So, let's talk about MI and FL and what will really happen next.

[crispini]

It's starting to look like neither state is going to get a do-over. The next step will be taken by the credentials committee of the national convention. They will decide whether or not to seat MI and FL's delegations. The credentials committee will be controlled by the likely nominee. Both candidates are not stupid. Both candidates realize that not seating the delegations would not look good to some people when November comes around. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the delegations will be seated in some form. Maybe they only get half voting power or maybe there is some kind of other compromise that can be made.

The fact remains, though, that the determination now is going to be up to the credentials committee (and by extension, the candidate) and that there is nothing to be done at this point until such time as the committee is seated. IIRC, that's June -- someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Birthmark]

1. Compromise is a good thing.

I've offered several over the weeks this has been discussed. In general, I'm for any compromise that makes our January votes count. I'm talking about FL here.

I have no position on MI.

[crispini]

2. Neither one of these candidates are stupid.

I predict both of these delegations will be seated in some form or fashion. But right now it looks like it's going to go to Credentials.

[MindMatter]

31. The compromise that could work is ...

not being discussed at all.

I have thought this over and over, and I really think it is a better solution than any of the trial balloons I have heard.

The solution is to seat both delegations, but deny them a vote in the first ballot. They can vote on the platform and any other matters requiring votes, but simply not vote on the first ballot for the nominees.

If a winner is determined on the first ballot, then their votes were moot anyway. If a winner is not determined on the first ballot, then they are full participants. On the second ballot, the pledged delegates are free to vote their conscience, so it is OK to include the two states that didn't hold a proper election that included campaigning and including the candidates on the ballots. Either way, the delegations are actively involved in the convention and have no basis for statewide pouting following the convention.

Somebody tell me what is wrong with this solution.

[Usrename]

32. It would tilt the game in Hillary's favor.

That's reason enough not to like it.

[MindMatter]

44. That's why Obama should propose it

It then becomes a dare and calls direct attention to the fact that Obama is going to win outright on the first ballot.

If something were to happen that Obama couldn't win on the first ballot with or without this deal, chances are that the Clinton mafia would prevail with cloak and dagger stuff anyway, so there's not a lot of downside to Obama for making this proposal.

It is basically "Hillary, shut the F up about FL and MI. Beat me according to the rules and you can have those delegations with you."

It is a way to get FL and MI included without having their mistakes really foul up the works for everyone else.

[mohc]

3. There are basically 4 scenarios

1) Obama controls the credentials committee, has a delegate cushion that can absorb fully seating the FL and MI delegates. He will most likely choose to seat them as is. But this is an after the fact decision and really is no different than not seating FL and MI at all, it does not matter if Obama wins by 200 delegates or 1, a win is a win.

2) Obama controls the credentials committee, does not have a large enough cushion to fully absorb seating the FL and MI delegations. In this case some compromise will be reached depending on the delegate lead. Might be just not seating the superdelegates or maybe having the delegations vote be half a vote. If the lead is small things could get more complicated, and it might come to seating the delegations 50-50.

3) Clinton controls the credentials committee. If Clinton has the committee, she has the pledged delegate lead and will certainly choose to expand her lead by seating FL and MI as is.

4) Neither has control of the committee, this is the nightmare scenario. 25 members of the committee are party leaders not chosen by the candidates, and with the election this close it is likely that neither will have a majority of the committee. The party leaders are more likely to back Obama's position, as they were chosen by the DNC. Either campaign in this scenario could have a small delegate lead. If Clinton has the small lead, not seating the FL or MI delegates would be pointless and they would probably just be seated. If Obama has the small lead, then things get messy. The decision to seat or not seat the delegations basically becomes choosing between Clinton and Obama as the nominee. It could come down to a deal being reached where enough Clinton superdelegates vote for Obama to offset seating FL and MI under some compromise. Otherwise this is the only scenario where the likely outcome is FL and MI not being seated.

[crispini]

6. Interesting, hadn't thought of your #4 scenario.

Do you have a link to a copy of the DNC rules? I would like to dig into them some more to try and figure out how those committee people are chosen.

[mohc]

10. Here is the breakdown by state

State                   Members Votes
ALABAMA                 2       2
ALASKA                  1       1
AMERICAN SAMOA          1       0.25
ARIZONA                 2       2
ARKANSAS                1       1
CALIFORNIA              17      17
COLORADO                2       2
CONNECTICUT             2       2
DELAWARE                1       1
DEMOCRATS ABROAD        1       0.25
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA    1       1
FLORIDA                 8       8
GEORGIA                 4       4
GUAM                    1       0.25
HAWAII                  1       1
IDAHO                   1       1
ILLINOIS                7       7
INDIANA                 3       3
IOWA                    2       2
KANSAS                  1       1
KENTUCKY                2       2
LOUISIANA               2       2
MAINE                   1       1
MARYLAND                3       3
MASSACHUSETTS           4       4
MICHIGAN                6       6
MINNESOTA               3       3
MISSISSIPPI             1       1
MISSOURI                3       3
MONTANA                 1       1
NEBRASKA                1       1
NEVADA                  1       1
NEW HAMPSHIRE           1       1
NEW JERSEY              5       5
NEW MEXICO              1       1
NEW YORK                11      11
NORTH CAROLINA          4       4
NORTH DAKOTA            1       1
OHIO                    7       7
OKLAHOMA                2       2
OREGON                  2       2
PENNSYLVANIA            7       7
PUERTO RICO             2       2
RHODE ISLAND            1       1
SOUTH CAROLINA          2       2
SOUTH DAKOTA            1       1
TENNESSEE               3       3
TEXAS                   9       9
UTAH                    1       1
VERMONT                 1       1
VIRGIN ISLANDS          1       0.25
VIRGINIA                4       4
WASHINGTON              3       3
WEST VIRGINIA           1       1
WISCONSIN               3       3
WYOMING                 1       1
PARTY OFFICIALS         25      25
TOTALS                  186     183

I am not entirely sure if FL and MI also have their standing
committee memberships stripped, but states can not vote on
their own delegates in the credentials anyway. This means 89
votes are needed to seat MI and 88 to seat FL. The membership
is allocated just as the state-wide delegates would be, with
the exception of Texas which would be allocated based on state
wide results of the primary. There are 3 standing committees
so the total number of committee members a state has is the
number in the above table multiplied by 3. The presidential
preference of each committee delegation should match as
closely to total preference breakdown as possible, but in most
cases there will actually have to be a drawing to determine
some of the committee memberships. As an example: any state
that has 1 member per committee gets 3 total members, the
candidate that won the state would get 2 members and the other
candidate would get 1, but that leaves which committee they
are on to be determined by a random drawing so the winner
would have a 2/3 chance of having the single credentials
committee membership for the state. CA gets 17 members per
committee for a total of 51, based on the results of the
primary Clinton should get 28 and Obama 23. Clinton would
therefore get at least 9 members to each committee and Obama
7, but that leaves 2 left over Obama members and 1 for Clinton
which would be subject to a random drawing just like the above
example. In some states both candidates will have a set
membership based on the results, but in many there will be a
last group of 3 divided 2-1 between the candidates and there
will be the drawing to determine membership.

[crispini]

11. you just said something very interesting

"with the exception of Texas which would be allocated based on state wide results of the primary."

That means that since the primary went to Clinton, but the conventions (and total delegates) went to Obama, but Clinton would still control the Texas nominees that sit on the credentials committee.

That could be significant.

Oh boy. Hope somebody is looking at this very closely in both campaigns. Wow, this is some serious inside baseball here. Where did you find the DNC rules, is it on their website?

Thanks

[mohc]

14. Well she might control 1 extra member

Texas gets 9 members for each committee for a total of 27. Based on the Texas results Clinton will get 14 members and Obama will get 13. So each committee will have at least 4 members each for both Clinton and Obama. 2 of the committees will have to break down 5-4 for Clinton and the other will be 5-4 for Obama. So there is a 2/3 chance of Clinton having a 5-4 advantage from Texas, and a 1/3 chance of Obama having the 5-4 advantage.

[mythyc]

39. i've been puzzling over the same scenario

these are the most I could find. the second is the DNC publication, but it's vague:

http://www.demconvention.com/dnc-elects-standing-committee-leadership-for-2008-democratic-national-convention-2/
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

[ORDem]

13. I think you're leaving something out of the equation.

By the time of the convention (probably well before), the SDs will have shifted substantially one way or the other, making all this moot.

Personally, as an O supporter, I'd welcome re-dos in both states, sad that it's not going to happen. Clinton simply thrives on the uncertainty of it all, she doesn't really want a re-vote, she just wants the delegates to count as-is, because it benefits her. Actual re-dos would help Obama more than her, for several reasons which I've already posted on many times.

:dem:

[mohc]

16. That basically falls under scenario 1

I did not necessarily list the scenarios in order of likeliness but this is the most likely scenario. Seating FL and MI would be a net gain of close to 140 for Clinton and that will probably be fairly close to Obama's final pledged delegate lead. Only a shift of superdelegates to his side will give him the cushion he needs unless Clinton drops out (which would still technically fall under scenario 1), so while I did not spell it out that is what I meant with #1.

[Usrename]

33. In any event, I think what you are saying is that they are moot.

FL and MI won't figure into the decision, but if their participation doesn't change the outcome they could be seated.

At least that is what I think you are getting at.

It's kind of appropriate because if the rules committee had done what the Republicans did, and only disqualified half the delegates from FL and MI it wouldn't have been any disincentive for them not to break the rules. They would just say "so what, we only get half our delegates, but we get to go early and get all that glory."

Just think if they had stuck to the rules. There wouldn't be a six-week hiatus, they could be in the news right now, instead of Pennsylvania.

[Zhade]

21. One thing is virtually certain: they will not be seated as-is, because the elections were not legit.

NT!

[Johnny__Motown]

24. Or Obama controls the committee, seats all delegates with 1/2 vote each (not 50-50 split)

[UALRBSofL]

4. crispini from what I understand you are right

I spoke to the FDP yesterday and they said they were going to the credentials committee.

[Submariner]

5. Nothing should happen

What is so hard about understanding these words; "If you hold your primary on the early date you plan to against DNC rules, then your votes will NOT count."

End of story.

[crispini]

7. Well, the appeal to the credentials committee is within the DNC rules.

So they're still playing by the rules, so to speak.

[Zhade]

23. Some people don't agree that cheating is bad.

I'm not one of them - I side with you. They knew the rules and broke them, but want to cheat now? Fuck that!

If I were a voter in either state, I'd be pissed (but not at the DNC).

[JorgeTheGood]

8. Obama will refuse to seat MI and FL

which in turn will cost the dems the '08 election (and it surely will) which practically hands '12 to Hillary.

No one in their right mind will back Obama for another run. He's toast either way. Political lightweight.

[crispini]

9. Oh, piffle. He's not stupid.

Please see the very intelligent post above with four possible ways it will shake down.

[JorgeTheGood]

15. this one doesn't need 4 ways ...

either he allows the dels to be seated or not ... both of which will cost him the white house ...

simple as that.

[crispini]

34. Nope, that's a gross oversimplification.

He could allow the delegates to be seated and reduce the voting strength of the FL and MI delegations so each person gets half (for example.)

That would be one compromise.

[SaveAmerica]

12. Where can we get details about exactly what is going on in Michigan?

When I've heard Obama speak about Florida and Michigan in the past, he has said he feels the Florida results can stand as they are because his name was on the ballot (I think he said because they didn't have time to take their names off before the Florida election deadline). He said at the same time he'd like to have a re-vote in Michigan because it's not fair to all Democratic voters in Michigan because his name wasn't on the ballot.

(Editing to say that I didn't write that my confusion is coming from Hillary's speech where she's suggesting Obama doesn't have Michigan voters' best interest at heart)

[Pathwalker]

17. Answer: local channels in Michigan.

The Lansing State Journal: lsj.com
wilx.com local NBC affiliate.

Both websites have stories - I provided links in earlier threads.

[SharonRB]

18. This is going to create a real problem

at our district conventions next Saturday where we're supposed to elect delegates. If we don't know how many delegates each of them will get, if any, how can we elect them? What a mess!

[crispini]

27. I think you're probably going to have to elect your delegation as usual....

and then the credentials committee will take up any challenges to the delegation (which there will be) and hammer out the compromise.

It does present a logistics issue, though. If they decide to seat half, who would the "half" be? Maybe a better compromise would be to reduce the delegation voting strength, not numbers of people. That would have the same effect.

[SharonRB]

40. Whatever they do it's a mess

As it stands now, based on the illegal primary, we'll be electing a proportion of delegates for Hillary and a proportion for uncommitted, whoever that is.

[crispini]

41. Just think how much fun you could have with "uncommitted!"

Make shirts! Buttons! It would be hysterical. :D

This year I might run for Elector. I have no chance in heck of making National, because there are a zillion people who want to go and I just haven't been a die-hard Obama supporter for ages and ages. I sat on the fence until like 3 weeks out. So I want to see if I can get into the Electoral College. :rofl:

[SharonRB]

42. That would be pretty funny now, wouldn't it?

"Show your commitment and vote for Uncommitted!"

I decided to not even put in an application to run for delegate. I really wanted to go to the convention, but since we may not even get seated I decided to wait until another time to try.

[Zhade]

19. Well, if the credentials committee is controlled by the likely nom, clinton's done.

Even if it weren't, the SDs aren't going to vote with the loser... so she's still done.

IOW - she's done.

[FyurFly]

20. They have been disenfranchised n/t

[Zhade]

No, they haven't. There is no RIGHT to vote in primaries, legal precedent backs that fact.

It's a lot of things - unfortunate, fucked up, a shame - but disenfranchisement it isn't.

[madfloridian]

22. New idea from Florida....local newscasters kind of rolled their eyes.

Heh heh...Jeremy Ring, who introduced the primary bill, and Steve Geller, who threatened Dean with "mutually assured destruction.well they have a new proposal.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-319delegates,0,3182834.story

"TALLAHASSEE - Appealing to the Democratic presidential candidates to reach a compromise to give Florida a say in their nomination battle, two Broward County state senators outlined a plan today to seat the state's delegates based on a hybrid of the state's disputed Jan. 29 vote and national results.

The plan would seat half of Florida's 188 pledged delegates based on the Jan. 29 election, which would give Hillary Clinton a 19-delegate edge. The remainder would be seated on either the percentage of overall pledged delegates each candidate receives or the national popular vote – measures that, as of now, would give Barack Obama a net gain of a few delegates.

..."The plan outlined by Ring and Geller immediately drew a rebuke from two other South Florida state senators, Ted Deutch, D- Boca Raton, and Nan Rich, D- Weston. Both Clinton supporters, they objected to seating half of Florida's delegation based on national results.

"I don't believe our delegates should be based on what other states did; it should be based on what Florida did," Rich said.

Ring countered that the motivations of people who are aligned with the campaigns must be considered. "There's a big difference between someone who's unaffiliated and someone who's endorsed a candidate," he said.

[stillcool]

28. I thought I had read a while back...

that if a re-vote were to take place Geller or Gelber(?) would sue. Whichever guy is the Minority Leader. Kind of funny that 48 states abide by the rules and these two states are holding our nominating process hostage. It is so unfair..but then so was Bush vs. Gore.

[madfloridian]

29. No, that would be Vic DiMaio.

Here you go.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1897

[stillcool]

35. I don't think so..the guy I'm thinking of ...

has not filed any suit, but threatened to if there was any re-vote. I think he was the Minority Leader. I read the article but didn't save it, and then I couldn't find it again.

[madfloridian]

36. Steve Geller threatened to sue IA, NH, NV, and SC for being terrorist rogue states.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1527

:rofl:

But it was DiMaio who said he would file an injunction to stop a recount.

[stillcool]

37. holy crap!

that's him!! Yuck. I must have seen that mug in the article and stopped right there. Thanks for straightening that out for me! Knowledge is contagious.

[citygal]

25. the nomination should technically be wrapped up by the convention

as the SDs will have aligned with one side or the other after PA. I think the nominee will have the states seated as it will be symbolic by that time rather than determining the nomination itself.

But I still don't know what Michigan was thinking...Florida, I blame the Republicans.

[Zhade]

26. Why blame only them, when the Dems WENT ALONG WITH IT?

I'm so fucking tired of the lies about who did FL voters wrong - BOTH parties agreed to the change, both are at fault.

[madfloridian]

30. That is not true. No more blaming GOP and Dems playing victim.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1906

[better tomorrow]

38. It is a good thing that they aren't doing a redo because.....

in Florida it is so common for Rethugs to cross over and register in the other party to skew the vote. I think the DNC is catching on to that and they know that FL would be prime territory. It happened in 2004 and they probably see the handwriting on the wall so figure this is best. I would hope they just split the delegates, give the people who DID vote some enfranchisement, and fix the system for future elections.

[joshcryer]

43. Actually, Dean said, and he is correct, that any compromise scenario requires the blessing of both.

In other words, if the compromise scenario does not cater to Hillary or Obama, then you can kiss the Democratic nominee goodbye.

It's not going to be up to the "presumptive nominee" because we simply won't have one. Both need superdelegates to win.