Jump to content

Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee


HuskyCaucasian

Recommended Posts

If primaries can get their own threads, this deserves one too.

 

This from the Boston Globe...

Dem lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

 

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

 

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.

 

As for those "uncommitted" Michigan Votes, well, Hillary says Obama should get none. But the exit polls show differently:

If these had been the candidates on the ballot today, for whom would you have voted in the Democratic presidential primary?

Hillary Clinton - 46%

John Edwards - 12%

Barack Obama - 35%

 

With a full field, she doesnt even break 50%. That drastically alters her "popular vote" argument.

I did some number crunching:

Based on my numbers, Obama leads the popular vote +468,909.

With FL and not MI, Obama +174,137.

With FL and MI (MI base don exit polls), Obama +108,753.

And this all assumes that "disenfranchised" Obama supporters did not come out to vote since he wasnt on the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 28, 2008 -> 09:52 AM)
If primaries can get their own threads, this deserves one too.

 

This from the Boston Globe...

Dem lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored

 

 

As for those "uncommitted" Michigan Votes, well, Hillary says Obama should get none. But the exit polls show differently:

If these had been the candidates on the ballot today, for whom would you have voted in the Democratic presidential primary?

Hillary Clinton - 46%

John Edwards - 12%

Barack Obama - 35%

 

With a full field, she doesnt even break 50%. That drastically alters her "popular vote" argument.

I did some number crunching:

Based on my numbers, Obama leads the popular vote +468,909.

With FL and not MI, Obama +174,137.

With FL and MI (MI base don exit polls), Obama +108,753.

And this all assumes that "disenfranchised" Obama supporters did not come out to vote since he wasnt on the ballot.

 

The arguement falls down right there. You can't apply people's feelings today to how they would have voted months ago. Things have changed a lot since then. They need to stick to their guns and not seat the delegates so that this doesn't happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 28, 2008 -> 09:08 AM)
The arguement falls down right there. You can't apply people's feelings today to how they would have voted months ago.

The poll was conducted the day of the Michigan primary, not recently. So, it reflects the minds of the people back when the vote was originally cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 28, 2008 -> 10:08 AM)
They need to stick to their guns and not seat the delegates so that this doesn't happen again.

Obama needs to make sure he doesn't say this out loud again ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 28, 2008 -> 09:11 AM)
The poll was conducted the day of the Michigan primary, not recently. So, it reflects the minds of the people back when the vote was originally cast.

How many people were giving accurate answers to polling back then. Everyone thought their vote wouldn't count so how can you put stock in their answers?

Edited by BigSqwert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...29/1077410.aspx

I have hesitated reporting on every rumor we've heard about a potential compromise in the Florida-Michigan delegate dispute, but there's one plan circulating that seems to be gaining momentum.

 

This plan would halve the votes for all of the Florida delegates, netting Clinton 19 and, more importantly, counting that popular vote. But Michigan's primary results would not be accepted and, instead, that state's delegates would simply be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

 

All of the delegations, under this compromise, would be seated in full, but each delegate's vote would be counted as 0.5, including the superdelegates.

 

Again, this is just one rumored plan, but it's gaining enough support with some that I figured it was worth reporting. Who knows, by tonight, a new compromise plan will become the plan du jour, but for now, get familiar with this idea.

 

By the way, should this compromise pass, it would mean the new magic number for nomination would be 2,118.

 

Note: If this were to happen, Obama would have 50.65% of all possible pledged delegates. Clinton would need 165% of all remaining pledged delegates to win... aka she's sunk without using the supers to overthrow Obama.

Edited by Athomeboy_2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 29, 2008 -> 03:08 PM)
I have a feeling Clinton supporters will riot if they don't get what they want.

They are already planning a protest outside the meeting. So... yea.

Kudos to Obama for telling his supports to NOT show up and protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sources: DNC Florida Compromise Reached, Michigan Hangs In Balance

Two sources, including a high-ranking official with the Florida delegation, have confirmed that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee reached an agreement last night and will seat the state's entire delegation but give each delegate half a vote. The result would be a net gain of 19 delegates for Sen. Hillary Clinton, though no word yet on how the superdelegates from the state will be allocated. It is, the official says, a compromise that Sen. Barack Obama will be willing to make. "There will be theater but not much fight."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no "perfect" or for that matter "good" solution that is 100% fair to everyone.

 

The most important consideration, IMHO is to the individual voter in those states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 31, 2008 -> 11:56 AM)
There is no "perfect" or for that matter "good" solution that is 100% fair to everyone.

 

The most important consideration, IMHO is to the individual voter in those states.

Yeah, that seems to be what the Michigan delegation is talking about. They're not trying to favor each candidate and they know that the results of the primary are messed up. Harold Ickes is such an asshole, you can tell whenever he talks the only thing he's concerned with is the fact that Hillary's not going to get as many delegates out of it as he wants. Well... Obama had to make a concession to Florida in the interest of fairness. Why can't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 31, 2008 -> 12:41 PM)
I love how EVERY time Ickies tries to push Clinton propganda on the people representing the states they come back with a witty remark and put him in his place. It's AWESOME!

lol, I'm starting to like Carl Levin. Basically a diplomatic way of saying STFU. The chairman can't shut Ickes up though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 31, 2008 -> 10:56 AM)
There is no "perfect" or for that matter "good" solution that is 100% fair to everyone.

 

The most important consideration, IMHO is to the individual voter in those states.

 

Michigan and Florida really should have thought of that before breaking the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 31, 2008 -> 12:56 PM)
Michigan and Florida really should have thought of that before breaking the rules.

Listening to the Michigan delegation speak I find out it wasn't as simple as I thought, Carl Levin basically had a 5 minute section of his presentation devoted to "f*** New Hampshire"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 31, 2008 -> 11:55 AM)
lol, I'm starting to like Carl Levin. Basically a diplomatic way of saying STFU. The chairman can't shut Ickes up though.

Ickes asked like 3 or 4 questions when he was supposed to only asked one. Levin: I'm not sure which of your 3 questiosn to answer first.

 

that was classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG! I love Donna Brazile! She just laid the smack down.

I know my momma rose me to obey the rules. And if you go changing the rules after the fact... we call that cheatin'. :headbang

 

Fast Forward to 3:15

Edited by Athomeboy_2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 31, 2008 -> 01:36 PM)
FYI: The Clinton campaign is DESPERATELY trying to push the popular vote.

Assuming FL is a done deal, their votes will now be factored into the national popular vote. I have Obama +179,435 minus MI.

Since when did the popular vote become the measuring stick in the primaries? Her campaign's constant goal post moving shows desperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI: MSNBC is reporting that Clinton wants to "punt" the MI issue to the credentials committee in a few months (aka they take this to the convention), but they dont have the votes. It is LOOKING like MI will be awarded 69-59 using "states rights" as the argument that they can do as they wish with their states delegates.

Edited by Athomeboy_2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's absurd, as far as I'm concerned, the only right thing to do with michigan is not count it or a 50/50 split, that was not a primary. That was not a primary. That was not a primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...