Thursday, May 29, 2008

A point on the Michigan & Florida issue

So as you probably know, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee is meeting this Saturday in DC (an event I tried to get a pass for but they sold out in ten minutes). And in the meeting, the 30 members of this committee will decide the fate of 366 delegates from Michigan and Florida. More delegates than the total amount remaining from other sources. So the decision of the RBC will be very important in framing the remainder of the primary battle.

In case you've been living on Mars the past few months, both Michigan and Florida were stripped of all their delegates to the nominating convention for moving their primaries before February 5th. You can see a good timeline of the full MI & FL history here (hat tip to Mr. Super, who is an actual superdelegate from California).

The Clinton camp is fighting hard for a full seating of the delegates selected in these elections. The narrative seems to have coalesced around the point that some compromise has got to be reached. Some Obama supporters have even suggested that he should call Clinton's bluff and offer to seat the delegations in full as per election results. But such analysis ignores a key point regarding process, and one I feel is crucial to future reform of the primary system.

Both Florida and Michigan moved up their elections because they wanted to have more influence over the nomination process. They argued that the DNC rules prohibiting states from moving up before 2/5 were unfair, and in doing so both states directly challenged the DNC's authority to set the rules of the nomination process. Regardless of whether or not the DNC's rules are fair, they are the rules nonetheless, and therefore both elections cannot be considered legitimate.

The stakes of the party committee holding its ground on this matter are huge, and not just for Hillary Clinton. If DNC decisions about election process are viewed as something less than absolute, reformation of the primary process for 2012 and beyond will be nearly impossible. In such an atmosphere, we can expect Iowa and New Hampshire to pull out all the stops to maintain their first-in-the-nation status, setting a race to the front where many primaries could move deep into the year before the general election. That would be an absolute nightmare. And don't think the RBC and the DNC isn't fully aware of that point.

This doesn't mean that the original decision to strip the states of 100% of their delegates needs to be upheld; it just means that the elections cannot under any circumstances be recognized as fully legitimate after the fact.

Expect Florida to cut the delegates in half, but assign them according to election results to appease the Clinton camp. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but it seems to be the easiest way to keep both sides relatively satisfied. Okay, I don't think any hearing result will satisfy Hillary herself at this point, the key is satisfying her reality-based supporters as to blunt any argument that the election was stolen. Plus it maintains some form of penalty on Florida for breaking the rules.

Michigan, however, is much trickier. I believe the proper word would be "clusterfuck". Michigan's Soviet-style "election" in January yielded 73 pledged delegates for Clinton, and 55 for that formidable candidate Uncommitted. Obviously the Clintonian camp's claims that Obama deserves zero delegates from Michigan is obscenely absurd on its face. So a full recognition of the MI vote is virtually out of the question. It remains to be seen, however, whether they allow even partial recognition in determining if/how to seat the state's delegates. I hope they don't, cut the delegates in half and split the allocation right down the middle - 32 Clinton, 32 Obama. More likely we will see something akin to the 69-59 split proposed by the state Dem establishment, and hopefully cut in half to 35-29.

As the saying goes, we shall see...

Update: The entire RBC must have read this post and were deeply moved by my advice (hey, a guy can dream). On Saturday they decided to do exactly what was predicted above, although Michigan ends up at 34.5-29.5. This is a small numbers victory for the Clintonites, but way short of what they would have needed to stay relevant. Obama's magic number (before P.R.) is now up to 63. Clinton's is 240.5.

Update x2: Clinton wins huge in Puerto Rico, 68-32. Word is she pandered hardcore to the pro-statehood faction, which tends to vote much more consistently in statewide elections. Kudos to the Clinton campaign for pursuing a successful strategy for a change. However, Obama's magic number is down to 46. Expect him to get over the hump on Tuesday or Wednesday as superdelegates declare in droves.

See detailed delegate news & updates at DemConWatch

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that what happened to Hillary is the boys in the back room behaving like a pack of chauvanist pigs stripping from a woman what she has rightfully earned. Shame on them. Thus to protest this, all Hillary supporters should vote for John McCain to teach the Democratic Party a lesson! If not, you're for sexism and sexism is wrong.

Anonymous said...

And of course, if sexism wins, then the terrorists win. And I'm anti-terrorism.

optimo said...

I'd like to offer a twenty-four hour window, starting around midnight Sunday/Monday, for someone other than me to respond to this silly antagonist in the proper fashion. Sarcasm is highly encouraged.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Jeremy, but pro-terrorism and sexism are not "silly antagonism." They are serious, serious subjects. Personally, I find both to be highly offensive and worthy of condemnation. I know you think they're fine and dandy, but some of us believe in freedom and equality and we won't be silenced!

Anonymous said...

The sexism comment by Marlowe is absurd on it's face. It's doubtful it's even partially designed to convince anybody of anything. It's antagonism for antagonism's sake.

Responding to the comment with sarcasm would only make sense if the comment even had the slightest bit of wit or reason to it.

Anonymous said...

Clearly you're for the terrorists.