MyDD :: DNC Lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored

DNC Lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored

by Tommy Flanagan, Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:39:50 AM EST

According to this AP article, a memo released today states that even if they wanted to, they couldn't seat the full delegates in FL and MI.

WASHINGTON - A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to restore delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully seat the two states at the convention as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to a party analysis.

Party rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, Democratic National Committee lawyers wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday to consider the fate of convention delegates from the two states. The party is considering plans to restore at least some of the delegates to make sure the two important general election battlegrounds will be included at the nominating convention in August

I guess this will make for a more subdued meeting this weekend.

Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.

Tags: DNC, rules, Delegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 63 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Since that would essentially put the nomination out of reach for Clinton, I'd imagine that'd make for a pretty subdued MyDD as well.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:41:28 AM EST

Huh? (none / 0)

The rules were posted here a while ago and I don't remember them saying that.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:43:23 AM EST

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

Actually, the rules does say a 50% reduction for holding an early primary/caucus is the penalty.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:45:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Where were these lawyers last year? We could have avoided this whole mess.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:43:58 AM EST

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Shoot the messenger?
...had to post this as it took over my brain reading those words....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Xl0Qry- hA

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:45:23 AM EST

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

HA! After I hit submit, my brain started to hurt, wondering what kind of stuff was going to be posted.

Thanks for this one.

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

How dare you post a factual diary here. You must be a sexist!!!

by ImpeachBushCheney on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

I'm sexist AND racist! And don't you forget it!

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

They've been saying it all along. No one was listening....

Okay, some people weren't listening.

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:46:20 AM EST

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (2.00 / 1)

I understand you're just conveying the argument, but the argument is clearly incorrect.

If the 50% penalty under the rules were mandatory, no questions asked, then Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina would also be facing at least a 50% penalty. Obviously they're not.

Also, the rules require that the Rules and Bylaws Committee conduct an investigation into whether the Democratic officials in the offending state acted in good faith to try and comply with the rules. For example, in Florida, the Democrats in the legislature proposed an amendment that would have removed the early primary date, but the Republicans defeated it on a party-line vote. The committee simply refused to hear this sort of evidence the first time around; this is a major plank of the Florida appeal.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:48:46 AM EST

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

You mean, these Democrats in the legislature in FL, trying very hard to keep the bad ole Republicans from moving their primary date? Here's Steve Gellar, arguing wildly, because he KNEW the votes wouldn't count if he didn't!

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (2.00 / 2)

I thought you were just the messenger. Now I see you're interested in conveying the same shopworn talking points.

Yes, I am referring to those very Democrats. I am not one of those who believes they were required to waste their time making impassioned speeches as if they had even a remote prayer of winning this vote. The Republicans outnumber them 2-1 in that chamber.

Regardless, the rules call for an investigation, including a factfinding hearing if necessary, not an ad hoc ruling based on a YouTube video.

I note you didn't even address my point that if the 50% penalty is supposedly mandatory, with no discretion on the part of the RBC, then New Hampshire and the other states would have been assessed a penalty as well. In light of the lack of punishment for the other states in violation, there is no way the RBC can now claim "our hands are tied, we have to enforce the 50% penalty."

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:06:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (1.50 / 2)

I delivered the message... then you had to go and throw out a theory of how it wasn't true, so I guess it's my duty, as the messenger, to inform that your theory is flawed.

As to the other states that moved their primaries; two words: straw man.

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:11:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama operative (1.00 / 2)

This guy is not simply 'the messenger', he's deliberately trying to spread lies and BS to demoralize the Hillary supporters.

COUNT ALL THE VOTES or do without ours.

If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat

by rankles on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:26:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama operative (none / 0)

No lies here. Just posting an AP article. Isn't hillary fond of AP articles?

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i told you so... (none / 0)

people (for some reason) got miffed when i compared hillary clinton to strum thurmond. thanks for making that comparison vivid for everyone...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Steve, impressive. You're one of the few posters here who actually has a precise understanding of the way the rules operate. I find most Obama supporters like to throw out terms like "rules" and then back away when you start talking about how the rules actually work. They don't understand the concept of NH/IA/SC being in technical violation of the timing provision or the concept that campaigning is defined so strictly in Rule 20, that Obama would lose all of his Florida (and possibly Michigan) delegates. As we both know, all of that is ultimately discretionary however.

The actual rules are very hard to swallow for many Obama supporters who seem to have acquired a self-serving misunderstanding of the rules, maybe from their PR machine at DailyKos that they trust without blinking. It's a major blow when the draconian and false rules interpretation one's been relying on for months turns out to actually work against the Obama candidate. Rather than acknowledging that, the typical response is to change the subject or post a clip of Geller (which is ambiguous in my estimation) or the famous Hillary quote that's divorced from its context.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:36:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

while you repeat the same thing over and over... (none / 0)

and refuse to provide evidence for your bizarre definitions and reading of those rules. the difference between steve and yourself is that steve can defend his position. you are reduced to name calling whenever challenged.

the decision by the obama campaign has been both defended and largely accepted by the dnc (i say largely although i know of no one who disagrees with the dnc's interpretation of that ruling IN THE DNC, but it's always possible). you can't seem to provide any evidence that this interpretation is wrong and your's is correct (except for your say so).

the dnc delegate selection plan, the individual state's delegate selection plans, the mandate of the rbc and their hearings and rulings aren't difficult to understand -- they are actually written with the express purpose that they be easily understood.

your continuous attempts, though, at belittling democrats simply because they challenge your singular interpretations and your assertions that it's "your way or your wrong" is impossible to understand. at least on saturday, the whole party will get to see whether your interpretations are right or wrong (obviously, i anticipate the latter while i predict that you will continue to claim that you were right and that everyone else was wrong)...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:51:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Unbelievable (none / 0)

You're completely out of line here.

What part of the fact that all final decisions are discretionary actions made by the RBC do you not understand? What sort of evidence are you looking for? A dictionary cite for the word "is"?
Or out of sheer laziness, you would prefer I cited the pertinent provisions of the Delegate Selection Rules for you. Here are some relevant portions:

Rule 20.C.7

Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent theDNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions, including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C., against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including,without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state's division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances.

Rule 20.C.1.a

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. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails orestablishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.

Rule 20.C.7

In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state partyand the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith inattempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state's delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.

Rule 20.D

Unresolved Challenges and Report to the Credentials Committee. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee shall report its activities, together with all challenges and complaints, to the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention. In cases involving unresolved challenges which are appealed to the Credentials Committee, the burden of proof shall rest with the party presenting the challenge.

You still don't get it?

FYI these rules are all over the place and anyone can find them.

You don't understand my so-called "interpretation" of the rules. I'm sorry but you clearly don't. There's nothing to interpret. The decision is clearly discretionary. That means the RBC may decide to seat everything, exclude everything, seat them t half, or come up with an alternate arrangement. That is what I have been saying since day one. They also have the discretion to find that Barack Obama violated Rule 20.C.1.b, although I suspect they won't out of political prudence.

Do you not understand discretionary? Do you get it now, that the decision rests with the RBC's independent judgment? Why do you think they're having this appeal in the first place?

Seriously. And the tone you take with me. Out of this world in terms of harshness.

If you're going to accuse me of having some ridiculous position on what the rules clearly say, can you at least articulate what you believe my position is?

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

woosh... (none / 0)

i am familiar with the bylaws. note that i hadn't asked you to repeat what they were but to -- once again -- defend your inane assertion that they require that obama be stripped of all delegates.

apparently, you don't understand english well enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION or PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE i requested that your interpretation is correct. something i've requested over. and over. and again.

are you so stupid that you cannot do that? to me, this is really simple. you continue to make the ridiculous assertion -- one that i have challenged every single time i've seen you make it -- that the obama campaign must be stripped of any and all delegates it should get out of florida. any intelligent, honest observer understands that this is not true. so i've asked you repeatedly to justify this idiotic suggestion.

if you think posting the rules supports your position, you're wrong. any intelligent and honest person can read them and understand your interpretation is incorrect...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: woosh... (none / 0)

Please, lower the rhetoric. You raised it, I followed suit and now it's time for us both to chill.

You never specified what part of your understanding of my argument you took issue with but instead broadly attacked me for everything you've seen me post on the site.

The rules require stripping Obama of his Florida delegates, but that is entirely up to the discretion of the RBC to find that his activities fell within the range of what counts as a qualifiable offense, and that range specifically lists news conferences (Tampa, September 2007) and electronic advertising (CNN ad), which was not formally excused by the DNC, but rather "approved" by a South Carolina dem.

I cited the rule for you above. It's Rule 20.C.1.b, although I see I made a typo and listed 20.C.1.a. That's the exact language of the rule.

It's exactly the same way as the FL/MI situation. The rules say they "shall!" be punished a certain way (50/50) but it specifically subjects that conclusion to the discretion of the RBC and then the Credentials Committee (and of course Floor Vote if all else fails).

The rules penalize FL/MI by 50%, they strip Obama of his Florida delegates. And in both cases, the RBC has the discretion to override those provisions, because the rules allow it to. This is what I have said from day one, and it's not an "interpretation." It's a fact.

shrug

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: woosh... (none / 0)

look, you want to continue to make statements about how stupid you think barack's supporters are, how unfamiliar they are with the rules that govern our nomination, etc, you have to be prepared for the backdraft.

the rules do not require "stripping Obama of his Florida delegates." that is the whole point of argument here (and always has been). the rbc has the power to do this, according to the bylaws. but i have no reason to believe that is even on the table (despite your arguments to the contrary). i don't recall seeing that anyone has even challenged the dnc's "ruling" that the obama cnn ad did not meet test of campaigning in the state.

you have accepted hillary's frame on this hook, line and sinker. and that's fine. but there is nothing that says that the rbc has to, which is what i have asked you to prove. as i understand it, the obama campaign made every effort to stay within the rules here and consulted with members of the dnc before it made the ad buy. you may dismiss those efforts, but that doesn't mean the committee will.

my point was and is that the rbc can interpret its rules any way it sees fit. you've continued to argue that it's an either-or, binary thing where if one argues that the rules must be enforced then obama must lose his delegates. that's simply not true. the committee doesn't have to change the rules to avoid those outcomes. there are a whole panoply of options available to it, which is why the campaigns have, both publicly and privately, sought to define what it can and should do...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: woosh... (none / 0)

"look, you want to continue to make statements about how stupid you think barack's supporters are, how unfamiliar they are with the rules that govern our nomination, etc, you have to be prepared for the backdraft."

!??

I have always said there are many supporters of Obama on this site that I respect and who are intellectual powerhouses. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't visit this site.

Where do you come off with these things? It seems you are just stereotyping me because I don't support Obama.

"the rules do not require 'stripping Obama of his Florida delegates.' that is the whole point of argument here (and always has been). the rbc has the power to do this, according to the bylaws."

If that was the point of your argument, you should have stated that outright. It's correct; the rules do not "require" stripping Obama of his Florida delegates anymore than they require a full exclusion of Michigan & Florida.

"but there is nothing that says that the rbc has to, which is what i have asked you to prove."

You're asking me to prove something that isn't true which is something that I have never advanced. The RBC has discretion here. That means they don't have to do anything.

"you've continued to argue that it's an either-or, binary thing where if one argues that the rules must be enforced then obama must lose his delegates."

No, I haven't. I have said always that these decisions are discretionary, with many possible outcomes. It's clear now that the reason you attack my arguments so vehemently is because you don't even know what I'm arguing.

"but i have no reason to believe that is even on the table (despite your arguments to the contrary)."

... How can those arguments be on the table yet when there isn't even a seated Florida delegation upon which to raise them? OMG. These are things that might arise after Florida and Michigan are seated. They're not "on the table" right now, and again, I never said that. Yet you continue to pretend I say things that are untrue, merely so you could rip them apart.

This is becoming straw man city. Nothing further to add.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:40:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Does everyone ignore the fact those states moved their dates because of Florida and Michigan?

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Michigan's move was in response to NH announcing their intention to change the date, not the other way around.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:07:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Not according to what I'm reading here.

New Hampshire hosts the first primary in the entire nation. A state law that was passed in 1975 required that the date be set at least one week before any other similar contest.

And so it was moved to a week before Michigan. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:12:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (2.00 / 1)

New Hampshire announced that they were moving up their primary date in a joint press conference with South Carolina officials on August 9, 2007. Michigan had done nothing at that point to move up their date.

Also, the DNC rules require Democratic officials at the state level to take "provable positive steps" to bring their state laws into compliance with the agreed-upon DNC schedule. It's not enough to simply hide behind "state law" - heck, every state, including Michigan and Florida, set their date via state law.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:26:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

But New Hampshire had permission to have their primary anytime before February 5th, and Michigan didn't. You may agree that's not fair, but it was still the rules at the time.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

Actually that is an incorrect statement. There's a section in the rules that provides an acceptable range of dates for the New Hampshire primary and it is definitely not "anytime before February 5." New Hampshire's primary was outside of the date range specified in the rules, which is why it was in technical violation.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

I'm reading meeting notes from 2005, the committe was expecting then that Michigan and other states were planning on moving their primary up. Just because it wasn't announced in the newspapers until 2007 doesn't mean their intent wasn't already known.

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

indeed, the intention of michigan to do this was.. (none / 0)

known all the way back in 2002. levin has pushed hard for michigan to be first for a long time, and he was appeased in the 2004 cycle by mcauliffe promising levin that the party would have a commission looking at the presidential primaries for 2008 and reordering who got to go first.

when michigan wasn't on that list, everyone understood that michigan would try to become the first primary in the nation. carl is quite impassioned about this, and i doubt anyone expects him to change...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:58:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC... (none / 0)

obtained official dispensations from the DNC. Michigan and Florida applied for dispensations and were denied them--whereupon they proceeded to hold their primaries illegally anyway.

That's the difference.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?

by Elsinora on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC... (2.00 / 1)

That's the entire issue: whether the 50% penalty is mandatory or the DNC has the authority to waive a violation of the schedule.

If the Rules and Bylaws Committee is empowered to say "even though you're in violation of the schedule, we're not going to punish you for whatever reason," then they can't claim that the 50% penalty is mandatory in the case of FL and MI.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, they can. (none / 0)

Because they can simply argue that the 50% is mandatory except with a dispensation beforehand, which Florida and Michigan did not have. So yes, they can claim that. Whether they will, I have no idea.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?

by Elsinora on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:15:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i disagree... (none / 0)

i think you deal with this as if it's constitutional law. given the frequency with which democrats change their governing rules, i am more concerned about whether the rules are actually predictable to the campaigns that have to run under them.

in this specific case, i think you'd find both campaigns would argue that the rules were predictable, even though they "predicted" two different (and completely separate) interpretations -- while consulting the people who made them. if i'm right (that the current rules led to two different interpretations), then we have real problems. but it's all politics, and what is at issue is what "frame" or "message" wins out. that's where the obama campaign has excelled.

both the party leaders here (florida: karen thurmond; michigan: mark brewer) have said that they believed the "rules" would not stand and that their delegations would be seated. i'm much more familiar with the florida decision, where the party was told by various people in hillary's campaign that our delegation would be seated "no matter what." this explicit promise on the part of one campaign gave florida democrats the confidence that they could hold their primary whenever they liked with "no major consequences" (karen thurmond at last year's state party fund-raiser).

so the "entire issue" is much more complicated than you present. i'd prefer your version to be true, since then we could all have predicted the actual results. what is sad is that party leaders could not foresee that someone besides hillary could end up as the nominee. that's the problem, afaic...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:25:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nevada (none / 0)

Nevada's caucus was within the range specified for an acceptable Nevada date. Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire were outside of their respective ranges.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:40:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Um (none / 0)

This is from DNC lawyers- this actually seems like big news, unless I'm reading it wrong. Maybe rename this DNC Lawyers: FL & MI cannot be fully seated?

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:58:02 AM EST

Re: Um (none / 0)

Done. Thanks

(I didn't want to make it look like I was trying to "make" news...)

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:02:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (none / 0)

Again, maybe I'm reading this wrong and this is old hat, but to me it looks like you found news...

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:09:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored (none / 0)

I've now seen more and varied versions of the supposed rules than I care to count.

I'm assuming nothing, until the committee makes an announcement on May 31 (or hopefully not too long thereafter).

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:59:03 AM EST

The rules (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/28/0395 0/4810
See page 16 section 11 A
See page 24 section C 1 a

Read em and weep.

We shall overcome. Yes we can.

by Sam Wise Gingy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:08:46 AM EST

Re: The rules (none / 0)

You posted the link to this diary (and it took me four clicks to figure out my computer wasn't messed up- just me). Can you repost to the rules? I'd like to read them.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.

by ihaveseenenough on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:11:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry my mistake. (none / 0)

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf
See page 16 section 11 A
See page 24 section C 1 a

We shall overcome. Yes we can.

by Sam Wise Gingy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:15:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary in Boca not too long ago (2.00 / 1)

by nikkid on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:18:08 AM EST

Re: Hillary in Boca not too long ago (none / 0)

Isn't that the one with the bored guy in the background, picking his nose! I LOVE that video!

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:33:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary in Boca not too long ago (none / 0)

Oh, you have the "pristine" video.

I like this one better! Makes me laugh my hiney off every time!

"More War Years! More War Years!" ~John McCain

by Tommy Flanagan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

*Bad* Lawyering (2.00 / 2)

The rules suggest a 50/50% penalty but the rules relegate these decisions to the full discretion of the RBC, then the Credentials Committee, and then Convention Floor if necessary.
Obviously the lawyers don't know the law here.

For non-lawyers, don't be fooled by this ploy. Lawyers are just as goofy and prone to mistakes as everybody else.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:24:30 AM EST

Re: *Bad* Lawyering (none / 0)

The rules do more than suggest (that pesky word "shall"). If the RBC wishes to boost Clinton's chances, I think they're far more likely to impose the 1/2 rule but give her the lion's share of MI's delegates.

At the end of the day, the only way Clinton will prevail with these challenges is if some number of superdelegates who are now committed to Obama back her instead (otherwise she'll lose the floor fight).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:46:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Bad* Lawyering (none / 0)

You miss the point. The penalties imposed by the rules are then subject to the full discretion of the RBC, Credentials Committee, and even the full convention.

Per the rules, the dispositive decisions are ultimately fully discretionary. You realize that were it not for this framework, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina which were equally in technical violation of the rules would have to be punished, yes?

By allocating the decisionmaking process to discretionary bodies, the rules provide the very functionalities through which Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida may be fully seated.

And were it not for this discretion, the 50/50% seating of Michigan (with Uncommitted as Uncommitted) and Florida would likewise require the Rule 20 penalty to Barack Obama for "campaigning" (as strictly defined in the rules) in Florida. The reason it doesn't have to apply necessarily is exactly the same reason that Florida & Michigan may be fully seated: delegation of final decisions to discretionary decision-making bodies.

"At the end of the day, the only way Clinton will prevail with these challenges is if some number of superdelegates who are now committed to Obama back her instead (otherwise she'll lose the floor fight)."

Or pledged delegates, who are only pledged ceremonially. It's a fact that pledged delegates are legally as free to choose their preferred candidate as superdelegates.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:09:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

lol... (none / 0)

i'll repeat this again: feel free to provide evidence that your interpretation of the rules is the only possible one. unlike your simplistic, binary interpretation (really, have you ever had contact with the people in the dnc?), there is a whole plethora of options, which may or may not include the ones you outline...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:28:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol... (none / 0)

See above.

The statement that the RBC has discretion to seat the delegates fully, sanction them fully, sanction them by 50%, or come up with an alternate arrangement is a fact not an opinion.

Seriously, do you even understand anything I've said on this matter?

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:22:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yes, i am familiar with your inability to answer.. (none / 0)

the question. and you've done it again...

"This is the time for resolve and steady leadership" -- Barack Obama

by bored now on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, chill with the rhetoric (none / 0)

See above. When you ask a specific question I can answer it. When you just throw the kitchen sink at me, you don't give any indication of what it is you're trying to have answered.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Lawyers: (2.00 / 1)

That's not quite true. The rules include this: "Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

And while the rules don't include any legal mechanism for enforcing this pledge (you're right about this), it's still a qualification which isn't imposed upon superdelegates.

If any significant number of pledged delegates started to flip at the convention, the Dems would be heading into uncharted waters. My hunch, the supers would step in and put a stop to it (eg. how could one spike stories that these pledged delegates were being paid off? politically this would be a disaster). Since this has never happened, though, we don't know.

And let's not forget that people will always have recourse to the usual extra-procedural remedies if that's the direction they decide to go (eg. what would stop delegates from simply leaving the convention?).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:50:27 AM EST

Re: DNC Lawyers: (none / 0)

Yes, thank you for the well reasoned post.

"Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

One loophole there is the "in good conscience" language. "I can't vote for Candidate X in good conscience because of Reason Y." Hence a basis for deviation for any pledged delegate who would choose to espouse it (like the Maryland pledged delegate who was pledged for Clinton but defected to Obama).

Another one would be "the sentiments of those who elected [me] changed" so I must "in good conscience" change with them.

I would think maybe future iterations of the primary rules should at least consider a mechanic binding pledged delegates to a candidate. When push comes to shove and the Presidency of the United States is at stake, lacking such a bridle invites a Pandora's Box.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restor (none / 0)

The floor can rule whatever it wants granted one has the votes. Right now, Obama delegates own a plurality. However, I still believe the Obama campaign needs to throw a brushback pitch if trench warfare is threatened. The place I would start is a 2PM EDT speaking slot on the first day of the convention for President Clinton and escalate from there to possibly FL & MI.

Unfortunately I think it is time to stop being leveraged by PR when the ultimate goal of these actions on Senator Clinton's part is Senator Clinton winning the nomination. A rational actor interested in the nomination couldn't be expected to not go after it. Senator Obama needs to secure the nomination first if he has a plurality but not a nominating majority. Ultimately, I think that bluffs need to start getting called and PR has to take a back seat.

There is no consensus solution when there is one spot and TWO people still want it. If it goes to a convention fight and Senator Obama didn't press every advantage he had, he would be condemned for being Kerry part deux.

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:08:41 AM EST

Re: DNC Lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restor (none / 0)

Similarly, I wouldn't begrudge Clinton delegates for doing the same thing in Senator Obama's position. If it goes to the convention, it is going to be about raw power and not civility and in that arena, it shouldn't be about civility, it is about who has the votes for the nomination.

Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.

by AZphilosopher on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:11:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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.