Michigan Dems to discuss delegation

The formal resolution of the Michigan situation (4.00 / 1)

must come from the Rules and Bylaws Committee. My understanding is that the 30 members of the RBC are about evenly split between Obama and Clinton, with a small group of uncommitted DNC members, presumably loyal to Dean, holding the tie-breaking power.

So any agreement between the campaigns on a split would obviously be agreed to by the RBC, but if one side were seen as obstructing a compromise, the uncommitted members of the committee could side with the other faction to seat the delegation.

I don't have a list of the RBC, or the time to research this to see if I can validate this view of things. A complication is that Brewer is one of the uncommitted DNC members on the RBC, but he also has a livelier interest than the rest in seeing that the issue is resolved.

Hard as it is to find myself agreeing with Dingle and Levin on anything having to do with the Michigan Debacle, this proposed split seems fair.

The other thing is this - let's say enough supers come over to give Obama a majority - under the current number of delegates - before May 31. Then he would be the presumptive nominee. But unless he STILL would have a majority with Michigan and Florida back in, with the denominator increased, he can hardly be expected to agree to a split that would undo his lock on the nomination. Then it would be possible that he could have an (slight) absolute majority, then a vote by the RBC, with Brewer and other DNC members joining the Clinton contingent, could throw it back into an undecided state!

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'nominee' when you say "...our delegation will be seated by the Democratic nominee,...". If you mean that Obama will pause at the beginning of his acceptance speech and say, "OK, all you pariahs can come into the Pepsi Center now", I guess that would fall under the heading of a very minor consolation.

---

by: memiller @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 17:22:34 PM UTC

Message to Clinton campaign about "disenfranchised" Michigan voters. (4.00 / 2)

I was disenfranchised when the Legislature and the Michigan party leaders, mostly Hillary supporters if I'm not mistaken, decided to defy the national party and hold their primary when they did.  I was disenfranchised when Hillary put her name on the ballot anyway, and all I got to vote for was "uncommitted."  And I will be disenfranchised some more if her brilliant notion that she "won" the "popular vote" here and the delegation should be seated accordingly actually comes to pass.

This state, despite itself, has a history of bucking the party leaders' coronation exercises.  Jesse won here in '88, and I don't believe the anointed candidates have won the primaries here the past couple of times (did Michigan lean toward Dean?)

Certainly on the other side of the coin, this state's Republican party has never backed GW when it had a choice.

Nope, sorry Senator Clinton, but I'm already disenfranchised for this season.  I feel like I got set up and mugged.  Don't cry for me, however, just get out of the race and concentrate on bringing along all your racist supporters you claim make you "more electable" (code words if I ever heard any).

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 22:29:21 PM UTC