Sources: DNC Florida Compromise Reached, Michigan Hangs In Balance

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The Huffington Post



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."

Circumstances, however, are looking very much different concerning the battle over how to handle Michigan's delegation. As of Saturday morning, no compromise had been reached. The idea of splitting the state's delegation 50-50 has been discussed but Clinton's camp, one source said, was not agreeing to the arrangement. In addition, reports are circulating around the DNC meeting that Sen. Carl Levin, who will be speaking on behalf of Michigan, will press for the seating of the state's full delegation, with full votes for each.

"If he does not get his way," wrote The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, "he will likely challenge the RBC's ruling when the credentials committee convenes unless the rules and bylaws committee promises to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their privileged status in 2012."

As it stands now, the Rules and Bylaws Committee could resolve the Florida situation while leaving Michigan hanging in the balance -- a situation that is tenable under party rules but leaves open the possibility, however slim, that the delegation matter would be unresolved until the convention.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/sources-dnc-florida-compr_n_104456.html

[AllyCat]

1. The Queen gets her way.

I'm sorry. She agreed to a set of rules and then when things didn't go her way later, she has a fit about it and gets her way after all.

[Igel]

7. The rules committee isn't violating the rules on this one.

They're simply imposing the minimum penalty.

Too bad Obama and Clinton don't have the subjunctive as an active grammatical category (I suspect that Obama's consciously tried to adopt the AAEV aspect system for his personal life, but that's just a suspicion).

[Blaq Dem]

10. At least Sen. Levin is CONSISTENT

Unlike Hillary. Hillary didn't give a damn about MI until she started losing. Levin had to fight with that no good Terry Mcauliffe.

[mac2]

41. Levin didn't make sense to me with his excuse about FL

and MI voters.

[Blaq Dem]

52. It sounds like he has a beef with Iowa

That's a another issue.

[mac2]

56. As does every state not allowed to get special treatment

and media attention by the candidates (such as Michigan).

[dkf]

2. This is all Carl Levin's fault. What an ass.

[harmonicon]

16. now I wish I had voted in the Michigan primary

Just so I could have voted against Levin.

[JNelson6563]

30. Considering your ignorance, we're better off.

The Senatorial primary isn't til August, like all the others except the Presidential. You are officially on the "Clueless Keyboard Commando" list.

Julie--in the trenches shaking head at the high and mighty throwing stones

[harmonicon]

39. excuse me, Genius!!!

I do happen to live in another fucking country!!! A lot of people in my situation don't even bother to vote at all. How about this, next time you want to say something, just tell me nicely. Now maybe I'll see if I can't get an absentee ballot for August. I haven't bothered voting in the little local things when I haven't been living in the state, because I feel like I have to be there to really have a good feel for how the situation effects people in my community. I've moved around a hell of a late in the last 10 years, but am still registered as a Michigan voter and consider the state home. Want to tell my how you're better off for losing a voice in a Democracy?

[Zambero]

3. 42% of Michigan primary voters chose "uncommitted"

Everyone else who voted voted for Hillary. So Hillary can claim the remaining 58% percent of delegates, each weighed at one-half vote, as with Florida. Then Obama's share would be the 42% remainder of 1/2 delegate votes. Carville thinks that a 58-42 split is a fair accomodation, and even though I'm an Obama supporter who believes he would've done far better than 42% if his name had been on the ballot, I agree with him.

[stray cat]

4. That would be generous to the Clinton camp - but is acceptable

[KamaAina]

24. "Everyone else who voted voted for Hillary": not quite.

Kucinich was also on the MI ballot. Move his votes into the Obama column as well.

[cyclezealot]

32. No way. Frig that.

My vote was for and only for Kucinich. Don't you dare steal my vote. It was intended for whom it was intended. What give you the right to say for whom my vote was meant.

[mac2]

45. This is so Orwellian making us believe it makes sense.

[Dr.Phool]

5. Donna Brazile just had a Freudian slip of the tongue.

Responding to Fl. Rep Arthenia Joyner, she said "When we restore, er I mean when we consider restoring Florida's delegates, blah, blah, blah.....

[PATRICK]

6. No word on FL SD's

Yet these are many of the people who disenfranchised there own state with extreme prejudice. They should get 1/4 vote or less. So if a compromise is adopted it will be to grant Hillary an unfair but meaningless advantage but I guess that is what compromise in a situation like this is all about if the rules must be set aside for supposedly higher reasons.

I assume we are hearing a lot of rumors from various sources involved in attacking this meeting from many directions. I wonder if it means at all that a "deal" has been really sealed by all the key elements meeting today. Even honest sources can get a slap down if a diehard shows up who represents a pre-decided carry over to the Convention.

Patience, I guess. The question is how odious the compromise will be or whether the Clinton camp really intends one at all. In any event, the voters of the state have already been cheated out of a clear voice, whether caucus, vote or even a mere convention. The ones who will sneak in with the most voice will be SD's largely responsible for the mess, with unnecessary arrogance and harmful finger pointing(away from themselves).

[LiberalFighter]

9. The unpledged delegates should not be seated or given voting rights in FL or MI.

Especially Florida!

The unpledged delegates were in place before their primary and have some pull with the state party and the legislative body. Some of the unpledged delegates are state party members and even in Congress.

State Party committees meet with state legislative members to discuss tactics and issues regarding legislation. If they don't they are failing to perform their duties.

[Sterling]

35. Who cares what Obama or Hillary think about this?

It is the voters who count. And now they are 1/2 people in our system. Way to go Dems!!!!! Hypocrisy at it's best. Now the Reps actually have a point when they refuse to call us the "Democratic Party" and instead use the idiotic "Democrat Party". I don't think we deserve the last 2 letters any longer.

Neither candidate supported the rights of our fellow voters. Disgusting. Worse we as supporters of these candidates have clearly sacrificed the ideals we are supposed to hold dear in order to get "our person" in office. Sounds like total Bushshit to me.

[mac2]

46. It seems to me the Obama supporters think this is good because he

might win. Forget the ethics or impact on the party in the end. Where is the delegate opinions all around the country on this? Get it decided before the DNC conventions so it won't be discussed or changed?

If there are protest (anti-war, poverty, jobs, NAFTA, etc.) do you suppose they picked Denver on purpose because of it's Police State tactics?

[atjrpsych]

8. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan

I thought that they agreed to a set of standards, and now the rules change because Hillary isn't winning, this is clearly unfair. I like Hillary, but I don't think she is acting ethically on this one.

[minnesota_liberal]

11. Not sure why Obama pulled his name from the ballot in Michigan

It may have made sense at the time, but now it looks like a mistake.

[NashVegas]

19. Obama, Edwards & Richardson (?) All Pulled Their Names

Clinton was expected to win that primary so they did it to a) weaken her victory and b) get goodwill from Iowa.

Later, Obama Superdelegate John Conyers and his wife Monica cut a radio commercial telling people to vote "uncommitted" if they wanted to vote for Obama. Because they cut the spot independently, Obama was not seen as violating the pledge and campaigning.

I wouldn't mind if the DNC does with the Michigan delegates what they did with Florida - give the half-vote and leave the uncommitted delegates to vote as they wish.

[unc70]

12. A couple of questions about what was really going on

I am in NC and supported Edwards. I am coming to the conclusion that this entire election cycle (since 2004) has been played at a level that even surprises me. I am working on a longer article and am curious what DUers think was really going on.

After FL and MI were stripped of all delegates, why did they not move to a legal date? Since Clinton was the biggest loser in this -- MI and FL on Super Tuesday would have changed things a lot -- had this been done Chicago-style, much like Obama's first primary?

Why the push to get candidates to withdraw in Michigan? They could have been left like Florida. Who might have gained from that? Could this have been to remove this risk that Obama might finish third behind Edwards, raising questions about the story after Iowa about Obama and Independents/Reagan Democrats/etc. before the SC primary?

[Blaq Dem]

14. Why wasn't things settled PRIOR to primary elections?

All agreed not to campaign in MI and FL. It was Hillary who said MI and FL counted for nothing. Obama, Edwards and a few others removed their names from the ballot in MI. Now Hillary finds herself losing the primaries, she suddenly want everything counted despite the major flaws. She will not bend.

Once again, things should've been settled long time ago.

And people should've raised hell about it much sooner.

[mac2]

22. They couldn't cause the chaos they now have.

Just making those rules were insane in the first place. Punish voters for voting too early. Ridiculous. If the primary were all on the same day they wouldn't have this discussion.

[Sterling]

36. Bless you, finally some reason here.

You sound like someone with convictions rather than a craven supporter of any one candidate over what is simply a terrible slap in the face to the idea that we all have a say in who leads us.

[brindis_desala]

20. "Could this have been to remove this risk that Obama might finish third behind Edwards"

Nice conspiracy theory you wrote there but it's bunk. The Florida primary was moved up because of the Republican legislature which the Democrats (wrongly) went along with. That was not the case in Michigan.
The reason Obama AND Edwards took their names of the Michigan ballot was because they did not want to offend Iowa. Hillary did not care because she knew was probably coming in third.

[mac2]

23. McCain will won Iowa so why borther?

[Tanketra]

26. You're kidding, right?

Obama consistently polls ahead of McCain there; it neighbors IL; and McCain essentially punted the state during the nomination stage in both 2000 and 2008. Iowa's about the closest thing to a "safe" swing state there is.

[mac2]

40. It's conservative and always has been.

[unc70]

33. As I said, Iowa egos don't seem that fragile

While bunk has a proud NC origin, I will return some to you.

When the names were removed in Michigan, I don't believe anyone knew how it would finish, and I believe that Edwards was more-often polling in third than was Clinton.

The rules already prohibited any campaigning in sanctioned states. The only thing that might have been different with all the names on the ballot would have been the exit polls with the extra breakout by candidate and a somewhat larger turnout. Those exit polls might have started the "hard working white" voter discussion earlier, depending on what they found, or prompted lots of comparisons with the Iowa story.

The more-important question is why were neither FL or MI able to reschedule or otherwise regain compliance and thus their delegates. I understand the involvement of the Republicans. But why did attempts at Dem-only solutions fail? Since Clinton seemed ahead in each state, did supporters of Obama help scuttle attempts to change the situation? This exactly the type things done in most of Obama's races, his first being the most dramatic. If you opponent has been put at a disadvantage, why help them get out of the situation?

[brindis_desala]

38. Do your own research. This has been discussed at length on DU.

[fed_up_mother]

27. As the lesser known candidate without a chance to campaign vigorously

it surely would not have been surprising for Obama to come in third.

The fact is that if a candidate is going to run for office, he should have a chance to campaign, otherwise the entire election is a sham. Instead, you should be asking why is Hillary seeking these votes when she initially agreed that they wouldn't count?

[brooklynite]

13. UPDATE - Michigan Deal On The Table

.....Moreover, the impasse over what to do about Michigan's delegation may be approaching resolution.

Sources with knowledge of the RBC's inner dealings say a compromise is being crafted in which all of the candidates who took their names off of the state's ballot would voluntarily agree that the now-uncommitted delegates would go to Obama, after which the state's entire delegation would be seated.

The proposal, which two sources confirm has been discussed, would stand the greatest chance of passing: it would pacify Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who has demanded that his state's non-sanctioned January primary be fully honored; and it would circumvent the Clinton campaign's insistence that party rules prevent simply assigning all of Michigan's uncommitted delegates to Obama.

In addition to Obama, Sen. Joseph Biden, former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson all removed their names from the Michigan ballot. The Clinton campaign has contended that it would be against party rules to simply determine that all "uncommitted" voters were backing Obama. The floated compromise would resolve that dispute.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/sources-dnc-florida-compr_n_104456.html

[fed_up_mother]

28. Oh! That's sounding hopeful, and here they come on C-Span.

[mac2]

47. What about the polls before the primary?

Which candidate did what % in Michigan?

[primavera]

51. How can we possibly know the voters' intent...

... when Hillary's was the only name on the ballot? As much as I feel for Michigan voters, I don't see any way that their intent can be reliably assessed at this point. I mean, who can know what the outcome would have been had Obama and Edwards campaigned there and their names been included on the ballot? At thisd point, all we can do is speculate, based upon early poll results, but who's to say that, under different circumstances, maybe Edwards could have given a really energizing speech, had he campaigned in Michigan, that would have really resonated with Michigan voters, and he might have won the primary. Or maybe Obama, who knows? No one can know what might have been. So how can we pretend after the fact that we have some crystal ball that allows us to know what Michigan voters would have wanted in an open contest between the candidates? If there's no way of knowing that, how can we claim that we're being faithful to our democratic principles by carving up Michigan delegates and assigning them to anyone's camp?

[Politicalboi]

15. This is a disgrace

They ALL agreed that Fl and Mi wouldn't count. Change the rules so the Queen B can get what she wants.

[sellitman]

25. Now she claims popular vote and takes it to the Convention

The amount of delegates to win goes up and she gets her Super Delagate argument.

Scorched earth. Just you watch.

Holy shit.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Its fine and its now over.

"Sen. Hillary Clinton would gain a net of approximately 28 delegates - not enough to seriously threaten Obama's national delegate advantage."

So the 'votes' are counted and Clinton has still lost. The last primaries wrap up this coming week and Obama will be the presumptive nominee and there will be nothing at all left for the Clinton Campaign to complain about.

[fascisthunter]

18. The Sooner the Better

[Hulk]

21. She'll be holding her breath for her "assassination card".

[ohio2007]

29. So this time the votes will count? or will a recount be needed ? You can count on it

Deja Vu

[HuffleClaw]

31. 'half a vote' ?

what did that pig say? 'some are more equal than others'? in this case it should be 'some are less equal than others', by half.

[Sterling]

37. Yes, very Animal Farm

this feels more like the kind of shit that went on in the old USSR when they chose new leaders.

[mac2]

44. Nope its very much Empire.

The elite make the rules and chose the winner.

[HuffleClaw]

49. i just heard three other states (other than FL and MI) broke the same rule but were NOT punished

the three states in question are:

Iowa Obama delegates: 27 Hillary Delegates:14
New Hampshire: Obama delegates: 12 Hillary Delegates: 9
South Carolina: Obama delegates: 31 Hillary Delegates:12

see a pattern?


is this true? i'd not heard of it before.

[mac2]

54. All the small states who are allowed to vote before the

big liberal ones broke the rule of a fair and equal campaign. That voting "timely rule" stinks to high corruption and manipulation by unelected party hacks. Dean even appointed the committees.

[mac2]

57. McCain will win those states anyway

They are all Conservative states.

[mac2]

63. From Bartcop

Subject: Florida and Michigan not only early primaries

"It wasn't just Florida and Michigan who had early primaries and violated DNC rules.
Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also had primaries earlier than DNC rule 11 allowed.

However the Democratic Party decided only to enforce the rules against 2 of the 5 states
that violated them. So why is it that the Democratic Party can arbitrarily punish 2 states
and decide to let 3 other states ignore the rule? I think the Democrats are manipulating
the outcome of the election and that they are not thinking about wining the general election
where Florida and Michigan do count.

Marc Perkel
San Bruno, CA."

Me too Marc.

[mac2]

43. Liberal Democrats in FL and MI only get half their

representation and even some given to Obama (because he didn't run which is his fault not the voters). It was already decided to turn out this way.

Forget being able to vote along with those in the Conservative and small states. Stay back until the little conservatives chose is the message...everyone else drop out before Super Tuesday. You say Republicans planned this and Democrat at the DNC went along? Sounds like a coup to me.

[Sterling]

34. This is a disaster

The party only has itself to thank for this. I feel betrayed on the most basic level. How dare we ever complain about stolen elections and what happened in Florida in 2k when we see fit to turn our fellow voters into 1/2 people. I do not care who gets the nom, we failed, period. I don't see how this party will recover from this. I am not sure we deserve to honestly.

[mac2]

42. I agree.

Every election since 2000 has been some type of party disaster making us lose. We lost when the country wanted us to win by a large marjority. They wanted Progressives but the DLC stole the mandate and the message. They ignored it.

People in Canada asked my spouce how could Bush win any election after what happened under his father? I would say to them next time, it was stolen and manuvered so he would ruin our democracy and go to war.

This Democratic Convention 2008 will go down as was stolen before it happened. The elite stole it for their own. Committee members chosen by Dean and ruled as he wanted. What delegates and their votes? Only Super Delegates count and back room party leaders.

No we can't justify being critical of Republicans. If the ballot said, "none of the candidates listed" it would win. Go back and chose another.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[primavera]

53. So there should be no consequences for breaking the rules?

Agreed, voters' right to be heard should be inviolable, but this business of states continuously trying to one-up the early primary states by pushing their primaries up isn't exactly consistent with democracy either. If left to their own devices, some states would be having their primaries for the 2012 election already, just to steal the limelight from Iowa. This primary season has already dragged on far too long and cost far too much; just imagine what it would be like if state Democratic parties were able to constantly push their primaries farther and farther forward in childish attempts to obtain slight advantages over each other. And that's really what this squabbling is all about. Early primary state voters get the lion's share of the campaigning and press attention and hold decidedly undemocratic, disproportionate influence over which candidate will be selected. It's not fair, but unless every state agrees to hold its primary on the same day (which, imho, would be the only truly fair solution), someone has to go first. Other states envy the undemocratic advantage of early primary states and want it for themselves so try to beat the early primary states to the punch. If there are no rules to prevent them from doing so, next campaign season, it will be a different group of states trying to get their primaries in earlier, and there will be another hew and cry about how they're being unfair, there won't be any end to it. And what point is there in establishing rules governing these things if states are free to break them with impunity? There has to be some penalty to breaking the rules, or they're meaningless.

I feel badly for Florida and Michigan voters, but should there have been no response to their state parties knowingly violating party rules?

[mac2]

55. The DNC rules are not fair and equal for all the states.

Did they ask us about them? Nope. How about the rule to let everyone go ahead of you no matter where you go? It's a "rule" not fair but a rule.

Do you think the delegates in all the states at the convention would have approved?

Is it in the Constitution that small states should go first and decide who the candidates should be before Super Tuesday? I smell a back room filled with elite party members (many not even elected to public office NOW).

[primavera]

59. No argument there

Personally, I think we need to do a serious overhaul of our whole electoral system, as it contains a HOST of seriously undemocratic elements, not least of which being the electoral college system, which, as near as I can tell, exists for no other purpose than to grant vastly disproportionate influence to residents of smaller states at the expense of voters from more populous states. Fuck, I read somewhere that the vote of a resident of Rhode Island, for instance, count as much as the votes of SEVEN California voters. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insensitive to Rhode Islanders, but democracy needs to mean one person, one vote - not one person, seven votes.

All that readily conceded, I still don't think the solution to the problem is for states to unilaterally decide to just disregard the existing rules. The rules are unfair, so states need to put their heads together and change them in ways that make them more fair. Selectively chucking them so that they can individually secure unfair advantages for themselves at the expense of other states isn't the solution.

[mac2]

64. See post #63.

[Jack_DeLeon]

50. Pretty sad that it wasnt this way in the first place...

IMO the republicans actually did this right in their primaries they made those two states count for half of what they normally do.

[kestrel91316]

58. BOTH sides agreed to this compromise. So I really don't wanna hear any bitching from

either side. It's done. Over. The FL/MI decision has been made.

On to the last primaries, and then let's wrap up those last superdelegates, and come up with a final count to see who our nominee is. And I don't want to hear any crap about how the delegate count shouldn't be what determines the nominee and that only the popular vote matters. That's just as nonsensical as the BS about the popular vote in the general election.

We have a procedure in place to determine our nominee. We have rules and committees in case of any dispute. I don't have any problem with letting the process proceed, and let the chips fall where they may.

[primavera]

60. Yeah, but it highlights a systemic problem

I agree this was a mutual compromise and, in terms of the upcoming campaign, both sides need to get over it and move on. But I do think it's worth bookmarking this experience and re-visiting it when time permits. Because this definitely didn't go very well, and the voters of these states have been reduced to poker chips to be exchanged between party officials in negotiation, without regard for what the intent of those voters may have been. That bleak outcome ought to be a wake-up call, because it's a pretty serious fuck-up in a country that claims to be democratic.

[mac2]

61. Ya...and Dean picked the committee.

[kestrel91316]

62. Unless Dean did so in violation of some rule, I REALLY don't wanna hear

about it.

Don't like the rules of how the Dem Party does its business? Work within the system to change the rules.

[mac2]

65. Work within the system?

The system is a party in a democracy where the people rule not the few selected committee members.

See post #63. Seems some are to obey the "rules of the system" and others are not.