Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

by Todd Beeton, Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EDT

It's clear what the Clinton campaign wants out of tomorrow's DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting:

Also on the conference call, the campaign repeated what it said it earlier in the week: that it wants the full Florida and Michigan delegations to be seated; that it wants them seated according to the January primary votes in each state; and that the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan can't be given to Obama -- they must remain uncommitted.
"We are hopeful and confident that after hearing all the arguments and hearing all the facts ... that all the delegates will be seated and all of them will have a full vote," Ickes said.

Greg Sargent clarifies Ickes's point:

Ickes' position is apparently not that these delegates never go to a candidate. It's that the Committee can't pick which candidate they go to -- at the Convention, the uncommitteds can support whomever they wish. Of course, under this scenario, they wouldn't count in Obama's column in the short term, while hers would count.

Does anyone really think Clinton will get what she wants? Not even Clinton supporter Lanny Davis appears to as he has proposed some alternate solutions for Michigan's delegates.

The fairest would be to allocate those 57 [uncommitted] 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. 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).

Marc Ambinder seems to think the latter is the most likely scenario.

Based on reporting and some guesswork, here is one possible scenario... and note, the numbers aren;t exact, but they're approximately correct: Florida's delegation is restored in full. Each delegate gets a half of a vote; in this scenario, Hillary Clinton would pick up 62 votes and Barack Obama would pick up about 43 for a net gain of 19.

More later on the various FL/MI scenarios/behind the scenes machinations. I'm at the airport in between flights, on my way to Puerto Rico. Will be able to catch up and update later tonight.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Democratic nomination, DNC, Florida primary, Michigan primary, RBC (all tags)

Comments

38 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Solomonic my butt, Lanny

Uncommitted was essentially a vote against Hillary. Why should she reap a majority of those delegates?

by 0td 2008-05-30 04:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Solomonic my butt, Lanny

Silly question. Because she's the Empress of the Universe of course.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-30 05:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Solomonic my butt, Lanny

1/2 of all uncommitted delegates go to FLASH!

by Lettuce 2008-05-30 05:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Solomonic my butt, Lanny

simple declarative English sentences are beyond you? at no time was that stated. she won the votes there, and there was no guarantee of who the uncommitted vote would go to, and she has not asked that any of them be committed to her, so the whole premise of your post is invalid from the start.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-30 06:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

you're wrong or full of it. or both.

Aside from being unnecessarily rude, you're also wrong. Lanny is very much asking that uncommitted delegates by committed to her.

The fairest would be to allocate those 57 [uncommitted] 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. 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).

(article)

she has not asked that any of them be committed to her

(your comment)

Now, who has a problem with simple English?

by 0td 2008-05-30 06:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

well, it seems you are both

Lanny is running for president? after all looking at my post you seem to be confused again. I said "she won there" to anyone familiar with the language that could only mean HRC. Not Lanny who may be a supporter of hers (HRC seem you seem unable to master context) Hillary is not bound by her opinions.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-30 07:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Solomonic my butt, Lanny

No doubt. It can be argued ad nauseum whether the voters those delegates represent were supporting Edwards or Obama, but quite clearly the voters those delegates represent DID NOT want Hillary, or else they would have voted for her (because her name was on the ballot, unlike Obama).

None of the Uncommitteds should go to Hillary, and since it can be safely assumed that those voters intended tro vote for either Obama or Edwards, they should ALL go to Obama, as Edwards has long since endorsed him.

Ickes and Davis need to be mentally evaluated... these two are certifiably insane.

They're really reaching here.

by Obamaphile 2008-05-30 07:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Let me get this straight-

What you are suggesting, in accordance with Lanny Davis's plan, is that in a state where Obama and Clinton have polled close to even, and in which 40% of voters voted against Clinton in an election that all parties agreed "would not count for anything," it would be fair to give Clinton an 85-27 advantage in seated delegates?

My basic faith in humanity leads me to believe that even to the most die-hard Clinton supporters this seating proposal for Michigan comes across as abusive.

I would appreciate responses from those who strongly support Clinton to confirm my faith in humanity.

by glopster 2008-05-30 05:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Hope you're not holding your breath....

by tibbs 2008-05-30 05:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

seeing that Todd is on a plane holding your breath would be self-defeating. but then again to pick up on that both of you would have had to read the whole entry.

by zerosumgame 2008-05-30 06:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

I got a ticket and am going to the meeting tomorrow!

Look for me on TV... black shirt w/ Obama button, ha.

by nwodtuhs 2008-05-30 05:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

To respond to this post more directly. First on Hillary's list isn't a favorable Florida settlement, but a clash between supporters at the meeting tomorrow. She could be awarded all of the delegates tomorrow and it wouldn't be enough. Hillary needs a conflict, a riot preferably, -- a slash and burn moment that might somehow tip the race in her favor. This is why she's called her supporters to protest.

I hope that you'll consider removing your button tomorrow. Even more important, I hope you'll respect all of the Clinton supporters and refrain from engaging in any debate, even if you feel you are doing it with proper spirit.

Only bad can come from this Saturday, really. It's a powder keg waiting to blow, and I only hope you and our fellow Obama supporters will act in a fashion that will live up to the standards set by our candidate. (Hell , best case scenario would not even be to go, but I doubt you'd want to give up that prized ticket!)

by such sweet thunder 2008-05-30 05:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

I'm not protesting..... I'm a registered guest....

by nwodtuhs 2008-05-30 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Have fun! Will you report back to us here?

by tibbs 2008-05-30 05:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

I second removing the Obama button and wearing something that says

"I SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!"

instead.

I know a lot of Kossacks got tickets to the meeting, too - hope you'll be in good company!

by tibbs 2008-05-30 05:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

First on Hillary's list isn't a favorable Florida settlement, but a clash between supporters at the meeting tomorrow. She could be awarded all of the delegates tomorrow and it wouldn't be enough. Hillary needs a conflict, a riot preferably, -- a slash and burn moment that might somehow tip the race in her favor.

Spot on!!!

by hootie4170 2008-05-30 05:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

It's over. I'm going shopping.

by NYWoman 2008-05-30 05:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

don't fall in the GWB quote...please.

Going shopping is his answer to everything.

just saying....

by colebiancardi 2008-05-30 05:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

I'm going to Disneyland

by monkeyga 2008-05-30 05:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Well, we have to do something if we can't play golf.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-30 06:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Todd,

Just vacationing or covering the primary?

by Deadalus 2008-05-30 05:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

The former, I hope. This thing is over.

by Firewall 2008-05-30 05:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Please clarify this, Todd

This post is confusing and it slightly misrepresents Ambinder's analysis.

First and foremost, the FL and MI delegates are given a half vote. The finish line is 2118.

As for the awarding of delegates, Clinton grosses 100 delegates from BOTH states and Obama grosses 81. Clinton, thus, gains a net of 19 delegates from both of the states. After PR, MT and SD, Obama will still be only about 25 superdelegates away from clinching it.

by elrod 2008-05-30 05:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Please clarify this, Todd

the half vote was mentioned in the diary if you had read all of it...

by zerosumgame 2008-05-30 06:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

NO to uncommited to Clinton

She was ON the ballot, if people wanted their vote to go to her, they would have voter for her. ALL of the uncommitted should be for anybody but Clinton.

Michigan should have vote cut in half. Let Clinton have her half. Give half of the uncommitted to Obama, and leave the rest of the uncommitted, uncommitted.

And strip ALL of the Superdelegates from Michigan. They made the mess, they should suffer.

by monkeyga 2008-05-30 05:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: NO to uncommited to Clinton

Why should only half the uncommitted go to Obama? They were all either Edwards or Obama votes, and Edwards has endorsed Obama - in Michigan no less. All of the uncommitted should go to Obama. And then they should split the totals in half: 73-55 becomes 36.5-27.5.

by elrod 2008-05-30 05:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Trying to be nice

I was trying to be nice to the Clinton supporters. I agree that in principle everything else should go to Obama. After all, there were really only 3 left in the race when the 'election' took place.

But, I will concede that maybe some of those who voted uncommitted really wanted anyone other than any of the candidates running. Maybe they were hoping that Al Gore would pop in the race. Or maybe they just hate everyone.

I also feel very strongly that the Michigan Superdelegates need to lose vote entirely. They made the mess and they should suffer for it. This is the only way to keep the next primary season from getting even worse.

by monkeyga 2008-05-30 05:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Trying to be nice

On the supers, I agree, for both states. I also have this goofy thought that if you did that, you might have a bit more votes to deal with the voters' wishes, but that is not in the rules.

by Christy1947 2008-05-30 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: NO to uncommited to Clinton

But don't you see? That's logical?

If you admit that, you have to admit other logical things, such as, say, MICHIGAN NEVER WAS SUPPOSED TO COUNT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO, instead you have to invite cloud coo-coo logic, inwhich the people who voted only voted literally in which they either voted committed for Hillary, or uncommitted for nobody.

Since they were uncommitted, that means they could have swung any ol' way. They could have voted for Horace the talking Moose. Who wasn't on the ballot either. And my cat, Shadow, who is elderly and just farted nearby as I typed. Also not on the ballot. In fact, all citizens or potential citizens of michigan who could have been on the ballot deserve an a potential vote, as well as purely theoretical particals that could have formed into atoms, elements, molocules, cells, beings, critters, politicians, candidates, democrats and as such, deserve a chance to get some of that 45%.

According to Lanny Davis.

Who, by the same logic, is a walking, talking sphincter that, unlike most sphincters, is unable to shut up.

by Lettuce 2008-05-30 05:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Just please, Make it STOP!!!

by haremoor 2008-05-30 05:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Todd, you're a breath of fresh, rational air around here!

by tibbs 2008-05-30 05:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Todd

The Florida Democratic Party just sent out an email saying that they would be okay with the delegates halved.

Al Giordano has it up over on http://www.ruralvotes.com/thefield

by Student Guy 2008-05-30 05:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Todd

Great news.

Let's hope this whole thing turns out to be very anticlimactic.

by tibbs 2008-05-30 06:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

I think Todd has misinterpreted either Lanny or Marc Ambinder with respect to Michigan. Lanny Davis thinks that Clinton should get her delegates from the January vote plus half of the uncommitted delegates. Hard to see how that's Solomonic at all, but whatever. Solomoronic, maybe.
Marc Ambinder, on the other hand, believes that the most likely scenario is a 50/50 split of all of the Michigan delegates (essentially tossing out the January primary) and then giving them a half vote.
Not the same thing at all.

by bottl4 2008-05-30 06:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

The fairest compromise is to give Hillary her delegates and Obama all of the Uncommitteds (who were most likely either Obama or Edwards supporters, and Edwards has long since endorsed Obama), then cut the votes in half.

Allot the Florida delegation as it is, cutting the votes in half.

Hell, they could seat the delegations exactly as is, giving Hillary all of her Michigan delegation and Obama nothing there, and he still wins this thing.

There is no mathematical scenario for Clinton to beat Obama in the pledged delegate race, even if you give her exactly what she wants tomorrow.

It's over folks.

by Obamaphile 2008-05-30 07:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

Obviously Clinton and her surrogates are not throwing out compromise scenarios -- they're setting the bar unrealistically high, knowing that wherever they set the bar, the Committee will split the difference and come in lower. Unfortunately for Clinton, the Rules Committee is not going to take any action that would have the effect of changing the existing dynamic of the race. Doing so would first of all have the effect of harming the candidate who treated the committee's decision regarding these two races seriously and acted in reliance on that decision, most notably by removing his name from the MI ballot; the message sent would be that the Committee's decisions cannot be relied on. No better way to make the Rules Committee and the DNC as a whole into a paper tiger.

And secondly, such a decision would have the effect of saying that the DNC was wrong to even attempt to ensure that its rules had force. Not good for the party and guaranteed that the next time there's a contested primaries, states will have no discipline at all about following the schedule.

I think the committee has pretty much signaled what the compromise will be -- half votes, with Obama given a substantial share and probably all of the uncommitted. Will it make Clinton scream? That's too bad. Nothing short of handing over the nomination that she has already lost would prevent that. All Clinton really wants is for the entire process to be invalidated by the party elite based on a strained set of arguments that require one to already agree with the conclusion in order to credit the premise.

The Committee's actions will be anticlimactic. Clinton will shriek that it's unfair. And Wednesday Morning, Obama will have all the delegates and superdelegates necessary to claim the nomination.

by Headlight 2008-05-30 07:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Lanny Davis' solution is a joke

Take all the delegates that Hillary "won" in the illegitimate Michigan primary and give them to her, and then take half the delegates she DIDN'T win and give them to her, too. Only in Bizarro world could that possibly be considered a fair solution.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-30 07:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Rules and Bylaws Miscellany

According to the same rules, Obama should receive 0 delegates from Florida since he "campaigned through media buys) in the state of Florida up until the day before the Primary. We were surprised to see those TV commercials for Obama.
Here in Florida because we knew that campaigning in any form was prohibited. The rules clearly mention electronic advertizing and state that the penalty is to lose all delegates from the state.

by glennmcgahee 2008-05-31 04:21AM | 0 recs