home

Michigan Dems Propose Delegate Solution

Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic reports some Michigan Democrats have submitted a proposal to the state Democratic party. It's an alternative one to those that will be considered by the Rules and Bylaws Committee later in May.

The plan was submitted by Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick,UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, and DNC Member Debbie Dingell.

It's not a fair plan. It not only gives Obama all of the uncommitted delegates, a number that includes those who voted for Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, it gives him some that voted for Hillary.

More...

The four want to allocate 69 pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama. The approach splits the difference between the equal delegate proposal coming out of Chicago (g4 for each) and the 73-to-55 delegate split that the Clinton campaign would obtain from the results of the primary, with almost all of the uncommitted delegates being pledged to Obama. The four also write that they oppose the challenge by DNC member Joel Ferguson, which would give superdelegates a full vote and pledged delegates half of a vote.

The DNC has previously said both would have to approve any plan. Obama's refusal to agree to the revote led to the Michigan legislature refusing to vote on it before they recessed.

Michigan Primary Results (Jan. 15, 2008)(from MI Secretary of State's office):

Clinton 328,309
Chris Dodd 3,845
Dennis Kucinich 21,715
Mike Gravel 2,361
Uncommitted 238,168

As I wrote here,

On January 15, 2008, 594,398 Democrats went to their polling places and voted in their state's primary. The official Michigan election results are here.

328,309 Democrats in Michigan voted for Hillary Clinton. She won all but two counties, Washtenaw and Emmet. 238,168 voted uncommitted. 21,715 voted for Dennis Kucinich. 3,845 voted for Chris Dodd. 2,361 voted for Mike Gravel.

Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, Edwards or Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel won 5% of the vote.

Barack Obama proposed he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama.

As to all the Michigan plans proposed so far, none are fair to Hillary. I think all the delegates, not half of them, should be counted. Hillary should get her's now. Those who voted uncommitted should be seated at the convention as uncommitted votes and they choose between Hillary and Obama then, if the race is still going on.

From the letter sent today by the Michigan Democrats:

The Clinton campaign has taken the position that the results of the January 15 primary should be honored and that Senator Clinton should receive 73 pledged delegates in accordance with the vote she received. The Obama campaign has taken the position that the January 15 primary results should be ignored and that the 128 pledged delegates should be seated but evenly divided between the two candidates. Both candidates have a basis for their argument. The January 15 primary result was flawed because Senator Obama’s name was not on the ballot. He took his name off the ballot, interpreting the DNC injunction and the New Hampshire pledge against campaigning in Michigan to require him to take that affirmative step. As a result, we cannot totally agree with the Clinton campaign’s position that the outcome of the primary should be honored and that the pledged delegates should be apportioned 73/55 (Clinton/Obama). At the same time, we also cannot accept the position of the Obama campaign that the primary should be totally ignored and the pledged delegates should be evenly apportioned 64/64 between the two candidates, given the fact that almost 600,000 Democrats voted in the January 15 primary, 55% of whom voted for Senator Clinton and 45% of whom voted for Uncommitted or other candidates.

....As a result, we recommend that the Michigan Democratic Party request the DNC to seat Michigan’s delegates, and that the pledged delegates be apportioned 69 to Senator Clinton and 59 to Senator Obama. That approach splits the difference between the 73/55 position of the Clinton campaign and the 64/64 position of the Obama campaign, based on our belief that both sides have fair arguments about the Michigan primary. While we expect that neither candidate will explicitly embrace this approach, we believe that the DNC should adopt it and both candidates should accept it because it is fair and because it would resolve an impasse that with each passing day hurts our chances of carrying Michigan and winning the Presidency. We also believe that the DNC must exercise the leadership to resolve this impasse and not allow it to fester any longer.

As to the plan to seat all the superdelegates and half the pledged delegates, the letter says:

Mr. Fergusons’s proposed remedy – seating Michigan’s so-called super-delegates with a full vote, and seating Michigan’s pledged delegates with a half vote – is unacceptable to us on two grounds. First, we cannot agree to a remedy that allows for super-delegates who didn’t run for the position to have a full vote, while pledged delegates selected by the voters have only half a vote. Second, we see no justification for seating Michigan’s delegates with anything less than full voting rights. If Michigan is punished for fighting the DNC’s decision to grant New Hampshire a waiver, it will hurt the Party’s chances of carrying Michigan in November.

Michigan is a toss-up state. Democrats cannot afford to lose it. That's exactly what will happen, I predict, if voters in Michigan either don't have their votes count in determining the nominee or if they voted for Hillary and see their vote being given to Obama.

< Open Thread | More Inanity . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is BS... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    He took his name off the ballot, interpreting the DNC injunction and the New Hampshire pledge against campaigning in Michigan to require him to take that affirmative step.

    He took his name off to keep from losing and to make Hillary look bad.

    Michigan's Next Primary in August (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:35:47 PM EST
    The next primary in Michigan is August 5, 2008.  Let's have a revote then.  Plenty of time before the convention.

    Why not?

    Parent

    Here is support for that idea (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    I read this and pondered about it.  

    Will the DNC talk to this reporter please!!

    Parent

    Who Do They Think They Are....Carl Levin Is (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:59:34 PM EST
    a bit of a buffoon somedays.  This is a ridiculous proposal.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#53)
    by IzikLA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:00:20 AM EST
    It's a ridiculous proposal.  These arguments make my head spin because I can't see how people see things so differently than I do! (I'm sure they feel the same way). What's not even considered about this idea is that Hillary won 55% no matter what and deserves her 73-ish delegates.  Giving Obama even 55 is more than he would have gotten.  The uncommitted vote received 40% and Edwards got plenty of votes then so that is more than representative of what Obama would have gotten.  The people that voted for Hillary actually VOTED for Hillary, whether Obama supporters like it or not.  Give her the delegates she deserves and either give him the rest (as a good gesture compromise) or send 55 delegates to the committee uncommitted so they can make that decision on their own.  

    Parent
    So, Um... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    When did the Democratic Party start openly wanting to thwart the will of the people?!?!  How in the WORLD did they come up with yet another way to disenfranchise voters??  (And I am SO glad I did not send any money to Levin when he wrote recently.)

    And, as I have written before, and echoing you, Jeralyn, since WHEN do we bail out candidates who made strategic errors at the expense of the other candidate??

    I have to assume these people were actually LOL when they handed in this proposal, because it is a real joke!

    I don't tink this was (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    a strategic error. He took his name off the ballot because he thought he would do poorly.  They want to reward him for that?

    No.

    Parent

    I think it started around (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    Super Tuesday and it has failed to improve with time.

    Parent
    How do you enfranchise voters (none / 0) (#39)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    who have been completely disenfranchised?

    You disenfranchise them incompletely, by giving away some of their votes to a different candidate?

    Words fail me.

    Parent

    This is a another (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:53:22 PM EST
    example of the double-standard in the MSM and among the beltway pundits, IMO.

    Apparently, it is divisive and irresponsible to claim that Obama gamed the caucus system in order to eke out a totally preposterous delegate lead, while presenting a completely skewed perception of his support in the caucus states.  No one is suggesting that anyone "bail" Clinton out by insisting on a more representative vote from these states.

    Yet Clinton is excoriated because Obama's strategy to further marginalize Michigan's vote backfired on him to Clinton's benefit.  

    You're right.  This so-called Michigan solution is laughable.

    Parent

    My guess is (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    They want to seat the delegates in any way they can (I think Dingell is an HRC supporter, but I could be wrong) because they know if they don't get them seated, it will be a disaster in the fall.

    Central Michigan (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:58:49 AM EST
    girl is probably right.

    Levin told the annual MDP Jeff Jack dinner crowd to a standing ovation that our delegation would be seated at the convention.  My question was before or after the vote and divided how.

    I think that the Levin group plan is a compromise to get the delegation seated.

    I also think it's a crock.

    It's also, it seems to me, an unwarrented intrusion into the process that was established by the party for its presentation to the rules committee.

    Obama has no claim to anything. HE TOOK HIS NAME OFF THE BALLOT. Whatever reason is given for that has no standing.  The fact remains, HE TOOK HIS NAME OFF THE BALLOT. And is entitled to nothing.

    Parent

    I must be crazy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:37:31 PM EST
    how can anyone justify giving Obama delegates based on votes for named candidates?  The uncommitted vote I can almost see, but even that is stretching it.

    It sure (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:02:45 AM EST
    as hell is stretching it.  I voted Uncommitted.  I was an Edwards supporter.

    Parent
    Um, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:47:58 PM EST
    Clinton got the highest vote count on name recognition and the fact that the other major contender was not on the ballot.

    Then what was Obama afraid of? Hmmmm?

    (Edwards wasn't on the ballot either.)

    Probably that (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by 0 politico on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    he would not pick up enough delegates.  So, just leave it to other Dems to reward him for not being on the ballot by giving him more than he would have likely won at the time.

    I am just amazed by the willingness of other Dems to give him what he wants/needs to get nominated.

    Parent

    Did the Obama campaign already say no (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    Say this at Naked Politics(emphasis added):

    "Various plans to untangle the debacle  including holding a new primary or seating just half the delegation  have been rejected by one or more of the various parties. Now Michigans so-called Gang of Four: Senator Carl Levin; Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick; Ron Gettelfinger, the United Auto Workers president; and Debbie Dingell, a Democratic National Committee member  are proposing that the delegation be split 69-59, reducing Mrs. Clinton's 18-delegate advantage to 10 delegates.

    "No dice, the Obama campaign said. The Michigan primary, the campaign said in a statement Tuesday, 'where Senator Obama's name did not appear on the ballot and the candidates did not campaign, should not be the basis for how the Michigan delegation is seated.' The Clinton campaign was noncommittal. 'The bottom line is that Michigan's votes must be counted so that they have a voice in selecting our nominee,' said Isaac Baker, a spokesman."



    Okay, that's funny (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:06:14 PM EST


    Listen to the right side (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:14:45 PM EST
    The whole point enfranchisement is to give voice to a state.  If we manipulate their vote, it is not true enfranchisement.  You may not care.  Obama supporters may not care.  But the GOP will make sure MI is made aware of the Democratic party not caring about their vote, using it to settle political points in favor of one candidate in particular.

    Clinton paid for her mistakes in the caucuses.  Obama should have to pay for his mistake by removing his name from the ballot.  It's insane to give him her votes.

    Fighter (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:19:08 PM EST
    It's wonderful that you're enthusiastic about Sen. Clinton, but all these comments are a bit much.  Perhaps putting your comments into one or two pieces would help.

    Fighter's comments (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:29 PM EST
    have been deleted. There were too many all in one day and everyone was a campaign pitch. The comment space is a place for your thoughts not to shill for a candidate. (For those of you who missed them, they were by a Hillary  and asked people to give money, visit sites to sign petitions, etc.)

    Parent
    Who in its right mind (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:11:14 PM EST
    can see this as a fair solution? Why? It is indeed vote stealing.
    Why would they think that Obama should get credit for delegates out of thin air for people that voted HRC while Clinton should bear all the punishment: ie. strip her from the delegates that would
    be allocated according to her vote. Obama is already getting a freebie by allocating to him all delegates for the uncommitted votes (which include Edwards et al.)

    Have the the people behind this plan have no sense of decency?
    Do they think people are so stupid that they can insult voters like this?  Shame on them...with Democrats like this who needs Republicans...

    All this feigned (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    concern about the will of the people in MI seems to be complicated by the polling which has consistently indicated that HRC hasn't been more popular than BO with the MI electorate.  And, multiple and recent polling has indicated that BO does much better than HRC against McCain in MI.)

    I don't think polling should dictate what happens, but I don't think it makes sense to pretend that HRC won a fair election (no campaigning, was promised to have zero effect on the delegate selection, BO wasn't on the ballot, BO supporters may have had a second choice (indicated by polling showing HRC greatly under performing BO in MI GE) or strategic vote in the R contest that did actually count.

    HRC should be happy to get any advantage, and I'd be surprised if the BO team submitted to such a concession.

    What polling (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:36:29 PM EST
    you have any links?

    Parent
    Stalin rides again! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    I'm afraid.  Our party can't pretend the American public will not notice.

    Obama is going to get smoked in November.

    Parent

    Ther was a poll cited a few weeks ago (none / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:46:25 PM EST
    but that must have been done by MI pollsters.  Why would an bigger pollster pay attention to MI now?

    Parent
    Some HRC (none / 0) (#27)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    supporter had one a couple days ago.

    But you can look here for the averages

    McCain +5.2
    or
    Obama + 1.2

    By the way I'm no big fan of making decisions based on polls.  But, it is something to think about as HRC and her supporters try to be sneaky here.

    Parent

    You give me a link to Pollster.com? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:52:32 PM EST
    And the comparisons are Clinton to McCain and Obama to McCain and the they are three weeks old?  Are you joking?  Did you just want to make some fun or something?

    Parent
    Here (none / 0) (#38)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:57:47 PM EST
    newer is even worse for HRC.

    Again, no matter how bad these are for HRC, I'm not saying polling should dictate the outcome.  It should give the HRC supporters some pause as they try to claim they care about the will of the people.

    Parent

    Again. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:03:35 PM EST
    The voters have not gotten to know her up close and personal.  It matters, you know.

    They now certainly know him thanks to his missteps.

    Parent

    #1 two weeks old (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:04:15 PM EST
    and still it isn't about Obama vs. Clinton.  See, if I want to know who Democrats in Michigan want as their nominee someone needs to ask them that!  #2 The early polling about the general election before both nominees have been picked has been shown time and time again to mean nothing.  The race is not on and the issues between the two are not being addressed until they are in that race and addressing those issues.  These polls mean absolutely nothing.  Ask anyone who understands our political system and how our polls read and when the numbers start to actually reflect that race.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:15:47 PM EST
    It should give the HRC supporters some pause as they try to claim they care about the will of the people.

    Repeat after me: polls are not the will of the people, votes are.

    Parent

    I have not seen any poll that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:38:40 PM EST
    shows Obama is favored by MI voters over Clinton.

    Parent
    Sorry,. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:41:22 PM EST
    Polls, smolls.  Neither have campaigned here.  When they get to know each of them, it's a much fairer analysis.

    Means nothing.

    Parent

    Then what is he afraid of? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    He doesn't want a revote, even though you say that polls say he's ahead, he doesn't want to seat the delegates as is because he made a bad choice, he doesn't want to debate.

    I repeat - What.Is.He.Afraid.Of?

    Parent

    I'm getting the impression (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:50:45 PM EST
    that Obama is afraid.  :)

    Parent
    The revote (none / 0) (#29)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:49:51 PM EST
    plan would have banned BO's supporters who went into the R primary--which actually counted.  See my original comment for the details that explain why these folks wouldn't have participated in the D contest that doesn't count for delegate selection.

    Parent
    I understand that (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:52:42 PM EST
    And I agree they shouldn't count. I say too bad if it isn't perfect for him, but he made his bed, now he has to lie in it. But you are saying polling now shows he would beat her, so I repeat - what is he afraid of now?

    Parent
    Washtenaw County, heh? (none / 0) (#4)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    I live in that county, which is also where Ann Arbor is located.  Two universities in that locale include U-M and EMU.

    Why aren't these proposals fairer to Hillary?  She won 55% of the vote.

    It gives me a migraine (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:34:49 PM EST
    Can't be pleasant for Democrats in Michigan.

    Latest Michigan delegate proposal (none / 0) (#23)
    by independent thinker on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:45:13 PM EST
    Honestly,

    I think this latest proposal is quite fair. Think about it. 40% of the voters turned out for a meaningless primary to vote "uncommitted". 40%!!! Would YOU take time out of your day in the middle of winter to vote "uncommitted" unless you really really wanted to make a statement against Clinton?

    Clinton got the highest vote count on name recognition and the fact that the other major contender was not on the ballot.

    Clinton's Gas Tax proposal (none / 0) (#37)
    by independent thinker on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:57:16 PM EST
    The flaw with this proposal is that it would have almost no impact. Think about it. 18 cents per gallon...an average of 15 gallons per fill up...hey! That's $2.70 per tank. Wow, that saves me $10.80 per month (assuming 4 fill ups per month). Holy crap! That's $32.40 over Summer.

    Now, let's think about what the big oil companies are gonna do if the government imposes a windfall tax. Hmmmmmm....well, I'd bet they would raise their prices. True, probably not immediately. That would be too obvious. But give them a few months and I'm sure they would find a perfect excuse to raise prices to make up what they lost during our little summer holiday.

    Ooooooh!!!!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    Kilpatrick and Dingell make me SO. MAD. It's Kilpatrick's kid who's scr*wing up Detroit and Dingell!? She, with Levin, got us into this mess.  Levin makes me so angry too!