Saturday, May 31, 2008

RBC Meeting Live-Blog

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


We were originally planning on live-blogging the meeting with a few people that were able to get in. Since it appears that there will be massive TV coverage we will leave the live-blogging to you.

If anything interesting comes up from our friends on-site we will pass it along here.



You can read all of our previous RBC coverage here
Previous Michigan coverage here
Previous Florida coverage here
Delegate Tables are laid out for 5 different scenarios here

Agenda
May 31, 2008 - 9:30 AM
* Morning Session: Oral Arguments
* Afternoon Session: Consideration and Debate
You can watch CSPAN's coverage here starting at 9:30.
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Democrats went behind closed doors until 1:30 am ET on Saturday but they did not reach their goal of developing a unified proposal regarding Michigan and Florida.

28 of the 30 members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee were joined by DNC Chairman Howard Dean for the marathon dinner meeting which took place in a hotel ballroom at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. - ABC
Update: Lots of talk that a Florida resolution of seating all delegates at 1/2 vote is a done deal. Michigan is more difficult.

MI State Chairman Mark Brewer did say that Obama has 30 of the 36 Uncommitted delegates in his column. That's not out of line with our research that 31 of the 36 are Obama supporters, (although we could only confirm 22 of them). Brewer also said that there was an active effort by the Michigan Democratic Party to make sure the Uncommitted delegates supported Obama.

181 comments:

reddwarf2956 said...

Can you make a table like the ones you done for primary states (like the current one for Puerto Rico). The top headings would be like "Full", "Reduced" for each candidate. And the side heading would be what you currently have.

Thanks

Amot said...

25 more minutes... I am really anxious to watch the last battle of this campaign ;)

Bull Schmitt said...

If the resolution is what Chuck Todd suggests on MSNBC this morning:

(Florida seated according to January vote, Michigan split evenly, all delegates and Superdelegates given ½ vote...)

(2117.5 needed of 4234* total delegates)

Including 40 expected pledged delegates from PR, MT and SD, 1 Obama add-on from Maine named tomorrow and the 6 undeclared members of the Pelosi Club, Sen. Obama would be at 2102.5 total delegates next Tuesday night, 15.5 Supers short of being able to declare himself presumptive nominee.

* Final delegate total includes the expected election of Donna Edwards

Rambling Johnny said...

Look like their going to be more than a few speech before they get to the meat of the game!

Rambling Johnny said...

It been a strange long trip...!

Bull Schmitt said...

Never give a politician a national audience and an open mike!

(Much less 30 of them...)

Rambling Johnny said...

It not about you it about your country... Hummm I wonder who he is talking about now!

Rambling Johnny said...

Poor Hillary... Again!

Rambling Johnny said...

Hey how about reminding that meeting about all the other states who did abide by the rules!

Rambling Johnny said...

They keyword "compromise"!

Rambling Johnny said...

I should do that in my own blog but since I don't have any following I might has well do it here!
End of Dean speech

Rambling Johnny said...

anybody know where we could get a live webcast of the meeting?

Bull Schmitt said...

Johnny -

DCW says this is a C-Span link to watch their hearing coverage online…

http://cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

(and there's a better-populated live blog/discussion going on at http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1288#comment-47244
- if you're interested ;)

Rambling Johnny said...

Thanks Bill. Ho god he is going to thanks all is extended family if nobody stop him!

softspoken22 said...

So, in keeping with the precedents set in previous primaries where a stste was penalized, were they able to sit their SDs?

Rambling Johnny said...

It all politic the side that got the edge in influence would get "his" compromise.

Independent voter said...

Oops! Hillary ain't going to be too happy about the 50%.

Rambling Johnny said...

Yeah she needed it so bad! Funny that he made a strong defense in appearance while conceding the most important point in the same time!

Amot said...

I can't say if Ausman is brave or stupid, but his behaviour may just lead to a 100% cut of supers vote...

softspoken22 said...

So it's okay to penalize the voice of the voters, the pledged delegates, but not the SDs ? Disenfranchised much?

Amot said...

My opinion: the committee was not convinced that supers shall be seated in full power, they were insulted by the unfair hint super are intouchable and not equal to normal pledged delegates. And he actually did not answer why DA DNC members have half vote and no one argues about that? He left to the committee the decision of to halve and allocate or allocate and then halve

tmess2 said...

Ausmun is holding to a very technical line. My reading of the charter is that he has a point on the DPLs and DNC members, I think the Charter merely authorizes the DNC to grant superdelegate status to Congress (and Governors which doesn't matter here but does matter for Michigan).

Thus, a possible vote could be half votes for pledged, full votes for DNC and the one DPL from Florida, no vote for the Senator and Congressmen. Not saying that is what will happen, but the rules and Charter can be read as requiring that.

Rambling Johnny said...

Another one who going to thank is extended family!

Rambling Johnny said...

the victim game again!

Rambling Johnny said...

How long does he have left to rant about how unfairly poor Megan been treated!

Amot said...

The Charter give sthem the right to eb delegates, but it is only assumption that they have full votes by default. That was not wirrten in the Charter

The state party was clever and emotional to raise no legal question but emotional. He mentioned Foster and Mooney - two female delegates for Obama and Edwards. If the Committee say - 100% penalty they will look cold as fish and very very bad people...

Amot said...

Sorry for the typos :)

softspoken22 said...

What was the comparison in the turnout in FL to other states?

Kennyb said...

I think that it would be great for my state to have the national election on the first Monday in November. If you tell me it's against the rules and not legal, I'll just say you are against counting every vote.

tmess2 said...

I looked at the provisions for Democrats Abroad in the Charter, and they have half-votes on the DNC so I think whether they get full votes at the Convention is a red herring.

GDB said...

Politico is reporting a Louisiana super for Clinton

ahoff48 said...

Here is an interesting analysis of the primary voting turnout in Florida and Michigan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/how-the-clinton.html

This one is more complicated:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/primaries.php

Rambling Johnny said...

Another one who cannot get to the point!

jimmymac100 said...

In its runup to today’s DNC Rules committee meeting, MSNBC stated that Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan might carry Michigan’s challenge to the floor of the convention, regardless of the position taken by the Clinton campaign on the Rules Committee ultimately taken. It grieves me to say that should Sen. Levin pursue that path, he does not represent me, though I am a longtime supporter of the senator and I am a lifelong Michigan Democratic. It is not the DNC that disenfranchised me; it is Sen. Levin, and the small group of Michigan Democratic Party executives that promoted advancement if the Michigan primary date. I always make my vote a POSITIVE, AFFIRMATIVE vote. My candidate was not on the ballot, and I considered Sen. Clinton’s presence on the ballot to clearly be “participation” in violation of the signed agreement of the primary candidates. The choice between Clinton and Not Clinton (uncommitted) on the Michigan ballot was to me an unacceptable, undemocratic, fraudulent choice. I know from many emails and blog posts and meetings that I am not alone in my view and my choice. It is simply unfair to say that those who actually voted in the January Michigan primary are being disenfranchised any more so than I, and many others like me, are not. Thus, it should be painfully obvious that the outcomes of the primary vote would be different, were the incoming rules different. Pretending otherwise and making the vote stand as a basis for pledged delegate counts and to modify the “popular vote” counts on the basis of those numbers is simply dishonest.

Rambling Johnny said...

This is my question who engineered that turnout? In other word who made sure to get his or "her" own votes out!

tmess2 said...

It's hard to tell about Florida's turnout because it has a closed primary so you need to know how many registered Democrats there are. Most of the neighboring states in the south have open primaries, but are also more Republican than Florida.

According to Florida Secretary of State. 4.2 million voters were registered as Democrats for the presidential primary.

So about 42% turnout for primary.

jimmymac100 said...

Janice Griffin’s just argued for those who did not vote in Florida based on the advance message that the primary was in violation of party rules and would not count. Sen. Nelson responded by saying he disputed her assumption, as evidenced by the record turnout in the early Florida primary. This is a non-answer. Is he claiming that the voters Griffin cites don’t exist? They do -- they simply would have made the turnout all that larger. Why is it that not counting those who vote in Florida is disenfranchisement, but ignoring those who accepted the party rules and did not vote is acceptable? It is fine for Sen. Nelson to emotionally cite individual citizens in support of his case, but the individual stories of principled voters who did NOT participate in a fraudent primary are not being recognized.

Rambling Johnny said...

I don't think the 1.9 millions voters give a damn anymore! Most of them probably want this thing to be over!
Off course some of the die hard Clintonites would not lets it go but they will not let it go anyway since she lost!!!!!

tmess2 said...

Oh boy, the Clinton representative just screwed up royally by conceding that the turnout could have been higher in a competitive primary.

Rambling Johnny said...

He push too hard they are going to buckle!

Independent voter said...

tmess - agreed!

RJ - he does push too hard at times. But I don't think they are going to buckle. I especially like how he shut Ickes down.

mumblin said...

these clinton supporters are basically just asking for the primary result to be forwarded as is.... irrespective..
how many different ways aqre there to ask. ?


and tbh.. I don't agree that the exit polls should have the kind of say that mark is suggesting...

page in Jax said...

my prediction: Florida get 100% as voted--you know, "the will of the voters."

mumblin said...

hmm thomas hynes good point:


Billary got more votes than she should have because there were no other names on the ballot..

Rambling Johnny said...

Florida 50% Michigan 50% the uncommitted would stay uncommitted.Obama already control most of them anyway. Got to go get diner!

Lou said...

Who will be speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign for the state of Michigan?

mumblin said...

Carl Levin, good speaker..heavyweight.

tmess2 said...

My understanding is former Representative David Bonior will be the Obama representative

jimmymac100 said...

Carl Levin is NOT speaking for Obama. Levin caused the problem. Heavyweight yes. But he totally blew this one. DNC did not disenfranchise me; Levin did.

Bonior will speak for Obama.

Godheval said...

I don't see why this has to be so complicated. We've recently seen that in spite of the strong urging that pledged delegates stick with the candidate to which they were pledged, they DO have the right to switch.

So why not fully seat all of the delegates from both states with a 50/50 default split between Clinton and Obama, with the understanding that any of the pledged delegates can switch at will, as it is their right.

The only argument against this is that such a split MAY not reflect the will of the voters. But without second elections we don't even KNOW the will of the voters, instead relying on exit polls and assumptions. So let's stop pretending this is even about the will of the voters, instead of about what's fair to the candidates.

mumblin said...

sorry jimmymac, I didnt mean he was speaking for BO, I meant he was on.. and was commenting on him.

I think with the complicated situation that the dems are in.. you need less partisanship and more independent thinkers like Levin...

tmess2 said...

The problem is the right of review keeps the number of switches to a small number (so far 2 out of 3,000). Thus, both candidates feel that the allocation matters.

Because of the other state-wide race on the ballot and all candidates being on the ballot, Florida has a better argument.

Given that the candidates apparently withdrew from the Michigan primary while it was still an advisory primary (according to the sequence given at the start of today's hearing), the change to a binding primary after those candidates withdrew make it very legally questionable.

Ian said...

didn't the candidates withdraw their names because they signed a document saying that they would not participate in the Michigan primary and they would withdraw their names?

Godheval said...

And this again raises the question of why Obama took his name off of the ballot - in complete recognition of the DNC's ruling - while Clinton did not.

And had she taken her name off of the ballot as well, what would've happened? Would Michiganders simply not have voted, or only voted by write-in, which by the state's own laws wouldn't have counted? This is all so ridiculous.

Lou said...

Harold Ikes is so annoying and condescending!

Godheval said...

Ickes seems to think he is due some special privilege - to continue speaking even past the time allotted, and to speak more than everyone else in general. This is much like the whole Clinton campaign, which thinks that what's "fair" is whatever benefits them. This much is obvious in what Ickes has said - supporting some idea of "fair reflection", while denying anyone who didn't support Clinton their say. Fair reflection, indeed.

It's this kind of despicable political snakery that makes me not a Clinton supporter more so than the issues, on which the candidates don't differ by much.

MichiganDem said...

Why does people think even split is fair? That is as good as not having the primary at all. They might as well not seat anyone.

jimmymac100 said...

Clinton signed the agreement not to "participate" but left her name on the ballot. Clinton publicly stated that she would NOT remove her name from the ballot (as she did in New Hampshire, at the same time she stated that the January Michigan primary "would not count"). If you choose to leave your name on the ballot, is that "participating" or not? I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Lou said...

Well you might as well say that MI didn't have a primary because it was so INCREDIBLY flawed. So I think the only fair thing here is to split them 50/50. It's a shame but with such a monumental screwup that's the only fair thing to do.

Godheval said...

MichiganDem: As I said above, this is no longer about what's fair to Michigan voters, because without another election, there's no way for us to know what their will is.

We might as well not even discuss fairness to the voters. We won't achieve it. So now it's about what's fair to the candidates, and as others have said, a 50/50 split (remember that delegates are able to switch) is the only fair thing.

Andy said...

I'm British, listening from across the water because I find the arguments fascinating. When they are doing all the arguments for votes to be counted ( and delegates seated ) why does no one ask what will prevent other states setting early dates in future years ?

Id does seem that this could end up a ral mess in future years. Plus ( as an independent observer ) It does strike me that the Hillary supporters are more biased and uncompromising than the Obama ones.

Lou said...

It APPEARS that a vast majority of the members of the DNC Rules & Bylaws committee are Hillary Clinton supporters, which I find disturbing.

MichiganDem said...

Even split basically says Michigan has no say and no influence in this primary. The primary is flawed. But given those already voted, an even split basically assumes that there's
x voters that would have voted for Obama. Now I don't know a better way to resolve this, but such an artificial assumption is by no means fair. It is just a political compromise, not a fair reflection of any voter.

tmess2 said...

I think the 50-50 split is saying that the Michigan primary was not a valid election.

I don't think the RBC will go that far. I think this is a position based on the lack of an agreement as to how to allocate Michigan.

Florida will be resolved quickly this afternoon. Michigan may take several different votes to get a majority behind a proposal.

I think Obama will be given slating rights for uncommitted -- whether he gets 55 or 59 from Michigan is the real isssue. It will not be a 64-64 split.

Both states will get half votes for both pledged and unpledged delegates.

Godheval said...

Andy: One precedent that will definitely be set here is that no matter what a state does, I bet you no candidate will remove their name from the ballot ever again.

Secondly, I think that states need to be able to have their elections whenever they choose. Had the DNC not made that rule in the first place, none of this would've happened. Although I do fault Michigan and Florida for breaking the rules once they were established.

Ian said...

Lou, I am noticing the same thing. I think there is too much Clinton support in that room. Even the madam chair is a Clinton supporter... ridiculous.

Lost Bob said...

My predictions:

FL seated with ½ vote for everyone including supers.

Re-slate FL delegates.

Election results accepted.

69/59 split in MI, ½ vote each

MI election results are not accepted.

Andy said...

Godheval,

Many thanks for your accurate assessment. Agreed, no one will withdraw their name from a ballet again.

Since we have all out election on a single date ( there is no similar 'pre-election') and yours seems to last forever, I'd worry that there will be a scramble to be first ... and it will spread over several years.

Rambling Johnny said...

Am back did I miss any meltdown or something.

Peter said...

Re lou

No, thats not the case. Clinton have 13 supporters and Obama 8. 9 are uncomitted and some of those are suspected to support Obama and the rest is expected to be loyal to DNC. So, I don`t think Clinton have the majority, I think its more or less even.

Lost Bob said...

The Clinton Reps comment a moment ago about a flawed strategy is amusing to me. What does he have to say about the Clinton campaign’s strategy of ignoring the caucus states. That, in my opinion is the biggest reason that Hillary is not now the nominee.

Godheval said...

ANY "compromise" that is made is to the advantage of Hillary Clinton. If you look at DCW's own FL & MI by the numbers breakdown, it's just a matter of how much of an advantage we give Clinton.

Obama stands to gain nothing at the end of this process, yet he is still willing to have the delegations seated in some capacity.

It seems to be the Clinton campaign's objective to make something that will by default be unfair to Obama, as unfair as can possibly be, that is, within any semblance of a democratic process.

Lou said...

Andy - a good "outside" bystander observation regarding the Hillary supporters being more biased and uncompromising. Their comments seem to be repetitive and snarky instead of reasoned/fair intelligent discourse.

tmess2 said...

Given that we have 3 weeks left in the delegate selection process, how is the delegate selection going to work in these two states assuming reslating in some or all districts?

I would assume if anything other than 73-55 in Michigan, the re-allocation would take place at state level rather than trying to adjust some of the congressional districts.

Godheval said...

Peter: Um. 13 to 8 is not even.

Lou's observation is based only on the committee members whose endorsements we know - and most of them are Clinton supporters. Which way the remaining 9 may or may not go is irrelevant at this point.

He's only talking about what we're seeing right now. He could also be talking about which of the committee members seem to be getting the most speaking time - Ickes alone has spoken more than everyone else, save for the presenters.

Rambling Johnny said...

Yo moma! lolll

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rambling Johnny said...

c-span online feed is crappy now am going to switch to CNN. So anybody got any idea how this is going so far! Florida look like is going to be a resolved but Michigan look like a freaking mess.

Lou said...

I think it would've been best if only the representatives of both states and both campaigns and the committee members were present (along with the cameras), NO cheering observers. I think it would give these proceedings the respect and reverence it deserves.

Godheval said...

No matter how you look at it, 13-8 is not even. In order to consider it even, you'd have to assume that the majority of the uncommitted will go to Obama. And there's no evidence to support that.

You cited Donna Brazille as a likely Obama supporter, but I've watched Donna as a commentator many different times and she's been very careful not to endorse any candidate even implicitly. You couldn't even make the argument that she's a likely supporter of Obama following the running trend of the African-American vote, because she's also a woman, nevermind that such an argument would deny that she has any mind of her own.

Yet, even if we were to give Brazille to Obama, that makes it 13-9. Not even.

I do acknowledge what you say about the popular vote somewhat, but at this point, the popular vote is also skewed in MI and FL (esp. MI) for the same reasons as the delegate counts.

Peter said...

I am just saying that the 13-8 is just based on who has officially endorsed. There are 30 members of RBC, the decision is not based on a 13-8 vote, it is based on 13-8-9. Some of those 9 are Obama supporters, but they have not endorsed. They are however loyal to DNC, so they are not Harold Ickes`s puppets.

I think it is obvious that there are som "aggresion" against Ickes among several RBC members. I don`t think he has any power at all here.

It is obvious that FL will be seated 50%.
ML is more difficult. Clinton will use 73-55 to extend her popular vote argument. I think it is highly likely that a 69-59 compromise could be made, I`m pretty sure that Obama-campaign will accept that, but I`m not sure if clinton will, but i do think the RBC could vote for such a solution.

Peter said...

I`m NOT saying that Brazile is supporting Obama because she is african-american, I don`t appreciate you saying that.
I am saying that she is probably supporting Obama because of a lot of comments she has made the last couple of months.

It is extremly likely that the real situation is that this is quite even. The uncomitted ones are probably loyal to DNC and they are NOT going to vote for a Clinton-biased solution.

Personally I think the votes in Florida probably reflect the position Clinton had at that time, but it is somewhat flawed because Obama couldn`t campaign.
The MI popular vote doesn`t mean anything. The turnout was ridiculously low (almost the same as Oregon which have 1/3 of the population of MI). Exit polls showed a completly differen situation than 55-40, we have the mail-in vote problem etc.
Splitting MI 64-64 is probably the most resonable solution, because we don`t know if Clinton would have won in MI. I think a 69-59 solution is a good solution, not because it is fair. I think it is a little Clinton-biased, but I think Obama is in a position where a compromise should be made to unify the party.
The problem here is if Clinton-campaign could think of the partys best interest and the voters in MI. If they do that, they will agree to a 69-59 compromise.

I think the most essential issue regarding MI, is that Obama is given 55 or 59 delegates for Obama and not uncomitted. Giving in to the uncomitted claim from Clinton is dangerous du to her "fuzzy math" regarding popular vote.

No matter what happens, Obama will be the nominee but it is important for the party that Clinton don`t take this to the convention. The FL compromise is an important step to avoid her going to the convention. The question is if we will get a compromise regarding MI.

Amot said...

Donna Brazile is in the obama corner from the very beginning. Plus she is the voice of the reason in the party. the way she is treated and the way Ickes is treated hints me that the committee is going to rule either for the party proposal in MI or 50/50. Hillary is definetely not the favourite daughter of those DNC members...

Godheval said...

Peter: I wasn't saying that Brazille's ethnicity necessarily factored into your assumption that she's an Obama supporter, just that from my own observations that it's one of very few arguments that can be made, since she's been pretty impartial thus far. No offense intended.

As for what you say at the end of the post, I couldn't agree more. Obama might as well give her some concessions with regards to FL and MI just to shut her up and get this thing moving towards the inevitability of his nomination...

Rambling Johnny said...

More to the point it 13 8 9. So Obama need 8 or 9. 7 would not cut it because it would be a deadlock 15 to 15.

If the DNC control the 9 Dean, Pelosi and Reid have been clear that they want this thing to end now. So their a chance that they made phone call to that effect.

But to make sure that it over Obama need more than that. What he need is a few defection from the Clinton camp just to send a message!

Godheval said...

For the record, there is another argument that could be made to suggest that Brazille supports Obama. She comes across as so sensible in her commentary. And surely at this point there are no sensible people left in the Clinton campaign - just stump speech regurgitators and/or people who really seem to lack perspective on what matters in this process.

Rambling Johnny said...

She might be on Obama side just for the sake of ending this!

mumblin said...

ok you yanks are just stupid.
just nominate Tony Blair.. end of story

von said...

Whether Brazile supports Obama or not, she's said frequently there is absolutely no way she will vote for anything more than cutting the Michigan and Florida delegations in hal

Rambling Johnny said...

You can bet that no matter what the ruling is the deluge of SD is going to start the minute it official! That will take care of any gain she going to make and will put Obama very close to the line. Just in times for the last primaries to take place. Checkmate!

Peter said...

From this point on, I think most of us will agree that FL will be seated 50% as is.

MI is difficult and I do think that who they (the people in RBC) support is more of an issue here.
I`m not 100% sure, but I would guess that Mark Brewer (uncomitted) can`t vote regarding MI.

Is is not certain that all 13 (C) and all 8 (O) will vote for 73(C)-55(U) or 50(C)-50(O), even though they support someone that doesn`t mean they will vote for a Obama biased solution or a Clinton biased solution.
I think that we might see a different solution than what has been proposed so far. 69-59 is a good compromise, but I`m not sure of much support it has in the RBC.

Lou said...

To change the subject a bit - why in the hell do the territories primary votes count equal to those of actual states? This whole thing is messed up. Was it just a concession figuring it would never matter anyway just like the superdelegates? I hope A LOT of things get changed after this whole debacle.

von said...

Peter, I just can't see them fully seating Michigan, if they do that they are essentially punishing florida and not michigan for the same crime.

Amot said...

No the same crime - MI moved their date on purpose just to revenge NH

Amot said...

But MI can be fully seated if they seat them 50/50 which is very unlikely...

Rambling Johnny said...

They probably negotiated something during their "lunch Break". I guess if they resolve it fast we would know their was a deal in the work.

Amot said...

FL is done deal, they just have to decide 50% or full super vote.

MI will take hours, and belive me when I say hourS - maybe 5, they can leave it for tomorrow morning if necessary!

June said...

It's really not about fairness is it? It's about power and whether a pair of renegade politicians (Hill & Bill) can hold a party to ransom and change the course of history.

Peter said...

My guess is that MI will be given a 50% penalty. Both Obama and Clinton campaigns are "endorsing" a 100% seating, but I think RBC will have a 50% penalty and that uncomitted and Obama supporters in the RBC will go for such a solution.

The biggest issue here would be if Obama delegates are called uncomitted or Obama-delegates. That is important and a central issue here.
If the solution is 64-64, 69-59 or 73-55 is not that important.

A fair compromise in my opnion would be Clinton 69 Obama 59 instead of Clinton 73 Uncomitted 55. Clinton 73 and Obama 55 is also ok. I do not see Clinton 64 Obama 64 as a likely solution.

Levin saying that this primary was flawed is a blow to the clinton campaign and I think you could see that Ickles was quite uncomfortable when Levin "attacked" him.

Paul Bradford said...

As to who Donna Brazile is supporting ...

Read her own words:

"Look, I'm a woman, so I like Hillary. I'm black; I like Obama. But I'm also grumpy, so I like John McCain."

Brazile has a PRINCIPLED reason not to come out for any candidate. She is opposed to the idea of superdelegates getting to choose the nominee. She's gone so far as to say that she will leave her position if the nomination is taken from the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates.

Paul Bradford said...

I don't think that Clinton has been sufficiently called out for one of her sneaky tactics. I'm talking about her eagerness to even look at the 'popular vote'. Even setting aside the issue of how we should count Michigan or whether we should count Florida, any tabulation of aggregate popular vote is entirely bogus. We don't determine the nominee based on popular vote, we determine the nominee based on a majority of the delegates.

Imagine how UNFAIR it would be to determine a nominee based on popular vote. Caucus states would be surrendering 75% of their power simply by not holding a primary. Closed primary states would have fewer votes than open primary states. States that require voter's ID would be limiting their influence. What would be the effect of states that encourage voting by mail?

Every state has different laws. It is not only unfair, but downright stupid to add popular votes of different states. It's mixing oranges with grapefruit -- there's no meaning to be garnered.

We have a method for determining the nominee and it's a GOOD method. Proportional allocation of delegations is good. Weighting delegations toward states that are heavily Democratic is good. Giving a 'boost' to smaller states as we do in the electoral college is good. A popular vote tally wipes away all these advantages. Stop discussing it!

c_b said...

Re: Michigan

I think Levin did a good job of making a case for a compromise driven by the state leaders. But the DNC staff memo pretty clearly says they can't justify that within the party rules. The memo points toward it being permissible to give 50% seating based on the primary (73-55), with Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Biden approval of the uncommitted delegates. I expect that will be the decision. That gives almost the same net result as the state proposal (+9 vs. +10 for Clinton). The main downside for Obama is that it gives Clinton some limited justification for counting MI results in the popular vote, but I think that value is diminishing.

I don't think it's worthwhile for either candidate to try to blame the other for the problem, or for tactics used in this debate. The purpose is to allow the nominee to run in MI and FL with minimum damage from this process.

Granny said...

Only one thing should matter now -- what is in the best interest of the party and of the country. Is it more important that we have an African-American candidate or someone who is experienced and electible? The way it is trending now, I am afraid we will have a nasty shock in November and the GOP will be laughing at us again.

Rambling Johnny said...

Granny her experience is not worth much if every times she open her mouth she said stupid lie or down right idiotic and dangerous statement! And all her experience did not help her win this thing. Lets remember who winning and who on her way out shall we! For somebody who was inevitable a year ago she ran the most lousy campaign in history.

Rambling Johnny said...

lift off!

Rambling Johnny said...

Look like space bucket Discovery had a clean launch. Thank god for all is small favor! I love to get a trip in orbit but you would need to put a gun to my head for me to ride in a space shuttle. Even if you did I might just try my luck at disarming you! lollll

Me said...

I just got back and was checking how things were. C-Span doesnt have it anymore and the democrats.org has no sound. Am I missing smth or it just hasn't started?

Jonathan said...

They are still in recess but the room is slowly filling up. Another 10 minutes or so?

Andy said...

Not started again yet .... probably private meetings going on to try and get some solution.

Rambling Johnny said...

Ha great... The lame duck radio address of the week!

Lou said...

It has been proven poll after poll after poll that Obama is more electable than Clinton - why else would the Republicans want to run against Clinton so bad?? Look at the way each candidate has conducted their campaigns! If Obama runs the country the way he has run his campaign it will be in a MUCH better state than if Clinton had won. I think a better question is - Why would Hillary rather a Republican win if she can't have it? That is the way she is acting. Never fear granny, it'll be ok.

Jonathan said...

I agree with earlier comments that seating Michigan satisfactorily will prove quite a difficult task. Putting aside the uncommitted issue, and focusing on the "rule breaking" by the Michigan Democratic Party, they will have to be penalised - they broke the rules, even if some argue New Hampshire also did by got away with it. In Florida, it was not such an obvious breaking of the rules, there's good reason to suggest 100% should be seated.

page in Jax said...

Just saw the shuttle lift off--watchin' from my front yard. It still amazes me--can see the flame from Jacksonville.

My Michigan prediction: delegates seated as voted and get half a vote each.

Michigan Democratic pols deliberately violated the rules, so at best they should get half votes.

Any argument to seat the delegation in any way that does not represent the voters--and I mean the people who actually voted, not the people who chose not to vote--is ridiculous and unAmerican.

Anna said...

The NewsHour is live Twittering if you want to follow along... at the moment we're waiting. Just posted a photo of the empty chairs that should have filled at 4:15. http://twitter.com/newshour

GermansForObama said...

We are a group of german democrats and we cannot understand, how it is possible, that so many american democrats can support a person named HRC, who seems obviously not being very honesty. How can those democrats trust her particulary when she becames president. It seems to us that she would do and say everthing (even "selling her own grandmother") to get what she wants. Her campaigns remember us to those of GW Bush. What is the attractiveness of those bad-political-behaviour. We are very worried to see that a lot of americans favour politicians like Bush and Clinton.

Rambling Johnny said...

God it like dealing with a child complaining that the neighbors got a bigger bike!

Bull Schmitt said...

C-Span started rerunning the morning session immediately at the "lunch break" - I wonder if they knew something the rest of us didn't?

Andy said...

With the rules members holding discussions over lunch - rather than a public debate. How do people feel this reflects on what people will think of the outcome ( if most is sorted out behind closed doors ) ?

The Numantine said...

Lou asked--"To change the subject a bit - why in the hell do the territories primary votes count equal to those of actual states?"

Puerto Rico is the only territory with votes equal to states. The Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and Democrats Abroad all get 1/2 votes. So PR is like a real state and the others are like MI and FL. :)

Rambling Johnny said...

Andy lets make one thing clear nothing is openly negotiated ever. You always do that in private. The public stuff is just theater!

edgeways said...

The analogy I've come up with is this is a lot like the SCOUS, you have public arguments by representatives of both sides. Then the members arrive at a decision away from the cameras, and make it official.

There is a benefit to the hard wrangling behind closed doors. It tends to cut down on the showboatmanship for the audience and people can concentrate on what the need to do rather than scoring points.

Rambling Johnny said...

Plus they can always save face in public after a deal is cut!

Andy said...

I understand that all the decision goes on behind closed doors ... but my question was on how the perception of it all behind closed doors rather than in open meeting would be felt by the 'extreme' supporters on either side.

Alii said...

MSNBC has the better coverage.

FL has been resolved.

MI will go 69-59/2 - no primary

Barack Obama is the Democratic Party's nominee...let's get on with the show.

Finally, appears members are returning.

Rambling Johnny said...

The extreme supporter are never going to like any sort of deal that does not give their candidate everything he or she ask! So in a negotiation they became irrelevant since they are not going to like it anyway!

Andy said...

True :)

Peter said...

It will be interesting to see if they have something new to say when they sit down again. There are some rumours, but rumours are rumours, so...

edgeways said...

The extream supporters will always manufacture some level of discontent, no matter what the resolution. Just have to bite the bullit and move forward.

The 69-59/2 + 2 add ons would be pretty swell if it happens

Rambling Johnny said...

They look a lots less tense! Maybe I will open my bottle of Champagne soon!

Paul Bradford said...

the numantine,

When it comes to unpledged delegates, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands all get full votes. The only delegation that has half votes is Democrats Abroad.

Alii said...

RJ, Dom Perignon?

Champagne that is.

Obama resigned from his church.

Let's see 25 SD's for Obama between tonight and Tues. a.m.gvuavi

Rambling Johnny said...

CNN confirm a deal! No detail for michigan

Rambling Johnny said...

Well more like Sleeman Honey Brown beer but that would do! lollll

Rambling Johnny said...

I wish Obama would just say he is a member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be done with all that BS!

Alii said...

Huffman is wasting her breath ... ain't gonna happen.

edgeways said...

Prolly not, but they have to at least go through the motions, even if it gets chucked in the end.

Miranda said...

This is all just for show. They already made all of their decisions behind closed doors. This is just them going through the motions so that everyone that opposed what was decided can let it be heard that they didn't agree. It's all politics as usual and a big show. I wish that they would just say what the decision is already!

Rambling Johnny said...

They are going to throw that vote than pass a motion for the 50%! End game! It was nice seeing you Hillary!
And I have no Idea what the hell they are planning for Michigan!

Me said...

Harold Ickes is icky. Seriously. The guy looks like he could be a closet pedophile rapist.

Peter said...

Well Florida is secured and there is no way Clinton can go to the convention regarding Florida.

The question is MI.

edgeways said...

me: That is over the line, please remove. I don't like the fellow either, but seriously enough already eh?

Peter said...

I think we will see more or less all vote for the motion

Alii said...

Way to go Huffy...

Why is it so difficult to understand that rules are rules.

Rambling Johnny said...

Look like they going to pass the Michigan challenge!

The Numantine said...

The thing about half votes is that the Credentials Ctte can restore them to full votes at the Convention. If the number of delegates were halved, it would be difficult to fill the slots if restored at the Convention.

Peter said...

Fowler will vote for the 69-59/2, that could indicate that this solution will get passed. The question is what Ickles does, if he vote for, Clinton will NOT go to the convention with this.

Lou said...

To Harold Ikes: "Oh Wa!!" Quit yer whining!!!

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rambling Johnny said...

The Credentials Ctte is Obama dominated too bad Hillary game over, checkmate call it what you want!

Alii said...

Agree.

Ickes is icky. Representative of most of Hillary's camp.

Me said...

>That is over the line, please remove.

I was considering it, but after seeing him BS about "fair reflection" in the Michigan election, I stand by my remark. He's evil.

You can't have "fair reflection" of an election that was carried out in an unfair way. He knows it, everyone with a brain should know it, but he makes his BS argument anyways. And then he threatens to appeal to the credential committee because "Hillary Clinton told me to do it". To hell with them both.

Lou said...

After that incredible childish response by Ickes I hope the Super Delegates start voting by the dozens after seeing for the umpteeth time what the Clinton campaign is made up of. I hope they clear the room of these idiots that are interrupting.

Rambling Johnny said...

The more they drag this thing the more it going to give an excuse for Clinton to drag this thing on! But if they move too fast it also give her an excuse to say she got cheated!

Alii said...

Deport the Hillary supporters in the audience to Appalachia.

69-59/2 has passed overwhelmingly - when they finally get around to the vote.

Congrats Senator Obama - the Democratic Party's nominee.

This has been more than fair...to me MI should have been 50/50 divided by 2.

Peter said...

I think this motion is going to get close to 20 vote for, so I think Clinton is losing this big.

Lou said...

IT WAS ME! IT WAS ME! ME FIRST!(Elizabeth Smith)Did they let her go 1st BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN? She sounds like her candidate.

Peter said...

Remember that this 69-59 solution had HUGE support among MI-demparty, Clinton-camp rejecting this and acting like a bad loser, helps Obama.

Rambling Johnny said...

Look like it done! Sleeman time!

Alii said...

Passed!

Now SD's open the flood gates - for Obama.

Lou said...

I second Alii's statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rambling Johnny said...

Obama need 64 votes now who want to bet he is getting it by the end of the weekend!

Rambling Johnny said...

Motion on the floor!

Rambling Johnny said...

Blitzer can hardly digest it on CNN!

tmess2 said...

I assume quick delegate selection plans will be put out by Florida and Michigan within next 48 hours and tentatively approved by counsel for RBC with schedules for re-selecting delegates. Question for anyone who knows, do the Clinton delegates and add-ons also need to be reselected or are we just talking about Obama's delegates (and maybe only some districts).

Matt said...

Florida is fine as is. (Unless Obama hasn't been vetting his delegates).

Michigan is a mess that will need to be dealt with.

Paul Hunt said...

Here are my tentative notes of the vote, unedited:

MOTION #1 - Huffman (CA): "Seat all FL delegates with full vote" | McDonald (WA): "Opposed because it would require going back on established rules" | Atkinson-Gates (NV): "Opposed because it would cause scheduling chaos in 2012" | Flournay (DC): "Support but I'm saddened that this will not pass" | Alice Germond (DC, DNC Sec): "Oppose: we believe in rules" | Mona Pasquil (CA): "Support: sometimes we need to revisit the rules" | FAILS 12-15

MOTION #2 - Ralph Dawson (NY): "FL full delegation, half vote: Clinton 52.5, Edwards, 6.5, Obama 33.5 votes; supers half vote" | Alice Huffman (CA): "Support: not what I would've wanted but we need unity" | PASSES 27-0 (Katz not voting)

MOTION #3 - Mame Reiley (VA): "MI 1/2 vote: Clinton 34.5 votes; Obama 29.5 votes, supers 1/2 vote" | Donald Fowler (SC): "Support: not first choice" | Harold Ickes: "Oppose: Motion flies in the face of fair reflection... hijacking delegates not a good way to party unity... CLINTON RESERVES RIGHT TO TAKE THIS TO CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE" | Thomas Hynes (IL): "Support: primary flawed, motion fair" | Everett Ward (NC): "Support: [Ickes] exercizes selective amnesia" | Elizabeth Smith (DC): "Oppose: voters rule" | PASSES 19-8 (Brewer not voting)

http://www.electicker2008.com/

uplandpoet said...

tmess, florida has already elected its delegation, they all go, each only gets 1/2 vote

Mike said...

Are the FL/MI supers halves as well?

The Numantine said...

tmess2--Doesn't look like Florida needs any changes.

Michigan State Central Committee meets June 14th. I guess they could let the CD delegates from April stand and adjust the at-large delegates due to be selected then so as to reflect the 69/59 split. The uncommitted from the CDs could be designated Obama delegates.

I wonder how much they will complicate the process? Since the passed split was the State Party's preferred option, I hope they thought through the rest of the process.

Rambling Johnny said...

That just house cleaning. The meat is that it over!

Mike said...

On a lighter note:

How do you make two FL/MI supers into a whole?

SUP with one and send one to ER

Any idea?...

Mike said...

This resolution takes away HRC's majority vote argument. Again, it is down to math: will she use the numbers from the faulty primaries, or adjust them in accordance with the resolution? She'll obviously chose the former

Mike said...

I see Hillary dropping out of the race Sunday or Monday, before SD/MT. PR result will provide her the opportunity to leave the stage as a winner. Tuesday will be too late!

Lou said...

Mike - I sure hope you're right! I am soooooooo ready to have this over and have Barack pick his running mate (please please please not Clinton!!)

Hootie said...

U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Section 2 in part - "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,WHICH SHALL BE DETERMINED BY ADDING TO THE WHOLE NUMBER OF FREE PERSONS, ..., AND EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED, THREE FIFTHS OF ALL OTHER PERSONS."

Florida and Michigan are now ruled one half of a person.

Some rules are meant to be broken Dear DNC.

tmess2 said...

The reason for my question is that the information submitted by the staff report (and in the discussion today) indicated that Obama did not vet the delegates in Florida (and until today did not have the right to vet the uncommitted delegates in Michigan).

At least to my ears, it was clear from both motions that passed that Obama could and is requesting that the delegate selection process for his delegates begin from scratch in both states (not sure what Edwards will say for Florida). The language of the motions potentially suggests that Clinton needs to do hers over again too.

If they go back and do the district delegates for (at least) Obama, the rules are that district delegates need to be selected before add-ons (and some who previously got Obama district slots might want to compete for the add-on slots if they do not get the delegate slot in the second go round).

I was wondering if there was anything firm from anyone in the Obama campaign or the two states or the DNC about this issue.

Rambling Johnny said...

I have to write about today on my blog even if nobody is going to read it. Any suggestion for the Title while I get another beer.

Dink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hootie said...

I guess your REALLY didn't get my meaning of posting the outdated constitution version with three fifths of a person followed by my comment - some rules are meant to be broken, dear DNC.

Hobbs said...

C A L V I N B A L L ! ! !

H I L L A R Y B A L L s ! ! !
Could see this one coming miles away. Michigan Govenor spilled the beans saying it was campaign strategy. A woman's word should be as good as a man's. Tsk, tsk, tsk !

B.J. said...

hootie, the 1/2 vote was chosen by the stat officials when they broke the rules for date selection. If they wanted full votes they should have followed the clear date rules.