There are currently 5 users and 211 guests online.
2,209
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2008/05/14 - 11:07am.
My hope is the candidate I voted for,Obama,will have 2,209 delegates before the May 31st meeting of the DNC Rules & By-laws committee.
The AP says Obama has 1,885 delegates..324 shy of 2,209.
On May 20th there are 103 elected delegates to be determained in primaries in Ky & Ore.There are 3,255 total elected delegates.Obama has 1,599 elected delegates.That is 28.5 delegates shy of the 1627.5 delegates needed to clinch a majority of the elected delegates.
It is my belief that if Obama gets 28.5 elected delegates in the May 20th primaries..thus clinching the majorority of elected delegates.
Super delegates en mass should pledge their support to Obama.
That would give Obama the 2,209 delegates needed to win the nomination
& seat the full Fla/Mich delegations.
Submitted by NorthKnox on Wed, 2008/05/14 - 11:21am.
I'm an Obama supporter, and he got my vote, but I'm increasingly troubled by the prospect of two states' voters being ignored. It's my understanding that Clinton would be in the lead if Michigan and Florida delegates were seated. This sounds terribly similar to the Bush/Gore fiasco where the voters were screwed by the system. We're just talking about the Democratic delegation and not the Electoral College. I think superdelegates should cast their vote with the majority of voters, not necessarily delgates, because, as we now see, not all voters have delegates representing them in this primary campaign. If that means Obama doesn't get the nomination, fine, but at least Democracy will have prevailed, and, in the end, that's what I support over any specific candidate.
Submitted by Sean_Braisted on Wed, 2008/05/14 - 11:32am.
It's my understanding that Clinton would be in the lead if Michigan and Florida delegates were seated.
No, even under the most favorable conditions for Hillary (fully seated delegation, Obama gets zero out of Michigan), he still leads by 30 delegates.
Any solution would involve Obama getting at least all of the uncommitted delegates out of Michigan, if not more. In Florida, we'll see, but they should be seated at 50% capacity if they want their vote to count.
The simple truth is, if Obama (or for that matter the other candidates) knew that the results in Michigan and Florida would count towards the nominating process, there is no way they would've willingly promised not to campaign there.
There is fairness to the voters who did go out, but there also needs to be a sense of fairness for those who didn't, thinking that the contest meant nothing. Even though they talk of "record turnout" in Florida and Michigan, the simple fact is Republicans had higher turnout in those states...however in South Carolina, a reliably Republican state, Democrats had over 100 thousand more voters.
No objective, rational, thinking person could think that the results in Michigan and Florida were fully representative of the voters in those states; and therefore there needs to be a compromise that doesn't favor either candidate disproportionally.
Submitted by Jack (not verified) on Wed, 2008/05/14 - 11:51am.
Unfortunately, the rules set from the beginning stated that Michigan and Florida would not count if their State legislatures moved their primaries too early in the year. All democrats agreed to these rules, and even Hillary Clinton acknowledged Michigan and Florida would not count as early as October. Ultimately, the Florida and Michigan State Legislature is to blame for the mess.
Allowing Michigan and Florida to overturn the vote of the rest of the country would be tantamount to changing the value of touchdowns during halftime of the Super Bowl. The DNC will not change the rules in the middle of the game.
Even if the non eligible results of Michigan and Florida counted, Obama would still be leading in every category, including delegate count and popular votes. And remember, Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.
Undoubtedly a compromise will be made by the DNC, seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan in some fashion, but seating these states will not overturn the delegate count in the states who obeyed the rules.
Submitted by Jimmie (not verified) on Mon, 2008/05/19 - 10:09pm.
She hasn't, not by any measure. Here's a link where you can see for yourself: Link...
First of all, it is important to remember that neither candidate campaigned in either Florida or Michigan, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan because he and almost all of the other candidates (with the exceptions being Clinton and Kucinich) interpreted the party rules as requiring him to do so.
If you do include Florida, where neither candidate campaigned, Obama still leads Hillary by about 300 thousand votes. This total increases to about 400,000 when you factor in estimates of vote totals for the four caucus states that did not keep a running tally of the popular votes cast for President.
It is not fair IMHO to factor in Michigan since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. However, even if you do factor in Michigan, Obama still leads Hillary by about 80 thousand votes so long as you factor in estimates for the four caucus states that did not keep a running tally of the popular votes cast for President. It's only when these caucus states are ignored and both Michigan and Florida are included in the results that Hillary can claim a popular vote lead of about 25 thousand. Of course this claim requires Hillary to simultaneously argue that the popular votes of both Florida and Michigan should count (even though neither candidate campaigned there and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan), but that the votes of caucus goers in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington state shouldn't count (I guess because all the people living in those states are latte sipping elitists?). It's a preposterous position, and before you buy into this line of malarkey by the Clinton campaign, I urge you to go to the link provided above and see for yourself:)
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2008/05/14 - 1:43pm.
1.I will vote for Clinton if she is nominated but right now I am only interested in nominating Obama.
2.There is no way of knowing the national popular vote because it doesn't exist.Many many of the caucus states do not count those attending the ward caucuses only those elected as county/congressional/state delegates are counted.Therefore,seated delegates both elected & super are the only game in town.Futhermore,I believe the super delegates should vote for the candidate that receives the majority of the national elected delegates.
3.A candidate is nominated by a majority of the duly seated delegates per the rules of the DNC.That would include delegates seated by any successful challenge to the rules & by-laws committee or the creditionals committee on the floor of the convention.
4.Looks like the Clinton campaign is going to seek to seat Fla/Mich in toto on the floor.Mich-156..Fla-210.Thats 2209 delegates to win.
5.In a floor challenge,per past rulings of the convention chair,the challenged delegates do not vote.
6.The Clinton campaign needs 2,026 delegate votes on the first rules/credential committee challenge because that is majority WITHOUT Mich/Fla being seated
7.The choice of which state Fla or Mich will go first in the Clinton rules/creditionals challenge is a procedural move by the Clinton campaign.
8.If the Fla challenge is first & is successful(2,026 delegates to carry)..majority on the floor is 2,131..& Clinton would have 105 more delegates to Obama's 67..Edwards has 13.Plus the Fla super delegates supporting Obama or Clinton.
9.The Fla delegation would be duly seated & the vote to carry the Mich challenge would be 2,131.
10.If the Mich challenge is first & is successful(2,026 delegates to carry)..majority on the floor is 2,104..Clinton would have 73 more delegates..Uncommitted would have 55 delegates.Plus the Mich super delegates supporting Obama or Clinton.
11.The Mich delegation would be duly seated & the vote to carry the Fla challenge would be 2,104.
12.If both Clinton challenges on seating Mich/Fla win the majority of the duly seated delegates will be 2,209.
That is why I say if Obama clinches the majority of ELECTED DELEGATES in the May 20th primaries..Super Delegates en mass should pledge for Obama insuring him 2,209 delegates & shutting the door on any Clinton rules/creditionals committee challenge per seating Fla/Mich.
Submitted by Sean_Braisted on Wed, 2008/05/14 - 2:42pm.
So far one Clinton delegate in Maryland switched to Obama. The problem with these "delegates" is that they don't get there by devotion to their candidate, they get there by being able to bring a lot of people to a county convention; which is why so many union members are delegates.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2008/05/14 - 4:49pm.
Puerto Rico will put Clinton on top. The math can work out in her favor. It doesn't matter that the leadership in Florida and Michigan decided to change their primary date and thus violate the DNC's rules. To not allow their vote would still disenfranchise the voters who had nothing to do with the rules. They have to seat them even though they broke the DNC's rules because of this fact. The DNC should have worked out a compromise with Florida and Michigan before they voted.
Submitted by bill young on Wed, 2008/05/28 - 3:19pm.
i agree with the report
The by-laws are clear..uncommitted delegates are
uncommitted delegates & the rules committee cant
bind them to a candidate.
In fact as you & others have pointed out
every elected delegate can cast a vote on the floor
for who ever they want...no matter who they are
pledged to.
However,there has been talk to bind some or all
of the uncommited elected Mich delegates to Obama.
I have never agreed with that.
And even if I did the by-laws do not permit it.
My point..that I didn't make very well.
Was that I have no clue if the elected uncommited
delegates in Mich are for Obama or Clinton.
Or have not made up their mind.
Hell,who knows if they will even have seat on the floor.
Reports from the district and statewide committee meetings in Michigan indicated that two Obama support groups unaffiliated with the Obama campaign scooped up pretty close to all of the uncommitted seats in the delegation.
I'm an Obama supporter, and he got my vote, but I'm increasingly troubled by the prospect of two states' voters being ignored. It's my understanding that Clinton would be in the lead if Michigan and Florida delegates were seated. This sounds terribly similar to the Bush/Gore fiasco where the voters were screwed by the system. We're just talking about the Democratic delegation and not the Electoral College. I think superdelegates should cast their vote with the majority of voters, not necessarily delgates, because, as we now see, not all voters have delegates representing them in this primary campaign. If that means Obama doesn't get the nomination, fine, but at least Democracy will have prevailed, and, in the end, that's what I support over any specific candidate.
It's my understanding that Clinton would be in the lead if Michigan and Florida delegates were seated.
No, even under the most favorable conditions for Hillary (fully seated delegation, Obama gets zero out of Michigan), he still leads by 30 delegates.
Any solution would involve Obama getting at least all of the uncommitted delegates out of Michigan, if not more. In Florida, we'll see, but they should be seated at 50% capacity if they want their vote to count.
The simple truth is, if Obama (or for that matter the other candidates) knew that the results in Michigan and Florida would count towards the nominating process, there is no way they would've willingly promised not to campaign there.
There is fairness to the voters who did go out, but there also needs to be a sense of fairness for those who didn't, thinking that the contest meant nothing. Even though they talk of "record turnout" in Florida and Michigan, the simple fact is Republicans had higher turnout in those states...however in South Carolina, a reliably Republican state, Democrats had over 100 thousand more voters.
No objective, rational, thinking person could think that the results in Michigan and Florida were fully representative of the voters in those states; and therefore there needs to be a compromise that doesn't favor either candidate disproportionally.
Unfortunately, the rules set from the beginning stated that Michigan and Florida would not count if their State legislatures moved their primaries too early in the year. All democrats agreed to these rules, and even Hillary Clinton acknowledged Michigan and Florida would not count as early as October. Ultimately, the Florida and Michigan State Legislature is to blame for the mess.
Allowing Michigan and Florida to overturn the vote of the rest of the country would be tantamount to changing the value of touchdowns during halftime of the Super Bowl. The DNC will not change the rules in the middle of the game.
Even if the non eligible results of Michigan and Florida counted, Obama would still be leading in every category, including delegate count and popular votes. And remember, Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.
Undoubtedly a compromise will be made by the DNC, seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan in some fashion, but seating these states will not overturn the delegate count in the states who obeyed the rules.
She hasn't, not by any measure. Here's a link where you can see for yourself: Link...
First of all, it is important to remember that neither candidate campaigned in either Florida or Michigan, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan because he and almost all of the other candidates (with the exceptions being Clinton and Kucinich) interpreted the party rules as requiring him to do so.
If you do include Florida, where neither candidate campaigned, Obama still leads Hillary by about 300 thousand votes. This total increases to about 400,000 when you factor in estimates of vote totals for the four caucus states that did not keep a running tally of the popular votes cast for President.
It is not fair IMHO to factor in Michigan since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. However, even if you do factor in Michigan, Obama still leads Hillary by about 80 thousand votes so long as you factor in estimates for the four caucus states that did not keep a running tally of the popular votes cast for President. It's only when these caucus states are ignored and both Michigan and Florida are included in the results that Hillary can claim a popular vote lead of about 25 thousand. Of course this claim requires Hillary to simultaneously argue that the popular votes of both Florida and Michigan should count (even though neither candidate campaigned there and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan), but that the votes of caucus goers in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington state shouldn't count (I guess because all the people living in those states are latte sipping elitists?). It's a preposterous position, and before you buy into this line of malarkey by the Clinton campaign, I urge you to go to the link provided above and see for yourself:)
1.I will vote for Clinton if she is nominated but right now I am only interested in nominating Obama.
2.There is no way of knowing the national popular vote because it doesn't exist.Many many of the caucus states do not count those attending the ward caucuses only those elected as county/congressional/state delegates are counted.Therefore,seated delegates both elected & super are the only game in town.Futhermore,I believe the super delegates should vote for the candidate that receives the majority of the national elected delegates.
3.A candidate is nominated by a majority of the duly seated delegates per the rules of the DNC.That would include delegates seated by any successful challenge to the rules & by-laws committee or the creditionals committee on the floor of the convention.
4.Looks like the Clinton campaign is going to seek to seat Fla/Mich in toto on the floor.Mich-156..Fla-210.Thats 2209 delegates to win.
5.In a floor challenge,per past rulings of the convention chair,the challenged delegates do not vote.
6.The Clinton campaign needs 2,026 delegate votes on the first rules/credential committee challenge because that is majority WITHOUT Mich/Fla being seated
7.The choice of which state Fla or Mich will go first in the Clinton rules/creditionals challenge is a procedural move by the Clinton campaign.
8.If the Fla challenge is first & is successful(2,026 delegates to carry)..majority on the floor is 2,131..& Clinton would have 105 more delegates to Obama's 67..Edwards has 13.Plus the Fla super delegates supporting Obama or Clinton.
9.The Fla delegation would be duly seated & the vote to carry the Mich challenge would be 2,131.
10.If the Mich challenge is first & is successful(2,026 delegates to carry)..majority on the floor is 2,104..Clinton would have 73 more delegates..Uncommitted would have 55 delegates.Plus the Mich super delegates supporting Obama or Clinton.
11.The Mich delegation would be duly seated & the vote to carry the Fla challenge would be 2,104.
12.If both Clinton challenges on seating Mich/Fla win the majority of the duly seated delegates will be 2,209.
That is why I say if Obama clinches the majority of ELECTED DELEGATES in the May 20th primaries..Super Delegates en mass should pledge for Obama insuring him 2,209 delegates & shutting the door on any Clinton rules/creditionals committee challenge per seating Fla/Mich.
Damn, Bill, I actually understood that. Thanks.
One caveat: from what I understand, even "pledged" delegates can change their vote, even on the first ballot.
Not saying any would, or should, but it could be an X factor.
So far one Clinton delegate in Maryland switched to Obama. The problem with these "delegates" is that they don't get there by devotion to their candidate, they get there by being able to bring a lot of people to a county convention; which is why so many union members are delegates.
The Clinton campaign knows how the convention floor works.
Hillary worked for Rockefeller @ the '68 GOP convention.
Rocky's mantra was..I will win in November..Nixon can't
The goal was to keep Nixon below the 667
needed to win on the first ballot.
They came close..Nixon got 692...25 over.
Bill & Hillary worked for McGovern @ the '72 convention.
The McGovern folks perfected the moving target of floor
majority.
Harold Ickes,Clinton's super delegate guru,worked
for Ted Kennedy @ the '80 convention.
If it gets to challenges floor discipline is the key.
You'd think, but then again, they should've known how the delegate selection process worked...apparently not.
Is Hillary having flashbacks?
But I could be wrong...
Yeah, yeah, I know it was a sexist comment.
The Clintons b in a corner but by god they know
if they smash Obama as out of the mainstream..McGovernite.
And thats what the Clinton folks were saying last night.
Challenge...Challenge..Challenge on the floor
Flip flop those super delegates.
Turn the convention upside down.
I aint mad..you do what you gotta do
OBAMA NEEDS TO NAIL IT SHUT
Puerto Rico will put Clinton on top. The math can work out in her favor. It doesn't matter that the leadership in Florida and Michigan decided to change their primary date and thus violate the DNC's rules. To not allow their vote would still disenfranchise the voters who had nothing to do with the rules. They have to seat them even though they broke the DNC's rules because of this fact. The DNC should have worked out a compromise with Florida and Michigan before they voted.
I'm glad you can understand it Bubba, you're doing better than me. Bill's explanation of the voting order is giving me flashbacks to Black Wednesday.
(local politics for you lurkers)
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs
That would be the number of delegate votes needed
to win if 1/2 the allotted delegate votes of Fla/Mich
are seated.
An AP story said that a report by the Party says the by-laws do permit 1/2 of the Fla/Mich allotted delegate votes to be seated.
But not all.
The story also states the by-laws do not allow uncommitted
delegates to be ruled Obama delegates.
I agree.
There is no way to figure out what a
voter in Mich intended when they voted uncommitted.
I think the compromise will be seating 1/2 of
both delegations votes.
If I'm right..this is the way I see the
delegate numbers game.
Obama according to AP has 1,978 delegates.
In Fla Obama would pick up 1/2 of the elected
delegate votes he won..67 divided by 1/2=33.5
1,978+33.5=2,011.5 Obama delegates.
Thats 106 shy of the 2,117.5 needed to win
There are also a few uncommitted elected Edwards
delegate votes in Fla.
Whatever that delegate vote is they too
would be 1/2.
In Mich there were 55 elected uncommitted delegate
votes.
55 divided by 1/2 = 27.5 elected uncommitted Mich
delegate votes.
No clue on who those uncommitted Mich delegate votes
are for.
The reason I keep saying delegate votes is because
the by-laws permit seating the entire Fla/Mich delegation
each having a 1/2 vote.
Seems to me "uncommitted" means they can vote for whoever they want.
i agree with the report
The by-laws are clear..uncommitted delegates are
uncommitted delegates & the rules committee cant
bind them to a candidate.
In fact as you & others have pointed out
every elected delegate can cast a vote on the floor
for who ever they want...no matter who they are
pledged to.
However,there has been talk to bind some or all
of the uncommited elected Mich delegates to Obama.
I have never agreed with that.
And even if I did the by-laws do not permit it.
My point..that I didn't make very well.
Was that I have no clue if the elected uncommited
delegates in Mich are for Obama or Clinton.
Or have not made up their mind.
Hell,who knows if they will even have seat on the floor.
I would guess that since Clinton was on the MI ballot the "uncommited" voters were voting for Obama, and maybe a few for Edwards.
Reports from the district and statewide committee meetings in Michigan indicated that two Obama support groups unaffiliated with the Obama campaign scooped up pretty close to all of the uncommitted seats in the delegation.
Sen Levin has been steamed about the roles
played by NH & Ia for years.
Levin just cant abide that those two states
are more important than Mich.
Levin & others supported the early date & urged
uncommitted votes in the primary.
They wanted to force a floor fight on the whole
nominating process.
So some uncommitted voters did not
vote for a candidate.
But for Mich & other large states to play a greater
role in process.
Post new comment