Alternate delegates

by: TheKat

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 16:43:25 PM EDT

Jack Ebling Talks Politics

by: Jack Ebling

Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM EDT

The MI/FL Delegate issue has been resolved.

by: Brainwrap

Fri May 23, 2008 at 18:19:55 PM EDT

It;s over. Hillary just crossed a line--intentionally or not--that goes way, way beyond anything resembling acceptable behavior.

She just invoked Robert Kennedy's assassination in 1968 as one of the main justifications for her not dropping out.

If she chose her words deliberately, it was unforgivable.

If she chose her words in error, it was a gaffe of gargantuan proportions.

Either way, I don't think we need to worry about what's gonna happen on the 31st, because I think Hillary Clinton just ended her Presidential--*or* VICE-Presidential--ambitions forever today.

Clinton rejects delegate compromise

by: William Allen Simpson

Thu May 08, 2008 at 15:36:04 PM EDT

Camp Hillary is rejecting the new plan floated today by Michigan Dems that would seat the delegation by awarding 69 delegates to Hillary and 59 to Obama.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk...

That was one of the Challenge result options in our proposal, too, although with no superdelegates.

But without the agreement, we're going for full Rules requirements, which would be based on the actual April 19th delegate attendance.  Since Uncommitted showed up 2:1 (as much as 6:1 in some places), the Clinton delegates must be decreased -- not increased.

Delegate appeal news

by: memiller

Thu May 08, 2008 at 13:30:06 PM EDT

At its meeting on Wednesday night, May 8, the Executive Committee (of the MDP) made these decisions:

1. To file an appeal with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee proposing that all 157 automatic and pledged Michigan delegates be seated with a full vote and that the 128 pledged delegates be allocated 69 for Clinton and 59 for Obama. Joel Ferguson will join the appeal and withdraw his own appeal.

2. To reschedule the May 17 State Central meeting to June 14 to allow time for the delegate dispute to be resolved.

Thank you for your continued patience and support.

Mark Brewer

My comments - At least the Ferguson idea is dead. Here is what I wrote in a comment to a diary on dkos this morning:

I am an elected Michigan delegate (6th CD, male Uncommitted), and I have to say that Michigan Democrats are still divided about this issue. Many (like myself and Martha) fought the MDP over this. I told Mark Brewer to his face last October that this would be a disaster. I continued to oppose it, and to support a re-do, until last month, when it became clear that would not happen under any circumstances.

However, there are many other Michigan voters who think the results are fine, and mainly blame Obama et al. for pulling out. This is simply a reality, and until we have a resolution, it will continue to sap our energy. I've been out canvassing, doing voter ID in my neighborhood, and I hear about this issue again and again, when I'm trying to change the subject to the issues for the fall campaign.

So, Martha, I AM hearing how Michigan voters feel. And it's all mixed up, and we need to put this behind us. If that takes a compromise that is less than ideal from any point of view, so be it.

Below, I list the members of the RBC, along with what I have been able to find out about whether they support [O]bama or [C]linton. This may give us some idea of how the vote might go down at their meeting on May 31:

Clinton co-chair Ferguson challenges DNC over Michigan

by: William Allen Simpson

Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:00:06 PM EDT

Under DNC member Joel Ferguson's proposal, Michigan would send its 28 unpledged superdelegates and 128 pledged delegates to Denver despite being stripped of delegates for holding its primary too early. Florida was similarly punished for its early primary.

Ferguson said it would be fair punishment to give each pledged delegate only half a vote for breaking DNC rules. He said superdelegates - of which he is one - should get a full vote.

About the delegate selection process

by: William Allen Simpson

Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 23:53:08 PM EDT

The national party requires that delegates are selected in phases, for as much diversity as possible.  These are specified in the rules, located at:

http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/
http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/DelegateSelectionRules.pdf

"The Call for the 2008 Convention shall state the base delegation for each delegation. Seventy-five percent (75%) of each state's base delegation shall be elected at the congressional district level or smaller. Twenty-five percent (25%) of each state's base delegation shall be elected at large."
     [Rule 8.C for those of you reading along.]

"In those states with more than one congressional district, after the election of district-level delegates and prior to the selection of at-large delegates, each State Democratic Chair shall certify pledged party leader and elected official delegates equal to 15% of the state's base delegation selected pursuant to Rule 9."
     [Rule 8.D]

1) District-level delegates, that we are selecting April 19th.  This is for the worker bees, the base of the party.

Traditionally, it is considered nasty (not to mention evil) for a higher level delegate to run for district-level.  For example, as a former Member of Congress, the Honorable Dave Bonior could easily win a district-level seat.  He was the Edwards national campaign manager.  But that would disenfranchise any up-and-coming local members.

Likewise, it would be very poor behavior for a (self-selected) state-wide Obama organizer to disenfranchise a local worker.  Like a Cheney recruiting potential VPs, but then selecting himself.  Don't be a Dick.

2) At-large delegates.  Generally better known regional, union, or organization leaders.

"Following the selection of district-level delegates, and prior to the selection of pledged party leader and elected official delegates...."
     [Rule 9.B]

Many folks list themselves for both levels, so that district-level candidates that miss out have a chance to serve at-large.  But that doesn't happen very often.

3) PLEO = "party leader and elected official"

"Following the selection of unpledged add-on delegates under 9.B., pledged party leader and elected official delegates ...."
     [Rule 9.C]

As you can see from the lists, this a rarefied group.

4) superdelegates. [Rule 9.A]

Uncommitted delegate candidates

by: William Allen Simpson

Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 18:37:21 PM EDT

Second try.

Clinton delegate candidates

by: William Allen Simpson

Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 18:29:36 PM EDT

Second try.

AP: Saturday "could get raucus"

by: XavierLA

Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 19:05:09 PM EDT

I thought this was a pretty entertaining part of this afternoon's Associated Press story on this Saturday's congressional district meetings:

The 15 congressional district meetings could get raucous. Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and two other candidates pulled their names from the ballot, forcing their supporters to vote for Uncommitted.

About 450 people have registered to run for the 36 delegate and 2 alternate spots set aside for those who backed Uncommitted. Brewer says the vast majority are Obama supporters, but he expects the competition to win a spot will be intense.

"People feel very passionately about their candidates, and I expect we're going to see a lot of passionate campaigns on Saturday," he said.

About 450 people also applied to run for 47 delegate and 13 alternate spots that will go to Clinton supporters, but the Clinton campaign has reduced the list to around 150 people, Brewer said.

About 21,000 party members are eligible to vote at Saturday's district conventions.

Its especially encouraging for me, a Hillary Clinton supporter, to see that, despite not having any formal organization in the state (like Michiganders for Obama), there was a fairly equal number of applicants for spots for "Uncommitted" and Hillary Clinton.

I can't help but to assume that the Obama campaign will benefit from its geographical closeness this Saturday.  From what I hear from my Obama-supporting friends in Grand Rapids, the competition could be described as "intense."

I know in California, the Obama campaign slashed over half of his delegates to the congressional district conventions, until public pressure (and a fierce reaction from the netroots) caused Axelrod & Plouffe to reverse their decision at the last minute.  There was a lot of speculation about whether the Obama campaign made a coordinated effort to eliminate anti-war activists and members of the netroots as a way of controlling the tone of the meetings.  But others have contended that it was less of an effort to cut bloggers and hardcore activists, and more of a way for the Obama campaign to ensure that its big donors were rewarded with a spot at the convention.

We'll see how this Saturday turns out, any predictions?

I know that I plan to be watching this all unfold at Creston High School in Grand Rapids. 

MDP keeps secret delegate lists

by: William Allen Simpson

Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18:42 PM EDT

MDP Executive Committee Concludes a Party-Run Primary or Caucus Not Practical

by: William Allen Simpson

Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 15:28:24 PM EDT

http://michigandems.com/

LANSING--The Executive Committee of the Michigan Democratic Party issued the following statement today:

The Michigan Democratic Party has carefully reviewed several proposals for a Party-run primary or caucus as a means of resolving the dispute over the seating of the Michigan delegation to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus. We will continue to work with the Working Group, the DNC and the candidates to resolve this matter in a manner which is respectful of the views of Democrats in Michigan, and which is fair to those who voted in the January 15th Democratic primary.

The DNC Delegate Map

by: rich

Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:15:48 PM EDT

Courtesy of the DNC Convention web site, here's the Delegate Map for the Democrats. If you click on a state, it tells you how many total delegates that state has, and how many are pledged and unpledged.

Here's what happens when you click on Michigan.

That is all. 

A Less Modest Proposal for seating Michigan Delegates

by: William Allen Simpson

Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:13:27 PM EDT

Having taken some time today to actually peruse the "2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention" [http://tinyurl.com/2ap8ux], it appears that the rule makers had already prepared for the enventuality of "Violation of timing".

The penalty was specified at 20.C.1.a:

... the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent.

My (and others) proposals were anticipated:

... In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation....

Moreover, there's a penalty clause that applies specifically to the Clinton campaign at 20.C.1.b:

A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.

Therefore, to have any delegates seated at all, we must reallocate our CD convention delegates to be 1/2 of those normally allocated, none are "unpledged", and none are "Clinton".  Those are the written requirements to conform to the existing national rules, as of August 19, 2006.

We could easily select those delegates at the (now) April 19th conventions.

Michigan delegates selected on March 29th could provide extra Clinton support

by: William Allen Simpson

Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:02:15 AM EDT

Key DNC official says it's up to Florida and Michigan

by: William Allen Simpson

Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 22:07:59 PM EDT

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/key_dnc_officia.html

Unless Florida and Michigan Democrats devise workable plans to redo their outlaw primaries, there is no chance the national party will cave in to pressure and approve their delegates if it could tip the outcome of the Democratic presidential race, a potential key arbiter of the dispute said today.

...

In the interview, Roosevelt also said national party officials are resolved to maintain an orderly nominating process. That could be jeopardized if the party backs down against the two scofflaw states.

"If there is simply a caving on this, we'll end up with primaries on Halloween and so that does at least counter some of the purely political campaign influences here," said Roosevelt, who is also CEO of the Tufts Health Plan of Massachusetts.

A Modest Proposal for seating Michigan Delegates

by: William Allen Simpson

Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 22:14:37 PM EDT

    At the upcoming County/Congressional District conventions, allow the delegates to (re-)organize themselves.  Make them all officially uncommitted.   Those delegates could be seated at the national convention, and trusted to vote their conscience.

    However, no superdelegates from Michigan should be seated, nor should they be permitted to attend the national convention in any capacity.  They should not be allowed to be county/state uncommitted delegates.  They are the folks that are responsible for flouting the party rules.  Penalize them, not the general populace of the State of Michigan.

FL/MI Primary debacle is beyond Obama and Clinton.

by: mrbeck

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 00:06:44 AM EDT

Can anyone look at what's going on with this MI/FL vs DNC debacle BEYOND how the outcome will favor/disadvantage their candidate of choice for a moment?

A look inside politics of Credentials Committee.

by: detroit tiger

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EDT

I thought I'd post this article in case any of you missed it. It was posted at Real Clear Politics. It basically makes the case that Obama is better off NOT agreeing to any sort of re-do.

March 10, 2008

Michigan, Florida Options Shrinking

Democrats, faced with two candidates nearly three-quarters of the way to the magic number required to secure their party's presidential nomination, face what can be described as a nightmare scenario. Better positioned for victory in November than any party since 1984, Democrats are close to throwing that advantage away, and options for salvaging a unified party by the late August convention are dwindling.

Florida and Michigan, both states who jumped ahead of the party's pre-approved window in which they were allowed to hold nominating contests, are now casting about for a way to have their delegates seated in Denver this summer. That's not the way their gambit was supposed to go.

When both states' legislators moved their contests to January 15, in Michigan, and January 29, in Florida, they thought they knew exactly what they were doing: While the DNC might strip them of delegates, the eventual nominee would instruct credentials committee members to allow the two states' slates to sit n the convention floor. But that plan did not factor in the possibility of a contested convention.

Now, based on delegate allocation, it looks almost certain that votes to seat the delegations in their current iterations - both overwhelmingly favoring Hillary Clinton - will not exist. Examining the 186 members of the DNC's Credentials Committee, which would decide any contested delegations, the deck is heavily stacked against both states.

Of the twenty eight members DNC chair Howard Dean appointed, five have already voted to strip the states' delegates. Committee chairs Alexis Herman and Jim Roosevelt, along with members Ralph Dawson, Tina Flournoy and Janice Griffin, all served on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which decided the punishments for non-compliant states. The remaining twenty three members will likely follow suit and vote to uphold the rules.

Based on results so far, it appears that Barack Obama's team will control at least 68 seats on the credentials committee, after an estimate that is, if anything, generous to Clinton. Clinton's wins have netted her 55 seats, while states that have yet to hold contests -- Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennyslvania, South Dakota, West Virginia and Puerto Rico - have yet to allocate their combined 22 seats. With Dean's selections voting to uphold the rules and Obama's delegates voting in their candidate's interest, 96 delegates would vote to keep Michigan and Florida out.

While the committee is slated to have 186 members casting 183 votes (delegates from the territories are given a quarter of a vote, though all four voted for Obama, suggesting they will cast their combined one committee vote for him), Florida's and Michigan's combined 14 delegates are still allowed at the convention, but they cannot vote on matters involving their own states.

Even assuming Florida votes to seat Michigan's delegates and vice versa, the coalition voting against Clinton's delegations from both states will likely add up to more than half of the remaining 180 votes (with Florida delegates voting) and 178 votes (with Michigan delegates included). Obama can't use that majority to seat a friendlier delegate slate, though, as Clinton would benefit from Dean's contingent, again voting to uphold the rules rather than in her favor, and could block new delegate slates.

In short, the only ways for Florida and Michigan to find their seats on the convention floor would be for the Clinton and Obama camps to reach a deal and together outvote Dean's credentials committee faction; or for the two states to hold some kind of revote, either a primary or a caucus.

A caucus in either state is unlikely to fly. Clinton, who has found herself at a disadvantage in those contests, has already declared she will not accept caucuses. The New York Senator also has an advantage on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, through which any new Florida and Michigan plans would have to be approved. Twelve of the 28 committee members are publicly backing Clinton, while seven have said they support Obama. Clinton would need just three additional votes to block a caucus plan, and several committee members are said to back Clinton but are withholding public endorsements.

Too, Clinton and Obama are unlikely to come to an agreement on how to split the delegations fairly. Any agreement that advantages Clinton, she will argue, is only fair, since she won both states. But Obama is still free to walk away from that agreement, and he has no reason to accept a plan that puts him at anything resembling a disadvantage. Clinton would probably veto a plan splitting the delegations evenly, which would only make the magic number climb higher, from 2,025 to slightly north of 2,200, making her overall quest more difficult.

That leaves both states contemplating a primary, something that would cost each tens of millions of dollars. The trouble is that neither state has the resources to pay for the primaries, and barring a massive infusion of soft money from wealthy donors, the DNC or the candidates themselves, they won't be able to afford do-over contests.

The DNC option is off the table: Dean offered to pay for alternate primaries last year, but was refused. In a phone call last week with Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, Dean told Nelson the party could not afford it now; through January 31, the DNC had just over $3 million in the bank, less than one-tenth what contests in both states would cost.

In short, neither Michigan nor Florida will benefit from taking their cases to the credentials committee. Both states will have difficult times financing new primaries, relying on wealthy donors pouring in millions of dollars of soft money, which state parties can accept under campaign finance laws, or on Clinton and Obama donating toward a do-over.

Democrats already caught bad luck when John McCain won the Republican nomination, as the rival party chose the candidate who would be strongest in November. Now, faced with the option of holding new contests in Florida and Michigan or nominating a presidential nominee without input from two key swing states, Democrats are seemingly losing the choice they would clearly prefer, the revotes.

A party whose fortunes looked so brilliant just months ago could be on the brink of the most public collapse since 1968. After riots in Chicago that year, Democrats rewrote their rules to resemble those they operate under today. The rules are clear, and everyone knows what they are. The trouble is that neither candidate seemed to imagine that the rules would actually have to be enforced.

Arcane political party rules are not what voters looking for change want from their candidates. Thanks to two strong, and stubborn, candidates, the Democratic Party is seriously in danger of taking what was once an embarrassment of riches and turning it into a plain old embarrassment.

Thank You Chris Dodd!

by: TomChoske

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EDT