MyDD :: The Meaning of Half

The Meaning of Half

by Todd Beeton, Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:52:09 PM EST

As we learned yesterday from The AP, DNC lawyers have confirmed that the Rules & Bylaws Committee is not authorized to restore the full delegations of Florida and Michigan even if it were inclined to do so:

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

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

"Lose at least half" is a slightly different scenario than FL DNC member Jon Ausman suggested this week was the likely result of Saturday's meeting:

"I think we're moving toward half votes for everybody," DNC member Jon Ausman said of his appeal to be heard Saturday by the DNC's rules and bylaws committee. That would mean superdelegates would have the same vote as pledged delegates.

In other words, Florida Democrats would have the same say in the presidential nominee as Democrats in Guam, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands.

Considering just Florida, it's interesting to look at the difference between these two scenarios: cutting the delegations in half vs. giving the full delegations half votes. As Chuck Todd points out, the distinction has real world implications:

As for the actual meeting itself, there's one more angle you ought to be aware of: a 50% cut and a halving of the delegates is not the same thing. For instance, if Florida delegates are seated in their entirety, but only have their vote counted as a .5, then Clinton will net approximately 19 delegates out of the state. But if the delegation is cut in half, that's done in every congressional district as well as statewide, then suddenly Clinton's advantage is only a net of six. That's right, the complicated nature of the DNC delegate selection process will be a good reminder to math majors everywhere that a 50% cut is not the same as a halving of an individual number.

Of course, whether Clinton nets 6, 19 or the full 38 FL delegates she hopes to get out of Saturday's meeting, she still won't catch Obama in the overall delegate count. As DemConWatch's handy chart demonstrates, even with FL & MI fully counted, Obama still leads Clinton by more than 100. But then again, for Clinton, the Michigan/Florida crusade ceased to be about delegates a while ago.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, florida primary, rules and bylaws committee (all tags)

Permalink :: 143 Comments :: Post a Comment

I'm sorry... (2.00 / 1)

...if its not about the delegates what IS it about?

by Lieber on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:54:58 PM EST

Re: I'm sorry... (2.00 / 1)

Sowing doubt and running up fake popular vote totals.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's about whatever they want it (none / 0)

to be about. What is it with you linear people?

by 79blondini on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kiss Michigan Good-Bye! (none / 0)

Poll Date Sample McCain (R) Obama (D) Spread
RCP Average 05/07 - 05/27 43.3 40.3 McCain +3.0
EPIC-MRA 05/19 - 05/22 600 RV 44 40 McCain +4.0
SurveyUSA 05/27 - 05/27 529 RV 41 37 McCain +4.0
Rasmussen 05/07 - 05/07 500 LV 45 44 McCain +1.0

by minnehot1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right, we have no chance (2.00 / 2)

What with the election being tomorrow and all.

by Angry White Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're right, we have no chance (2.00 / 1)

Yes, I know! He's within the margin of error! Horrors!

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We can afford to lose FL (none / 0)

What are you going to do when he wins? When we win a 70 seat majority in congress?

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We can afford to lose FL (none / 0)

Ummm... if Obama would be toast with at least half the Democratic Party, what would happen to Clinton if she were crowned the nominee against the majority of pledged delegates wishes?

Do you really think the African-American community will happily sit back and watch the candidate WHO LOST THE PRIMARIES steal the nomination and then just happily jump on her bandwagon?

Put down the crackpipe.

by Obamaphile on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you understand that these polls are all within... (none / 0)

the margin of error, right? i'm not sure i'd be touting mccain's changes against a candidate who has never campaigned in the state before these polls were taken. but that's just me...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

s changes/chances... (none / 0)

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kiss Michigan Good-Bye! (none / 0)

McCain is not going to win MI anymore than he is going to win WI and MN. Michigan is not Ohio or Indiana.

John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.

by terra on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kiss Michigan Good-Bye! (2.00 / 1)

So what your saying is after all of the mud slung at Obama, the fact that McCain has had a two month head start, and the tightest Democratic Primary in recent memory, Obama is in the margin of error with McCain in Michigan? That doesn't sound half as bad when you use reasoning.

by JENKINS on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kiss Michigan Good-Bye! (none / 0)

For the Clinton campaign and their surrogate trolls who constantly play the "Clinton is more electable" game, please remember that we have MORE THAN 5 MONTHS until the November election.

What did Bill Clinton's race look like in 1992 in June? Whoa, in a general election matchup poll taken in June 1992, Ross Perot had 39%, followed by George Bush at 31%, and finally Bill Clinton with 25%. But wait! The November 1992 election results 5 MONTHS LATER were: Bill Clinton 43%, George Bush 37%, Ross Perot 19%. A lot can--and will--change between now and November.

Here's the poll from 1992. Read it and re-join the reality based community:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9E0CE7DB133EF932A25755C0A96495826 0

by nadacascadia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm sorry... (none / 0)

From the diary it's clear it's not about 'enfrachising' the voters, it's ALL about Clinton needing to 'win'--thanks for admitting it finally.

by Wary on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (2.00 / 2)

The argument is nonsensical. If a 50% penalty for violating the rules is mandatory, with no discretion on the part of the RBC to waive the penalty, then Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would all be missing 50% of their delegates.

It may well be that 50% is the final outcome the RBC members have decided on, but everyone should understand that this sham "the rules leave us no choice" argument is baseless.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:00:16 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Where in the rules does it say the Party cannot authorize a change in the schedule, as they did in those States? A Charter can leave open areas of flexibility and areas of inflexibility.

by Piuma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (2.00 / 1)

The DNC never passed any sort of amendment to the rules or the schedule. There is a process by which such an amendment would have to take place. That process never happened.

Either the 50% penalty is mandatory or it's not. Obviously it's not.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Why would an amendment have to be passed? There were hearings aired on CSPAN where the States (FL & MI) made their case and were denied. I remember Stephanie Tubbs-Jones being one of the people speaking - I believe against the States' request.

by Piuma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

The primary schedule is established by the written rules of the DNC.

No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. 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 no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

Nowhere in the rules is the RBC given the authority to modify this schedule. Nowhere. Not even through a formal amendment process, and certainly not through the "it just kinda happened" process that you envision.

The RBC is authorized to reduce or eliminate a state's penalty if it conducts an investigation and reaches certain conclusions, as specified in the rules. But that is equally true for MI and FL as it is for IA, NH, and SC. The idea that the RBC has no power to reduce the 50% penalty is unsupported by the rules, and frankly, common sense says that if three other states violated the exact same rule and received no punishment, either the authority to reduce the punishment must exist or else the reduction for those three states occurred with no authority.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

You are wrong on both parts, the relevant passages are on Page 21 of the Charter you linked previously.

As for modifying the schedule, the relevant paragraph Is:

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 party 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 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 in attempting 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.

There were hearings and Michigan and Florida were denied their request, the others were allowed. As such, the following comes into play:

4. Upon a determination of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that a state is in violation as set forth in subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule, the reductions required under those subsections shall become effective automatically and immediately and without further action of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, the Executive Committee of the DNC, the DNC or the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention.

by Piuma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

You just proved yourself wrong. The rule you cited plainly states, just as I said above, that the RBC has the authority to reduce the supposedly "automatic" 50% penalty if it makes the requisite determinations under the rule. Mind you, it never actually conducted an investigation or made those determinations with respect to the early states; but regardless, the point is that it has the exact same authority to reduce the supposedly "automatic" penalty for FL and MI.

The second item you cite simply doesn't say what you want it to say. "Without further action" does not mean there can be no appeal or that the RBC doesn't have the authority to reverse its decision. "Without further action" simply means that the penalty becomes effective without the need for the RBC to pass any kind of implementing resolution or take further steps.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (2.00 / 1)

I believe you are wrong - there were hearings prior to the elections where it was determined MI and FL would be in violation. As such the penalty became effective and, I believe, the RBC decided to go even further, which is their right. That is the history of this.

I assume this upcoming hearing is a further appeal to the earlier decision. I would agree with you it appears they could reverse their decision which would then require full seating on the basis of the vote. But without reversing their underlying decision of a violation, it looks clear that they do not have the power to negotiate a settlement somewhere between 50 & 100%, which is, I believe, what the lawyers are saying.

by Piuma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina asked for a waiver and received one; Florida and Michigan did not. The DNC wanted those jurisdictions to which they gave waivers to go early.

by Brad G on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (2.00 / 2)

So what you're saying is, they can waive the penalty if there's a good reason. That's the exact opposite of what the lawyers are saying in this memo.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (2.00 / 3)

I believe the memo is stating the Charter allows for waivers to be made and there is a process a State follow to seek a waiver, but once that decision is made it is final and subject to a minimum penalty which is irreversible.

by Piuma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (2.00 / 1)

I find it amazing that you got up-rated for simply making something up.

Here are the rules. Where in the rules does it say that a decision to grant or not grant a waiver is irrevocable and not subject to appeal?

Answer: nowhere. Not only do the rules say no such thing, but the DNC memo nowhere claims that "once the waiver decision is made it is irreversible." To be clear, you simply made it up, and someone up-rated you for it simply because you said something that they wanted to believe.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

I answered you above. To be clear, you are wrong and your insult is uncalled for and something you should apologize for.

by Piuma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

You have failed to cite to anything which says the penalty is irreversible, and as usual, you are now digging in your heels and insisting that black is white. The only thing I will apologize for is thinking that you had any interest in discussing these issues in good faith.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

I agree with you.Stand your ground cause it is solid.

...the only ones that can't tell the difference between reality and fiction, or as they say ' black and white' are the Clinton supporters from what I've seen these last several months.

by GeeMan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummm ... (none / 0)

... sorry there.

by Brad G on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (2.00 / 2)

If it was so bad, why was the only person that voted against the arrangement an Obama supporter? So Harold Ickes was before it before he was against it?

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Huh? Is that even the slightest bit responsive to what I wrote?

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (2.00 / 1)

OK seriously, the lawyers have made a claim you disagree with. But it's their job to interpret those legal documents. Legal documents are hard to read and understand correctly unless you have the relevant training. There's a reason for the three years of law school and the bar exam, after all.

Yes, it's possible that the lawyers are pro-Obama and letting that bias overcome their professional integrity, but absent some actual evidence for this claim, it's really more likely that you're just not understanding the documents correctly.

by vinc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

I've been a lawyer for 14 years. I've seen lots of lawyers make lots of bad arguments. The funny thing about the law is, anyone can look at the same source materials and draw a legal conclusion. This isn't the Catholic Church where certain people have additional interpretative authority beyond that which logic and reason afford us.

I never said the lawyers were pro-Obama, and really, that's a pretty weak strawman to put in my mouth. What they are is pro-DNC, and if the committee has decided they want to reach a certain conclusion, it's the job of the lawyers to write a legal opinion that justifies that conclusion. It's not like some court is ever going to look at this and rule that the DNC lawyers got it wrong.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My preferred solution is still zero... (2.00 / 1)

...but barring that, some split of delegates between the remaining candidates would do.

That would still be a far cry behind the optimal solution, however: zero delegates for FL or MI.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:02:08 PM EST

To the Convention! (none / 0)

It shall be sorted out at the Convention, then.

To Denver.

Go West, Madame President!

I proudly support Barack Obama for President!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:02:13 PM EST

Re: To the Convention! (2.00 / 4)

No, it won't.

For the simple reason that the party will not allow Clinton to do so. She will be forced out if she doesn't leave on her own before then.

Now comes the part where the Clinton supporters claim that they won't vote for Obama this Fall if FL and MI aren't seated in full. And then I respond with 'fine don't vote for him.' So can we skip that part?

by Lawyerish on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (none / 0)

Forced out?

To where?

Forced out where?

I proudly support Barack Obama for President!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps to a party where she feels the nominee has crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold?

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To Ron Paul's glorious (none / 0)

libertarian utopia. Paulville.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To Ron Paul's glorious (none / 0)

you have to be fucking kidding me! This is a real thing? Wow.

by nwgates on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it sure is (none / 0)

check the website. They have a whole 50 acres! Enough to build a small asylum to hold the lot of them.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it sure is (none / 0)

That link is crazy. Ron Paul's spawned communes!

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:08:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (2.00 / 2)

Forced out of the nomination campaign.

That's what happens to you when your S-D support evaporates and your fundraising can't get you out of debt for several months in a row. This is exactly the situation Clinton finds herself in right now and there's zero evidence that is going to change before the convention.

She'll still have a fine career as Senator from NY. But not as our parties' presidential nominee.

by Lawyerish on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (none / 0)

If Hillary keeps hammering Obama all summer, the superdelegates that she still has will start to abandon her in droves.

Think it won't happen?

How many SDs have left Obama for Clinton so far? What was that? Cat got your tongue? Ohhh.... ZERO. That's right. Obama hasn't lost a single SD to Clinton so far, no matter how much mud has been slung his way.

But of course, this summer, they'll all come to their senses and rally behind the candidate who lost the primaries, because of all that cash (negative $30MM) she has to face McCain this fall.

You're high.

If Clinton makes this a messy summer and inhibits the presumptive nominee (and next week, Obama WILL BE the presumptive nominee) from devoting all his resources to McCain, then she'll lose anywhere from 40-60 SDs who will switch to Obama just to make her go away.

She's not going to be the nominee. Accept that.

by Obamaphile on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (none / 0)

Zero? A superdelegate did leave Obama for Clinton!

I proudly support Barack Obama for President!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not if the DNC ... (none / 0)

... can't raise enough money for a convention. They're already so far behind fundraising targets, and not having a presumptive nominee just exacerbates the problem.

Then again, since Florida and Michigan broke the rules, why should the DNC pay for seating their full delegations, etc.?

by Brad G on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not if the DNC ... (none / 0)

The convention money problem will be fine once we have a nominee.

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (none / 0)

It's going to the convention regardless of what happens. If Hillary can't win the presidency, then no Democrat will!!

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (2.00 / 1)

Why does that sound to me like, "Pick me, or I will burn your house down?"

I can't see vast chunks of Clinton's base deciding to elect a pro-life, Scalia/Alito-loving, bottom 1% of his college class candidate if Clinton is not in the race.

by tominstl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (2.00 / 1)

Hell hath no fury as a Clinton supporter scorned...

But, I agree with you... there will be some dead enders (just as there are anti-McCain dead enders ..I know one)...but her support is visibly shrinking by the day.

People like a fighter and an underdog, but they hate a sore loser, and that's what she's become.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:43:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (2.00 / 1)

Sounds a lot like "vote for my guy or the soilders die'"

Oh, we've seen that diary already.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To the Convention! (none / 0)

LOL..Hillary will never be president in this world.

Maybe you will get luck in the next world and have her as your president there. ( of course old Nick will always be the real leader there).

by GeeMan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

I assume that "half" means the same thing as it did for the republicans. When they punished the states that moved up their primaries, what did they actually do? Cut the delegates in half or give each delegate a half vote?

by ProfessorReo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

RNC Strips Early States of Half Their Delegates
November 08, 2007 5:58 PM

ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan announced late this afternoon that the party will go ahead with sanctions against the five states schedule to hold primaries before Feb. 5, 2008.

New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming will lose half of their delegates to the national convention, Duncan told reporters on a conference call this afternoon. The RNC voted 121-9 to impose the sanctions and Duncan, who has final say on this issue, said he will abide by the vote.

Florida will lose 57 delegates, Michigan 30, South Carolina 23, Wyoming 14 and New Hampshire 12.

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lucky for them it doesnt matter (none / 0)

Since McCain doesn't need those votes.
This makes the GOP look much stronger and the Dems look much weaker because they can not even stick to their own rules.
Nobody is guaranteed the right to vote in a primary. The political parties are private entities. They can make up their own rules.

The truth is that Michigan tried to move up its vote specifically to help Clinton, but it backfired on her. The same thing happened in 1992. Zell Miller moved up Georgia's primary to help Bill Clinton. Except he did so with the blessing of the DNC. It worked, Clinton won a big victory in Georgia (back when the Clinton's said that Georgia counted) and went on to defeat Tsongas and Brown.

Again, the blame needs to be put on Jennifer Grenholm and the Michigan legislature, not the DNC. I have a little more sympathy for Florida because it was done by the GOP.

by monkeyga on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Except FL ... (2.00 / 1)

... is a winner-take-all state by the entire state (like NJ, NY, CT). Not an issue then.

by Brad G on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Does what the Republicans did matter since their elections are all winner take all, and ours are all proportional?

by Christy1947 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It looks like it's a 50% reduction in delegates (2.00 / 1)

Rather than seating each with half a vote.

Rule 20(C)(1)(a) states: "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 . . ."

The number of delegates shall be reduced, not the full delegation seated with half a vote.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST

Re: It looks like it's a 50% reduction in delegate (none / 0)

That's what I figured, soon as someone explained that's how the republicans do it.

by ProfessorReo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It looks like it's a 50% reduction in delegate (none / 0)

The memo suggests, though, that the RBC has the authority to approve a half-vote scheme if it wants to.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, though it's puzzling to me (none / 0)

that there is a question whether "delegates" refers to delegates or delegate votes. The implied authority from Rule 20(C)(8) doesn't overcome what appears to me to be pretty plain language. I don't agree with the lawyers that "the rule doesn't specify whether the reduction is to be accomplished on the basis of delegate positions or delegate votes." It seems to me that the more plausible reading of "delegates" is "delegate positions" rather than "delegate votes" and that fairly specific.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, though it's puzzling to me (none / 0)

It appears quite specific to delegates since what it is concerned with is that the reduction plan still follow the representation goals (gender and other) expressed in the document. This is addressed at the end of the section, where it talks about how the DNC may step in and decide:

...which delegates and alternates shall not be a part of the state's delegation in order to achieve the reduction of the state's delegation pursuant to this Rule 20.

by Piuma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, though it's puzzling to me (none / 0)

Well, I agree with you, and it seems to me that they are simply attempting to provide something of a fig leaf. Be that as it may, ultimately there is no "controlling legal authority" as Al Gore might say, so if the DNC and its lawyers decide to invent interpretations of the rules like "halving the delegate votes is okay" or "the 50% penalty is irreversible" then that's how it is gonna be. Like all those opinions Bush commissioned from the OLC, the DNC memo is a political document couched in legal terms.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All true (none / 0)

the only real controlling legal authority is the Convention itself.

by JJE on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All true (none / 0)

Has the party actually ever done this before, so there is precedent?

by Christy1947 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (2.00 / 2)

If only the rules were different, I would win! That's schoolyard whining. That's not the level of maturity I want answering the red phone at 3am.

Hilary now is arguing that her signature on an important document is meaningless (she agreed to exclude FL and MI). That's not the level of integrity I want in the White House. As VP, either.

by LAM on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:23:39 PM EST

Signing statements (none / 0)

Hmm, sounds like signing statements to me. 'I will sign the legislation, but I don't have to follow it'

More of the same, I guess.

by monkeyga on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

She didn't sign a document agreeing to exclude FL and MI. I don't know why people insist on making stuff up.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Making stuff up? (none / 0)

So her sober and considered agreement to stop campaigning in MI and FL because they broke the rules, and her agreement that the delegates from those states not be seated -- whether that agreement was verbal or in writing -- was never given? That Hillary defied the DNC decision and opposed it openly when it seemed she was winning?

Rubbish. I'm not the one making stuff up.

At one point in this saga, when it seemed as though Hillary would collect the delegates she needed and the battle would be over after Super Tuesday (remember that?) Hillary was apparently quite prepared to disregard the vote of every person in every primary to be held after she had clinched the nomination. She cared not a whit about those millions of voters.

This fight is not about "every vote should count". And I'm not making that up.

by LAM on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:21:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (2.00 / 1)

"the Michigan/Florida crusade ceased to be about delegates a while ago."

I guess... Since the goal posts have been moved so many times already. But, at the end of the day, delegates select the candidate and Obama is probably going to pass the goal line on Tuesday. So, is it your contention that Hillary is just being a good Samaritan now in making sure Florida and Michigan get representation? If so, why are they planning huge protests around the meeting site? Seems to me she's still trying to pull something. Frankly, the Democrats were always going to have to do something about Florida and Michigan anyway. Hillary positioning herself as their champion just looks like cheap politics. And it doesn't help that she's driving a wedge between the voters there and our candidate.

I also completely disagree with the 1/2 vote thing. Sure, it still means the rightful winner is the candidate. But if they were planning to use the same method as the Republicans to punish the states for moving up, they should've just done that, announced it and let the candidates leave their names on the ballots and run campaigns. Obama would've won Michigan, no doubt in my mind, and would've been closer in Florida. This would've ended the primary campaign by now and wouldn't have left Hillary the rope she's using to wrap around Obama's neck by being the "Count the Votes Wonder Woman" she's playing on TV this weekend.

Let's elect a Dem President!

by SpanishFly on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

I'm with Maddow's take. Yesterday she said that because Clinton was now asking for full seating and the lawyers had admitted that was impossible, Clinton was using the issue for a screen on her choice to fight on through the Convention. What Clinton wants can only be granted there, so, she'll just have to stay in the race, 'so sorry, have to do this for MI&FL, not in this for myself at all'. It's not cheap politics, it's high quality spin and demagogy.
Also, I never expect the Democrats to do something decisive when there's a chance it could just go away on its own. It's frustrating, but it's actually something I kinda like about them; they don't rush into disaster. Ideally, with an active electorate, it is a tendency that could be used to focus Government action on crap that actually matters.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

I really think hootie4170's recent diary (it's recommended) fleshes out this topic in an important way!

by chrispy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:27:50 PM EST

So I guess Hillary's chances will turn on (2.00 / 1)

what meaning of half is.

by ProfessorReo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST

Re: So I guess Hillary's chances will turn on (2.00 / 1)

She will say her glass is half-empty, no matter what.

by Hoopy Frood on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uugh - please break the rules and seat 100% (none / 0)

Just do it. Give Hillary the very best case she can possibly hope for. Go beyond. Give her an extra 5 pledged delegates as a bonus for hanging in there.

Give her 110% of what she has asked for in MI/FL.

Then count the delegates, tell her she's lost, and take away her microphone.

Don't let this go to convention where we'll get to enjoy passionate speeches about the definition of half.

by jello5929 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM EST

Re: Uugh - please break the rules and seat 100% (none / 0)

No, that will just encourage her party-destructing behavior...

It's going to the convention anyways, check this out:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/05/clinton-preps-p.html

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uugh - please break the rules and seat 100% (none / 0)

Wise words. For that reason, no one will listen to you.

Very few people seem to be able to keep their eye on the ball throughout this process.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uugh - please break the rules and seat 100% (none / 0)

That's because this isn't just about Obama. This is about Florida and Michigan breaking the rules, and the possibility of what could happen should they not be punished. What the hell is the incentive for following the rules if breaking them doesn't lead to punishment? The DNC needs to do this if its to have any controlling authority over an already out of control calendar next cycle.

by accidentalwonk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uugh - please break the rules and seat 100% (none / 0)

MI and FL have already been punished, regardless of whether they get any delegates. They had primaries that attracted no media attention, no influence over the process, no candidate appearances, and no dollars flowing into their states. If you think states will be lining up to experience the same thing next time, simply because of the possibility that they might get some delegates at the end of the process, I don't think you understand what states are seeking to accomplish by holding early primaries.

In addition, anyone who legitimately cared about sending a stern message for the next cycle would insist that the early states like NH and SC be punished for their violation of the rules. NH announced their intent to break the rules well before MI got upset and did the same, yet they were given no punishment at all. How does that not tell NH that they can feel free to run roughshod over the agreed-upon process next cycle as well?

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Show me the math... (none / 0)

...that gets Clinton to 2209 delegates, please.

That's all I'm asking. Can she get there shortly after June 3rd? If not, it seems like a bad faith argument to say she should refuse to concede until the vote at the convention. I mean, even if she somehow won then, she'd probably lose in the general because she alienated too many Obama supporters. And if she didn't win, and Obama lost in November, she would absolutely get the lion's share of the blame for it, and have no shot at ever being the nominee again.

She's still 235 short even if she gets all of her delegates from FL and MI. She's still 185 short even if she gets 50 delegates out of the last 3 states. She's still about 170 short even if she gets about half of the remaining add-on delegates.

She won't get many(if any) of the remaining 18 Edwards delegates, and she's unlikely to get many(if any) of the remaining 33 uncommitted Michigan delegates.

So, most of her remaining 170 will have to come out of the remaining 190 superdelegates.

What are the odds she'll get 160+ superdelegates between now and the Credentials Committee meeting?

As mathematically near to zero as politically possible, I'd imagine.

She'll get some, don't get me wrong. I just don't think she'll even get a majority of the remainder, let alone enough to give her the nomination.

On the other hand, it's overwhelmingly likely that Obama will secure enough superdelegates in June to put him comfortably over the top. I think he'll lead her by at least 200 delegates, even with FL and MI counting fully.

by megaplayboy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

I say
"Bring it to Demver"(yes I said Demver cause Denver is full-tilt Dem)
Without it the DLC will still be around.
Sen. Clinton and her husband have choices.
When Sen. Obama gives his acceptance speech 40 years to the day of Dr. King's speech...The American Dream
will have a new meaning..

So please..Clinton supporters come.
We are a simple Cowtown..the more you bring to our economy the better...

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:07:54 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

What I'm concerned about is what I think of as the Dean Phenomenon(I'm sure it predates Dean, but I'm trying to be hip). Howard Dean ran a campaign in which he activated a ton of people. Bought down by media ridicule and insider distaste, he lost the nomination, but he retained most of his core supporters which led directly to his takeover of the DNC. Hillary Clinton is a losing nominee, who has a mass of highly motivated supporters, and is claiming that she was brought down by insider distaste(sexism) and media ridicule(more sexism). What I fear is that she will lead a sort of DNC counter-coup and put the Corporate/DLC failures right back in charge of the Party. Which is not to say that was always Clinton's goal, but out of the entire universe of left-of-center American figures, no one has been a better student of the Republican ability to capitalize on synergy than Hillary Clinton.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Doubtful. (none / 0)

Which is yet another reason she's riding this out to the end. If she loses, she's done. Losers who represent the past don't get to take control of the party machinery. Dean got it because his support core was the party's future and he had the party-building tools and infrastructure designers which made him the right man for the job.
The tools of the Clintons - McAuliffe, Shrum, Carville, Begala, Wolfson, Davis, Ickes, etc - have had their time at the controls but they're out. To the victor go the spoils. No longer will the Clintons control the flow of money or party machinery (as limited as that was during their tenure). If we're moving on, we move on. In cases like this, the loser gets put out to pasture,a la Teddy Kennedy. She can be a strong Senator and an effective advocate for many issues that are important to her and to Democrats as a whole - which is why, I assume, she got into this line of work in the first place.

It's not the Clinton's party anymore; it's gonna belong to the people again. Clinton supporters can come to grips with that and carve a place for themselves in the new paradigm, or they can run to the arms of their abusers. I'm reasonably sure they'll choose the former. The vast majority of them may be loyal supporters, but they're not cultists, for heaven's sake - there are too many important things at stake in this election for them to all run headlong off a cliff just because their candidate lost.

by SuperTex on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Doubtful. (none / 0)

Not running off a cliff does not preclude their continued, cult-of-personality style support. In many ways, she can keep them active and beholden to her for as long as possible by staying in until the Convention, and then still maintain her legitimacy by conceding then. At that point, people will have been working in her name for at least 8 months, support for Clinton will be a normative mental state for them, and she'll be able to call on that support forever...a la Ted Kennedy...
But I think she's more ambitious than Teddy, and I think she's beholden to a party faction, the DLC, in a way that the dynastic Kennedy never was and need never be.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Half. Ok... Now what? Obama's our nominee and we move on. While the party will CONTINUE to remain SPLIT unless Clinton is put on the ticket which I don't see happening because she doesn't want it.

by nzubechukwu on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (2.00 / 1)

That's the problem. The only way to fix the split is if the losing candidate concedes and helps bridge the gap.

But like you said, Hillary doesn't want that.

So we are stuck. On to Denver. Followed by a McCain victory in fall. Thanks Hillary. Thanks a lot.

by jello5929 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

If that happens, we may have to recalculate our priorities. If ever there was a year when the Dems could take it to the convention and still win the GE, this is it, but it will be so, so, so hard. If it goes to the Convention, you and I and all of us will have to work 20 hours a day, every day to win. I will, given the chance, but most people, even highly motivated partisans, just aren't crazy like I am. It may be better to focus on the Congress; in many ways the Presidency is a sideshow, without a willing Congress McCain could do very little. If Clinton does not drop out after the last primaries, it will be time for all of us to choose: Quixotic Presidential campaign or tactical retreat to Congressional races.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

I don't want Hillary to be a heartbeat away from being President, after all she's said about hearts being stopped. She holds that heartbeat in too low esteem.

by LAM on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but according to the Clinton campaign... (none / 0)

math was henceforth put into quotations by decree, sometime last month or so. This isn't snark. She literally put quotations around "math" in a campaign memo.

Now suddenly "math" is useful to her so we can take it seriously again?

by Tenafly Viper on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:23:29 PM EST

Admitting the half of it. (none / 0)

But then again, for Clinton, the Michigan/Florida crusade ceased to be about delegates a while ago.

Interesting observation to leave dangling at the end of a diary. It needs one of its own to explore it fully.

What then, could Hillary's quixotic campaign be about?

Sowing division and damaging Obama for the general election while creating a myth that she was the real winner, as the pretext to a hopeful 2012 redo (Democrats don't like losers)?

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:36:45 PM EST

Re: Admitting the half of it. (none / 0)

I think it's about Clinton holding her supporters together past the election so that she will have a powerful national endorsement ability for the rest of her life.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That seems a rather small ambition (none / 0)

for the mighty Clintons.

Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.

by Freespeechzone on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary will look this Gift Horse in the mouth (none / 0)

Will Hillary become the next Harold Stassen?

We shall soon see.

It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama

by Lefty Coaster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:43:18 PM EST

wikipedia (none / 0)

Interesting reference. The name was familiar but I did not know his history.

by monkeyga on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Take it to the convention. Period.

by gotalife on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:43:36 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

So, the history is this:

The national party passed a clear rule to control the primary process, which it has a clear mandate to do.
Two states decided to flout that rule.
The national party issued sanctions against each of the states in August 2007.
Each state had the opportunity to go back to the party with a proposal that would either reduce or eliminate the sanction against them.
Neither party did so.
The two illegitimate primaries were held, with as many as 2 to 2 1/2 million voters not participating because they were told the vote would count for nothing.
The Clinton campaign supported the national party action, and essentially participate in it, until at least stage 5 above.
As its circumstances grew darker and darker, the Clinton campaign began insisting, despite its earlier position, that the rump primaries should count.
In the last two months, the Clinton campaign has deliberately and repeatedly told the voters of Florida and Michigan that they were cheated--not by the national party, including Clinton, doing its job and enforcing its rules, and not by the state party leaders that thought they could game the system--but really by Barack Obama, whose one clear supporter on the committee voted against the sanctions.
The Rules Committee shortly will issue a decision which at most will allow for a 50% count for the two offending states.
Obama will be the nominee.
The citizens of the two states will have lingering resentments, which are basically the fault of their own party leaders and the Clinton campaign.
Those resentments may cost the part victory in November.

Question: Just what actions do Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton campaign propose to take when it is clear that Obama is the nominee to heal the resentments they had such a large part in fomenting?

by anoregonreader on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:45:24 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Answer: It's been clear for a long time. You've been seeing what they intend to do.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

When you say "two states decided to flout that rule," you're referring to New Hampshire and South Carolina, right?

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Wasn't it the RBC that decided not to take away half the delegates of IA, NH, NV and SC? If it's a binding DNC rule why were they able to get around that with those four states?

Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com

by forecaster15 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:49:22 PM EST

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

Because those states had their dates set. Then MI and FL mucked things up by moving their date. Those four states rectified it by moving their date forward. They applied for an appeal because they were being given favored status to go first. They won the appeal, hence they get full delegate status. MI and FL made their own bed by trying to be first in line. They could've fixed it. They didn't. They got served.

by applejackking on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Meaning of Half (none / 0)

This is just not an accurate statement of events. In fact, the entire reason MI moved up their date is because NH and SC had already announced their intention to break the rules and the DNC wasn't threatening them with any kind of punishment. The decision to grant waivers came much, much later.

"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 Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's an absolute embarrassment... (2.00 / 1)

...that we're even considering allowing these elections to count for something. The public was told that they wouldn't count. This isn't subtle, it's not complicated, it's not confusing. The results are undeniably invalid, and without question not representative of the will of the people.

I thought I lived in a country where we took our democracy seriously. Where we understood that voting is important, almost sacred, and treated it with the respect it deserved. Where "we think this is probably close enough to count" should be rightfully mocked. Where we don't reward candidates for leaving their names on a ballot for an election they agreed to not participate in.

But, as it turns out, we'll sell all those values down the river to pacify a couple of states that we worry about alienating, even though it was their decision and their decision alone to violate the rules.

Saturday will not be a proud day for us.

by ChrisKaty on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:52:20 PM EST

Re: It's an absolute embarrassment... (none / 0)

The public wasn't told any such thing. The public was told that the DNC wasn't going to award any delegates, but these were still the official primaries under MI and FL law, and both the state Democratic Parties as well as Obama and Clinton supporters encouraged people to get out and vote. They all knew this would most likely be the only election, one way or the other, and that the possibility existed that it would end up counting.

The Michigan Democratic Party, as well as Obama supporters in Michigan like John Conyers, ran advertisements encouraging p