Friday, May 02, 2008

FL & MI By The Numbers

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Please see the newest FL & MI By the Numbers post.

There are all sorts of scenarios concerning Florida and Michigan, and the latest one is proposal by Michigan Dems propose 69-59 split. We've taken five of the most likely and interesting ones and run the numbers.

The scenarios are:

  1. Do not seat Florida or Michigan. Current Official DNC rules
  2. Seat Michigan based on new Michigan Democratic Party Proposal of 69-59 split with full vote for superdelegates, but not Florida.
  3. Seat Florida, based on January election, but not Michigan. FL Pledged delegates get ½ vote, superdelegate get a full vote.
  4. Combine scenario 2 and scenario 3. FL 1/2 vote, MI 69-59 split and Super full vote.
  5. Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place. (Obama does not gets MI 55 uncommitted). This scenario is in the left sidebar.
We are not endorsing any of these scenarios. We're just providing information so our readers can judge how each scenario will affect the race.

List of Florida and Michigan superdelegates.
FL & MI SCENARIOS
Scenario 1: Do not seat Florida or Michigan. Current Official DNC rules
Delegates Available: 4049Nomination: 2025.0PD majority: 1627.0

ObamaClinton EdwardsOthers(1)NYA(2)YTV(3)Total
Pledged Delegates(GP)1656.51501.59----863253
Needed for PD majorityClinched!------------
Superdelegates (DCW)306.5278.5--211----796
Total Delegates1963.01780.09211--864049
Delegates Lead183.0-- ----------
Needed to win Nomination62.0245.0------Left297
Scenario 2: Seat Michigan based on new the proposal 69-59 split, but not Florida.
Delegates Available: 4206.0Nomination: 2103.5PD majority: 1691.0

ObamaClinton EdwardsOthers(1)NYA(2)YTV(3)Total
Pledged Delegates(GP)1656.51501.590--863253
MI Pledged Delegates596900--0128
Needed for PD majorityClinched!------------
Superdelegates (DCW)306.5278.5--211----796
MI Superdelegates57--17----29
Total Delegates2027.01856.09228--864206
Delegates Lead171.0-- ----------
Delegates needed to win Nomination76.5247.5------Left314


Scenario 3: Seat Florida, based on January election, but not Michigan. FL Pledged get ½ votes, superdelegates get full vote.
Delegates Available: 4167.5Nomination: 2084.0PD majority: 1673.0

ObamaClinton EdwardsOthers(1)NYA(2)YTV(3)Total
Pledged Delegates(GP)1656.51501.590--863253
FL 1/2 Pledged Delegates(GP)34.552.5.55.50--092.5
Needed for PD majorityClinched!------------
Superdelegates (DCW)306.5278.5--211----796
FL Superdelegates 58--13----26
Total Delegates1997.51832.514.5224--864167.5
Delegates Lead165.0-- ----------
Delegates needed to win Nomination86.5251.5------Left310

Scenario 4: Combine scenario 2 and scenario 3. FL 1/2 vote, MI 69-59 split and Super full vote.
Delegates Available: 4324.5Nomination: 2162.5PD majority: 1737.0

ObamaClinton EdwardsOthers(1)NYA(2)YTV(3)Total
Pledged Delegates(GP)1656.51501.590--863253
MI Pledged Delegates5969--------128
FL Pledged Delegates34.552.55.5------92.5
Needed for PD majorityClinched!------------
Superdelegates (DCW)306.5278.5--211----796
MI Superdelegates57--17----29
FL Superdelegates58--13----26
Total Delegates2056.51901.514.5241--864324.5
Delegates Lead155.0-- ----------
Delegates needed to win Nomination106.0261.0------Left327

Scenario 5: Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place.
(Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted).
Delegates Available: 4417.0Nomination: 2209.0PD majority: 1783.5

ObamaClinton EdwardsOthers(1)NYA(2)YTV(3)Total
Pledged Delegates(GP)1725.51679.52055--863566
Needed for PD majority58.0104.0----------
Superdelegates (DCW)316.5293.5--241----851
Total Delegates2042.01973.020296--864417
Delegates Lead69.0------------
Delegates needed to win Nomination167.0236.0------Left382
Last Updated: 05/21/2008 4:00 PM(EST)

Notes: The scenarios and table are sorted from the highest candidate's lead to the lowest.

Others(1): Include Unknown, Uncommitted & No endorsements yet
NYA(2): Not Yet Assigned.
YTV(3): Not Yet Voted.

112 comments:

Tony Wesley said...

Thanks for posting all of the various scenarios.

I have a question about option 2: "Seat Michigan based on January election but not Florida."

I realize that you're not advocating this or any of the other scenarios, just showing the numbers.

I can't figure out a justification for the party to include Michigan and exclude Florida.

My question, two really: Is anyone proposing this? Or is this just a possible scenario for which you cranked out the numbers?

Tony in MI

Matt said...

Each state is in some sense an independent decision, although any political compromise might indeed cover both states. We show the options 2 and 3 separately just to show the effect of each one independently.

jpsedona said...

Yoursi / Matt,

I am confused as to why there is an option 6 at this point("Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted"). If district delegates have been selected (take your pick of the varying counts to each candidate), Option 6 doesn't even seem a remote possibility.

You indicate that you are not endorsing any option, but by including option 6 as the scenario in the sdebar, it seems you give more weight to this possibility than any of the others.

If you're including the scenarios, why not the "Michigan Compromise" as proposed by Sen. Levin and others (Clinton 69, Obama 59)? This is a real proposal that is going to be taken up at the end of the month.

Amot said...

JPS, I can think of 20 scenarios that can be included!
De jure scenario 6 is correct because de jure all 55 delegates in MI are uncommitted! De facto if any MI delegates are seated he will have a lion's share of the uncommitted! Non neutral is to point the de facto situation instead of the de jure situation! All people know the facts, but just a few know the rules, so we better aplly the rules and let people figure out how the facts apply to the situation! A short remark saying he has the support of the most uncommitted delegates chosen should be enough!

jpsedona said...

Amot,

I agree, you could go crazy with varying scenarios.

You may be correct that the "uncommitted" go to the convention with the option to vote for any candidate. This is no different than SD's that are included into the various scenarios. Since the districts have selected delegates that are committed in the same fashion as SD's, option 6 really isn't realistic.

If the idea is to give folks a feel for what the 'most likely' scenarios might be, then option 6 should be removed IMO.

The option being proposed by the MI Dems seems to be valid and should be included because it's what the state delegation hopes to get as a compromise.

Amot said...

JPS,
if it was up to me I would include MI appeal version. And I would also include my own version of FL '1/2 vote each' and MI 'no supers, 1/2 vote pledged, half based on primary, half even split or based on pledged nationwide'. That is the fairest according to me, but it seems like supers think they don't deserve penalty for creating such a mess!

Amot said...

BTW the difference between version 5 and version 6 is than in version 5 2/3 of the 55 uncommitted will go at the convention officialy as Obama's; in version 6 they will go as officialy uncommitted. The difference is 'de jure' Clinton will have the chance to claim it is not over longer :)
I don't think posting version 6 last it makes it most probable in readers' eyes

jpsedona said...

Amot,

"...but it seems like supers think they don't deserve penalty for creating such a mess!"

These are my sentiments exactly. Penalize the voters who participated; penalize the voters who thought their votes weren't going to count; and award the party insiders who contributed to the mess and did nothing to resolve it before things started hitting the fan.

Amot said...

JPS,
you know - cats don't really care about mice, they only care about themselves! They only care when they are hungry (need re-election)! I wonder why there was no group of independent voters (I think I read somewhere a group of 15 is big enough) to file an appeal to DNC asking for seating pledged and not seating unpledged. Of course in the case of MI this formula needs to be adjusted.

page in Jax said...

Option 5 is the closest to "the will of the voters". Hope the DNC powers-that-be see this and consider the best interests of the voters, not the state politians.

Amot said...

Option 5 seats supers and is unfair to Obama in MI, plus I don't think FL has to be seated at 100% - after all there was no campaign in the state! Those are three reasons why option 7 (mine option) is better :)

bicycle on an icicle said...

Did anyone see Howard Dean on The Daily Show last night? He was very clear that Florida and Michigan will both be seated at the convention somehow.

I think he meant that they will be seated after the nomination is chosen, which is really besides the point. He didn't elaborate. He was very mysterious about the whole thing.

Matt said...

We'd love to list 100 options but we can't. And we're not necessarily listing the most likely options. We want to list options that provide information and baseline.

Option 6 does two things. First, it is an absolute best case for Clinton/worse case for Obama, so it defines the edge of the envelope.

Second, as said above, officially the 55 are Uncommitted, and will remain so until the convention - they are just like superdelegates.
In reality, what we would have to do is to gather up all the names of the 55 (36 known right now) and get their individual endorsements and put them in the right column. If it gets to the point that it looks like the 55 might actually be seated, then we can go down that path.

And third, we've been tracking Option 6 in our left sidebar for 4 months, so we want to keep it for historical purposes.

Jpsedona - I would note that the Levin proposal is not, to my knowledge, an official proposal of the Michigan Democratic Party, just another proposal that has been thrown out there. I'm also not aware that this proposal is being "taken up" by the RBC or anybody else. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

jpsedona said...

Matt,

Below is a link to the letter from Levin, et al regarding their actual proposal and objection to other proposals. The letter petitions the MI Dem Party to pursue the matter with the DNC and also indicates that Levin & company were communicating their views to the Rules & Bylaws Committe.

Levin Compromise


The Rules & Bylawas Committe has scheduled a meeting for May 31 on the 1/2 vote proposal. The following article indicates that the Committee will likely take up the compromise. Further, it says:

"It is critical that the DNC quickly consider the proposals offered and make a decision on or before their May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting," said Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd.

The Detroit News

I have not seen an article that confirms that the Committee will take up the proposal, but I suspect that all current proposals will be discussed (although they may not vote on them).

Matt said...

Thanks for the links. I see the Det. News article says "The new proposal is likely to be discussed on May 31 in Washington", but I'm not aware that the proposal has been officially submitted to the RBC.

It's not even clear that the MI state party supports it - all the article says is that "Brewer is reviewing the proposal". Now its not required that the MI state party support the proposal in order for it to be heard, but I would like to see some confirmation that this is a proposal that is actually going to be submitted to and reviewed by the RBC before we consider adding it to the options.

Amot said...

Matt,
I have to argue here!

According to the DNC selection plan individuals can appeal to RBC too (I think they need to be 15 at least), so it is not necessary to have the state party backing you in order to file an appeal and have it discussed at the meeting! I think what is important here if we can understand which appeals will be reviewed by DNC laywers before the meeting. It may looks easy but legal issues are really serious. In the case of MI when we discuss possible allocations of delegates based not only on the primary results, the legal issues are very strong. To change the seating RBC needs to prove their seating is more representative and fair! And they have not only to get the agreement by the campaigns, but the voters! Because if scenario 6 occurs every citizen of MI can file an appeal that he did not vote and the results are not fair. It can go to the court and stay there forever. And I believe DNC can even lose the case. That is the best explanation why Dean is so unclear on the matter and why everyone hopes that Clinton will drop out of the race before the convention, which will clear the road for seating both delegations as is. Every change of the previous rulings is vulnerable to endless attacks! Actually the strongest position of DNC is not to seat both delegation or to seat them without right to vote on the nominee selection! I will keep an eye on this and if on May 31st it is stil a valid question I will post the legal issues concerned!

page in Jax said...

Amot said...
Option 5 seats supers and is unfair to Obama in MI,

How is it unfair? Both Edwards and Obama were vying for those uncommitted votes. BO should not get them all or he should not get any!

Amot said...

How was it unfair? It was not regular primary first of all! It was a beauty contest run by a state party that wanted to be as cocky as possible! Even PPP's ordered by the state party poll shows people in MI don't think the results are valid! He was not on the ballot; he did not campaign; period (as yamaka likes to say)! She was on the ballot because she wanted to win a contest she claimed doesn't count at all! She was known in the state by her name and by her Bubba! That was not a fair race therefore the results were not fair! There were not fair for Edwards either! And a turnout less that a caucus turnout only proves people knew it was a beauty contest!

page in Jax said...

Option 5 is in fact the "more" fair option. BO and JE chose to take their names off the ballot and then their supporters, some DNC members, urged voters to vote uncommitted.

"Representative John Conyers Jr. and his wife, Monica Conyers, a Detroit city councilwoman, Democrats who support Mr. Obama, began running radio commercials on Wednesday telling people to vote uncommitted. Several groups, Michiganders for Obama, Michigan for Edwards and the newly formed Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, have been campaigning door-to-door, on the phone and at rallies, spreading the uncommitted message."
from: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-ploy-for-uncommitted/

My point is simple: if the delegates are gonna be seated, BO should NOT get all 55 uncommitted from MI.

Again, Option 5 is the only option that reflects "the will of the voters"!

Bill Moore said...

The large turnout in Florida was because of a critical & controversial vote on Property Taxes. I know of no one who took the primary vote seriously. It should count for nothing. Blame goes to the boneheads in our state legislature (Demo's too) for going against the DNC rules.

page in Jax said...

Bill, that's just silly; I'm a Floridian and I think that turn out would have been extremely low if only the Property Tax amendment was on the ballot. Having both primaries on the ballot resulted in record-breaking turn out. Don't treat FL voters like we didn't know who or what we were voting for.

jtwright said...

Should the option 6 number of remaining supers be 312 or 313? The sidebar says 312 (I think that's correct) but the chart says 313...

Amot said...

Don't be joking about FL turnout! I have a special post dedicated on primary and caucus trunout analysis and compared those in FL with others. I estimated FL turnout as 42% of last GE and that puts them at the very bottom of all primaries this season. With tax issues on the ballot turnout should be 65-70% as it was in other big states! Still I accept FL results to be valid with certain remarks and I think 50% is a fair seating and won't be objected much by neither side! In MI turnout was ridiculously low! If it was normal shold be above 70% instead of 23% due to the importance of the primary (coming second in line)! I can defend the position that not only Edwards and Obama supporters skipped the vote, but many Clinton supporters did the same. In a regular primary Clinton should get as much votes as the total attendance at the beauty contest that happened! And Obama would get three times the number of uncommitted! Those results should not be counted by no means, of if counted they should be used to seat maximum 1/4 of the pledged delegates!

art t said...

i do not see how any of options 2-5 can be adopted. each one of them somehow involves altering votes already cast or trying to force delegates to vote other than their personal beliefs. these are things that supposedly are done in other less democratic countries (to be polite about it). only option six has any justice behind it. and justice is behind letting these states delegations in as their votes were cast. FL can be easily admitted in simple justice as it was not democrats who ignored democratic rules but republicans. FL is still firmly in republican control. also Obama was on the ballot in FL so he can hardly claim to have been treated unfairly. once FL is in the DNC has (by implication) admitted that its rule was unforcable and therefore unfair and MI should be admitted. i might also add that it is distressing to me to hear Democrats proposing solutions that to me are so undemocratic(small d). it is a bulwork of our democratic republic that elections are controlled locally and that the results of any election is not subject to change. i suppose that Obama has a point that he believed in the unfair and mistaken Democratic Party rule and therefore is at a disadvantage because of it. but, i believe that it is the measure of his nievete as a politician that this happened and also a measure of Mrs Clinton's expertise that she was not fooled by this. i suppose that the way things are today this constitutes a political comment, but i do not think it would be good to have another Simple Simon in the White House particularly if he got there by cheating voters. Finally, i suppose Obama people can say tha this is unjust to their candidate, which is true. once an injustice is done we should all realize that it is often nearly impossible to right that and create true justice. great care needs to be taken when these decisions are made because of that. also violating Obama seems to be less of an evil than violating 2 states 44 electrol votes, and all of the rest of us by tampering with an election. Art Torelli

dfoliver said...

I would love to see the following scenario:

FL Pledged count, supers do not count, remaining delegates split (i.e. Edwards delegates). MI Pledged count, Obama gets all of the uncommitted and the rest split. MI Supers do not get a vote.

Amot said...

In MI there are only uncommitted and Hillary delegates...
Whatever we think RBC will decide it and will decide it wrong since there is no right decision!

PastorGene said...

My solution is as follows:

1. Use the primary election results but adjust to include some penalty for violating the rules and to restore a little fairness.

2. Obama gets the "uncommitted" pledged delegates from Michigan, since his name was not on the ballot, and since voters for "uncommitted" were obviously not voting for Clinton.

3. Reduce each state's pledged delegate total by half, or allow a full slate of delegates but with only 1/2 vote each.

4. Do not seat their superdelegates, since they are the party leaders who created this mess in the first place.

This solution restores as much fairness as possible at this point, avoids disenfranchising the voters (though the voters who didn't vote because they believed it would not count are still disenfranchised), and preserves some penalty for violating the rules. The violation can't completely go unchecked, or all states will try to hold their primaries in January. Donna Brazille talked about how the decision to not seat the delegations from these 2 states was in order to "dodge a bullet," since everyone was wanting to try to be first by moving their primaries up. People forget that there were reasons for this rule--and that ALL the candidates, including Hillary Clinton, agreed on the rule before the voting started.

sleepy9112 said...

I find the rationale for all of this problematic. Were Senator Clinton in Barack Obama's position leading as he is, she would not be advocating seating any delegation from Florida or Michigan. She is the person who raised the disenfranchisement issue only after she realized the nomination was slipping away from her. There was no real outcry from Michigan or Florida voters. Had there been, this issue would have been resolved long ago. Only after Senator Clinton raised the issue did some voters from the two states begin to advocate for themselves about this issue.

Another problem is that this is grossly unfair to Senator Obama. It has been proven time and time again, that he is a real closer. Regardless of the polling, when he begins to campaign in a location, he narrows the margin or overtakes Senator Clinton. Remember these primaries were held before the Jeremiah Wright or bitter voter flaps. The likely scenario at the time, had Obama campaigned would have been a win or draw in Michigan and a narrow loss in Florida. How do you reward Senator Clinton for having a brand name? Something is rotten in Denmark with this.

This is the option I would like to float. A 51/49 split in Clinton's favor. Anything more would be a travesty.

frstan said...

The MI state party's executive committee voted Wednesday to ask the national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee to approve the 69-59 delegate split between HRC/Obama when it meets May 31 in order to permit the seating of the MI delegates. Another joint MI/FA plan involving 50% reduction in vote has now been discarded as a result.

http://www.usatoday.com/...

Matt said...

There's a post on this on the front page.

jpsedona said...

Matt,

I read the update on the front page, you may want to include that info on the "FL & MI By the Numbers" page also.

Since the 69-59 proposal is now the official proposal from the MI party and endorsed by Mark Brewer, will you be modifying the Options to at least include this as the currently preferred MI proposal?

frstan said...

yes Matt. I referenced what is now the Official Proposal that is going to the DNC Committee for approval (apparently with the blessings of both camps.)

So no, I dont think your existing article encompasses it.

Kumar said...

You have done an excellent analysis. There is also one other suggestion. By advertising and Appearing for an Inreview in Florida before the primary, Obama violated the DNC rules. According to the DNC rules then Obama should get 0 delegates from Florida.
Thanks for your time and valuable work.
Kumar

Yousri said...

Kumar,
Thank you for your nice words about our work.

Sen. Obama did not violate any DNC rules. You need to check your sources again.

The Law Talking Guy said...

I think the #2 scenario is not properly calculated. Clinton can't have only a half-delegate difference if she gets +69 from Michigan.

Yousri said...

The Law Talking Guy,

Total for Sen. Clinton is corrected.

Thanks

PastorGene said...

I agree with sleepy9112. The rules are the rules, and Clinton has created an outcry that was not there before, only because it could give her an unfair advantage, after agreeing to the rules at the start. It is pure grandstanding and demoguery for her to act like she has the interests of those "disenfranchised" voters in mind. Of course, we've seen also how she can grandstand about a gas tax holiday that would help no one but the oil companies and now a lot of talk about breaking up OPEC which is pure nonsense but plays well to the crowds.

However, we have what we have now. She has, in fact, made this an issue, and stirred up hard feelings where there perhaps were none before, and her campaign persists in blaming the whole situation on Obama, even though it was the two states' own leaders that created the problem.

But however we got to this point, this is what we have, and I do think a peaceful resolution will require some concession regarding the votes taken, however illegitimate and unjustly administered the voting process was. That's why I think my solution would PARTIALLY restore some fairness and PARTIALLY preserve some penalty for violating the rules, while also at least PARTIALLY honoring the votes of the people who voted (unfortunately still leaving out those who took the DNC at its word and did not vote).

I think the 69-59 split in Michigan is acceptable, though it still takes away any penalty for the rules violation. The problem for everyone to think about is, if there is no penalty at all--no teeth in the rule, what's going to happen in 2012? Will all the states hold their primaries in January? What if they decide not even to wait until January?

I thought the Super Tuesday scenario itself, which was within the rules, was a fiasco. It's ridiculous to cram all those states into one day. The problem that extends beyond the Clinton-Obama issue or the issue of Michigan's and Florida's delegates is that all the states want to be at or near the front of the line, and that just doesn't work. It's chaos, and there needs to be some order. So in consideration of this situation, everyone needs to think about how to insure an orderly and rational process for the future--and how to enforce it, if the Party is going to backtrack on its rules and penalties.

Bob in Vancouver said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stacy said...

If you have time, could you do an option 8 which combines option 2 {Seat Florida, based on January election; pledged get 1/2 votes, superdelegates get full vote}and option 4 {Seat Michgan based on the new proposal 69-59 split}. It seems to be that is what is likely. That would make the total available 4323.5 and the finish line would be 2162, right?

Matt said...

Scenarios 2-4 now cover the plans being discussed. Scenario 5 is left as a baseline scenario. I know people have questioned why we include this scenario, as they say it will never happen. My response would be that if Obama continues to pick up supers at the rate he did today, the Obama campaign will have no problem with going with the delegates from the original primaries, as the nomination would be locked up anyway. The DNC might have a problem, but the Obama campaign wouldn't.

Stephane MOT said...

Solving FL and MI decently won't help Hillary reduce the gap by more than 84 units.

The most HRC could claim is the delegates she "won" (105+73 = 178).

The least BHO should get is the delegates he won in FL + half of MI's uncommitted (67+27.5 = 94.5).

1954 vs 1875 (magic number 2209 - Oby +79 and 472.5 remaining)

If you count half votes you get +89 for HRC and +47.25 for BHO

1907- vs 1786 (magic number 2181 - Oby +121 and 472.5 remaining)

jpsedona said...

I believe that the DNC / Rules & Bylaws Committee may look to penalize both FL & MI for early primaries in accordance to the DNC rules:

Rule 20.C.1.a
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation.


If the DNC / RBC enforces the rule, then the most likely current scenario would be a variation of Scenario 4 with each pledged delegate being allocated a 1/2 vote (instead of reduction in delegation size).

If that happens, then the scenario yields:

Obama: 1928.5 [1958.0 - 29.5]
Clinton: 1799 [1833.5 - 34.5]
Obama lead: 129.5

Required: 2130 [2162 - 32]
Obama Needs: 172 [204 -32]
Clinton Needs: 296.5 [328.5 - 32]

Remaining: 442.5 [506.5 - 64]
Obama needs: 39% [170 / 442.5]
Clinton needs: 67% [296.5 / 442.5]

Amot said...

JPS,
it is not that simple...
If they apply the minimal penalty and nothing more, no super will be allowed to vote. And the supers are those making the big noise, regular Dems wouldn't mind a lot if both delegations are not seated.
So they must break 20.C.1(a) and apply reduction of the minimal penalty. In FL that can happen and they can seat all the delegation including supers with half vote. I can't figure out how will they find satisfactory reason to decrease the penalty on MI and seat their supers... DNC has problem, a big one, and Barack has just a small problem because no matter what the decision on MI and FL is he is the nominee.

kidkavon said...

These numbers are a good start, but they need a little bit of tweaking.

First of all, under DNC rules, none of the Florida or Michigan superdelegates can be counted under any circumstance. Therefore, your scenarios here should exclude them.

Second of all, the minimum punishment for both states is to halve the value of the pledged delegates. Under no circumstance will the Florida or Michigan pledged delegates be seated at full value. Therefore, even if Michigan seats its pledged delegates according to Scenario 2 listed here, each pledged delegate would still be worth half its ordinary value.

Please revise your numbers so that nobody is confused or misunderstands the situation!

Stacy said...

check scenario 5--the latest update left the 55 MI in Obama's total pledged instead of taking it out, thus giving the erroneous total of 850, rathe rthan 795. It's hard to update in so many places. Thanks for all of your hard work!

Matt said...

Kidavon says: First of all, under DNC rules, none of the Florida or Michigan superdelegates can be counted under any circumstance. Therefore, your scenarios here should exclude them.

That is wrong. All DNC rules are subject to change by first the Rules/Bylaws Commission, and then the Credentials Committee, and finally the convention itself.

Kidavon then says: Second of all, the minimum punishment for both states is to halve the value of the pledged delegates. Under no circumstance will the Florida or Michigan pledged delegates be seated at full value. Therefore, even if Michigan seats its pledged delegates according to Scenario 2 listed here, each pledged delegate would still be worth half its ordinary value.

Again wrong, for the same reason as above. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is set in stone in this matter. The rules are set up to allow maximum flexibility and all options.

jpsedona said...

Matt,

I agree that nothing is set in stone and that the RBC can change the rules. And the credential committe can chose from slates of delegates, refuse to sit a delegation, etc.

But I would take exception to your statement where you said "The rules are set up to allow maximum flexibility and all options."

If the RBC applies the current rules, then the following would apply:

Rule 20.C.1.a
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation.

Matt said...

Jpsedona - By rules, I meant the general rules of the convention, which gave the RBC, the Credentials Committee, and ultimately the convention itself, to follow or not follow any previous rule that was made. Such decisions themselves are totally within the rules. Which is why I've said that any challenge to the MI/FL seating done according to the proper procedure is totally within the rules of the convention. Nothing the Clinton campaign has proposed is against the ultimate rules of the convention.

While I understand what rule 20.c.1.a says, rule 20.c.5 gives the RBC wide latitude to impose additional sanctions:

Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions...

So in my opinion, the RBC was within their rights to impose the original sanctions themselves, but the challenges to that original decision are all appropriate also.

This is a political party, and ultimately rules fights are political fights. Kennedy tried to get the rules changed in 1980 to give himself a chance at the nomination, and Clinton is doing the same.

I'm purposely not giving any opinion here on whether the original RBC decision was the right one, or what the RBC should do going forward. My original comment was just defending our inclusion of different scenarios. Just because the current Delegate Selection Rules say something, that is not necessarily how it will end up.

Blame said...

There is logic to giving Clinton a majority of the Florida delegates, because it is clear that the voters favour her in that state. Probably if Obama had campaigned he would have narrowed the gap, but if he had been offered the option of settling for ½ vote per delegate and no campaigning he would have jumped for it. It will seem reasonably OK to the voters there.

There is no logic in giving anything better than a 50/50 split for Indiana. Obama was not on the ballot because that was what the DNC requested. Hillary was the disobedient one. The vote is meaningless. More importantly there is no evidence that Hillary would have won in Indiana. Giving Hillary the win would be rewarding bad behaviour, and would NOT improve the feelings of the Indiana voters. The Obama supporters would feel robbed, and the undecided would be distraught at the idea of prolonging the contest to the convention.

Regardless the damage has already been done. Both states missed out on the fun, and any allocation of votes designed to avoid changing the outcome will have no effect on that disappointment. If the DNC wants to make them feel better the only thing to do is ban the politicians responsible for this mess from attending the convention. Replace all the delegates with rank and file supporters chosen by lottery from both states. That might at least be poetic justice.

Stacy said...

My last comment (about correcting scenario 5)should be ignored--sorry to waste your time.

Do you think Florida will stand for Michigan getting 69/59 pledged delegates and Florida only getting 92.5/66.5 pledged delegates?
Has anything been said about only givng Michigan 34.5/29.5 (i.e. 50% of the 69/59 proposal)?
Has anything been said by the Rules Committee about giving superdelegates in Michigan and Florida only a half vote each? Are they interested in hearing from voters about these issues?
Or do we just need to wait until May 31 and see what happens?
Thanks for your time.

PastorGene said...

If the current trend among superdelegates continues, very soon the question of FL and MI delegates may become irrelevant to the nomination process. Even under the best of circumstances for Clinton, Obama should get about 100 or more pledged delegates from the remaining contests. He is gaining about 4 superdelegates per day.

Even in the unlikely event that 100% of MI and FL delegates are included with full vote, considering that this would surely have to include granting the 55 uncommitted from MI to Obama, since his name was not on the ballot, and those voters were certainly voting against Clinton, this scenario would only give Clinton a net gain vs. Obama of 56 pledged delegates and, by current count, 9 superdelegates, making a total of 65. Depending on whose count one uses, Obama's overall delegate lead as of right now ranges from 172 to 185, and it is growing daily.

The way the Clinton campaign is spinning the MI/FL issue, they make it sound as if she would get all the delegates from those states, or as if seating those delegates would put her in the lead. Neither of those things is anywhere close to the truth.

So again, as this whole issue eventually becomes irrelevant to the nomination itself, we are back to the original question of the capacity of the Party to enforce its rules and prevent chaos in future elections. Without some penalty for this violation of the election rules, there will be nothing to prevent every state in the country from moving its primary up to January in 2012. I thought "Super Tuesday" was ridiculous enough. Think of how ridiculous it would be to squeeze the whole campaign into one month. That would have worked well for Clinton this time, since it gives an obvious advantage to the candidate with the strongest name recognition and the longest-standing organization. But such a rush to judgment may not be what is best for the Democratic Party. There needs to be some time for people to consider lesser known candidates, who may have much to offer, as is the case with Barack Obama.

Economy said...

Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place.
(Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted).

Hillary has the momentum to close this gap. The tide is turning in West Virgina even though she was probably outspent by a significant amount as was done in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. This contest is not over.

Betta Daze said...

The DNC should enforce their rules or no one will respect them in the future. Hillary has set a bad example-- and should be punished for breaking the rules too-- not rewarded for bullying the DNC!

If Mi/Fla. are seated, the only fair way would be 1-- Halve the delagates/votes as DNC punishment and 2-- split the remainder 50-50 as Hillary had steep advantages: Instant name recognition, first lady status, a popular ex-president co-candidacy, and the Clintons were known in both states. Obama was a new and almost unknown underdog, had never been to the states, met the people and campaigned. The Clintons had been in Fla. in 2007. Hillary had Fla. campaigners working on her behalf from Oct. to primary day, and she campaigned in Fla., that week,in meet'n greets, TV/press photo ops, fundraisers and a pre-arranged victory rally. Even though she signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in these two states. And finally-- EVERYONE DID NOT VOTE-- as the mass media push proclaimed their votes would not count. Many did not take off from work to vote in a "non-contest".

Many of us are disgusted at the lies of the Clinton camp and those with other agendas-- and their willingness to "spin" these unfair, illegitimate contests as real-- after the fact-- to suit their own gain.

Amot said...

I have a legal question:

There was a voter who challenged at court DNC decision to penalize MI 100%. And he failed...
If MI is seated can any MI voter favoring Obama challenge the seating at court because he didn't vote due to announced 'beauty' primary? If seating MI results in Clinton stealing the nomination, therefore disfranchising the voter X to vote for Obama in GE, can he press legal charges against the state of MI and DNC?

Ted P said...

Amot,

I believe the case you are referring to involves the Florida primary and a voter by the name of Victor DiMaio.

DiMaio's complaint was initially filed in August 2007. At first instance, on October 5, 2007, the District Court dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because DiMaio lacked constitutional standing to challenge the DNC decision. However, the court went on to hold that the complaint failed on the merits because (i) the decision of the DNC did not involve "state action", but that of a private organization, (ii) the DNC has a constitutionally protected right to manage and conduct its own internal affairs, including the enforcement of delegate selection rules, and (iii) the Convention, and not the court, was the proper forum for determining the intra-party dispute with regard to the seating of delegates. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the appeals court on March 21, 2008 affirmed the District Court with respect to the issue of standing, but vacated the reasoning of the District Court on all other issues, following precedent to the effect that where the court lacks jurisdiction it should not venture any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeals court did, however, state that the appeal "raise[d] a number of interesting and potentially significant questions concerning the impact of the Equal Protection Clause on an individual's right to vote in a primary election, the extent of the Fourteenth Amendment's state action requirement, and the associated interests of national political parties". The appeals court dismissed the case, but only on a without prejudice basis, which meant that DiMaio was free to amend his complaint so as to state that the DNC had in fact violated his equal protection rights, and bring the matter back before the courts.

That is precisely what has now happened. DiMaio filed a new complaint on April 8 and brought a new motion for summary judgment on April 28. As of yesterday, written arguments had been exchanged by both sides and the motion is set to be heard by the District Court on May 28. No doubt, whatever the outcome, there will be appeals from that decision.

Your post raises additional interesting and complex questions upon which I do not propose to venture any opinion. The court in DiMaio did suggest, however, that as a practical matter it would be difficult for a person who had not voted in the first place to raise a constitutional issue based on disenfranchisement.

The purpose of this post (and particularly its length) is to emphasize that the legal action that the Clinton camp has threatened will follow from any DNC decision on May 31 that is not in accordance with its wishes will throw the nomination process into a protracted legal quagmire from which the Democratic party will not likely emerge, at least for the purposes of this election. This is the ultimate scorched earth strategy that the party faces unless it sticks to its initial decision on May 31.

In my view, the practical result of any other decision will be utter chaos for the party in terms of future nomination contests and the disenfranchisement of voters in both states. In each of the votes, the election was held with full knowledge on the part of both the electorate and the candidates that the results would not count. That is why Obama properly took his name off the ballot in Michigan and none of the then-candidates campaigned in either state. To now allege that to not include the "results" of these irretrievably tainted elections is undemocratic or disenfranchising is nothing less than scandalous and an affront to the rule of law.

Amot said...

Ted,

I agree that keeping the initial decision is the only one that can not be appealed or if appealed , it can be easily defended by the DNC lawyers. Actually I stated the same in my previous posts on MI and FL. It is unfair to the voters but anything else can make this endless court battle.

The situation I was talking about is maybe more complex than stated but is probable. I mean if FL and MI delegation are seated and their votes alter the choice of the nominee probably any voter in any state can complain he has been disfranchised. I think the problem here is that DNC should have setled that decision as final by now! How is that someone can still appeal to alter the decision? I thought the decision is final if in a certain period it is not appealed. Does such period exist? Is it over? If such period exist and it is over any altering of the results and following change of the nominee will mean disfranchising of all Obama voters in the 48 states and the territories! Am I correct on this? I mean can that be a legal question? Plus I think both campaigns can appeal seating is unfair due to no equal representation and ability to campaign. Especially in MI I think almost anyone can complain and start legal issue... On May 31st the best decision is to seat the delegations with right to vote on nominee!

Amot said...

My mistake - without right to vote on the nominee

Ted P said...

amot,

As I indicated in my post, the issues you raise are complex and interesting. It would be desirable not to test them because we would then be to a considerable extent in uncharted waters.

A similar argument to the one you suggest could have been raised by Gore voters from other states in 2000 had Florida's decision to cut off the counting gone unchallenged. Out-of-state voters could have contended that the Florida position effectively disenfranchised them, because it arguably resulted in a different President than that which would have been the case if all the votes had been counted. I don't think that such an argument would have much traction either in 2000 or in this nomination, though. The votes from other states would still all count and the delegates from those states would be pledged based on those votes, but as in 2000 the Florida (and MI in this case) delegates would swing the balance to the other candidate and change the result from that which would have happened if the Florida (and MI) delegates were not seated. So I think it would be a FL and MI issue but not likely an issue for the rest of the country.

The DNC has apparently decided to deal with an objection to the earlier rulings on FL and MI on May 31. I agree that it would have been preferable had it been settled earlier, but the DNC by setting such a late date may be signaling that it is not going to make any earth-shattering changes at such a late date after everyone has been relying on 2,025 for months and the pledged delegates themselves have not not kicking up much of a fuss. I agree that Dean's practical dream scenario is to be able to deal with this problem in a setting in which the nomination has already been decided, and that may happen yet.

Generally speaking, a person has a right to bring a complaint in court only when the actual alleged injury to the right occurred. This was DiMaio's problem the first time around; he had not asserted any definite violation of his rights. In terms of the DNC, I suspect that the rules determine the time line for the hearing of an appeal against a decision. Apparently, under the DNC's procedure, this appeal is not out of time. As you note, the knock-on effects of such a late decision can be potentially very significant and troubling. The fact that it does not appear at first blush that a voter would have a viable disenfranchisement argument would not stop someone from having a go and paralyzing the whole show!

Turing to your suggested solution of seating the delegates but precluding them from voting, that might be practical, but the problem is that I don't think a delegate once appointed and seated can be denied a vote. The rules I am pretty sure have extensive provisions about voting by delegates (we have seen some of them emerge recently with respect to the debate about whether a pledged delegate can switch their vote, and as to the position of superdelegates), but it is doubtful that the rules contemplate a delegate not having any kind of vote at the Convention.

Hope this helps.

Amot said...

Ted,
as I understand the DNC rules delegation can be seated and have voting power restricted to non-nominee election matters. I read somewhere about such possible solution and I think it will help. I checked the rules about appeals and I found there is no restriction in time about filing a challenge or about decision on that challenge. Stupid, isn't it?

Conclusion - any sanction on early voting is not final, so people should vote and wait several month to see how their votes count! Actually DNC will disfranchise the candidates since they were forbidden to campaign! I hate DNC when they make mess like that!

Jean Clark said...

1. Results in MI and FL with no campaigning favored the candidate with better name recognition.
2. Some weighting less than 100% for FL is appropriate if delegates are allocated according to actual voting results. The GOP controlled the FL primary date, unlike MI.
3. In MI: MI, Levin and Clinton flouted party rules, so stiff them. Only a 50-50 outcome for MI would be neutral and fair.

Amot said...

Jean Clark,
I agree on FL!
59/69 is pretty close to 50/50 in Mi and honors the voters so I will accept that too. But supers from MI should not be seated and those in Fl with max 1/2 vote each

PastorGene said...

Sometimes it helps to learn from the past. I think it was the 1978 gubernatorial election in Alabama. Up to that point, the Democratic Party still controlled the governorship exclusively, even though Alabama was more philosophically aligned with the Republicans.

Bill Baxley and Charles Graddick were in a close race for the Democratic nomination. Graddick "won" the vote, but Baxley appealed the decision in court, based on some sort of irregularity in the voting which I don't really remember. It may have been people voting in the Republican primary and then the Democratic runoff. The court agreed with Baxley and reversed the outcome, making Baxley the nominee.

The result? Guy Hunt was elected as the first Republican Governor of Alabama since the Reconstruction Era. That result was largely attributed to the anger over the court overturning the nomination.

If this goes to court, and especially if the nomination is reversed from Obama to Clinton, I believe that will guarantee a win for McCain, in a year when this election was the Democrats' to lose--snatching defeat once again from the jaws of victory.

tmess2 said...

There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the rights of political parties to make their own rules. In particular, they have ruled that the rules of the DNC trumps state law in terms of delegate selection.

As such, as long as the DNC sticks within the rules as laid forth in the Delegate Selection Plan, the Call for the Convention, and the Regulations of the By-laws committee, I do not see how a voter outside of Michigan and Florida could validly complain about any decision.

The rules gives the RBC a lot of discretion to impose additional punishments or to waive punishments upon a finding that it's not the fault of the state party.

My own preference remains compliance with Rule 20, but any compromise accepted by both candidates will most likely be immune from judicial review.

A key fact to remember is that, if Senator Obama rejects federal funding for the general nomination, his nomination probably has no legal status in most of the states. My understanding is that most state statutes let the state party name the presidential nominee of the party (and the national party has no legal status for state election purposes).

Blame said...

From Obama's point of view the Election is far from settled.

There is still the posibility that the remaining Undeclared Delegates are waiting in hope that Clinton will make a comeback.

Then there is the unsettling posibility that a lot of the Declared (including Edwards) are just backing the winner, and don't actualy like him.

Then there is PR. It could vote for Clinton. That could drop his pledged delegate lead to 100, and loose him the popular vote, thus giving closet Clinton supporters the rational to switch.

Finaly there is MI. Right now the supposed uncomitted PD's are mostly, if not all, Clinton supporters.

All told Obama is going to think twice about any deal that reduces his lead, even by as little as 29 PD's. He is certain to go against any attempt to seat the Supers. Even if they ALL declared to him, how could he trust declarations made under duress?

Ted P said...

All the more reason why the only just solution is to stick to the original decisions. 2,025 (or now 2,026) has been the metric for winning the nomination from the outset of this race. The FL and MI delegates were stripped for violating the rules and everyone knew that going into the votes they were "beauty contests" only. Obama and others took their names off the MI ballot because Iowa and NH objected to even a MI beauty contest in the face of their valid primaries.

How can any election have any semblance of validity when one of the two leading candidates does not even stand for the election, leaving aside entirely the known invalidity of the vote in terms of seating delegates?

Much has been made of how the FL date was imposed by the Republican legislature, but the reports from that time clearly indicate that Democrats were defiantly determined to have the early vote. The DNC even stood down the ruling for 30 days to permit them to reconsider, but the state dems did not attempt to change it. None of the candidates campaigned in the state. Someone tell me, what kind of "election" was that?

I agree with tmess2 that the only other possible option than that of affirming the earlier decisions would be to apply Rule 20 without the additional sanctions that were imposed in this case, but how could that rule even be applied in the case of MI? Obama wasn't on the ballot, nor were several other candidates at the time who also withdrew from the ballot, so how can the "uncommiteds" possibly be allocated? In my view, it is impossible. Let half the delegates "be seated" at the Convention in accordance with Rule 20, but keep their inability to vote in respect of the nomination. That is the only fair result. Nothing good can come for the Democratic party from shameless and desperate attempts to reinvent history and try to move the goalposts at this stage of the game.

frstan said...

the "with MI & FL" box is still showing 31 for Edwards. Should not this be updated like the main box?

Matt said...

It will take us some time to update this page. I'm already hearing about more changes coming today, so lets let it settle down.

trudy said...

Should popular vote estimates be added to the scenarios? I realize that involves caucus state estimates.

How do you guys get any of your real work done?

PastorGene said...

This is only my opinion, but I believe a scenario based on the popular vote would be irrelevant and unnecessary, since it in no way affects the outcome.

There has been a lot of confusion about this, largely fostered by campaign spin. But one thing that is fact and not just my opinion is that the nomination is decided by a vote of the actual delegates--the total delegates seated with vote, without regard to whether they are pledged delegates or so-called "superdelegates."

Popular vote can be argued as to the issue of who "should" be nominated, as can the distinction between pledged delegates and superdelegates. But in the end, the nomination is ultimately decided by a vote of all the delegates, and not by any other factor.

While we're at it, there's another bit of confusion to clear up. Some people confuse the electoral vote count by state, which decides the general election, with the nomination process. The Clinton campaign in particular has fed this confusion with its argument about which states matter and which don't. But electoral votes are strictly in the general election. The nomination is decided by delegates. Those two processes should not be meshed together.

Of course, the Clinton campaign wants to argue that the states won or lost by each candidate in the primary equals states that will be won or lost by the same candidate in the general election. But that is not necessarily the case. Winning a state over a party rival in the primaries does not guarantee a win over the other party's candidate in the general election. Nor does losing a state to a party rival automatically mean losing the same state to the other party's candidate in the general election.

In fact, there are several instances in past elections where a candidate won a state in the primary but lost it in the general election or lost a state in the primary and then won the same state in the general election. George Bush, for example, lost the New Hampshire primary to John McCain in 2000 and then won New Hampshire over Al Gore in the general election. I believe Al Gore had won New Hampshire also in the 2000 primary over Bill Bradley.

So in summary: Delegates decide the nomination. Electoral votes decide the general election. Wins or losses in the primary do not equal the same in the general election. Everyone needs to try to avoid confusing these very different processes.

Keryl said...

Just dreaming...

It's after June 3, the race is over. By all counts, with MI and FL included as is, Hillary will not have the votes. Obama, will magnanimously announce that even though the process was flawed, MI and FL will be counted as voted. Rather than trying to make an endrun, the Clinton camp applauds his effort to unite the party. They stay quiet.

Obama acts as the presumptive nominee. The country awaits an exciting convention to see if there's a last ditch effort by the Clintons.

On the eve of the convention, Clinton quietly releases all of her delegates to vote for Obama. As the televised event rolls out, state after state cast all of their delegates for Obama, showing unprecedented party unity, following a challenging and heated battle that has divided the party.

The press goes on for days about the unity in the party that will be unstoppable. The dems take the WH. Life is good and the US is on its way to repairing the damage of the last 8 years.

Okay, most of it is a dream, but look for Obama to announce in a detailed statement that although the contests were flawed, he will support seating the MI & FL delegates.

Matt said...

Keryl - your dream is really not that far from a very likely outcome. People have complained to us - why do you include Option 5 - that will never happen. And I've responded, actually option 5 is in my opinion the most likely outcome. Why? At the rate he's going, Obama will likely soon have a FL/MI proof lead, so there's no reason Obama wouldn't agree to sit the delegates as is - and with Edwards out, he's very likely to get all of the MI 55, making his net loss 60 or so votes.

Your scenario is basically on track until they get to the convention. Here's what will likely happen. The delegates will vote for their candidates. Obama will go over the top towards the end. Big celebration. Then the chair will recognize David Paterson, Governor of NY, and Chairman of the NY delegation. And he will move to nominate Obama by acclamation - a unanimous vote. Another big celebration. And all is well with the Democratic Party.

jpsedona said...

Matt,

With respect to your comments on Option 5...

Aparently, Obama did not win all the district level uncommitted. Can those delegates be replaced (general rules don't allow that)? If not, and they are Hillary die-hards, how could Obama get all 55?

If Option 5 is the final solution, doesn't this mean that Hillary would keep any uncommitted delegates selected for her?

Matt said...

JPsedona - What you say is correct. Thinking through it further, the Obama campaign would not agree to Option 5 unless they were guaranteed all 55 votes. If they let the delegates go as uncommitted, the potential for greater losses is there.

tmess2 said...

Anyone have any thought on the effect of the 13 Edwards delegates in Florida on what will be done at the RBC.

Right now, it seems like at seven of the sixteen delegates elected in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have declared for Senator Obama in less than 24 hours with more likely to come over the next 10 days.

If the 13 Edwards delegates in Florida declare for Obama, that would reduce the pledged delegate gap in Florida from 38 to 25. When you combine that with the 69-59 compromise in Michigan, that would seem to make the effect of seating the two delegations rather minimal.

Ted P said...

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from political conviction. -- Blaise Pascal

To do evil that good may come of it is for bunglers in politics as well as morals. -- William Penn

Why would Hillary accept a result in which she gained only 35 delegates? She will only accept one in which her pledged delegates are fully seated and the MI uncommitteds are set free to hang over the Convention like Lady MacBeth's dagger.

That is why the supers need to keep streaming in for Obama. Only by rendering such perverse aspirations moot will the Democrats avert a very real potential for disaster.

Amot said...

I agree that Obama will face no problem to agree with option 5. BTW the RBC or the credential committee can rule that MI uncommitted are obliged to vote Obama on the first ballot and this problem will be solved too. As far as I know there are many Obama supporeters, few Edwards supporters, some trully uncommitted and probably few Clinton fans. So either way the danger is minimal!

Option 5 is the most unlikely for DNC and Dean. If they rule for no punishment they will open the gates for future decisions like that. I think they must show that even the nominee can't overrun DNC and seat penalized delegation as is. Penalty can be under the minimal, but there will be one!

Bob in Vancouver said...

I don't see how the 55 pledge delegates from MI can be released to vote how they please. That would give Hillary Clinton a second kick at the can.

When they were available during the unrecognized primary, they couldn't be allocated to HC because she lacked the popular vote. They went instead to "other".

I presume they would now be released and in effect have the same power of a Superdelegate and could vote for whom they pleased.

I just can't see this being fair,

tmess2 said...

The votes in Michigan didn't go to "other." They went to uncommitted. If you assume that the election in Michigan (and the subsequent delegate selection process) were valid, an uncommitted delgates is just like the unpledged "super delegates." Under the rules, they are free to choose which candidate to support at the convention. They aren't "being" released, they have always been released.

Ted P said...

... And, make no mistake, this is precisely Clinton's position. In flatly rejecting the 59/49 proposal on the very day it was made in an open letter to Obama, Clinton stated:

"One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. ... I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. ... In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.
... I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver."

So, the MI Democratic Committee's plan to resolve the MI situation in a way that it regarded as fair to all parties -- but not in a way that gave Clinton all that state's delegates and Obama none, as her campaign insists was the expressed will of the voters -- was rejected in favour of the following deja vu campaign position:

"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted."

Under this logic, the 55 uncommitteds would remain unpledged and therefore also free to back Clinton. In addition (barring further switches), she would get her existing committed MI supers.

The same logic would be applied to FL, such that Clinton would gain 35 pledged delegates plus her committed supers.

This, my friends and fellow Americans, is the foundation of Clinton's twisted plan for stealing the nomination. (Even then, she would have to persuade a number of remaining uncommitted supers at the national level to back her on the basis of her replenished delegate strength, her alleged superior electability, her purported lead in the popular vote including the illegitimate MI and FL votes, and whatever else she can dredge up.)

If she doesn't get this result on May 31, don't forget that she already threatened to sue the Texas Democratic Party in March over its delegate selection process.

It should also be borne in mind that a plurality of the RBC (including Harold Ickes) is still pro-Clinton and that decisions made before any primaries were held are not the same animal as decisions yet to be made where there is a whole lot of math on the table. Moreover, any decision of the RBC could be appealed to the credentials committee, which won't even exist until late June, and even then the Convention itself could end up having the final word as to the seating of MI and FL delegates. Clinton has already gone on record that she will not quit until one or the other has her revised majority of delegates that includes the full MI and FL slates.

All of this is to say that it is essential to run Clinton out of uncommitted supers, and well before May 31, to end her protracted scorched-earth melodrama once and for all, as well as to render the results in those two states, the possibility that the RBC could pull a Katherine Harris on May 31, and the interesting discussion on this thread, entirely moot.

Amot said...

235 more delegates? Until 31st May it is impossible! Obama can win 50-55 more pledged delegates in the two coming contests, 10 more delegates will come from Edwards. He needs 170 more...
But... if she wants MI as is she has to accept the already selected delegates and we know 30 or so of the uncommited are Obama's. Also most Edwards' delegates from FL and MI will endorse Obama. They can start doing this now.

I think she will wait for PR. If she is able to win big there she can try to appeal SDs. But the problem is she will probably net lose popular vote and delegates next Tuesday. Obama will claim victory and he will effectively pass 2025 before May 31st. Do any of you believe that RBC will try to change the nominee? Party elders will not allow that. I believe Pelosi will endorse on May 21st if Hillary doesn't admit the lose!

BobR said...

One scenario, the fairest and best for the candidates and the party, is not mentioned: redo the Fl & MI primaries. I voted for Obama in MA and still support him although my support is waning due to his stonewalling on FL & MI and his team's use of technicalities to hold onto the lead. It's clear to me after WV that Clinton, much as I dislike her, retains enough support to deserve a shot at the nomination. It is self-destructive for the Dems to deny MI & FL a vote. The correct penalty for cutting in line with the primaries is to go to the back of the line -- not to be denied a voice altogether -- it's just coincidence that this year the penalty makes the offenders even more influential -- that shouldn't change the correct approach. And Obama needs to win fair and square, no ducking contests, to stand tall as the nominee in November. Older women are deeply angered by the games being played to avoid a fair fight and they represent a huge democratic constituency with alot of money. The MI & FL primaries should take place in late June, giving the candidates adequate time to make their cases to the voters -- no quickies or seating based on past, flawed primaries, as Clinton would like. This would have the added benefit of keeping the nation focused on the Dems an extra month, denying McCain the spotlight. The primaries should be paid for in equal parts by the DNC, state democratic parties, and the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Better Git It In Your Soul -- the Dems are losing support to "straight talk McCain" over these shenanigans. Do the Right Thing -- do the primaries over and do them right!

BobR said...

One scenario, the fairest and best for the candidates and the party, is not mentioned: redo the Fl & MI primaries. I voted for Obama in MA and still support him although my support is waning due to his stonewalling on FL & MI and his team's use of technicalities to hold onto the lead. It's clear to me after WV that Clinton, much as I dislike her, retains enough support to deserve a shot at the nomination. It is self-destructive for the Dems to deny MI & FL a vote. The correct penalty for cutting in line with the primaries is to go to the back of the line -- not to be denied a voice altogether -- it's just coincidence that this year the penalty makes the offenders even more influential -- that shouldn't change the correct approach. And Obama needs to win fair and square, no ducking contests, to stand tall as the nominee in November. Older women are deeply angered by the games being played to avoid a fair fight and they represent a huge democratic constituency with alot of money. The MI & FL primaries should take place in late June, giving the candidates adequate time to make their cases to the voters -- no quickies or seating based on past, flawed primaries, as Clinton would like. This would have the added benefit of keeping the nation focused on the Dems an extra month, denying McCain the spotlight. The primaries should be paid for in equal parts by the DNC, state democratic parties, and the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Better Git It In Your Soul -- the Dems are losing support to "straight talk McCain" over these shenanigans. Do the Right Thing -- do the primaries over and do them right!

jpsedona said...

In an AP story, there are quotes from various RBC members. There seems to be some consensus that the states will be peanlized in some fashion.

Florida, Michigan delegates cannot save Clinton

The AP interviewed RBC members and found "widespread agreement that the states must be punished for stepping out of line."

"We certainly want to be fair to both candidates, and we want to be sure that we are fair to the 48 states who abided by the rules," said Democratic National Committee Secretary Alice Germond, a panel member unaligned with either candidate. "We don't want absolute chaos for 2012.

"We want to reach out to Michigan and Florida and seat some group of delegates in some manner, at least most of us do. These are two critical states for the general (election) and the voters of those states who were not the people who caused this awful conundrum to occur deserve our attention and deserve to be a part of our process and deserve to be at the convention," she said

jpsedona said...

Ted P,

You said: "Moreover, any decision of the RBC could be appealed to the credentials committee, which won't even exist until late June, and even then the Convention itself could end up having the final word as to the seating of MI and FL delegates."

Technically, the credentials committee is empowered to seat or not seat a delegate, delegation or slate of delegates. They will not be able to change the rules. If a dispute with FL & MI were to get to the credentials committee, it would most likely be in the form of competing slates of delegates. If that happens, the committee could chose a full slate, partial slate or mixed slate of delegates; of course they can also vote to not seat a full delegation.

As you've indicated, decisions of the credentials committee could be taken to the floor of the convention. But if Obama has the most delegate support excluding FL & MI, there's no way for Hillary to win in a vote to seat her slate of delegates.

PastorGene said...

If we want to avoid disenfranchising the voters, then we have to honor their vote in the allotment of delegates. In Michigan, Obama was not on the ballot, and the only way to vote for him was to vote for "uncommitted" delegates. Now, arguably some of these voters were likely supporters of Edwards, and perhaps of some other candidates who may have still been in the race at that time. But Hillary's name was on the ballot. So one thing is for sure, those who voted for "uncommitted" were voting for "NOT CLINTON." The delegates should be bound accordingly. Obama is the only "not Clinton" choice remaining. Either they should be bound to vote for Obama or at least should be bound to vote for someone other than Clinton, since the voters electing them were voting "not Clinton," as the only choices on the ballot were for Clinton or "other than Clinton."

Bob in Vancouver said...

Ted P.

"All of this is to say that it is essential to run Clinton out of uncommitted supers, and well before May 31, to end her protracted scorched-earth melodrama once and for all, as well as to render the results in those two states,.... entirely moot."

I agree entirely. In actual fact there are several ways in which neither candidate could get a majority or the 2210 needed for a win as long as those 55 pledge delegates are out there.

Unlike the Edwards pledge delegates, which he has released to vote for whom they please, it can be argued that the MI 55 must go to the convention as is and are pledged to no one. Alternatively that they could be split down the middle.

Amot said...

BobR,
Clinton is broke!
If she has to pay for FL and MI she needs at least $20M, plus the money you suggest she should give to organize the revote. As a result she will lose at least one of the states (MI) and finish close to Obama in the other. Even if she wins both by 30% math will kill her! She needs 80%-20% victory in both states to have any chance. Her only option is to convince RBC that no one in MI votes for Obama...

JPS, Ted,
the thing is we don't need this to go till the convention. The time will be unsufficient for unity... especially if we spill Dems blood on the floor. If RBC keep the penalty to 50% or more it is over, correct?

Bob in Vancouver said...

Ted and Amot:

Let me explain just a little more. Suppose we end up going with Scenario #5, which is Fl and Mi are included but Obama is not awarded the 55 pledge delegates.

So at the end of all this, Clinton has 2158 delegates and Obama has 2204 delegates. Neither has a the 2209 necessary for a win (2158 + 2204 + 55 = 4417). There are many other combinations.

So everything goes to the Credentials committee and both MI and FL are seated as is (Hillary's position). Then it has to go to the Convention where there is a floor fight.

Sommewhere I read that Hillary is working the MI unpledged delegates tooth and nail (ensuring they are loyal Clintonites).

So either the race has to be won by May 31st or those 55 delegates have to be assigned somehow. They just can't be allowed to sit out there.

I actually wrote to the Obama campaign about this but I doubt that anyone took any notice.

jpsedona said...

PastorGene,

I understand your sentiments regarding the uncommitted in MI. Assuming that the delegation from MI were to attend the convention based on the primary results (instead of the proposed 69-59 plan), then the 55 uncommitted delegates would be chosen according to the MI Dem party process. A rule change would be required to allocate all 55 delegate slots to Obama supporters (just as a rules change would be required to allocate 69-59 under the currently backed MI Dem party plan).

So, if MI were to send a delegation based on the primary results, and the uncommitted delegates are chosen according to the MI rules, there is a two step selection process.

The first part of the process is the district conventions which allocate 36 of those uncommitted pledged delegates. These district conventions took place on April 19. Any candidate was free to win those delegates; based on reports, Obama won most but not all of those delegates.

The remaining uncommitted delgates will be selected at the MI State Central Committee meeting. This was pushed back from May 17 to June 14. Again, any candidate can be awarded these delegates.

PastorGene said...

In response to BobR, the three factors against re-holding the MI and FL primaries are time, money, and the non-cooperation of the state legislatures of each state.

The Clinton campaign has been spreading the false accusation that Obama prevented a revote. The Obama campaign only expressed opposition to a mail-in revote because of the logistical problems with insuring the validity and accuracy of the vote counting. The state legislatures of each state rejected the idea of holding new primary votes during the time frame when that was still possible to organize.

I have read that it requires 90 days to organize a primary--at least in Florida. There is also a tremendous cost involved.

Lou Dobbs, while normally holding himself up as a supporter of the "rule of law" has ridiculed the notion of holding FL and MI accountable for violation of the DNC rules (which are the law of the Party, which has the legal right to define its own process for choosing its nominee) and has suggested having a re-vote in conjunction with another August primary in FL, which would be held AFTER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONVENTION. That would be logistically absurd and downright impossible, since the Party absolutely must have a nominee by the end of the Convention.

Of course, once again, at this point, all of this disregards the reality that if the Democratic Party does not have its nomination process resolved in time to reunify the party and have significant time to be in a general election mode, the Republicans will have a growing advantage. The fact that John McCain has gained in recent months in the polls is a direct outcome of the already-too-protracted Democratic nomination fight.

So the window of opportunity to hold revotes in MI and FL has already closed. And once again the culprit was--not the Obama campaign--but the state legislatures in each state.

Again I say, seat all the pledged delegates with 1/2 vote each, grant the MI uncommitted to Obama, and deny any vote to the politicians (superdelegates) in MI and FL who voted in favor of moving up the primaries, since they created this mess.

Yes, a revote would be the ideal, but it is just not logistically possible at this point.

Juhana said...

Hi!

I think the whole question concerning MI and FL has turned into political gambling instead of following guidelines and the will of the people. These were known and accepted by both running camps, the DNC and the local state parties. For the game to be fair in the first place, the rules have to be known and agreed upon by all people involved - voters, candidates and arranging people. Any comment such as "If we don't do this, we lose in November" does not justify the means.

To change the rules in the middle of the game would be unfair and likely create more division and distrust than unity between both camps.

It would be like playing a game of tennis: Player A wins 2 sets to 1 against Player B. Player A expects to win the game since it was agreed well beforehand that it will be a "best out of 3" - game. But the judge suddenly says: "Since I and a few others have long thought and tried to make this tournament a "best out of 5", I want to see at least another set played." And if the end result would be a win for Player B 3 sets to 2, would it be fair concerning Player A?

I think the same rules should apply to all people and not be changed in the middle of this process. Any such changes would have to apply to races in the future. Anyway, dramatics are not what democrats need at this point in the race. A best - case - scenario for HRC would only prolong the race, create division within the party, raise doubt concerning the stability, accountability and transparency of this process in the future. Only to Mccain's advantage.

Juhana said...

...an addition to the " tennis game comparison": Would it be fair to cahnge the rules: those watching, betting their money and cheers on Player A would be outraged. Those allying with Player B would be delighted to hear that their champion still has a chance.

Camp B could well argue that the decision to make the game a "best out of 5" was a right one since Player B would most likely be a stronger Player than Player A to face Player C in the final. This they would say based on looking at past statistics of Players A and B against Player C in mayor tournaments, Aces served and Unofrced errors against Player C etc." They would say that although Player A had the edge, it was a "smart and convincing choice by the judge to change the rules in "the common benefit."

tmess2 said...

Juhana, the one correction that I would make to your post would be that the state parties did not accept the decision. If they had accepted it, they would have scheduled an alternative means of delegate selection. Instead, they made clear their intent to go ahead and appeal the decision later, a right arguably permitted by the rules.

Using a sports analogy, it's like a situation where there is a significant "alleged" miscall by the official. The two teams complete the game as is, but the team that was disadvantaged by the call can protest the result after the contest is done. In sports, if the appealing party wins the appeal, the typical remedy is some type of do-over of the event.

The problem in politics is that there is no opportunity for a do-over. So, if there is an appeal to the Credentials Committee or the Convention, they will have to decide whether the initial decision was correct or not. If they decide it is incorrect, they have to choose a remedy.

That, of course, is where the real problem exists as the actual results are influenced by the original decision.

Clearly, at this stage of the game, after there has been a vote, the stance taken by some people on both sides is colored by knowing the impact of any option chosen by the DNC. The genie can't be put back in the bottle. There are few if any Platonic guardians in this debate interested solely in justice.

If somehow the RBC members could separate themselves from the impact on the campaign and look at it from a pure justice standpoint, the issues would be:

1) Should the voters of Michigan and Florida be completely excluded from the process or should some lesser sanction (like the ones mentioned in Rule 20.C) be applied.

2) Given that the media treated the two primaries as advisory primaries, how do we both respect those who did vote hoping that their vote would count and those that didn't expecting that it wouldn't count?

3) Given that certain candidates, in compliance with the spirit of the rules, withdrew from the ballot in Michigan and that the party in Michigan emphasized that the only valid option to support those candidates was uncommitted, and that there was a dramatic number of votes for uncommitted, what do you do with the uncommitted delegation in Michigan?

There are no easy answers, I have above suggested my preferred solution, but any solution from the RBC will be an imperfect solution to a problem that everyone involved contributed to create.

Bob in Vancouver said...

If Obama can garner another 223 delegates (pledge or super) by May 31st he wins by any scenario.

Economy said...

The voters of Florida and Michigan are depending on us to help them make sure they have a voice in this race, and your action is going to make a difference for them — and for Hillary.

If you haven’t already, please take a moment to forward this message on to your friends, and urge them to join you in standing up for Florida and Michigan voters.

Seat FL & MI based on the elections that have taken place. (Obama does not get MI 55 uncommitted).
Required: 2209.0 unless the caucus delegates are removed.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/flmidnc/?sc=1858&utm_source=1858&utm_medium=e

Ted P said...

Economy,

Sorry, but your shill for Clinton falls short in so many categories already fully explored in this discussion that it does nothing but highlight the extreme dangers posed by the Clinton position.

tmess2 in the post immediately above yours admirably summarized the real issues, which you completely ignore.

"Standing up for Florida and Michigan voters" does not mean the selective counting of votes in the way that you (and Clinton) propose. How does your proposal "stand up for" those voters who did not vote in reliance on the fact that the votes did not count? How does it accommodate the fact that those in MI who did vote could not vote at all for Obama, Edwards or other candidates who properly removed thier names from the ballot; that those candidates are either Obama or have since endorsed Obama; that very large numbers of MI voters voted "uncommitted"; that "uncommietted" votes were votes for one of the candidates whose names were not on the ballot; or that none of the candidates (including Clinton) campaigned in the states because they were aware that the elections were illegal? How does your proposal to give Obama no delegates in MI (a result that never came close to happening for either candidate in any state in which a valid election was held) give MI "voters" a "voice in this race"?

Were it not for this kind of dishonest spin and manipulation of the facts, the "race" would have long been over.

Your post (and the Clinton position for which it shills) is all the more reason why the focus must remain on continuing the rout in superdelegates away from Clinton in order to defeat before May 31 the threat posed to democratic principles from this type of twisted reasoning. But the twisted logic of your post does not stop there: you sneak in an implication that the caucus votes are not legitimate "votes" and ought not to be recognized. In other words, you (and Clinton) advocate the non-recognition of valid delegate selection results from four states while advocating the recognition of invalid delegate selection processes in two states. The Clinton camp has broken from reality.

I wish I could say that I was as optimistic as Bob that Obama will net more than a dozen additional supers a day until May 31, but that appears unlikely. It will only be by recognizing the seriousness of the Clinton threat and acting accordingly that the possibility of such an outcome can even be entertained.

Amot said...

Actually Clinton's behaviour about MI seating, re-do and attempts to steal uncommitted delegates made many supporters to withdraw and back Obama. Both candidates gained negatives from the situation, but during the last two months Hillary is the one to be considered evil in MI.

Mike in Maryland said...

Some back of the envelope calculating here (presuming that all the front page tables are current as I write this):

Current (counting all MI and FL):
Obama has 1681.5 pledged delegates;
Clinton has 1620.5 pledged delegates.

There are still 20 Edwards 'unpledged', so if 1/2 go to each (possible, but improbably), that is 10 to each.

Subtotal:
Obama 1681.5 + 10 = 1691.5;
Clinton 1620.5 + 10 = 1630.5.

Of the 55 MI pledged uncommitted, 40 or so were already selected as supporting Obama. Let's say 15 go to Clinton.

Subtotal:
Obama 1691.5 + 40 = 1731.5
Clinton 1630.5 + 15 = 1645.5

Based on available polling for the remaining primaries, it currently looks like Clinton will win 100 pledged delegates, Obama 89.

Subtotal:
Obama 1731.5 + 89 = 1820.5
Clinton 1645.5 + 100 = 1745.5

So far, 305.5 superdelegates have endorsed Senator Obama, 288.5 have endorsed Senator Clinton.

Subtotal:
Obama 1820.5 + 305.5 = 2126
Clinton 1745.5 + 288.5 = 2034

The total needed is 2209, which means:
Obama needs 83 of the remaining 257 undeclared superdelegates (or 32.3%);
Clinton needs 175 of the remaining undeclared superdelegates (or 68.1%).

The above is the WORST case scenario I see for Senator Obama. BUT I don't think the RBC will seat MI and/or FL as is. The RBC will be looking to what that would mean to the future primaries, if a state could start their selection process early, then go through a process that would end up with no penalty for violating party rules. I think the realistic scenario for MI and FL will be a 50% penalty at a minimum, possibly with superdelegates penalized even more.

Mike

Matt said...

Mike in Maryland - one minor correction. Michigan has only selected 36 of the 55 Uncommitted. Obama got 26-35 of them depending on who you ask. The other 19 don't get chosen until mid-june. While he'll likely end with most of the the 55, its not a worst case scenario to give him 40 of the 55. The unions in Michigan are trying to get truly Uncommitted delegates to the convention.

Juhana said...

This situation was, honestly, not the fault of voters in these two states. I still think that the "core" rules should be obeyed.

But at this point, I think the above scenario with calculations would be a politically benevolent gesture with a little chance of changing the status quo. It would, however, prolong the race with risks of further division, high cost in all categories - whether time, money or man/womanpower. All this could be spent in trying to unify and strengthen the candidate most likely to win.

I can't see how HRC could possibly get 67% or so of the remaining votes - even in her best-case -scenario. But this is not mostly about logic and work for the common good/interest. I think this might well ruin the future nominee's credible chances against mccain.

Lastly, being a Finn and having lived most of my life here in Finland, I find both the party nomination process and presidential election method somewhat undemocratic. (Not thinking that our system is flawless, far from it) I think the popular vote - strategy is the most democratic means of deciding who's president. If this were applied to both processes, politics would become even more transparent.

Ted P said...

Calculations aside, Obama is currently fighting two opponents, the more dogged of the two from within his own party. The longer HRC drags this out, the happier McCain will be and the longer the odds of a Democrat taking the White House. We are well past the point where HRC can claim to be oblivious to such a basic proposition.

As Matt points out, major aspects of the scenarios posited above do not get resolved for at least another month, if then. If HRC gets to wail away at Obama for another month, giving McCain a free shot to divide and conquer while continuing to run effectively unopposed as presidential nominee, Obama will be cooked for the general. As I have said in earlier posts, contentiousness over MI and FL will likely burn up the entire summer one way or another.

HRC's attempt to move the goal posts over MI and FL is the only thing stopping the nomination from having been decided by now. Given the timelines involved, any departure by the RBC from its earlier rulings will precipitate chaos. The RBC staked its position with respect to those primaries last year, perhaps unwisely, the votes took place on that basis, and nothing can fairly unscramble that egg now.

Time and lack of resolve, not any intra-party delegate count, is the bigger enemy of the Democrats now.

Yousri said...

FL & MI By The Numbers has been updated with:

CA Add-on endorsements; 3 for Sen. Clinton and 2 for Sen. Obama.

Dink said...

Has anyone noticed that no one in the media, not even bloggers, ever talks about the poor, disenfranchised voters in the Republican contests in not only Michigan and Florida, but also New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wyoming? The RNC stripped each of these states of half their delegates for holding their first-step processes too early.

Juhana said...

In May so far, Obama has earned 45 superdelegates more than Clinton, an average of 2,37 each day. If this continues and Obama gets -7 out of Oregon and Kentucky, -10 for Puerto Rico, +5 for Montana and South Cakota, +2 for Edward's remaining 10 pledged, -25 for Michigan and Florida,Obama will reach 2209 delegates on the 13th of June. This is the highest number of delegates that could be required for the nomination, right?

It might occur aerlier as well. Clinton's "Must reach 100% of the remaining delegates" - day will be on June 10th the latest.

tmess2 said...

I don't think the 2209 includes the likely winner of the special election in Maryland. Since it is a Democratic district, if you anticipate that win, it would bump the number up -- either to 2209.5 or 2210. Of course some of those delegates are vacant DNC positions that may or may not be filled prior to the convention. If they aren't filled, the number required for nomination would be lower.

Yousri said...

FL & MI By The Numbers table has been updated with KY and OR numbers.

obie said...

I'd put money on Scenario #4 with Edwards' FL delegates moving immediately to Obama. He'd be foolish not to publicly promote that deal today. Between the remaining three primaries, the Pelosi Club, and the upcoming add-ons, he'd need under 10 SDs to fully clinch. Those are almost certainly waiting to be announced. And, he can say that he "solved" the MI / FL issue.

Howard said...

The cable networks last night seemed to be talking about the most likely scenarios being both MI and FL seated with half votes, with or without superdelegates.

Scenario 4 comes closest to that but it seems that a scenario that actually shows those numbers and gives Obama some split of the MI and FL delegates would be the most sensible count given how things are leaning

The democratic party has to punish MI and FL in some way and if they were to totally back off and simply seat the entire delegation from both states, they would be looking at chaos in the future, so the last scenario isn't going to happen and 2209 isn't going to be the number to clinch (as one of the analysts said, no telling what the true number will be but it wont be 2026 or 2209)

one1gaia said...

one1gaia: RE: MI & FL Schenarios--I notice that Senator Obama has clinched the Pledged delegate majority in all scenarios except the most biased scenario giving the two states ALL the votes as cast and zero to Obama in MI. Even with this scenario Senator Clinton requires 104 Pledged delegates to clinch the majority. THIS SCENARIO IS IMPOSSIBLE IN THAT THERE ONLY 86 PLEDGED DELEGATES REMAINING IN THE RACE!!!!!! TIME FOR THE PELOSI GROUP AND THEIR LIKE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT,

Matt said...

All, we have a new Fl&MI By the Numbers post on the front page. Link in the left sidebar. We now have the options being discussed at the RBC meeting.

AnnOnymous said...

It's an insult to reallocate our votes. Obama was on the ballot and chose to take his name off and Mark Brewer told us to vote 'uncommitted' if our candidate did this.

Why give Obama more delegates than 'uncommitted' would have given him? Some of those were for Edwards, etc.

Either seat them the way we voted or don't seat them at all - but do not pretend we count when YOU made the decision!

I'm tired of you guys just using us, and if you don't use the real senario it would be worse than FL 00 & I will look for a party who cares about and respects the voter!

AnnOnymous said...

It's an insult to reallocate our votes. Obama was on the ballot and chose to take his name off and Mark Brewer told us to vote 'uncommitted' if our candidate did this.

Why give Obama more delegates than 'uncommitted' would have given him? Some of those were for Edwards, etc.

Either seat them the way we voted or don't seat them at all - but do not pretend we count when YOU made the decision!