Obama Campaign Calls For 50-50 Split Of Michigan Delegates

[babylonsister]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_campaign_calls_for_5050.php

Obama Campaign Calls For 50-50 Split Of Michigan Delegates
By Greg Sargent - April 4, 2008, 5:01PM


More news late on a Friday afternoon: In the wake of reports today that the Michigan revote is really, truly, unequivocally dead, the Obama campaign is now calling for a 50-50 split of the delegation.

Here's the statement from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

“Senator Obama firmly believes that the Michigan delegation should be seated in Denver. A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything.' It's now up to the Clinton campaign: they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules. It's time to move forward. Senator Clinton should accept an equitable solution that allows Michigan to participate fully in the convention."

From the Hillary campaign's perspective, of course, this is like nullifying the vote completely and not seating the delegation at all.

[stray cat]

1. that sounds like the average in almost every other contest

[cyclezealot]

2. It won't be that much differenc from Mich's January primary

The vote was Hillary 59%; nobody 41%. So what is the big fuss.

[MichiganVote]

10. Your numbers are incorrect

Hillary Rodham Clinton 328,151 55.3%
Uncommitted 237,762 40.0
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,708 3.7
Christopher J. Dodd 3,853 0.6
Mike Gravel 2,363 0.4

NT Times

[cyclezealot]

12. So there is even less to fuss about? `

Oh well. With my instant memory, I was in the ball park.

[thereismore]

3. What's the purpose of seating them if they get divided 50-50? That means they might as well

not be seated. What am I missing?

[flor de jasmim]

4. It means they participate in the process.

[MichiganVote]

7. Michigan voters did participate in the "process". We're denied decision making in the "process".

[JeanGrey]

16. Nope. All the candidates weren't on the ballot. That is no

"process".

[MichiganVote]

22. Then why does O want a 50/50 split? Never mind. The reason is obvious.

[JeanGrey]

24. Of course it is. It sounds pretty fair to me, unless you want to

let them campaign and then do over the election there. I guarantee you Hill won't want that!

[Cant trust em]

5. it's party unity and to not disenfranchise Michigan voters

essentially a big hug.

[MichiganVote]

8. Essentially a big joke.

[Cant trust em]

9. I prefer the hapy term, but yours is unfortunately appropriate. NT

[MichiganVote]

11. :) Louisiana, Florida and Michigan...going to be a very interesting GE...

[Purveyor]

6. Living in Michigan, I'm good with this... eom

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. I don't see a 50-50 split anywhere in the rules

The rules state that they lose a smaller percentage of delegates than 50%, and the rules do not state that they can broker the delegates at this time. The rules also do not allow for no delegates to count. The rules also state that several other states broke the rules and should also have the same penalties as these two.

Once more, Barry HO wants different rules for himself but wants to hold others to other rules. Selective rule enforcement... where have we seen that before?

[babylonsister]

14. What would you suggest, giving consideration to the way the

primary was run and the rules laid down by the DNC that were ignored? All candidates signed on to no campaigning, Obama wasn't on the ballot. So, what would be fair to you?

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. You are misinformed

As for more info on selective rule enforcement, read this very comprehensive post:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5339154

This poster did the footwork. Will you read it? Here's a quotation from that very detailed post:

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.) Read the damn rules first!
-and-
2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.
(QUOTE ENDS)

As anyone can clearly see, there are a few items here that cannot be disputed:

ONE
Rule 11.A was broken by five states: Michigan, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.

TWO
The 50% penalties stipulated under Rule 20.C.1.a were voided for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.

THREE
The 50% penalties under Rule 20.C.1.a were arbitrarily EXCEEDED without reason given for Michigan and Florida.

I stipulate no FAULT for this, as many could and probably SHOULD. I merely state that the rules WERE NOT EQUALLY ENFORCED, Two states were given extra penalties at the whim of the DNC/DLC, and Three states were not given a penalty at all as they should have under Rule 20.C.1.a.

[babylonsister]

20. You didn't answer my question. What would your suggestions be

to resolve this fairly? If you think awarding delegates based on the flawed voting, that will never fly. Clinton vs. uncommitted? How many people didn't even bother going to the polls? That's still ignoring the disenfranchised, or is that now their problem?

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. I would not have let it happen in the first place

And, if I had no control over that, I would have had something in writing in advance that stipulated that people should vote anyway and their votes would be counted.

Now that the vote is over, and if the possibility of a revote is off the table, the only thing left to do is to count the votes cast, let the delegates be seated and trust to their good conscience to vote for the right candidate. In other words, the delegates are not beholden to vote for Hillary OR Obama but can, as all the other delegates can, vote for who they think will win in the general election.

That's not only fair, but it's following the rules.

[Dawgs]

15. Your post makes no sense.

That, and you're an asshole for calling one of our Democratic nominees by a name he doesn't use anymore.

The "rules" that Hillary agreed to stated that she wouldn't participate in the Michigan contest. Do you have a problem with her breaking the rules?

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. I'll call Barry HO any name I feel like, this is America

As for more info on selective rule enforcement, read this very comprehensive post:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5339154

This poster did the footwork. Will you read it? Here's a quotation from that very detailed post:

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.) Read the damn rules first!
-and-
2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.
(QUOTE ENDS)

As anyone can clearly see, there are a few items here that cannot be disputed:

ONE
Rule 11.A was broken by five states: Michigan, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.

TWO
The 50% penalties stipulated under Rule 20.C.1.a were voided for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.

THREE
The 50% penalties under Rule 20.C.1.a were arbitrarily EXCEEDED without reason given for Michigan and Florida.

I stipulate no FAULT for this, as many could and probably SHOULD. I merely state that the rules WERE NOT EQUALLY ENFORCED, Two states were given extra penalties at the whim of the DNC/DLC, and Three states were not given a penalty at all as they should have under Rule 20.C.1.a.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. which is why poll after poll show her negatives rising, and why

an increasing number of people view her as "dishonest". She is trying to rewrite history, and blame it all on Obama. How dishonest is that?

[MichiganVote]

23. Makes sense to me. It just doesn't give you the answer you want.