MyDD :: New Michigan Plan Floated

New Michigan Plan Floated

by Todd Beeton, Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:18:14 PM EST

In the absence of a re-vote, this is an interesting proposal from Michigan congressman Bart Stupak.

Under Stupak's formula, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who received 55 percent of the primary vote, would receive 47 delegates.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who pulled his name from Michigan's ballot, would receive 36 delegates. Many Obama supporters in Michigan voted for "uncommitted," which received 40 percent in the primary.

The remaining 73 delegates would be awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote garnered nationwide by Clinton and Obama after the last Democratic presidential primary is completed.

Stupak endorsed John Edwards and so has some credibility, it would seem, as an honest broker and I'm glad to see new ideas as to how to deal with Michigan's delegate allocation issue being proposed from within the state, but there's no way this is going to happen.

This plan is a non-starter from the perspective of the Obama campaign for a couple of reasons. First of all, signing onto this plan would essentially be conceding that the nomination battle will go on through the final contests in June, something the Obama campaign is not likely to concede any time soon. They clearly would like to build superdelegate momentum leading up to May 6 where they are hoping two convincing wins in North Carolina and Indiana will make it impossible for Clinton to continue. In addition, the second Obama agrees to a plan that would allocate delegates based on January's primary, he validates the vote and puts the popular vote garnered on that day in play. This would fuel arguably Clinton's best argument for her candidacy to superdelegates, namely that her popular vote lead (which would only exist with the inclusion of MI & FL) is as relevant, if not moreso, to superdelegates' decision as Obama's similarly slim pledged delegate lead. The catch-22 for Obama is that, if he really does want to end this before June, it actually is in his interest to resolve the MI & FL issues because it would remove the central rationale for Clinton's staying in this through June to the convention.

All of which leads me to believe that no matter what plans are floated, there likely won't be a resolution to Michigan and Florida before the May 6th primaries.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, michigan primary, hillary clinton, barack obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 48 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

eh I think after he sees the PA margins he can decide,

if you add MI and FL, he is up 90,000 votes,

thus if he keeps it close in PA then he can allow those votes since he can get it back in NC. and then FL and MI would be in and he has his popular vote win, taking Hillary's last argument from her.

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

by TruthMatters on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:20:44 PM EST

Revote is the best way.. (none / 0)

The only other alternative is to let the vote stand as it was, but I and I think most others would prefer a revote.

public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why

by architek on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

I think Todd hit the nail on the head. IF he wins NC and Indiana the pressure for her to drop is gonna grow. And her campaign is doing a poor job of managing expectations in PA. if he out performs them, it will be troublesome... if Obama wins PA (by a small miracle) then the race is over.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:28:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/31/1414 0/4182

by mefck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:26:12 PM EST

Why so complicated? (none / 0)

Why not just give HRC +10 or 11 delegates out of Michigan and make both campaigns pledge that the 'vote' tallies do not count towards the popular vote?

That gives Clinton a bit more delegates + opens up the superdelegates. It is roughly equivalent to the above proposal and does not make anyone wait until the end of June.

I say don't count the Jan vote in vote totals as a way to throw a bone to Obama supporters and hard-line 'rules are rules' folks while tossing HRC supporters some extra delegates.

Anyway, probably a stupid idea on my part, but simpler seems better.

If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:28:04 PM EST

Re: Why so complicated? (none / 0)

Remember that the popular vote is officially meaningless. It's got psychological value...if one candidate winds up with a clear majority in the popular vote then they can use that to sway superdelegates, and that's the only reason anyone's paying attention to it. What the "real" popular vote is will get played out in the media; there are a couple of different ways to calculate it, especially when you start getting into primaries vs. caucuses.

As to MI, there's only one fair way to do it. Candidates who broke the rules and participated in the MI primary obviously shouldn't receive any delegates. Delegates will be evenly divided among the candidates who properly removed their names from the ballot. Some of those candidates dropped out of the race after the primary...they can either re-assign their delegates to the qualifying candidate of their choice, or just carry the delegates to the convention.

by mazement on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why so complicated? (none / 0)

Normally you'd be right but several SDs are voting for the PV and PD winner. So it has some value.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:30:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why so complicated? (none / 0)

Not sure that's fair. Not sure anything about MI or FL is really fair. Am pretty sure there is no solution that everyone will be happy with.

Basically, Clinton's argument (ignoring motives) is that MI voters have been disenfranchised. Obama's argument is that rules matter. Given that a re-vote appears off the table, it would probably be best for Obama to neutralize the whole "what about MI" hand-wringing by agreeing to some solution (no I am NOT arguing that he has been blocking a solution but he hasn't exactly been trying real hard either).

Won't make much of a difference in the delegate count and will end people's fantasies of HRC getting, like, ALL the MI delegates.

Anyway, I do think Obama is in the right on this one but HRC has been talking the 'disenfranchisement' line ever since everyone else pulled their names off the ballot. So, it is not something her campaign came up with after they started losing (err, un-winning, ummm, not convincingly beating Obama in states that don't matter?). Certainly convenient for her, but she has been consistent.

If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

non-starter for Hillary (2.00 / 2)

Hillary's campaign has shown no signs of compromising on the re-vote. Their whole meme of 'disenfranchisement' goes out the window if the delegates don't reflect the actual votes..

Hillary needs MI and FL as a campaign issue to beat up on Obama. She does not really want this resolved.

by JoeCoaster on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:30:57 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (2.00 / 1)

The only valid proposal with respect to Florida and Michigan is a re-vote. Any delegate apportionment based on the beauty contests that occurred are just changing the rules after the fact to the detriment of one side or the other.

by dmc2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:32:02 PM EST

MI and FL should lose delegates (none / 0)

There should be penalties for violating the rules. A simple re-vote essentially rewards these states for not playing by the rules imposed on the other states.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (none / 0)

There were consequences for punishment for moving up the dates. The DNC specifically said states like Florida and Michigan would lose 1/2 of their delegates plus the superdelegates. What Dean, Ickles and Brazille, and others did was to punish Florida and Michigan even more harshly by stripping them of all the delegates. The DNC was also selective in their punishment because Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the rules on when they could have their elections but the DNC chose not to punish them at all. It was selective punishment.

by gomer on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (none / 0)

What did Iowa, NH and SC do to break the rules?

Was their breaking the rules sanctioned by the body that made the rules?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (none / 0)

http://www.demconvention.com/delegate-se lection-rules-for-the-2008-democratic-na tional-convention/
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/ de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

Rule 11A.
Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

In Section 20C, Iowa, NH and SC were to have lost 1/2 of their delegates for moving up their primaries/caucuses before those dates. The DNC didn't punish them at all.

It's is selective punishment to favor a select few states. This has been posted before and of course the media doesn't care to report on this.

by gomer on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (2.00 / 1)

THis was amended later on.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:23:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (2.00 / 1)

the GOP punished all 5 states who went early by stripping half their dels ALL FIVE

only the DNC took ALL the dels from only 2 of the 5

the GOP was much more fair and even handed then the Dems were and that is unacceptable

ginaswo

by ginaswo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (2.00 / 1)

Aw Grasshopper, WE are not the RNC... THEY had different Rules... Iowa, NH and SC were ALLOWED to move under DNC rules.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (none / 0)

Ickes voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates and he is a Clinon advisor....Now all of a sudden he says it's unfair because it disenfranchises those voters. Why, then, did he vote to strip both states???

Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.

by hootie4170 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (2.00 / 1)

what about the other 3 states that moved up their dates then?

by zerosumgame on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (none / 0)

This was addressed within the DNC... THe other states (and I'm not sure the 3rd one you mean besides Iowa and NH) move within DNC rules. They are not in violation and never were. The first 4 had special permission.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:18:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MI and FL should lose delegates (none / 0)

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (2.00 / 1)

"Obama is determined to disenfranchise MI and FLA until and unless he thinks those votes won't hurt him."

The jury will please disregard the last remark..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/pol itics/02dems.html?_r=1&ref=politics& amp;oref=slogin

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:38:45 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (2.00 / 1)

nope, it won't

by zerosumgame on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (2.00 / 2)

If Mr. Obama is not willing to get those delegates seated, or a reasonable revote plan accomplished, he is going to find the Democratic party irrepairably split. And it won't be because Hillary does or does not drop out. It will all be because of him.

Quite frankly, without FL and MI, this is not a legitimate election. He is not a legitimate nominee. The whole world is waking up to the fact that he won't agree to anything involving FL and MI because he is scared to death that he will lose. Your own site shows the stakes. You have 2 graphics on the right of delegate counts. The first is without FL and MI. The second is with. Guess what? With FL & MI, Hillary is ahead by 1 delegate. This is the story Obama doesn't want the press to know about.

With a revote, it is quite likely that Hillary would get even more delegates for the simple fact that people are outraged that he is trying to suppress their votes. I don't live in MI or FL, but I am just as outraged. Since when did we have a nomination that didn't count everyone's votes? How can anyone - after seeing what happened in 2000 - actually suggest that you don't let FL vote?

by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST

This is pure, unadulterated horseshit (none / 0)

Obama objected to the terms of a revote in MI that penalized crossover voters (like me and all my friends) whose preferred candidate was not on the ballot the first time. If MI had offered a fair revote scenario, Obama would have accepted it.

FL simply could not get its shit together. For some reason a mail-in vote is illegal, Hillary won't allow a caucus (in either state), and the largest Democratic counties wouldn't have their new voting machines online by June. Obama had nothing to do with it.

Stop spreading misinformation for the sole purpose of bashing Obama.

by rhetoricus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (1.66 / 3)

He wants a funded plan that is fair to both him and Clinton. I haven't heard of one presented to him yet.

We can all make up random plans for "counting" MI/FL, but let's not act like BOTH candidates agreed that they wouldn't count and that they wouldn't participate in either primary.

by ChrisKaty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

Seriously, why was this troll rated?

by mefck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

Probably because it spoke the truth.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:16:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (1.00 / 1)

Oh yeah...
The definitive Clinton rules
http://www.simplych.com/cb_rules.htm

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:41:49 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (2.00 / 1)

If Mr. Obama is not willing to get those delegates seated, or a reasonable revote plan accomplished, he is going to find the Democratic party irrepairably split. And it won't be because Hillary does or does not drop out. It will all be because of him.

FL and MI have yet to come up with a funded revote plan that isn't fatally flawed. That is not Obama's fault.

Both candidates agreed to the current situation. Both agreed that FL and MI wouldn't count, and neither had an issue with the legitimacy of the election without their votes. It's only an issue because Clinton is desperate.

by ChrisKaty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST

Which HRC are we talking about? (1.50 / 2)

The one who agreed to the DNC's position, including the penalties imposed on Michigan and Florida, last summer...

...or the one who cries about disenfranchising the poor voters of Michigan and Florida now?

Sorry, but HRC had no problem with the DNC's plan before she ended up on the short end of the totals. Methinks HRC is hoist by her own petard. She wouldn't be flogging this issue if she was ahead in the delegate count.

by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This does not cut it for me! (none / 0)

Why should voters from other parts of country be counted towards Michigan voters. It seems like one person not in Michigan = 2 votes.

The only fair solution is a revote in my opinion.
And I think Sen. Clinton is right on this one-
any nominee without FL/MI may lack proper legitimicacy especially.

by ann0nymous on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:46:17 PM EST

Re: This does not cut it for me! (2.00 / 2)

any nominee without FL/MI may lack proper legitimicacy

I'm not sure why, given that everyone agreed that the elections wouldn't count prior to the race even starting.

You want illegitimacy? Try including results from states where the voters were told that their votes wouldn't count, and/or all candidates weren't on the ballot. THAT's the path to illegitimacy.

by ChrisKaty on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meanwhile, the first McCain (none / 0)

general election ad promises "the American President the American people have been waiting for".

This is clearly aimed at Obama, and I hope he answers it soon. Because even worse will be coming.

by Bob H on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:48:52 PM EST

Ouch, please stop, you're killing me... (none / 0)

That's the worst thing the GOP can come up with? From your mouth to God's ears...

by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (2.00 / 2)

yup they broke the rules why reward them with anything. All this outrage should be on the people that changed the date after being warned.

If you drink and drive they take your licence away
If you kill someone you go to jail
If you vote early without the dem leadership ok your votes dont count.

why...........

Cause dems the rules, deal with it.

by goalie40 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:49:06 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (2.00 / 1)

What they should've done was seat the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates...they were the ones responsible for this.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

No theyshould have kept the original 50% penalty... then we wouldn't be in this mess.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

Oh yeah...What is the definitive Clinton Plan for MI and FL?..please link...
(The jury will disregard the current status of delegates....The number of States/Caucuses won and the %...)
Please link to your MyDD outrage last September...
I have all the respect for those that from the get go were outraged...
As for the rest of you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2sWjouB1 YA&feature=related

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:55:23 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

The House side of the Michigan legislature is still in recess until next week. This new plan or compromise is going to have to move pretty quickly through a Democratically controlled House and the Democrats will have to give something to the Republicans in order to get it passed through the Republican Senate.... Should be interesting indeed. They have to have all the money approved, the plan in place, and the votes before June 7th?

by jakedecker on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:15:23 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

According to DNC rules, people who voted in the Republican primary can't vote in the Democratic primary. So those Obama supporters who voted in the Republican primary because their candidate wasn't on the Democratic ballot (and were told the Democratic primary wouldn't count anyway) are doubly screwed. They couldn't vote for their candidate in the original primary, and they can't vote in the redo. You don't think Obama would have picked up a couple of hundred thousdand votes in Detroit alone?

by KTinOhio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:20:20 PM EST

**Dead Horse (2.00 / 0)

PLEASE BEAT ME.

If the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope. BC

by greylox on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

I think you're right. This comes down to May 6th, Obama wins Indiana and North Carolina and Clinton will have to drop out. If Clinton wins both, then she's right back in the game. If Clinton wins Indiana and Obama wins North Carolina, she can probably carry on but will be under more pressure to quit.

Michigan and Florida need to be heard at the convention. If Clinton drops out i expect them to seat the delegations in full.

by liberalj on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:39:36 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

If she wins both Obama is in serious trouble. My guess is it splits or he wins both. But I don't think she will drop, even though pressure grows.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:41:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

just revote or accept current results and seat MI! (2.00 / 1)

47 for Hillary is not enough, if Obama will get 36,
which is just 11 more for her.
she has to get at least 22 more delegates than Obama.
she won 55% and if you do not like it than revote.
And NO, she will not drop out; she will crush Obama in PA, KY and WV. and in other states no caucuses - they all closed primaries!
And only NC has 22% of blacks, all remaining states have much less than that...

Landslide of lies

by engels on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:58:43 PM EST

Oh please, you GOP troll (none / 0)

Obama wanted a scenario in which crossover voters (like me) could be allowed to vote for our truly preferred candidate (who wasn't on the ballot before), since we were never warned that a) a revote would happen or b) a crossover vote would disenfranchise us.

They have not yet offered a scenario that's actually fair to anyone but Clinton voters.

by rhetoricus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:53:41 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

Um yeah, it's Hillary who agreed that the votes wouldn't count, and only now, behind in the race, wants to change the rules mid-game.

by rhetoricus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:05:32 PM EST

Re: New Michigan Plan Floated (none / 0)

Utterly ridiculous and baseless accusation... Amazing how Hillary ONLY supports counting the votes or revotes when it BENEFITS her... before Obama schooled her in Iowa, she never said a THING in support of Florida or Michigan... she never gave a damn about them until it became the ONLY slim sliver of a way she could still get the nom.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:15:23 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.