had to be reevaluated, due to the high stakes in the fall for not seating their delegates.

    Here we have seen that prior decisions about the nature of the political contest have been revisited and are on the brink of wholesale revision.

    Yet, some say, the voters of Michigan who would vote for Obama deserve to be, I'll say it, disenfranchised, because Obama didn't have enought foresight to keep his name on the ballot. Obama's taking his name of the ballot, and the uninteded effect on the ability of his voters to show support, now that's one decision that can't be revisited in the interest of full expression of America's democratic ideals.

    I am asking, why does the call for counting all votes stop at the door of Obama's Michigan supporters?

    Response to negriotude (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:06:27 PM EST
    Thank you for your response. My response is as follows:
    We should not hold the voters of MI responsible.  They came out.  They voted.  I think almost 600,000 voters came out.  I agree, however, that the MI elected officials are much more to blame than Sen. Obama.  Thus, I think we can ask that none of the MI superdelegates come to our convention, thanks to their lack of leadership on this.  However, we should not punish the voters of MI.  The Obama campaign and Edwards campaign actively solicited their voters to vote "uncommitted" thus this was a contested election, in which Clinton, Obama and Edwards supporters all came out.  
    I do blame Sen. Obama for his lack of leadership however.  Sen. Clinton vehemently lobbied for a revote in MI.  She knew the MI election was not a proper indication of the people's will.  For this reason, she begged her surrogates, supporters and the Obama campaign to have a revote.  When she realized that Obama was not on board she even tried to threaten him by reminding him "that this is what credential committee fights are for."  She knew that this would be an issue, she was right.  
    I do blame Sen. Obama b/c he is trying to be the leader of the free world and yet he is doing it in a dishonorable way.  He will not have the "popular vote" but worse still he was not trying to get two of our largest and most diverse states revotes.  This is not democracy and it does not match his campaign's rhetoric.
    Also note that Lanny's goal is not to rob Obama of the delegates he would have theoretically gotten that day in MI.  The OBama MI voters should not be disenfrachised.  Davis is trying to proportion the delegate numbers to the estimate vote.  That is much more reasonable than the original Obama 50% position.  Honestly, Obama's MI and FL position are too Bush 2000 like for my taste.  IF Sen. Clinton has the tenacity and fighting spirit (not to mention resilience to ignore the onslaught of MSNBC and other pundits who will undoubtedly crucify her for not giving up), I am with her 100%.  She is in the right on this issue. This is about counting all the votes, we are democrats this is what we stand for.
    I hope I answered your points.

    Your argument would have more weight (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:19:12 PM EST
    if Obama hadn't acted affirmatively to take himself off the ballot.  It's not as if his name fell off the ballot by accident, or force majeure for pete's sake.

    It really doesn't even matter why he did (although I do think it was to mess up the vote in a state that would go to Clinton, which counts in my assessment of his character but not in what is fair in this situation), he did.

    If everyone knew the vote wouldn't count, then why not just leave his name on there?  It wouldn't have hurt anything.


    good points (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    except I disagree with your explanation for Obama's motive for removing his name.
    Why didn't he just do it - alone?
    Why did he need to gang up with other candidates to take their names off the ballot??
    Yeah - it was a gang thang. A group effort to shame Hillary in Iowa!
    "Shame and humiliate Hillary" is a major theme of this primary. And every November I'll remember the culprits!

    good question (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    "why does the call for counting all votes stop at the door of Obama's Michigan supporters? "

    Because Hillary decided that a populat vote argument was her last remaining arrow, and so she ran with it, and all her supporters fell into line.

    ITs all about supporting the team - has nothing to do with making sense, or having actual principles.

    Of course she will not win the PV. Becuase, of course, we Michiganders really do exist, and most of us who voted for uncommitted were voting for OBama.

    As EVERYONE knows.
    Its a good integrity test though. Who will stand up and acknowledge this, even though they still hope for a Clinton victory?

    Amen... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    Its funny how people are demanding to have ALL THE VOTES count, but then claim that not a single vote towards uncommitted should be given to Obama. Please someone explain that rationale.

    blame Obama. He is the one who (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:04:18 PM EST
    stiff-armed the voters of MI.
    What is the precedent for giving a man votes when he was not on the ballot??
    It is extremely generous----quite unfair actually---to give Obama any delegates from MI.
    I am ok with letting the non-Hillary delegates be uncommitted, however.

    nobody is giving anything (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    The popular vote count is all about trying to get an assessment of the will of the people.

    Its Hillary's argument - that despite the delegate counts, she should still be considered for the nomination because the will of the people is with her - i.e. she got more votes.

    Its a totally fraudulent argument, because it flies only if you ignore the 150-200K Michigan voters who went to the voting booth to express their preference for Obama, by  voting uncommitted (and that number is not the total number of uncommitteds, there were 240K).


    The votes were not for Obama. How you (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:18:11 PM EST
    can argue with a straight face that a man who took his name off a ballot (for strategic reasons) shoudl nonetheless have votes counted for him defies all reason.

    defies your reason? (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:21:34 PM EST
    I live in Michigan.
    I support Obama.
    I voted uncommitted.
    There are 200K people who did like me.

    Its not really all that complicated...


    You're right. It's not complicated. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:25:09 PM EST
    You did not vote for Obama---because Obama did not give that choice. Don't blame me or Hillary for that situation.

    Did you ask or see the ballots (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    of those 200K people who voted uncommitted with you? Otherwise, there is no way to really know, is there.

    I agree (none / 0) (#112)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    that Clinton's popular vote claim does not become legitimate until she is able to win the pop vote when at least 70-80% of the uncommitted vote goes to Obama.  She may be able to do this after PR votes.  I don't know how that will shake out.

    Surprisingly, RCP has no count in which the uncommitted are given to Obama.  Here's what I have:

    Obama (at 80% of uncommitteds):

    This includes the IA, NV, ME, WA caucus estimates.


    Jeralyn, slightly OT, but I was (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    wondering if you've addressed the votes per pledged delegate numbers. If the delegates were awarded proportionally to the vote the same in all areas, I believe Hillary would be ahead.
    This may not be a reason for an SD to switch votes, but in my opinion it sullies the purity of the pledged delegate argument.

    Emotions (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by polisiasa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:51:56 PM EST
    have become much more important than anything else I now see. We hardly have anything on republicans in either pro Obama blogs or Pro Clinton blogs. Knock off one month for healing.

    We don't have that much time do not be short sighted JERALYN. I'm not saying don't support Your candidate, but we hardly ever have any topics that prepare us for the general election.

    Pandering to Iowa (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by zebedee on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:03:36 PM EST
    Everyone accepts that Obama and others took their names off Michigan to pander to Iowa. Having been rewarded for this, it's disingenuous to come back and claim some reward for MI. In fact, he may have made the right decision, where would he be without winning Iowa?

    Also not getting the proper momentum and leadership positioning just after the FL and MI victories discounted has done immeasurable harm to Hillary, beyond the actual delegate shortfall. We saw this wqhen Mccain started nothing up victories early on. Obama may well have dropped out soon after the FL/Mi defeats and the momentum would have probably been reflected into a better Super Tuesday showing for her.

    No fair proposal will ever be considered by (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    Prima Donna Brazile and Company

    The way she exploded at Lenny Devis on CNN, called him Baby, etc. is giving no hope that they will come up with anything remotely fair.

    Obama is not about considering to move a finger for FL and MI given how the Prima Donna Bulling Brazile has concocted her imbroglio to give Obama the nomination in a platter.

    Stupidity is Supreme, so the convention is where it will all be decided.  

    Hillary will be left with no other choice that to bring there. I hope she will


    Remember 2 things (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by chopper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:37:59 PM EST
    1.  Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot  as strategic move to win Iowa.  His choice with an ulterior motive, which did pay off for him.

    2. Obama spent $1.3 Million campaigning in Florida, breaking the rule, and leaving Hillary with a handicap, since she didn't campaign.

    So, Obama should receive no favors in either state.

    Hillary should receive favor for not campaigning in Florida.

    Outrageous audio (Windows Media Player)


    I completely disagree (4.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    BTW, my understanding is there were 55 uncommitted delegated and that delegates have been chosen through the Michigan district convention process. Why not just sit them uncommitted as chosen by the proper Michgian process.

    In essence, what needs to be done is argue for seating the delegations submitted by the states themselves.

    Davis unnecessarily complicates the situation.

    I agree with you completely (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by janarchy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:11:02 PM EST
    Anyone whose name was on the ballot should get his/her share of the delegates based on those proportions. The uncommitted go in as just that...uncommitted. It's most likely that they'll go for Obama but they probably would have even if Obama had been on the ballot, gotten whatever share he'd netted then and the rest were for people no longer in the race. Doesn't it work that way in any state anyway -- that once Candidate X is out of the race s/he releases the delegates and they get to vote as they please?

    Fair? (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by manish on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    I agree with BTD to an extent..there is no way that this is fair.  The fairest thing to do would be to follow the rules as they were set by the DNC prior to the elections..don't seat either delegation.  Those were the rules that the Clinton campaign agreed to and 12 of her surrogates voted in favor of in their capacity as DNC members.

    If it were Obama that had won those primaries am I really to believe that Clinton would be fighting bitterly to get them seated?  I didn't think so.

    Having said that, in the name of party unity, we should find a way to seat the delegates.  In Florida, the vote was approximately Hillary 50% and Obama + Edwards 50%.  Given that Edwards has endorsed Obama, Barack should get his delegates.  As such, the FL delegates should be split 50-50.

    With regards to MI, claiming that any uncommitted delegates should go to Clinton is disingenuous.  This is all supposed to be about enfranchising the voters in MI..how does it enfranchise the people who voted uncommitted to give their votes to Hillary when clearly those people didn't support Hillary?


    Just because Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    now supports Obama doesn't mean those who voted for him in January do. Hillary may have been their second choice.  Those delegates are not his to control.

    So assign them to Edwards (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:29:29 PM EST
    Trying to guess who someone's second choice might have been makes no sense. In a system without runoffs, second choices have no validity.

    If someone wanted to show their support for Clinton, they have done so. Her name was on the ballot. At most, we can guess that someone who went out of their way to vote "uncommitted" did so out of strong opposition to Clinton. Why else would you go out of your way to vote in a election with no alternative beyond "anyone BUT the only candidate on the ballot"?


    2nd choice? (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by manish on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:42:09 PM EST

    Since when does someones 2nd choice matter?  Are we asking the people who caucused for Edwards, Richardson, Biden or anyone else in Iowa who their second choice is?  The only consideration is who is the first choice.  Given that the candidates have sway over who ultimately is chosen as a national delegate on their behalf it follows that delegates that would have been assigned to Edwards (or Richardson and Dodd for that matter) should go to Obama.


    Giving Obama ALL the uncomitted (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:47:27 PM EST
    is tantamount to saying that Obama was the second choice for anyone who voted for uncommitted but supported Biden, Richardson, Edwards or even uncommited. How is it any different to automatically assign ALL of uncommitted to Obama?

    Michigan had a process (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:52:02 PM EST
    for apportioning the delegates that Undecided won. The process was followed at the state convention, and Obama won most or all of them. I don't see what the problem is with honoring the process followed be the state party.

    have you said ANYTHING (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    yet that is based in fact?  The DNC doesn't have the right to give Edwards delegates to Obama and neither does Edwards.  They can follow Edwards suggestion about what to do at the convention, but they do not have to.  They go as Edwards delegates and then they do as they wish when they get there.

    That is just false (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:25:45 PM EST
    Do we have go through this again?

    First, Florida was clearly and unequivocally entitled to avail itself of the safe harbor the DNC Rules provided. The DNC broke its rules when it did not permit Flrida this safe harbor its rules allowed for.

    That was the most egregious rules violation of the entire process.

    Second, Michigan should have been penalized by a 50% stripping of its delegates, as the rules EXPRESSLY provide.

    Third, and here is where Davis has a good point, Florida and Michigan TRIED to avail themselves of the cure the DNC Rules themselves provide. Obama blocked these attempts.

    So your comment is riddled with falsehoods.

    But beyond that, we ar enow, or should now, be focused on winnning in November. Obama is going to be the nominee. He, for his OWN ELECTORAL SAKE, should be fighting to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

    It is incredibly stupid that he is not.


    You forgot my favorite (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    the exceedingly dishonest "12 Clinton surrogates" talking point.  If you banned everyone who parroted that lie, the site would not suffer thereby.

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:05:09 PM EST
    yeah, that would make Donna Brazille a Clinton surrogate.  It's a real bag of garbage  :-)

    lol...uh huh....and what about all these concerned (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    posters today worrying that Hillary might get delegates she is not entitled to, but wants the majority of uncommitted delegates to go to someone who wasn't even on the ballot.

    More funnys (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:02:35 PM EST
    for the long list.  I really think Jeralyn is right about this one.  Obama should get no votes when he took his own name off the ballot.  It was a tactical decision and I see no reason he shouldn't bear responsibility for his own decisions.  After all, he's not Bush ...  uhhh well ahhh

    Agree. "Cherry-picking." (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:51:21 PM EST
    rules (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by manish on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    Second, Michigan should have been penalized by a 50% stripping of its delegates, as the rules EXPRESSLY provide.

    Thats true..however, that is not what was done, rightly or wrongly (and yes Ickes is one of the people that voted this way).  Obama followed the rules that were there in January and shouldn't be penalized for it.  If the rules were that MI got 50% of the delegates then Obama would have campaigned and kept his name on the ballot.

    Third, and here is where Davis has a good point, Florida and Michigan TRIED to avail themselves of the cure the DNC Rules themselves provide. Obama blocked these attempts.

    Obama had no obligation to go along with a couple of half-baked ideas on how to revote no matter how problematic.  Could he have been more active in coming to a compromise..perhaps.  MI was the more problematic of the two, though FL probably should have happened.

    But beyond that, we are now, or should now, be focused on winnning in November. Obama is going to be the nominee. He, for his OWN ELECTORAL SAKE, should be fighting to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

    Agreed.  The question is how to do so fairly that acknowledges that Obama played by the rules that were there at the time.  Simply offering up a plan (as Lanny has done) which is way unfair isn't the  way to go.

    Furthermore, there is the question going forward of how the DNC can ensure that their rules are followed going forward.


    Response to BTD (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    My only observation is this:  My loyalty is to our democratic process.  I agree that odds are Sen. Obama will be our nominee.  However, he will have done so without the popular vote.  He will have done so by blocking FL and MI's attempts for a revote.  We can not, in good conscience, reward this behavior.
    Moving forward, the DNC meets this week.  For all us Clinton supporters it is imperative that we come and have our voices heard.  Lanny Davis has presented us with a workable plan.  Spread the word. Under the Davis model, we net 110 delegates. That makes this a tie ball game. For reasons stated by Jeralyn and others we have a cognizable arguments that this is the fairest solution. Come to DC for the DNC meeting.  Post the Lanny article onto other blogs like Mydd.com.  The media is igoring the Davis proposal so it is imperative that we do everything we can to help the Clinton campaign now before it is too late.
    And of course should Sen. clinton concede I will hold my nose and vote for Sen. Obama, hoping that his fascist stances on MI and FL are not indicative of things to come.

    I would also add (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:27:53 PM EST
    that both Florida and Michigan have selected their delegate slates.

    If the Edwards delegates choose to become Obama delegates, as most have already, then that is fine.

    There need not be ANY artificial seating of the delegations.

    this is about respecting democracy too, not just "solving" the problem. Indeed, NOT respecting the vote is precisely NOT solving the problem.


    Correction... (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM EST
    If it were Obama that had won those primaries am I really to believe that Clinton would be fighting bitterly to get them seated?  

    If Obama had won them, the delegates would have been fully re-instated by now. The point would be moot.


    complete flip (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by manish on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    Lets say that Obama had won MI and FL and Clinton was leading in the other contests..do you think that Clinton would be fighting for MI and FL to be seated?  Didn't think so.

    (And to answer the obvious, Obama would have probably conceded shortly after Super Tuesday especially given his deficit in super delegates at the time).


    Nope, the rule was seat 50% (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:27:48 PM EST
    prior to the elections, at the point when the states scheduled their primaries.  As you are a proponent of sticking to the original rules, you would go with that?

    Btw, do research what happened to the rule and who did it -- search archives here, for example, for the details, for the video of the meeting where it was changed and when, etc. -- before making claims.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    The state process worked.

    How could anyone consider this fair? (3.66 / 3) (#6)
    by jtaylorr on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:03:57 PM EST
    Many argue Obama should be punished for taking his name off the ballot. Fine.
    But this proposal is ridiculous because not only does it punish Obama, it rewards Hillary!

    Rebuttal (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:06:49 PM EST
    Why should Obama not be punished for not allowing revotes in MI?  Why should Hillary not be allowed to have delegates based upon the only vote that occurred in MI.  Lanny's proposal does give Obama delegates, based upon the proportion he would have received in the MI election.

    How do you sell (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    Lanny's proposal to the populace?  It has to appear fair.  That's the whole pemise for Hillary to still be in it.  The rules call for 50% seating.  This should have already occurred.  Hillary still wins the popular vote.

    the rules call for all states (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    who moved their primaries to be punished.  If they want to strip half of the delegates from IA, NH and SC that is fine with me.

    The rules are the rules. (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:20:40 PM EST
    Regardless, it has to appear fair.  Right now, Obama's stand is not fair.  

    Does anyone know why those (none / 0) (#164)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    states IA, NH and SC were not penalized?

    yeah, what happens if we take 50% of (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:16:53 PM EST
    their delegates away. answer: it won't help obama. now my my why hasn't that happnened. rules are rules aren't they?

    rewards Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:11:46 PM EST
    How is it rewarding Hilly for giving her the delegates she earned when people voted for her?  She did nothing wrong.  She is not the one who ran a campaign in that state, Obama is.  Yes I mean MI.

    You are aware that you are posting at (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by independent voter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:30:42 PM EST
    Talk Left, correct? In TL's world this is eminently fair. Any way to possibly make it appear that Hillary leads by ANY metric is fair here.

    Fortunately she does lead in the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    Well, I do not use Hillary math. (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by independent voter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:56:13 PM EST
    I use conventional math. Sorry

    You count votes that were not cast (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:08:16 PM EST
    .. we call that Soviet Style here.

    very fair? (3.66 / 3) (#50)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:36:48 PM EST
    oh sweet jesus. This is just pathetic.

    yes - half the people who voted uncommitted, while Hillary was on the ballot, were actually voting for Hillary.

    This is just such an insult to anyone's intellegence. Please Jeralyn, is there no absurd spin that you wont pick up and run with?

    It is not less (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    insulting o assume they were ALL voting for Obama when there were threeother candidates reprsented as "uncommitted"

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    I disagree completely.  You are clearly assuming: (1) First, ALL of the uncommitted voters wanted Obama.  This can not be true, and
    (2) Second, none of the uncommitted voters had Sen. Clinton as her second choice.  This can not be true.

    Above all else, Sen. Clinton wanted a revote.  She fought for a revote.  It was Sen. Obama who chose the anti-democratic path.  She pushed hard for a re-vote to avoid this fight (remember her statement reminding Obama that should he not agree to a re-vote "this is what credential committees are for"). Who has the better judgment now?  Obama refused to have a re-vote.  He is not entitled to all of the uncommitted vote.


    How can I be CLEARLY assuming (1.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:01:59 PM EST
    something I do not in fact assume.

    No one claims that ALL the uncommitted were for Obama. There were exit polls that speak pretty clearly to the question. Roughly 3/4 were for Obama.
    In fact, 18% (IIRC) of Clinton voters told the exit pollers that they would have voted for Obama if he were on the ballot.

    Clinton obviously deserves ZERO of the uncommitteds. She was on the ballot for anyone to choose.


    Obama chose to take his name off the ballot (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    and orchestrated a maneuver for other candidates to do the same - for one purpose. To make Hillary look bad in Iowa.
    There's nothing noble or commendable about that.

    Fair is Fair (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:01:43 PM EST
    This is the fairest alternative. Lets deal with the facts. Fact 1: The Obama campaign purposely refused to have re-votes in FL and MI. Fact 2: The Clinton campaign vigorously fought and pleaded to have re-votes. Fact 3: Clinton won both contests in FL and MI.  Fact 4: Millions of people voted in both states.  Fact 5:  Obama is not going to have the popular vote by June 3, particularly if Clinton performs a double-digit victory in Puerto Rico with 800,000 people voting (2.5 million are registered).

    The FL solution is to simply seat them as they voted.  I assumer there is no dispute there.  The MI solution recognizes that not all of the uncommitted wanted to vote Obama.  Edwards was the candidate of many, thus it would be unfair to give this all to Obama.  That is what Lanny Davis is arguing for, that we breakdown the delegates as proportionally and as realistically chosen in each state's vote.

    Above all else, this shows that the media hype on how the primary election is over and how Clinton should drop out is wrong, absolutely wrong. Great post Jeralyn!

    JERALYN & BIG TENT (2.00 / 0) (#146)
    by polisiasa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    If we are all democrats, you have to understand the need for both to compromise. It not about right or wrong. We have to angle our selves for november regardless of who wins the nominationation. I'm sure the first few weeks of 2009 will be satisifying for supporters of one or the other if we loose, but we shall have to leave another five years with a republican(maverick or not). Honestly i don't care which democrat gets to the white house as long as the policies reflect the true democratic doctrines.

    Since when do we spend an entire 3 months trashing one another to prove the other wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't challenge each other But TRASHING Hillary or Obama more than McCain?

    Spend 1/3 of your blogging time propping your candidate of choice the rest of the energy should be reserved for McCain. Please Jeralyn & Big tent lead the effort on your on terms.

    This is about choosing the (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by pie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    best candidate for the job of president.  

    I'm willing to risk going to the convention to get that.

    This country has somehow managed to survive Bush.

    We can certainly survive the Denver convention.


    After the nomination is decided (3.40 / 5) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    and we have a candidate is when I'll switch my attention to the candidate vs. McCain. There's plenty of time.

    Until then I'll advocate for the Democratic candidate of my choice. Thank you.  


    Thank you Jeralyn and Big Tent (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:48:51 PM EST
    This blog provides me refuge from the constant Obama propoganda everywhere else. This was my first time posting a comment.  

    The Davis proposal is well-timed.  We should spread the word about its existence to other Clinton and Dem blogs so as to remind people that all is not lost until MI and FL is resolved.  Under Davis' proposal, she nets 110 delegates at least!  That shows you how unfair the pundit declarations are -- "Clinton can not be the nominee yada yada yada"


    The only reason this is being (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by independent voter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:32:24 PM EST
    thrown out there is so that the Clinton campaign has cover to not accept ANY compromise and can keep this whole charade going until the convention.

    question (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:35:22 PM EST
    Question -- what is the explanation for Sen. Obama's refusal to have a revote in MI?  what is the basis for his proclamation that he deserve 50% of the delegates, despite not being on the ballot?  Does the Obama win-at-all costs position not remind you of Bush's position in 2000?  Popular vote = doesn't matter.  The local state election results = doesn't matter.  People in MI deserved a re-vote and Obama refused them, out of political cowardice or much much worse.  This is a democracy, no one can overrule the vote of people.  

    So you can't overrule the vote of the people (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by independent voter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:42:21 PM EST
    yet you see nothing wrong with giving votes that clearly were AGAINST Hillary to her???
    Now who is drinking the kool aid?

    Answer my question please. (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:44:22 PM EST
    Please answer my question:  what is the explanation for Sen. Obama's refusal to have a revote in MI?  Thank you.  I have answered your concern in other posts here.

    Rules are Rules... (3.00 / 0) (#71)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    The decision not to count the Michigan and Florida primaries were made prior to the beginning of this race. Even Clinton said it was clear these elections would not count. What reason was there to change this? Only one: Clinton could no longer win without them being counted.

    No, it's (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    that 2.3 million voters voted anyway. They did nothing wrong. We don't have elections counting only 48 states.

    What about those who stayed home... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:53:48 PM EST
    What do we tell the people who stayed home because they were told the votes wouldn't count? Too bad we fooled you? Im a bit confused, when the DNC came down with there ruling was their an asterisk attached to it that stated the ruling would be null and void if anyone of the candidates needed the votes of Michigan and Florida the elections would count and no penalties would be assessed. Im a bit confused on that.

    Everyone was told to vote anyway (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    John Conyers and others took out radio ads urging Obama supporters to vote uncommitted.

    No one told voters to stay home.


    Thats not what I said.... (none / 0) (#106)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:04:29 PM EST
    Im sure people were still encouraged to vote, but most were still under the impression that their vote would not count. Couldn't you agree that a sizable number of people did not bother to vote because they believed it was pointless?

    so none of Hillary's supporters stayed home (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    It was just her opponent's voters. Right?

    Not saying that at all... (none / 0) (#114)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:10:53 PM EST
    All Im saying is how is it fair to the people who were told if they voted their votes wouldn't count. They stay home. A few months later they are told nevermind, if they had voted it would have counted.

    people stay home in every election (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:27:37 PM EST
    even when they count. I know, lemme guess, if they had known it would count then your neighbor, and her 3 sisters would've voted. And her hairdresser, and her clients would've voted. Hear this over and over after every election.

    The state says this election counted. I believe it was certified wasn't it?


    Evidence... (none / 0) (#111)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:09:28 PM EST
    In nearly every state Democratic voters far outnumbered Republican. Michigan is a Democratic leaning state, yet the Republicans received 867,261 votes to 589,984 votes for the Dems.

    %age of total party voters is the (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    better way to check turnout. FL had an anomaly as well---more Republicans turned out---but the percentage of Dems who turned out was a record, and comparable to other states in 2008.

    Anomaly??? (none / 0) (#120)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    Dont you find it a bit suspicious that this "anomaly" occurred in the two states in which the DNC stripped all delegates?

    I find it suspicious that you don't use (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    a direct method of party participation.
    Frankly, it makes me suspect---against my better instincts---that MI did not have depressed Dem turnout out. I know for a fact that FL's turnout was NOT depressed.

    Its all relative... (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:21:14 PM EST
    This year we have seen record turnout in all the primaries. So while yes, it may be up from prior years, how can you possibly argue that a sizeable number of people who might have otherwise voted did not because they were told their vote would not count. If I lived their and had to work and then run to vote before or after work to cast a ballot in something that wouldn't count I wouldn't have voted. Now this is my own hypothesis and believe me I could be completely wrong, but I think this increased the elderly vote (who have nothing better to do) and decreased the working vote.

    I don't argue. I look at the numbers. (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    The percentage of Dems who turned out in FL was comparable to that in other states THIS year.. somewhat less than SC, but around 40%.
    I don't know about MI---I think in fact the percentage was depressed. What I'm saying is that you are using the wrong measure.
    Furthermore, you are simply incorrect if you assert that turnout in FL was depressed. That is just not the case.

    Looking at wrong #'s (1.00 / 0) (#147)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:34:25 PM EST
    What you should be looking at is how many NEW Democratic voters turned up. The reason # of voters in the Democratic races was higher than Repubs was because new Democratic voter registration was up dramatically. So yea the % of Dem voters may have been comparable to other states, but how many new voters were registered in Florida as opposed to other states?

    That's even more arbitrary. (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    Considering that the numerical total was a record---by a huge amount---I see no point in looking at other metrics. Numerical and percentage of Democratic are the natural choices. You have to contort yourself to argue that FL did not have a big turnout. Give it up. MI's turnout was depressed, I think, by the metric I give.

    Seriously (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST
    but I think this increased the elderly vote (who have nothing better to do) and decreased the working vote.

    This is your argument?  That the elderly, who often find it more difficult to get to the polls, went in a higher % because they had "nothing better to do"?  
    Also, I don't know what you mean by "working vote," but, the working-class vote has often gone to Clinton.  

    Also, this was a REAL primary.  Important offices downticket remained to be voted on.  Are you saying you wouldn't have supported local Democrats?  You wouldn't have found the time?  

    Please don't expect to be taken seriously if you intend to continue insulting the elderly.  We will need seniors this fall.  You should hope they have nothing better to do Election Day.  They will come out in droves.  And you should hope that in doing so, they will have a more positive image of Obama than they justifably would have of you.


    How am I insulting the elderly? (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by freethinker25 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:35:43 PM EST
    Most elderly are retired. By me stating that my Grandmother doesn't have much to do on most days am insulting her or stating facts?

    A "freethinker" would believe (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    that we all get to do "our thing" if we're 9 or 90. You are making assumptions about age. John McCain is 71 and his mother, who campaigns for him is 96, what makes you think those in FL and MI weren't working for their respective parties and active and voting?

    It's a "fact" (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    that the elderly "have nothing better to do"?

    I can't speak for your grandmother, but I would think many would find your characterization...less than gracious.  And further, as an explanation for voting trends in MI, unsound.


    actually you are insulting. (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    Jeralyn, and to your knowledge (none / 0) (#167)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:48:27 PM EST
    were the MI voters, when told to vote for Obama as uncommitted, also told that uncommitted also meant Edwards, or was it just left to them, if you know. Thanks.

    He did not n/t (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by independent voter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:46:38 PM EST
    he refused to support a revote (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:49:20 PM EST
    knowing the state legislature wouldn't vote on it without his agreement. The news articles on this are everywhere.

    Yes, he did. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:53:02 PM EST
    The Obama campaign actively thwarted any revote via surrogates and via Obama himself, particularly in direct statements of Obama. There was funding for a revote, Gov. Granholm wanted a revote and drew up plans for a revote but Obama and Obama surrogates refused it as a non-starter.

    What can not be disputed is that Sen. Clinton actively lobbied and pleaded to have a revote. She had the judgment to realize that a revote was the best solution for everyone and the fairest and most democratic thing to do.  


    It's a response to Obama's absurd (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:48:48 PM EST
    50-50 proposal in Michigan.  It's how it's done -- counter absurdity with absurdity until the silly side is willing to get serious.  We'll see. . . .

    When Obama is willing to accept that his ploy to forgo Michigan to suck up to Iowans was only workable with the plan to win on Super Tuesday, and that he couldn't close the deal then (or several times since), so now he has to deal with the downside if he wants to win Michigan -- and maybe Florida -- well, then, maybe he'll come up with something less insulting to the voters than 50-50.

    And he really, really has to stop insulting voters.


    party rules (1.00 / 0) (#195)
    by 2liberal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:25:40 PM EST
    Obama was not forced by party rules to remove his name -- he chose to do so.

    MI and FL were obligated by party rules to hold their elections later in the cycle. They chose not to and therefore sanctions should hold against their delegations.  Your "fair" solution is fair to Senator Clinton but not to Senator Obama, and if the shoe were on the  other foot you would be singing a very different tune.

    And so would you. (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:58:29 PM EST
    Lost me at "might" and "some" (none / 0) (#153)
    by Invictus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    "Some" of the people that voted for Clinton "might" have wanted to vote for Obama.

    The only fair way to resolve the dispute is to follow the rules.  Award Obama some delegates according to exit poll data, then cut the delegation in half like the RNC did.

    This is very possible (1.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Politalkix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:50:58 PM EST
    The Michigan non-vote occured on Jan 15, before the Nevada Caucuses and the South Carolina primaries. There were lots of people who had Obama as their Number 1 choice and Clinton as their Number 2 pick. Not finding Obama in the ticket, many of them voted for HRC. HRC's Michigan vote count maybe significantly inflated.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST