2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules (FL & MI info)

2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

2008delegateselectionrules.pdf
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf

see:

Rule 11.A (page 12 of the document; page 16 pdf)
Rule 20.C.1.a (page 20 of the document, page 24 of pdf)
Rule 20.C.1.b (page 20 of the document, page 24 of pdf)
Rule 9 (page 10 of the document, page 14 of pdf)

****
Based upon the rules as I read them ---

All the pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated according to the certified primary votes.  This however should include the undecided pledged delegates from Michigan being seated as undecided, and the pledged delegates for Obama in Florida being stripped for his campaign's violation of the no campaigning agreement, provided the committee agrees that such violation occurred and was material.  The pledged delegates should only receive half a vote as further sanction for the states' violation of the primary calendar rules (the delegate issue not being resolved until this committee's decision has also been a punishment to these states and to the candidates campaigns' momentum).  All super delegates should be seated and receive a full vote (apparently they are differently designated than the pledged and un-pledged delegates although this remains somewhat unclear).  The other states, which also violated the calendar rules, should receive a written warning which indicates that in the future one state's violation of the rules will not absolve another state's similar reactionary violation.  Any popular vote argument could be made based upon the full, certified popular vote from each state or any other metric, for whatever merit such arguments may or may not be worth.

At best, this would seem to add seventy-five or so pledged delegates to the Clinton campaign and would not likely change the race dynamic.  It is also the most correct outcome by the rules as I understand them, and would be unassailable by either campaign and the Clinton campaign in particular.

Please comment on any misunderstanding of the rules.

Please add a more definitive estimate of the Clinton campaign's increase in pledged delegates based upon this solution.

Thanks.

Tags: delegates, Florida, Michigan, Rules (all tags)

Comments

33 Comments

Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

You would have to count Hillary also in that no campaing pledge since she violated that rule by campainging in Florida.  I remember when she did it.  There was a big stink about it at the time.

by Spanky 2008-05-28 12:22PM | 0 recs
A date would be nice

But since it never occurred, I expect you'll have trouble coming  up with one.

Clinton held 2 fundraisers in Florida, as did Obama (within the rules allowed).

Clinton held a rally after the polls closed on election night (also within the rules).

Obama had an informal press conference after one of his fundraisers (in violation of the rules) and purchased advertising on cable channels that were broadcast in Florida (also in violation of the rules) while claiming his ad buy couldn't avoid playing in Florida for two weeks straight.  He 'got permission' for this violation from the  Chair of the SC Democratic Party -- who later endorsed him ...

Something stunk all right, but it wasn't the Clinton campaign.

by TxKat 2008-05-28 12:31PM | 0 recs
Yes it did...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008 01/28/6677

"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," said Clinton before jetting to Sarasota and Miami for events on Sunday.

The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in a state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.

The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign's dismal showing in South Carolina that, "Regardless of today's outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5."

Y'know I just realized, by keeping her name on the ballot in Michigan she may have broken the pledge there too. Since that pledge was to not campaign or participate.

Strip her delegates there?

by kraant 2008-05-28 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes it did...

Kraant:

If this is true (i.e. agreed to by Clinton formally like the candidates must agree to the 2008 DNC rules), then her campaign should be stripped of her delegates in Michigan.  However, I believe that no such formal agreement or pledge was made.  Could you provide further evidence?

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes it did...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

   Four State Pledge Letter 2008
    Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
    August 31, 2007

   WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

   WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

   WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

   WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

   THEREFORE, I _____, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

IIRC the reason names weren't withdrawn on the Florida ballot is that by Florida law the only way to withdraw from the ballot there is to withdraw from the nomination race entirely

by kraant 2008-05-28 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Pledge, name withdrawal, and fund raising

Kraant:

I do not believe that there was any requirement to remove a candidates name from the ballot in either state.  Some candidates did and some did not; probably based upon political calculations as to the best outcome for their candidacy.

It seems that both of the candidates, their surrogates, and the 2008 DNC rules allow for fund raising events and that these fall outside of the pledge (see the media links by Jsfox below).

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Pledge, name withdrawal, and fund raising

It's unclear, I'd be very surprised if they were stripped, because rules are rules right down until it comes down the negotiations, for example, I think Michigan will be seated with the compromise they requested even though I'm not sure the rules allow for it as such, but... Heh...

It depends on what the meaning of "participate" is.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1 007/Clinton_will_stay_in_Michigan.html

"We will honor the pledge and not campaign or spend money in any state that is not in compliance with the DNC calendar, but it is not necessary to take the steps necessary to remove Senator Clinton's name from the ballot," said her communications director, Howard Wolfson.

Note how the word participate is missing there.

by kraant 2008-05-28 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Pledge, name withdrawal, and fund raising

Kraant:

You are right.  After their word posturing and rule dissection is done, it will likely come down to what is deemed as a reasonably fair outcome.

I say the likely outcome is fifty percent voting rights for pledged delegates and all voting rights for super delegates is the outcome, with no forfeit by the Obama campaign in Florida but pledged delegates as unassigned in Michigan.

Odds anyone?

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes it did...

These were Clinton fundraisers and no one in their right minds ever claimed otherwise -- not even the Obama campaign, especially since he held his share of Florida fundraisers (where he even held an impromptu press conference).

There was no hint of a suggestion by the DNC that anyone remove their names from the Michigan ballot. It was grandstanding by Obama (and Edwards) to curry favor with Iowa caucus goers.  

Even according to Clinton-hater Markos.

by TxKat 2008-05-28 03:21PM | 0 recs
Again?

Is there a reason to post the same exact diary that you posted this morning?

by thezzyzx 2008-05-28 12:23PM | 0 recs
For those who care...

... here it is.

http://liame.mydd.com/story/2008/5/28/10 548/0279

by kraant 2008-05-28 12:27PM | 0 recs
Diary provides link to 2008 DNC delegate rules

It seemed that many posts are not in possession of the actual rules, are in possession of only rule fragments, or believe that others may be promoting arguments without the actual rules.  So one of the main points of this diary is to provide a link so that everyone can have a copy of the rules and reference any sections they find pertinent to the discussion relating to the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

by Liame 2008-05-28 12:30PM | 0 recs
Rule 20.c.5

5. Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
   DNC 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.

So your the very first sentence in the diary...

All the pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated according to the certified primary votes.

... is wrong.

They don't have to be seated at all.

by kraant 2008-05-28 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Rule 20.c.5

Kraant:

You're right, of course.  I certainly did not intend to state that this outlined resolution was the only allowed outcome, just the most specifically established (i.e. recommended) in the 2008 DNC rules.  A more stringent set of sanctions would certainly be permitted under the rules; however certain mitigating factors, like the Republican control of Florida's timing (even though the Democrats may not have protested enough) may tend to suggest the recommended sanctions rather than a more stringent course of action.

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules (link)

Kraant & Thezzyzx:

This post is similar but not exactly the same in either the body or intent of distributing the link.  If others are uninterested in the topic, then I apologize.  It fascinates me however.

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 12:37PM | 0 recs
It's interesting...

... but as far as I can tell the DNC lawyer memo seems pretty much the final word until the meeting itself plays out.

There's also the meeting materials with the challenges submitted by Michigan and Florida and DNC staff analysis of them if you really want to go nuts...

At a quick read, it seems that even Mi and FL concede that they'll lose 50%.

by kraant 2008-05-28 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: It's interesting...

Kraant:

I agree, but 50% of what?  Pledged, super or both?

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 01:11PM | 0 recs
Well I've only glanced through it...

... as I understand it Florida is asking to keep all it's superdelegates and have a 50% reduction in pledged delegates.

Michigan is asking for no penalty but to have the delegates split, 69 for Hillary, 59 for Obama.

by kraant 2008-05-28 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Well I've only glanced through it...

Kraant:

Florida's request seems to reflect my reading of the rules (not that my reading means a hoot).  I am unsure as to how Michigan can justify their request based upon the rules (perhaps a moral argument).

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

FWIW, the only interpretation of the rules that matters will be made on Friday.  Based on the preliminary report by the DNC lawyers (who I'm tempted to believe know more than you), you're probably incorrect in your assertions.  

by rb608 2008-05-28 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

Rb608:

Could you link the memo so that we could see the language as it pertains to the difference between the pledged and super delegates?  As I indicated above, this is a less than clear point in my cursory reading of the 2008 DNC rules.

Certainly, things will be decided on soon.  The whole point of this website is so that we all can waste our precious time ruminating about maters with which we have very little or no control.

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

The only variance is that Obama got clearance from the DNC for is TV Ad in Fl since it was a national buy and FL could not be isolated out.

Also the uncommitted delegates from MI are free if not assigned to then pledge as they wish. 18 have already pledged to Obama, plus two Supers from the State

My sense is they will be assigned to Obama.

Net result from the DNC meeting:
FL
C: 52.5
O: 38.5
MI
C: 36.5
O: 18.5

by jsfox 2008-05-28 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

Jsfox:

Thanks for the reply.  Can you provide more information about the prior approval for any Obama campaign media buy.  It is unclear to me as to whether or not such referenced approval was by the DNC; hence my reference to 'materially pertinent'.

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

Here's one.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010 8/8019.html

by jsfox 2008-05-28 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules

And another: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200 80123/NEWS/801230668

by jsfox 2008-05-28 01:06PM | 0 recs
Obama campaign's media buy which included FL

Jsfox:

These two articles seem only to confirm, by third parties, that the Obama campaign may have violated the agreement through its media purchase and that neither campaign violated the agreement by their fundraising efforts.  My quick reading doesn't find anything referencing the media buy being sanctioned by the DNC or any other.  Am I missing something?

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign's media buy which included FL

Maybe this from the Tribune article:

"Yet South Carolina has become the gatekeeper for the pledge. Burton said Obama's campaign consulted with Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, before the ad ran, and she "told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states," Burton said."

by jsfox 2008-05-28 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign's media buy which included FL

Jsfox:

Sorry, I missed that.  I am not sure what authority she brings to the matter (no disrespect to her or you intended).  It would seem to me that the Obama campaign's media buy would be a violation and that a DNC committee would need to determine whether or not it was a material violation, rather than just one State party chair.  If the Florida chair said it was a violation, then would that make it so?

More importantly, by accepting it as a violation the Obama campaign can shut down any argument as to the fairness of the resolution, and would still have the majority of the pledged delegates after resolution of Florida and Michigan.

Liame

by Liame 2008-05-28 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign's media buy which included FL

I think the paragraph implies she was the one for the DNC in charge of the pledge. My take.

by jsfox 2008-05-28 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign's media buy which included FL

Her position was strictly State Chair in South Carolina.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/01/obama-wrong-abo.html

Obama Wrong About D.N.C. Claim

...(snip)"The DNC has consistently said that we have not broken that pledge," said Obama.

Obama's claim is not true.

"The DNC has not weighed in on the pledge because it was a pledge with the state party chairs from the four early states, not the DNC," DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton told ABC News

by TxKat 2008-05-28 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign's media buy which included FL

As i said it was my take. However I would say that since the DNC has weighed in on this already that it may be a mute point.

However, the both of us will know by the end of day Saturday :)

by jsfox 2008-05-28 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign's media buy

We will indeed.

by Liame 2008-05-29 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Who will have the most votes then?

It would seem that under most discussed and reported circumstances, at least some and likely all pledged delegates at fifty percent voting and all super delegates at full voting will be sat at the convention.  This will naturally lead to the next question, as moot as it may be; which candidate has the most votes and should that mater more or less than the number of pledged delegates a candidate has received?

by Liame 2008-05-28 02:06PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads