Did the April 19 District Caucuses Just Become a Clusterf*@k Too?

Bigger Mess (4.00 / 1)

Looks like an even bigger mess than we thought possible. No wonder people have been having to figure out on their own who the elected delegates are. The state party still hasn't released them. And if the results of the Jan. 15th allocation are up in the air...Dear Lord...

---

by: rich @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 20:57:16 PM UTC

I think (4.00 / 2)

That's why they didn't release them, because they knew there might be a redo.

---

by: emptywheel @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 21:03:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The DNC will stick with the Janury 15th results (2.00 / 3)

The election was certified, and there is no longer a way to re-do the vote (thanks, Barack!)

As for the allocation, I think its silly.  We all know that nearly all the uncommitted delegates selected in April were for Obama.  The real issue actually is that the January 15th uncommitted voters may have been voting for Edwards, Biden, or Richardson and, because they didn't show up at the County Conventions, their candidate preference will never be heard at the Convention.  I think its only fair that Obama's political decision cost him 100% of the uncommitted delegates, especially because not all the uncommitted votes were actually for him.

At the same time, I don't think its smart for the DNC to allow right-of-review if it requires a re-do of April's conventions, because the delegates that were elected shouldn't be told "Well, now you have to do run again."  Maybe the candidates can look over the list of people who were selected and knock them off and only re-do some of the votes, but as far as I know, the volunteers who were elected for Uncommitted in my Congressional District were hardcore Obama fans, and I'd hate to see them pushed out of the Convention in favor of a wealthy donor from East Grand Rapids.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 22:01:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They were Congressional District Conventions, (3.40 / 5)

not County Conventions Xavier. And if I understand you correctly to say that it's only fair that Obama get no uncommitted delegates

I think its only fair that Obama's political decision cost him 100% of the uncommitted delegates,

well, that is the most asinine comment I've ever read.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 23:07:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Silly, or the Stupidity of Desperation (4.00 / 1)

From this:

That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news. And it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of bigoted treatment. (Obama has even been subjected to anti-Muslim bigotry despite the fact that he's not Muslim.) But somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton's prospects but with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.

Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two delegations with African Americans' struggle for suffrage in the Jim Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.

Somehow, I doubt that the activists opposing Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe would appreciate this equation.

---

by: rich @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question. (4.00 / 1)

"It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in. You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds."(Democratic Debate in Philadelphia.  Clinton brings Farrakhan and Hamas into the discussion, unprompted by the mediators.  4/16/08: nytimes.com)

"...that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."  (5/7/08: Associated Press interview)

"I have repented," Clinton said. "I must have God's help to be the person that I want to be..."  (Bill Clinton repenting in front of a White House room full of ministers, including Reverend Wright.  9/11/98: CNN.com

Yet:

"...he would not have been my pastor," (Hillary Clinton news conference in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. 3/25/08: CNN.com)

Does Hillary really still speak for you?

---

by: robertburns3 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The materials (4.00 / 1)

Here's the link, thanks to Eric.

---

by: emptywheel @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 21:02:22 PM UTC

There's good news for you (2.00 / 3)

If they have to re-do the County Conventions, maybe the Obama campaign will do what they did in California and purge the list of anti-war activists and liberal bloggers, leaving large donors and bundlers to take the slots.

They reversed their decision, but it still happened.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 21:53:02 PM UTC

You've just become (3.00 / 4)

a cartoon character at this point...

But it is good for a giggle.

Almost as good as "old man shouts at cloud."

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 21:55:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It grows tiresome (3.57 / 7)

How you take every opportunity to play the primary-shit-flinging-monkey.  Disappointing.

You really need to learn to let go.  You are letting this primary define you.  When it's over where does that leave you?  Nowhere.  

Diversify my friend.

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 22:03:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My two cents... (4.00 / 4)

Since the rules originally said the states who went early would lose half their delegates, not all, I would recommend that the Michigan delegates selected at the April conventions and the Michigan superdelegates be seated at the Denver convention, but with each one getting a one-half vote.  But since that makes sense (at least to me) I doubt they'll do that.

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 22:34:51 PM UTC

I am adopting your principle from now on, (4.00 / 2)

at least for the time it takes for this fiasco to finish playing out - if it involves the Michigan primary, and if it makes sense, it won't happen!

---

by: memiller @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:39:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wonder how they will decide which delegates get the axe ... a lottery perhaps? (1.00 / 2)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed May 28, 2008 at 23:39:21 PM UTC

Screw it. At this point, I say they should just... (4.00 / 3)

...go ahead and use the Jan. 15 results, at half a delegate each (including the SD's), and call it a day.

Florida:

Clinton: 105 Pledged + 8 declared SD's = 113 x 0.5 = 56.5 total delegates
Obama: 67 Pledged + 5 declared SD's = 72 x 0.5 = 36  total delegates
Edwards: 13 Pledged x 0.5 = 6.5 total delegates

...plus another (12 x 0.5) = 6 undeclared SDs

Michigan:

Clinton: 73 Pledged + 7 declared SDs = 80 x 0.5 = 40 total delegates
Obama: (at least) 22 declared Pledged + 5 declared SDs = 27 x 0.5 = 13.5 total delegates

...plus another (33 x 0.5) = 16.5 "unknown" uncommitteds + (15 x 0.5) = 7.5 undeclared SDs.

Best-case Scenario for Obama (not counting undeclared SDs):

Hillary adds 56.5 FL + 40 MI = 96.5
Obama adds 36 FL + 30 MI = 66

..which would mean Hillary would gain a net of 30.5 delegates, plus however the 13.5 undeclared SDs voted.

Best-case Scenario for Hillary (not counting undeclared SDs):

Hillary adds 56.5 FL + 56.5 MI = 113
Obama adds 36 FL + 13.5 MI = 49.5

...which woudl mean Hillary would gain a net of 63.5 delegates, plus however the 13.5 undeclared SDs voted.

Since Obama currently has precisely a 200 delegate lead, neither extreme would make any difference--he'd still be ahead by about 140-170 delegates.

Hell, even if all 13.5 of those unknown SD's broke Hillary's way, he'd still be ahead by a minimum of 127.

Finally, even if, in some bizzare alternate dimension, they decided to seat BOTH Michigan AND Florida as is, WITHOUT cutting the delegates in half, Obama would STILL be ahead by about 50-70 delegates. It'd be slim, it'd be bullsh*t, but it'd still be a win.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:00:03 AM UTC

Why do you usually make so much sense? (4.00 / 3)

Let's just get this over with already.  According to the DNC's lawyers, they can't restore more than 50%.  If they can accomplish that by seating everyone but giving them all a half vote, I'm all for it.  I just don't want this to drag on to August as Hillary seems to be threatening to do.  If she appeals, it goes to the Credentials Committee, which doesn't meet until the convention, from what I understand.  We can't afford to let this drag out that long.

---

by: SharonRB @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:15:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't you find Brewer's recitation of the "facts" (4.00 / 6)

rather odd?  In general, it's astoundlingly selective, but more to the point he's more than a little incomplete, especially where he states:

Barack Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the primary ballot.  His and John Edwards['] supporters organized efforts to cast votes for Uncommitted status which received 40% of the votes cast[,] making it eligible for 55 pledged delegates to the National Convention.

But, back on December 12, 2007, the MDP sent out its official voters guide, wherein the Party itself "encouraged" Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson voters to vote for Uncommitted status.  The guide stated:

9. Supporters of Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are urged to vote "uncommitted" instead of writing in their candidates' names because write-invotes for those candidates will not be counted under state law.  [Emphasis in original.]

Source (pdf)

There was a reason why Obama's and every other candidates supporters were encouraged by both the campaigns and the MDP to vote Uncommitted, and that was because the MDP also included a line for write-in candidates that no cadidates applied for, but which many people thought they needed to use in order to vote for a candidate who complied with DNC rules and removed himself from participationin the Michigan primary.

Brewer is being more than a little disingenuous with the facts here.  

---

by: Mike in MI @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:32:31 AM UTC

Oh, and there was also a YouTube announcement: (4.00 / 4)

The relevant statements begin at 1:36 of the video:

Brewer:Now, on the Democratic side of the ballot, there will be only four candidates listed, plus another couple of options.  The candidates who will be on the ballot will be Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich.  The other four candidates were originally listed.  I put them on the ballot under Michigan law, but they decided to pull their names off the ballot.  So you will not find any of those candidates names on the ballot.  

For the supporters of Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, I recommend you vote "Uncommitted."  If you vote "Uncommitted," and "Uncommitted" receives sufficient votes, delegates will be sent to the National Convention who will be free to vote for whatever candidate they like, including one of those four.  So I think that if you're a supporter of one of those candidates, your best option is to vote "Uncommitted."

We strongly encourage people not to use the write-in option, as tempting as that may be.  Under Michigan law, a candidate has to consent to be awrite-in candidate or else their write-in votes don't count.  And so writing in one of those four candidates, or any other candidate, I believe, will cost you your vote, and will likely not be counted.  So please avoid using the write-in option.  If your candidate's not on the ballot, I strongly urge you to vote uncommitted.

This was also sent to party members via email.  

---

by: Mike in MI @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:56:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The MDP didn't include the line for a "Write-In" ... the blank line is required by the SOS. Check the facts before you start spreading yet another conspiracy theory. (1.00 / 1)

The ballots go to print long before the deadline to submit oneself as a "write-in" candidate ... no one knows if the line will be needed or not.  It is there just-in-case.

---

by: Cole6015 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (4.00 / 4)

The deadline for signing up as a write-in is the 2nd Friday before the election, which is too late to change the printed ballots.

Unlike most election officials, I despise this law.  Voters should have the right to vote for whomever they want.  Write-in votes should not be disregarded over paperwork deadlines.

Unfortunately, since at least one state (Hawaii) doesn't allow write-in votes at all, apparently it's okay with the U.S. Constitution not to let voters select people who aren't on the ballot.

---

by: Kestenbaum @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:49:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Local clerks do not like to count write-in ballots ... that is the reason a candidate has to file as a write-in in advance ... so the clerks can skip all other write-in ballots. (1.00 / 1)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:35:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I very much appreciate your posting here (4.00 / 2)

and giving us insight into how clerks, or at least a sample of one, thinks about these things.

Could you elaborate on why you despise this law - i.e. do you think it would make any practical difference if election boards were required to examine ALL ballots to tabulate possible write-ins? As I understand it, this is more or less a compromise between the ability of candidates to run after having failed to secure ballot access, and efficiency in counting the vote. IMHO, it is not onerous to declare 2nd Friday previous, and no one would actually get elected through a completely unorganized write-in process, anyway.

---

by: memiller @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 13:29:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure (4.00 / 2)

It's not onerous if you've got a well-organized write-in effort going ten days before the election.  But that isn't always the way it works.

Let's say the leading candidate dies a week before the election.  Or he/she does something which alienates a tremendous number of voters.  Under the 2nd-Friday rule, voters would have no recourse whatsoever, since all write-ins would be disregarded.

Remember Byron Low Tax Looper, a 1998 Republican candidate for Tennessee state senate?  He shot and killed his opponent (Democratic incumbent Tommy Burks).  Fortunately, (1) Looper was quickly identified as the shooter (presumably that wasn't part of his plan), and (2) Burks' widow, Charlotte, won the seat on write-in votes.  That wouldn't have been possible in Michigan, if it occurred within 10 days of the election.

And votes for a write-in can be significant and send important political messages even if the write-in isn't elected.  We provide ballot access for minor parties even though there is almost no chance any of them will ever win an election.

In any case, optical scan tabulators automatically segregate ballots with write-in votes into a separate bin, so it is NOT necessary to examine every single ballot for write-in votes.

---

by: Kestenbaum @ Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:17:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It doesn't change the fact that Mark Brewer himself (3.33 / 6)

was advising people to vote uncommitted if your candidate's name wasn't on the ballot, because write-ins wouldn't be counted.

Aside from the youtube videos of him saying this and the MDP voting guide advising this, I know for an absolute fact that he advised at least 11 county Democratic Party executive committees to advise the Democratic voters of their counties to vote this way, because I was sitting in the same room when he did it at a training for the 2nd Congressional district.

That was the first time I ever heard anyone advise people to vote uncommitted if their candidate of choice wasn't on the ballot and I heard it straight from Mark Brewer's mouth.  

I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. Charles De Gaulle (1890 - 1970)

---

by: LisainManistee @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brewer tried to have every voter participate on Jan 15th and encouraged using "uncommitted" if a voter supported a candidate who had removed their name from the ballot. (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, too many listened to wrong information.  Obama's campaign tried to GOTV and that helped, but in the long run no one bothered to check with the MDP to get the facts.

---

by: Cole6015 @ Thu May 29, 2008 at 21:09:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]