Skip to main content

All numbers updated with 1 OR super, 2 CA supers, 2 Edwards NH pledged confirmations.

Rachel Maddow has it mostly right.  She was right on the night of May 6, the lone voice insisting the Clintons should be taken at their word that they were planning to go out ugly, and I agreed with her at the time and still do.

But she is wrong in one important respect.  She cites Obama needing approximately 90 of 210 to get over the top in a seat Michigan and Florida in full scenario.  I am now going to conclusively show why the math is much, much more favorable for Obama than that.

Because Obama's camp, ridiculously competent in all strategic choices math-related, certainly sees what I do, I believe Barack Obama is going to pre-empt the May 31 meeting with an agreement to seat both delegations in full, and I think he is going to wait another week to do it so his delegate number is maximized.

If he gets 23-36 supers (unanticipated by the calendar: add-ons) in the next week, he can just let the calendar put him over the top on its own.

Now, everyone knows that there were 55 uncommitted delegates in Michigan.  But what few seem to realize is that on April 19 in Michigan, the district conventions were held and Obama claimed 31 of the 36 uncommitted district-level delegates.  He already has them.  Here, look at the comments in this Bowers Open Left diary back from April 20th to get specific names.  Or this diary.  It's slightly painstaking, (here are 27 names, here are 3 more, here's where emptywheel cites 31) but they clearly exist.  Plus the 67 Florida Obama delegates mean that there are 98 living, breathing pledged Obama delegates from those two states.

There is no such thing as a scenario where Obama gets 0 delegates in Michigan (and DCW should really do away with Scenario 5 because it is no longer operative).  Chris Bowers has been writing about this for a long time.

Did anybody notice Harold Ickes arguing Thursday that Obama really should get 0 delegates in Michigan and that all the uncommitted delegates should go to the convention uncommitted?  

Why did Harold Ickes make this curious and stunningly brazen argument?  Because he knows what I am about to explain.  

Let's first all get on the same page with these numbers.  I confess I got a little sloppy and followed right along with Chuck Todd when he started repeating 2210 as the "Clinton Number."  It's not.  It's 2209.

There is one more special election on the calendar.  June 17, Maryland-04, Donna Edwards will win the hugely gerrymandered Dem district and become a superdelegate.  She has endorsed Obama.

Over the Top Numbers
Without FL/MI now: 2025
With FL/MI now: 2209

Without FL/MI as of June 17: 2025.5
With FL/MI as of June 17: 2209.5

Since there is "2210 fog" out there, justifying 2025 and 2209 as the exact numbers.  

There are 3253 pledged delegates, and 796 supers including add-ons.  That's 4049.  2025 is the majority.  DCW has tracked the fluctuation of superdelegate number here, which sits at 796.

There are 313 pledged delegates in Florida(185) and Michigan(128), and 55 supers including add-ons.  That's 368.  

4049 + 368 = 4417.  2209 is majority.

When Donna Edwards gets added on June 17, the numbers of total delegates go to 4050 and 4418, with half-plus-one bumping up to 2025.5 and 2209.5.

Ignore this 2210 number.  No more.  Don't get sloppy, Chuck.

2025, to go over the top.

Pledged delegates earned by Obama: 1645.5
Pledged delegates publicly declared from John Edwards to Obama: 12
Superdelegates earned by Obama (DCW): 309.5
Total: 1967
Needed: 58

Guaranteed add-ons from caucus states by June 3: 4 (AK 5/23, WY 5/24, HI 5/25, ME 6/1)
Hawaii state party chair May 25 (both candidates will vote for Obama): 1
Guaranteed minimum pledged from Puerto Rico: 15
Guaranteed South Dakota pledged: 8 (winning by 1 vote up to 61.11%)
Guaranteed Montana pledged: 9 (winning by 1 vote in each half up to 70% in a half or 62.5% statewide)
Automatically triggered supers at the end of the primaries: 7 (6 Pelosi Club, plus Margie Campbell in MT)
Total: 44

Needed from PR overachievement, further John Edwards switches and/or undeclared supers: 14

With no FL/MI delegates, 58 is the magic number.  14 is the virtual magic number.

[When Donna Edwards gets added, she simultaneously bumps the number and goes into Obama's column.  We don't really need to worry about her, because the number would change to 13.5, though I don't think there are any more half-delegate votes still out there so it would stay 14 human beings in practical reality.]

2209, majority of pledged delegates (1783.5):

(3253 + 313 = 3566.  1783 is half, so 1783.5 for a majority.)

Pledged delegates earned by Obama: 1645.5
Pledged delegates publicly declared from Edwards to Obama: 12
Pledged delegates already named for Obama in Florida: 67
Pledged delegates already named for Obama in Michigan: 31
Total pledged delegates already secured: 1755.5
Needed for majority: 1783.5
Shortfall now: 28
Minimum guaranteed from Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana (see above): 32
Shortfall June 3 @ 10pm EDT: -4 at worst
Therefore, percent danger to Obama in agreeing to seat Florida and Michigan in full as is: 0.00000000%
Percent of the two pledged Clinton jackasses who switched (MD, DC) who are included in any of this calculus: 0.00000%

Pledged majority: Lock.  

Pelosi Club triggered when primaries are officially over under all scenarios.

2209, over the top overall, the big enchilada:

Total pledged delegates already secured: 1755.5
Superdelegates outside of MI/FL: 309.5
Superdelegates in MI/FL: 10
Total: 2075
Needed: 134

Obama will win 100% of the following:
Guaranteed minimum from Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana (see above): 32
Guaranteed from Pelosi Club + technical re-validation of MT's Margie Campbell: 7
Guaranteed add-ons from caucus states by June 3: 4 (AK 5/23, WY 5/24, HI 5/25, ME 6/1)
Hawaii state party chair May 25 (both candidates will vote for Obama): 1
Total: 44
Needed: 90

Obama is likely to win 80%-100% of the following:
Anytime; Edwards' remaining named district-level pledged in Iowa: 2
Anytime; Edwards' remaining named pledged in SC: 1
Anytime; Edwards' remaining named pledged in NH: 1
Anytime; Edwards' remaining named pledged in FL: 13
Anytime; Union-backed named district-level pledged in MI: 5
May 24; Georgia primary add-ons: 2
Anytime after June 3; The Obvious Club (Clyburn, Brazile, Reid, Dean): 4
June 7; Minnesota caucus add-on: 1
June 7; Vermont primary add-on: 1
June 7; Mississippi primary add-on: 1
June 8; Montana primary add-on: 1
June 13; Wisconsin primary add-ons: 2
June 14; PLEO/at-large uncommitted pledged delegates in MI: 19
June 14; Edwards' expected unnamed 3 PLEO/at-large pledged in Iowa: 3
June 14; Iowa caucus add-on: 1
June 14; Idaho caucus add-on: 1
June 14; Virginia primary add-ons: 2
June 15; Washington caucus add-ons: 2
June 21; North Carolina primary add-ons: 2
June 21; Oregon primary add-on: 1
June 21; South Dakota primary add-on: 1
June 21; Nebraska caucus add-on: 1
Group Total: 67
80% to 100% of this group: 54-67
Needed: 23-36

Obama has been winning a huge ratio of folks in this group for months:
Anytime; Regular old uncategorized undeclared supers: 184
Various; Undeclared or undetermined add-ons left over: 20
Group Total: 204

Summary, under worst case as-is conditions:
Seat the Michigan and Florida delegations in full, as-is, and Obama needs 134 delegates of any kind as we sit here today.  44 of those are guaranteed by the final three primaries or public declaration, leaving 90 needed.  Obama will get a huge percentage of 67 other identifiable delegates in the calendar through June 21, leaving him roughly 24-37 delegates short.  The group out of which he needs that 23-36 is 204 delegates, or 11.3%-17.6%.

Why I use exactly 1645.5 for Obama, and what is in that number.

First, though Kos' count does, DCW's count does, and Green Papers' count does, I do not count the Maryland pledged delegate switcher or the DC pledged delegate switcher in Obama's count.  I am opposed to that on principle.  Those adults gave their word on their honor, and have broken their pledge.  That's a disgrace, and principle comes before team.

Obama pledged delegates for 1645.5:
Alaska: 9 (everyone agrees 9-4)
Alabama: 27 (everyone agrees 27-25)
American Samoa: 1 (everyone agrees 1-2)
Arizona: 25 (everyone agrees 25-31)
Arkansas: 8 (everyone agrees 8-27)
California: 166 (everyone agrees 166-204)
Colorado: 36 (results of district and state conventions finally reported Wednesday and confirmed, 36-19.  Todd/NBC is wrong in its count.)
Connecticut: 26 (everyone agrees 26-22)
Delaware: 9 (everyone agrees 9-6)
Democrats Abroad: 4.5 (Obama and Green Papers agree, 4.5-2.5)
District of Columbia: 12 (Green Papers, and thus DCW and Kos show 13-2 because they count the Clinton pledged who flipped.)
Georgia: 60 (everyone agrees 60-27)
Guam: 2 (everyone agrees 2-2)
Hawaii: 14 (everyone agrees 14-6)
Idaho: 15 (everyone agrees 15-3)
Illinois: 104 (everyone agrees 104-49)
Indiana: 34 (everyone agrees 34-38)
Iowa: 24 (Obama says 25 and cites 1 Edwards switch, Green Papers says 26 and cites 2 Edwards switches.  I list Edwards switches separately below, so 24 is correct for this count.)
Kansas: 23 (everyone agrees 23-9)
Kentucky: 14 (everyone agrees 14-37)
Louisiana: 33 (everyone besides Green Papers has it 34-22, but Green Papers cites the Louisiana Democratic party official results, which specifically name the delegates, which you can count.  Here is the official press release naming the 11-8 state level delegates, and on this page are the 22 Obama names and 15 Clinton names of district level delegates.)
Maine: 15 (everyone agrees 15-9)
Maryland: 42 (everyone agrees 42-28, then Green Papers, DCW and Kos included the Maryland pledged flipper, which I do not.)
Massachusetts: 38 (everyone agrees 38-55)
Minnesota: 48 (everyone agrees 48-24)
Missouri: 36  (everyone agrees 36-36)
Mississippi: 20 (everyone agrees 20-13)
Nebraska: 16 (everyone agrees 16-8)
Nevada: 14 (everyone agrees 14-11)
New Hampshire: 9 (was 9-9-4, then Edwards endorsed and Obama, Green Papers, DCW and Kos now include 1 Edwards for 10-9-3.  I merely separate them out to keep it clean.)
New Jersey: 48 (everyone agrees 48-59)
New Mexico: 12 (everyone agrees 12-14)
New York: 93 (everyone agrees 93-139)
North Carolina: 67 (everyone agrees 67-48)
North Dakota: 8 (everyone agrees 8-5)
Ohio: 67 (everyone agrees 67-74)
Oklahoma: 14 (everyone agrees 14-24)
Oregon: 31 (Obama, Green Papers, DCW now agrees, 31-21)
Pennsylvania: 73 (everyone agrees, 73-85)
Rhode Island: 8 (everyone agrees, 8-13)
South Carolina: 25 (Obama, Green Papers, DCW and Kos all include 7 Edwards switches to make the number 32-12-1.  I'm keeping them separate.)
Tennessee: 28 (everyone agrees, 28-40)
Texas Primary: 61 (everyone agrees 61-65)
Texas Caucus: 37 (Obama, NBC, AP all say 38-29, but I agree with the Burnt Orange Report, Green Papers, DCW and Kos until something changes at the state convention ends June 7 that it's 37-30)
Utah: 14 (everyone agrees, 14-9)
Vermont: 9 (everyone agrees 9-6)
Virgin Islands: 3 (everyone agrees 3-0)
Virginia: 54 (everyone agrees 54-29)
Washington: 52 (Obama changed to agree with everyone, 52-26)
West Virginia: 8 (everyone agrees 8-20)
Wisconsin: 42 (everyone agrees 42-32)
Wyoming: 7 (everyone agrees 7-5)
Total: 1645.5

Edwards to Obama, pledged:
Iowa: 2 (Machelle Crum, Arlene Prather O'Kane)
New Hampshire: 3 (Joshua Denton, Deborah Bacon-Nelson, Peter Burling)
South Carolina: 7 (Lauren Bilton, Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Michael Evatt, Robert Groce, Marilyn Hemingway, Susan Smith... no, not that Susan Smith)
Total: 12

MSNBC's First Read (click that link) has the cleanest list of clear sourcing for 10 switches.  Update: and 2 more this morning.

Green Papers, DCW, and Kos are linked, and cite 1659.5 as Obama's pledged delegate number.  I have 1657.5 (1645.5 + 12), and the difference is precisely the 2 pledged delegate flippers.

Obama's site gives him 1658.5, due to 1 too many in each of Louisiana and the Texas Caucus and 1 too few of Edwards Iowa pledged switches.  (June 7 he might end up being right at the Texas Caucus state convention.)


31 in Michigan right now.  That's worst case.  That's why Ickes made that little-noticed, jaw-dropping argument yesterday.  You have to be really familiar with the math to appreciate why this staggeringly hypocritical ass did it.  Not only did Ickes vote to strip Michigan of its delegates originally back in August and now is screaming at the top of his voice that it's outrageous that Michigan has been stripped, now he wants Michigan to let Clinton keep her 73 delegates but strip Obama of the 31 he got at the district level.  

(Get that?  Let that sink in.  Is there any question that the Clintons are literally the opposite of leadership?)

Maddow is dead-on that the Clinton goal for the May 31 meeting is merely to come out with some result that is being kicked down the road in appeals.  But Ickes knows that Obama can surely see the mathematical inevitability in what I just explained, that Obama can call the big bluff by agreeing to Michigan and Florida in full, and then what will the Clintons claim in outrage?  The fog they're thriving off of disappears.  So Ickes is trying to pre-empt Obama's pre-emption by laying groundwork for further fog - that Obama agreeing to seat the delegations in full is too favorable to Obama because he got 31 and deserves 0.  Ickes knows that nobody besides a few bloggers really knows that Obama already has 31, so he's hoping to get in front of the dawning awareness.  (It hasn't been in Obama's interest to claim that number until as late in the process as possible, either.)

But the 31 exist, and the math is inexorable.  While Obama would need 135 delegates after agreeing to seat Michigan and Florida in full, as-is, 44 are in a group of 100% guaranteed, 67 are in a group of 85-99% guaranteed, and 205 are the rest.  Obama has been winning "the rest" by a huge ratio for a loooong time now, and many of us personally know people in that latter group who are just waiting for the primaries to officially end to declare.  The closer Obama comes to 24-37 supers in the next week, the more likely I believe he is to agree to full seating.

So someone reassure Rachel.  She's dead-on in terms of getting what the Clintons are about, but she'd feel a lot better if she saw this math.

Let's have some supers today, shall we?  I've been told one of Edwards' Hanover, NH delegates is about to announce.  CNN seems to have added a third Edwards delegate from Iowa.

Update:  Four things.  One, I want to be clear that I am big on following agreed-to principles.  The idea of seating the delegations in full chafes at me after what those states chose to do (despite the lying blather about Florida Dems being helpless to stop Republicans from moving up).  I get all that.  The point is, if Maddow is correct in her assessment of the Clintons (and I think she is), there are some goals that have to be weighed against one another.

Two, I want to make clear that technically, Obama himself cannot seat the delegations in full (sorry for the slightly misleading title).  He can only announce something and then the DNC may make its own determination and still punish FL/MI.  But that works too, because Obama removes any fuel from the controversy.  It's out of his hands, he can't be blamed.  It reinforces that this is about the rules and not about Clinton vs. Obama.

Three, emptywheel has commented here with an important reminder that the Michigan Democratic Party is playing it a bit squirrelly because they're trying to retain some bargaining power and also may be dissatisfied with which individuals won elections as delegates (not enough union representation).  I'll defer to emptywheel on this - I'm no Michigan insider, I take data and try to explain and present it.  The 31 exist, but the MDP isn't being transparent.

Four, if the end result is that the supers get stripped as punishment and the pledged are seated in full, the numbers get even better.  That's also a deal I think that strips Clinton's ability to keep poisoning the well and would be well-received as fair in the public eye (I think the public is sick of the supers, and would buy into that punishment).  The reason I ran the worst-case scenario is that any other deal makes the math even easier.  Reducing the number needed to go over the top always makes Obama closer.  If you click the emptywheel link just above, I replied and ran the what-if-they-just-took-the-supers-away numbers if you're curious.

Update 2:  Well, 1 DNC, 2 Reps and 2 Edwards confirmed NH already this morning, and our 25-40 number just moved to 23-36 out of 204, while the 80-100% group was reduced to 67.  I also added the Hawaii party chair into the guaranteed group, since both candidates will vote for Obama in Denver (h/t Land of Enchantment).  Also, MSNBC just used "2026."  Chuck, get on that.

Update 3:  Arrgh!  I hate errors.  I go through a lot of effort not to make them, so I'm annoyed by one that has now been corrected.  Rieux points out that 53 MI/FL supers is really 55.  It could be written much better on DCW but I should have caught it.  So I had to update a lot of numbers.  While I was at it, I went ahead and changed all the numbers as of the four endorsements we have today.  The two Reps from CA and the two Edwards NH confirmed switches.  So 24-37 of 205 is accurate as of 4 endorsements today.

Originally posted to PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:35 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No more fog. (276+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sdf, gpclay, thewittyname, Chi, Phoenix Woman, Savage, ogre, AlanF, jneufnyc, TaraIst, Steve in Sacto, Superribbie, MrPlow, tin woodswoman, nicolemm, Robespierrette, wu ming, John Campanelli, autoegocrat, djs, Walt starr, bumblebums, strengthANDwisdom, kissfan, unterhausen, bara, SamSinister, peace voter, peacemom, Dont Just Stand There, smhbubbles, roses, allysonsta, tmc, thingamabob, kitebro, navajo, dmsilev, ChristieKeith, gobucky, trippinsf, webweaver, ekthesy, Getreal1246, Red State Rebel, Nancy in LA, Nina, JimWilson, svotaw1992, ChiGirl88, gmhowell, Nova Land, snowbird42, Timroff, wolverinethad, schroeder, weelzup, soros, jonathan94002, davidincleveland, Bluesee, 3goldens, simca, MasonLee, SherwoodB, mjd in florida, waitingforvizzini, PBen, billy pilgrim, stagemom, ommzms, majcmb1, uato carabau, aaraujo, Robert in WV, Little Lulu, lauramp, Hastur, Dapremonster, SBandini, nevyn, sundancekid11, LEit, cerulean, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, ZinZen, empathy, Land of Enchantment, melvin, MsCasey, sherlyle, plum, Aliosman, Hear Our Voices, XStryker, mystery2me, SherriG, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, DJShay, Native Light, chwaliszewski, max stirner, carp, Pete Rock, profh, rsie, Jbearlaw, Compostings, kenmarable, ipsos, sasher, Nulwee, Batbird, DBunn, goon 01, c0wfunk, cgiselle12, ibonewits, high coup haiku, dotsright, Cronesense, JFinNe, dgdeakin, Loudoun County Dem, oscarsmom, drmah, Cottagerose, godislove, LV Pol Girl, ColoTim, trmasonic, Alfonso Nevarez, edsbrooklyn, power2truth, kath25, some other george, Jimdotz, rkelley25, jimotto, walkingdeer, malharden, vbdietz, Oreo, jnhobbs, Demosthenes112358, gchaucer2, Ruby K, slowheels, leonard145b, BasharH, JammerML, Assaf, Empower Ink, gizmo59, trivium, kafkananda, discocarp, smithnewyork, mconvente, tdub, ratador, kingneil, NotGeorgeWill, middle child, scooter in brooklyn, zerone, abundance, East Village Blue, pepper mint, John Barleycorn, Bipolar Disorder Democrat, mcthatch, jdt112, Happy Days, Jake Williams, DailyKingFish, nsaneone, JedReport, tsqd, MalachiConstant, RoscoeOfAlabama, omegajew, dogheaven, progressivemind, Mad Season, Scubaval, The Wuz, ryangoesboom, 1BQ, tabby, Bule Betawi, artmartin, cybrestrike, ksduck, BennyToothpick, Texanomaly, james1108, Tomsank, Tim in CA, organicmatter, mtundu, ManahManah, DemocraticOz, RandomActsOfReason, mkor7, zackamac, DefendOurConstitution, Michael Lawrence Gallagher, blinktmnt182, ancblu, beijingbetty, BDsTrinity, VT ConQuest, The Great Gatsby, AvoMonster, bearcatinNY, billssha, OffHerRocker, marcirish, jazmen8, notquitedelilah, proudmomoftwo, orangedem, romwriter, augustin, archidem, Little Flower, D Wreck, spyguy999, reesespcs, Canadian4Obama, jfromga, BA BarackUS, chrisblask, Cronk, Wings Like Eagles, The Honorable Freddie, montecristo, Wisteacher, Josselyn, uzay, Super Grover, jonger27, fraggle1, differance, canuckster, Julia C, bronxcharlie, Sebastian likes to rattle cages, Fairy Tale, kydoc, hillgiant, newdem1960, MariaWr, possodent, Junah, CarmenT, LSD 25, LaughingPlanet, RethinkEverything, SoutheastPapa, stonepier, dammit girl, vixenflem, Caite, princss6, kidkavon, West Coastian, lextalionis, stunzeed, El Ochito, C 1, kemetcc, Xopher Y, cmasrkd

    Give these liars no more room to maneuver, Barack.

    Calloused hand by calloused hand.

    by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:36:43 AM PDT

    •  I agree with the analysis (24+ / 0-)

      The only problem is one of perception.  If you seat the delegations does that give the "popular vote" story legs?  I think not, especially if he gets a percentage of the MI votes equal to his share of the delegates, which i think would give him the popular vote too.

      I've been meaning to write this myself, but am lazy.  

      •  Yeah, they'll yell all that, but it's irrelevant (20+ / 0-)

        They'll say, "see, he agrees the vote was legit!"

        And the popular vote will be the same thing it was before, a deceptive argument pitched to superdelegates only, and they aren't going to buy it any more than they are right now.

        Calloused hand by calloused hand.

        by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:47:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I still don't think Clinton will drop out (25+ / 0-)

          Regardless of what Obama agrees to, Clinton plans on taking this to the Convention.

          I fully expect that the Clintons will continue to attack Obama all summer via a stealth campaign. Consider it a black-ops against Obama but they will attack him from the shadows hoping to drive his poll numbers into the toilet. They will continue to dig up dirt on Obama and feed it to McCain. They will also continue the slimey email campaign against Obama (yes, I think it is the Clintons responsible as much as the GOP).

          If they can get him polling below McCain by Denver they will try to steal the nom at the convention.

          As sad as it is, expect Democrat money to be spent against Obama for the entire summer.

          To expect some mere words to provide some ingenious argument that convinces the Clintons to drop their Quest for Power is silly. They are too vested in winning to see the forest for the trees.

          •  Obama confirmed seating last night: Laughed @ it (25+ / 0-)

            He said, “and by the way, in case your wondering, we’re getting these
            delegates seated. Nobody’s blocking anybody. the comparison to Zimbabwe.
            Huh ha (that under-the-breath laugh he always does).”


            Obama's laughing off Clinton hehe

            Barack Obama. President.

            by Steven R on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama knows he has it - Al Gore (31+ / 0-)

              Hillary Clinton can try what she may but the remaining superdelegates aren't total fools. Barack Obama has pledged delegates no matter how we seat them as long as Hillary isn't allowed to steal them....and Obama won't let her get away with that.

              Look for Al Gore and the remaining superdelegates to come out for Obama once all the votes are in. It's not going to the convention.

              No way the leaders of the party are going to allow the Clintons to destroy it.

              "It's the planet, stupid."

              by FishOutofWater on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:30:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dean and Pelosi (16+ / 0-)

                The party chairman and the Speaker of the House have both said repeatedly that we'll have a nominee by the beginning of June.  Clinton may want to continue to change the rules to her benefit, but there's no one in the party hierarchy who isn't married to her who supports that, so I don't see it happening.

                •  I am in Total Disagreement. (15+ / 0-)

                  All parties involved signed an agreement refusing to seat FL and MI delegates.

                  Democrats should not break their promises.

                  •  I agree. (8+ / 0-)

                    I don't want this to happen again, next time. Even if it doesn't matter, we have to stick to our guns. When Florida and Michigan decided to move it hurt our party, and made the DNC look like the bad guys. Imagine if this race were closer. It would be awful.

                    You have to be willing to make a little sacrifice in the interest of progress. Dems have to be willing to piss people off in two big states (I'm a FL voter) if they want to make sure we don't have to deal with this again.

                    •  And I disagree ... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gpclay, LABobsterofAnaheim, hillgiant

                      It's funny to me how otherwise pretty laid back folks suddenly become rules Nazis when it comes to Michigan and Florida.  Look, the DNC used the biggest threat in its arsenal - elimination of all delegates -- to try to dissuade Florida & Michigan from breaking the rules.  It didn't work, so now the question is: how do we really want to punish them for the violation.  There are lots of punishments  that would be perceived as real punishments and would prevent this sort of behavior in the future that fall well short of the total loss of all delegates - e.g., elimination of all superdelegates and halving the votes of all pledged delegates.  The DNC threat was a little like those airline warnings about $10,000 fine and 5 years in prison for tampering with the smoke detector in the bathroom: it's meant to convince you they're serious, but nobody (including the threatener) really intends to carry out the full punishment in practice.

                      •  That's not true (8+ / 0-)

                        It has been enforced before. There is no compelling argument to award extra delegates to one side based on an unfair contest. Barack told his people to stay home. HRC confused the issue and planned victory speeches in FL on election night making it seem like she thought it was possibly legit. 50/50 is the only reasonable outcome and the only one Barack should accept.

                        •  I know I'm coming in way late on this (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          And this may even have come up somewhere downthread that I haven't read yet. Still...

                          At this point, if it will hasten the end of this terrible ordeal, it makes sense to bend the rules and seat them. But punish these states in ways that will really hurt at the,convention:

                          -- seat both states waaaay in the back, behind a column, out of camera range

                          -- don't invite them to all the good parties

                          -- set them up in hotels in, oh, Colorado Springs

                          -- enforce a mandatory "must talk to Bob Shrum for an hour" rule before they're allowed to pick up their credentials

                          -- put both state's delegations on trash pick-up duty after each night's session

                          I'm sure there are tons of other ideas for ways to make their stay in Denver memorable and ensure that they'll never, ever try this again.

                          Soon we'll be away from here, so step on the gas and wipe that tear away...

                          by Montco PA Dem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Regarding that Texas State Convention on 6/7 ... (0+ / 0-)

                            I posted this detailed analysis this past Monday.  It shows that Obama is really close to getting that one extra delegate that his campaign claims.  Given the super organization he has at these conventions, I think he may well get it.

                            The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

                            by Jeff in CA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:00:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  It *did* work (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        It prevented an early campaign in the states, which is what they wanted.

                        Posting a diary on the nomination? Pay your McCain Tax!

                        by Seneca Doane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  We have to change the system or punish (6+ / 0-)

                    If there is no punishment and the primary system does not change, then why wouldn't every state move up theri primary date? Chaos.

                    So, either some punishment or throw out this system.

                    •  A third way: change (8+ / 0-)

                      Agree to seat the delegations as part of a formal agreement to change the primary system, going to the rotating, four-region primary blocks proposal that many Dem leaders are behind.

                      The relevant consequences of MI and FL's actions are to make sure it doesn't happen again. Punitive measures may make some folks feel good, but the progressive way is to learn lessons and correct problems moving forward.

                      This is not a moral issue, it is a practical issue - how do we avoid states leapfrogging one another and prolonging the primary season beyond reason?

                    •  The Punishment Part is Done (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gpclay, chiniqua, StrayCat

                      I can't speak for Florida, but Michigan moved their primary because our economy has been a black hole for almost fifteen years, and we wanted the contenders for President to talk about it.  Well guess what, not only did they not talk about it, none of them even came here until the nomination was decided.  The original promise that there would be "no delegates" seated combined with the four state pledge achieved that goal.  

                      Not only that, but a majority of us voted for the candidate who isn't going to win the nomination.

                      Letting us attend the convention at this point is just symbolism.  The only folks benefitting it are the ones who get to go to Denver.  But it will help us feel more included.  I think it's worth it.

                      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

                      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I never liked the symbolism (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gpclay, LABobsterofAnaheim

                        I really think that Michigan and Florida need to be at the convention for the GE, but it has to be fairly done.

                        I don't really know what to do to punish Fl and Mi, they need to be sanctioned somehow.  But to leave them out is crazy.  I have always thought it should be 50-50 and leave out the Supers, but of course Hillary wants it to be 100-0 and count everyone, so my solution is never going to fly.

                  •  Democrats can choose to adjust their rules and (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    try and get it right next time. There are no hard and fast rules in politics. Without flexibility and pragmatism, you lose.

                    If the party determines that this time around, something can be worked out without laying down a precedent that will encourage rule-breaking in the future, there's nothing wrong with that.

                    These are not rules of nature. We make the rules. We can also change them.

                    (I'm not saying that I support anyone breaking the rules, just that the party that made the rules can choose to change them or make an exception in a difficult, unanticipated circumstance.)

                    The psychology of the dispossessed can be truly frightening
                    - Chinua Achebe

                    by 174winchell on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:30:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Not breaking promises, renegotiating. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gpclay, LABobsterofAnaheim, dogheaven

                    This is not a case of breaking a promise, but renegotiating. The point of the whole delegate stripping was to punish them for moving ahead in the calendar in order to have more influence over the ultimate winner. The delicious irony is that had they been held on Super Tues or shortly thereafter, they would have had a much larger impact on the nomination than any other year!

                    Why not seat them once the nomination is determined? The punishment remains: No influence for jumping the gun. The delegates are seated and this party unites as a 50-state party.

                    This is obviously something being negotiated by "all parties involved" so who is breaking the promise to whom? Nothing wrong with trying to find a better solution to a sticky problem. It's one of the things that makes us better than Republicans.

                    However, I do have a problem with seating the delegates any other way than evenly. There is something absolutely wrong about having an election, telling everybody it won't count, and then saying oh yeah btw we are gonna count that. Talk about disenfranchisement. What about all the people that didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count?!

                    My name is huppster and I approve this message.

                    by huppster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:45:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree- no delegates, no appeasement (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gpclay, RoutineFly, princss6

                    Tow the DNC line, Barack. She won't concede anything, he should not either. Even if she gets everything she is supposedly asking for, she'll still take it to the convention because as we all know, "anything can happen." There will be even more public will to keep the thing going and she will have an even better chance at the convention.

                    It's too risky, Barack. Show some spine. Change course and say "NO" to FL/MI delegates. Those were not real contests and the people who stayed home because you told them to will never forgive the democratic party if that action led to HRC as pres. Don't be another Gore/Kerry and concede because it will "heal the country" or some crap.

                  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                    What did Clinton and Obama sign refusing to seat the FL and MI delegates?

                    ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

                    by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:16:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  what does this say (0+ / 0-)

                    to states in regard to future primaries? Break the rules, get punished, but know it will be reversed later on? ohhh-kayyy.

                    What incentive is there to keep states from breaking the rules in the future?

                •  Unfortunately, that may not be enough... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gpclay, simon551, hillgiant

                  ...Clinton can just take her act on the road and scream sexism and antiwhite racism all summer long. She has enough followers to cause real damage. Sure, she'll embarrass herself and destroy the Dems' chances of winning this fall, but she's shown she doesn't care about that--she cares about nothing but winning. I don't think she's going anywhere; she and her lunatic band will keep changing the metrics; she will keep hammering Obama all summer long, then take this to the convention and make it as ugly as possible.

              •  I recced because I so want this to be true. n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  Still, there's no way MI (0+ / 0-)

              should be seated in full. His name wasn't on the ballot. That makes no sense and I'm sure people in MI can see that.

              The problem with this logic is that by seating MI and FL like this it will make it appear much closer than it already does and this will give hillary ammunition to say the party is divided. Seat them both half.

              Everyone's always in favor of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, oh! Suddenly you've gone too far!-Futurama

              by McJagger on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:46:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you. (5+ / 0-)

            After all, the superdelegates might change their mind at any time.  They are free to do so by the rules.  Once the Rules have been jettisoned for the FL/MI situation, Clinton will suddenly be a stickler on that point, no doubt.  Though if she has gotten everything she asked for, there won't be grounds for challenge.

            Clintons would have to spend out of their own pocket for their campaign to go after Obama.  They'll probably have to spend out of their own pockets just to keep making public appearances.  But there is a place for deeply loyal Clinton big money people to act through one or more 527s.  Depending on the reporting schedules, they might be somewhat constrained calendar-wise.  Sadly, they won't have to spend much, because the cable media will pick it up and amplify it by orders of magnitude gratis.

            "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
            . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

            by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:36:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There's nothing to take to the convention then. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I commented earlier at DKos -- I'm wondering if the vast majority of Hillary supporters (not the diehards) are tired of this, too.  If they don't want to start coalescing around our nominee.  

            Methinks maybe it's true.....

          •  while the sentiment is spot on (0+ / 0-)

            wasn't it McCauliffe who was saying the last week that we'll have a nominee/settlement by the first week of June? Now, we all know McCauliffe is a liar, but would he make such a clear-cut statement if they had ulterior motives?

        •  It's not being pitched to supers only. (7+ / 0-)

          They're trying as hard as they can to create the perception in the mind of the public that Hillary "is winning the popular vote," so that when Barack clinches the nomination officially they can spin it as illegitimate, with Barack being in the Bush role from 2000, and Hillary in the Gore role. It won't change the nominee on the top of the ticket, but it will mean she can extort her way into the VP slot by saying that all these outraged voters can only be appeased by putting her on the ticket.

          •  But why? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gpclay, StrayCat, kydoc

            Who would even want to be a VP under such adversarial conditions?  Nobody wants to be the next John Adams VP.  If it is about power, there are other far more influential and potentially long lasting positions available.  Senate Majority Leader*.  Supreme Court Justice.  

            *Consider the massive and long lasting impact that Ted Kennedy has had in his Senate career.  You almost might say, loosing the Democratic nomination was the best thing to ever happen to his career.

        •  You may be right (0+ / 0-)

          but I don't think Obama ought to be legitimizing that argument at all.  Don't give the Clinton story any legs and don't budge from the DNC set magic number of 2025 until the DNC itself does something about it.  Obama's argument from the beginning has been that he is the one that's playing by the rules that were set.  It's working for him.  Keep it that way.  And given the excellent analysis of this diary, it is fairly obvious that Obama now can't lose under any circumstance, and if that's true, he has nothing to gain by preemptively giving the Clinton line of 'popular vote' any water.

          "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

          by deaniac83 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:04:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The argument is being used by *Republicans* (0+ / 0-)

          right now to undermine the legitimacy of Obama's victory.  It's no longer aimed at superdelegates; it's aimed at low-information voters.  The point is to tarnish Obama's good reputation by making him look like an election thief.  That -- and the problem of Obama looking ever-weaker as he gives into Hillary's escalating demands -- is why I appreciate your math but disagree with your prescription here.

          Posting a diary on the nomination? Pay your McCain Tax!

          by Seneca Doane on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's a good analysis (7+ / 0-)

        It may be safer than the numbers indicate. It plays into into the perceptions game. But it won't happen becuase Dean can't let Florida and Michigan be seated as if noting happened or he would be setting precedent for future primaries.

        I think then the Super Delegates will move to Obama in sufficient lots so he is the presumptive nominee. That won't stop Clinton from taking it to the Convention, but it removes the argument she has been making to such an extent that it would be hard for anyone to say she was getting ripped off.

        She might be the screaming nut in the back with Mickey Mouse ears on that they lead away in a strait Jacket.

        Support Col Hackworth's watchdog group for the troops with money or a sign

        by Dburn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:13:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah - there is a trade-off here... (12+ / 0-)
          1.  Failing to Punish MI and FL sets bad precedent.
          1.  Allowing MI and FL to "count" cuts HRC off at the knees.

          tough call all around.

          -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

          by DrWolfy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:19:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama only gets to present a case. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gpclay, John Poet, hillgiant

          Others make the decision.  More likely to go with the half-delegates, just like Terry McAuliffe used to argue.  Personally, I like the idea of stripping the supers of their votes, since they were either complicit or else they actually engineered this stuff.  It would provide a penalty while eliminating the argument that the voters were disenfranchised.

          That can get complicated, because some (like the College Dems leader in Michigan) had nothing to do with the fiasco.  

          But the precedent thing is there.  It actually is not a good idea to give the whole fiasco a pass.

          "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
          . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

          by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:42:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gpclay, Land of Enchantment

            I believe if both candidates and the DNC agree to a compromise before the committee meets, that solution goes into effect.  Of course, then that puts Clinton in the position of either going along with the Obama proposal (and taking the issue off the table) or going back on her oft-stated pledge (heh heh) to get the FL and MI delegates seated.

            The very definition of a win-win, if you ask me.

            There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

            by RoscoeOfAlabama on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:51:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The committee is only the 1st step (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The Rules & Bylaws committee will likely support some kind of favorable Hillary outcome because she'll have a majority of members on her side, and they won't be looking at the big picture or the future of the nominating process.

              After that, the process becomes more democratic and in favor of fairness and the big picture.

              Unfotunately, the process of fighting would give the appearance to MI and FL voters that Barack is fighting against their votes. That's the main reason the suggestions in this diary are good, and why Barack is working to find a compromise before the fight would begin. He's think about the fall and those key voters.

              Unfortunately, Hillary has done far more damage to the fall vote, by having driven her supporters into a position of animosity against Barack (not voting for him in the fall) that is three times greater than it was 3 months ago.

        •  Why not the 50% rule? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gpclay, Dirk Thrust

          There has to be some punishment so that a State in the future does not violate the rules.  Why not combine this analysis with a simple 0.5 vote per delegate rule, which many people from Florida have already proposed?  The Repubs established a precedent for that approach.

          JPZenger was a newspaper publisher whose jury trial in the 1730s for seditious libel helped establish the freedom to criticize top government officials.

          by JPZenger on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:32:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  agreed, the 50% punishment set forth in the rules (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gpclay, hillgiant

            would do it. would also stop any posturing from the Clinton camp because as you rightly point out the repugs did it too. But i'd like to see the state superds dumped too as they're the culprits in all this.

            The whole thing is so unpalatable though, the way the leaders have handled this is nothing short of outrageous, they've left BO undefended to take the full brunt of this.


            by Dirk Thrust on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:54:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  That gives Clinton a talking point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and a wedge against Obama.  "I'm not gonna stop until all the Florida and Michigan votes are counted!!!"  Yes, it's total BS, but it keeps the "contested nomination" story alive in the media for just a few cycles more.

            Shut it down, I say.

            There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage

            by RoscoeOfAlabama on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:54:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Michigan Primary was declared unconstitutional (8+ / 0-)

        I can't see how anyone would seat that delegation.

        Harold Ickes wants Clinton to received all the delegates from that state with Obama receiving none. They've already declined the 69-59 compromise.

        That tells me what his plans are.

        Any concession by the Obama campaign to honor the Michigan primary in any way will bite him in the face.

        •  I admit that I do not understand MI politics... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...but my understanding is that the portion of the primary that was ruled unconstitutional was the part where the voter roles become property of the party rather than the state.

      •  Puerto Rico. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There have been assumptions about turnout and margins in Puerto Rico.  Not sure what to make of diaries posted here about the commonwealth island, but it makes me less than certain about about traditional media assumptions about big turnout and big margin for Clinton.  If turnout is lower, and margin lower, that's gonna be a wrinkle in the turnout story, too.

        "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
        . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

        by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:31:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most of those PR scenarios have been debunked (4+ / 0-)

          PR doesn't have the stake in our party politics as they do when they elect their own state representatives, governors, etc.  They're not going to care about this primary the way they care about their inner elections.  So the turnout numbers are way off base.  Read a diary the other day on that and it really made sense.  

          She only gets the popular vote if Obama gets NO credit for ANY vote in MI.  That is not going to happen.  

          And really -- is the American electorate going to look at HIllary's popular vote claim because of the vote in Puerto Rico?  

      •  I am sick of this appeasement talk. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gpclay, Sassy

        When you have RULES the only principle that applies is the following of those RULES.

        NO matter how much one person bitches, moans and screams the agreed upon rules apply.


        Many people did not care for Pat Buchanan's speech; it probably sounded better in the original German."

        by Flippant on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yup, this gives legs (0+ / 0-)

        to the Clinton's popular vote meme.  Obama should agree to do nothing unless Clinton agrees to count the Michigan uncommitted popular votes in Obama's favor, and includes raw counts from caucus turnouts in the popular vote totals.  It shouldn't be (reasonably) hard for Clinton, since she has already said that all the uncommitted votes were so due in large part to the efforts of Obama supporters anyway.

        "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

        by deaniac83 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:59:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And What Kind Of Fog Engulfs An Uncommitted (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gpclay, davidincleveland, stunzeed

      Super Delegate, at this point?  

    •  I am in love with you and your math. (7+ / 0-)

      Every time, you nail it.

    •  OMG, PocketNines... (6+ / 0-)

      When do you sleep? Brilliant work!

      Barack Obama -- The President we were promised as kids!

      by Jimdotz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:17:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent work (8+ / 0-)

      This is the kind of diary that keeps me coming back to DailyKos.  This is the kind of thorough analysis that the media should be providing, but never will.  

      Seriously, great job.

    •  You missed something! (9+ / 0-)

      I can't believe it, but I looked through three times and didn't find it.  Maybe it's there and I missed it (wouldn't be the first time).  If not:

      Tomorrow (May 25), Hawaii is choosing its add-on superdelegate.  But it is also selecting for two vacant party positions.  I'm not finding that on your list.  DCW says:

      name their add-on, and also select a new state party chair and vice-chair, both of whom immediately become superdelegates. Obama won the Hawaii Caucuses. Candidates for the Chair position are Annelle Amaral and Brian Schatz. Schatz is a former member of Obama's campaign in Hawaii, and has been endorsed by Obama. Amaral is a Clinton supporter but has committed to voting for Obama at the convention. In addition, Obama has endorsed James Burns, former chief judge of the state Intermediate Court of Appeals, for the add-on position.

      No mention of the vice-chair here.  But I think it's a safe bet that Obama gets one, if not both, of these two positions.

      "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
      . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:29:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great analysis, but there has to be a penalty (14+ / 0-)

      This is the third primary in a row that MI has tried to move their primary-I think there has to be a penalty for that, or we'll be right back here next time around-if not MI and FL, then somebody else.  I also dislike rewarding Clinton's childish behavior with full seating of delegates from a fraudulent election.  

      If I thought doing this would make her go away, I'd be tempted, but I think she'd just move on to another tactic to keep her campaign relevant-I'd expect endless lectures from the Clinton camp about how "no delegate, even so-called 'pledged' delegates, are committed to their candidate".  Or discussion of how HRC 'deserves' to VP (those have already started).

      She's just playing on the fears of the party-"we have to give her anything she wants so she'll play nice in the fall".  Nothing will guarantee that, so we might as well do what's right instead of knuckling under to a tantrum.

      •  well said ksduck! there is no way that Team C are (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        going to all this trouble just to ensure Obama the nomination. This is all bluff and bravado, her core support amounts to far fewer than those that have voted for her this primary season, if anyone's suffering from buyers remorse it's her voters.

        Someone on here likened her to Carry and the Dem convention as her high school prom, everything needs to be done to ensure she doesn't get to lock the doors and set everything on fire!


        by Dirk Thrust on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:00:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let's also be clear... (2+ / 0-)

      ... anything less than fully seating the delegates "as is" by the RBC will trigger an appeal by Clinton, meaning this drags until late July, early August when the appeal would be heard.

      If the math works, as it appears, then Obama's best chance to put this all to rest is agreeing to seat the full delegations "as is."

      "And if I don't see ya, in a long, long while, I'll try to find you left of the dial" - Paul Westerberg

      by D Wreck on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:38:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        what you do is you hold for a compromise, let Clinton appeal, get the needed superdelegates to endorse in early June, and then support fully seating the delegations.

        Basically, you make sure you have the nomination in hand, and then you say seat them.

        The Clintons are corrupt selfish race baiting zero character scumbags. I'd rather be run over by a tractor-trailer than willfully vote for any Clinton again.

        by IhateBush on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:41:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary's argument rests on... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RoscoeOfAlabama, D Wreck

        ... not disenfranchising the voters.  The supers could be stripped of their votes and the Clintonistas would have to invent a whole new argument.  Because the voters would have been given free reign.  Presumably, the Clintons won't get zero for Obama out of Michigan, because those 31 were uncommitted later committing.  Doesn't seem to be much future in trying to enforce that - it doesn't pass the laugh test.

        "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
        . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

        by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:47:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It won't matter.... (0+ / 0-)

        if she can't realize the number of delegates to clinch the nomination.  

        Which is why, yes, we need supers to come out.  

    •  Couldn't disagree more (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No need for any such concessions to the insatiable egos of the Clintons.  Why take any risk at all to honor the bizarre and slimy endgame tactics of Sen. Clinton's campaign?  I wouldn't mind Obama meeting Clinton half-way in some compromise to end the battle, but he should not abandon his position so easily.

      Do you honestly believe that Sen. Clinton, with the nomination so tantalizingly close, will pitch in the towel after receiving MI and FL delegates?  If anything, I would expect her cries against the injustice of the caucus system, the all-important popular vote, and media bias to crescendo.  "Disenfranchisement!" "Undemocratic!" "Sexism!" "Electibility!"  

      No, I don't want to see much more of that.  The worst that Obama can achieve if he maintains a principled opposition to Clinton's tactics is partial loss in the Rules committee.  I suspect that such a loss would provoke a flock of uncommitted SDs to move to Obama for fear of a party fracture.

      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else. Yogi Berra

      by Twin Planets on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:20:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama should not accept over 50% seating (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smithnewyork, artmartin

      under any circumstances.

      HRC's argument would then be: 'Look,

      1. we're very close in (pledged) delegates
      1. I am ahead in the popular vote (which she will be if FL and MI and counted in full and PR turnout is heavy)
      1. I am polling better against McCain in swing states (like PA, OH, FL)

      Therefore, I must be the nominee.'

      That's the danger.

      That's why, 50% seating in both FL and MI, using the exit poll split of C:46% and O:35% in MI (or the proposes 69-59 PD split, but with only 50% SDs) is the only thing I'd concede to the Clinton camp. If they don't accept it, Obama has a far stronger case than her in courts (that rules that were operative before the contests began must be upheld, and according to those, FL and MI will not be seated. Period.).

      McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson

      by NeuvoLiberal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:51:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Revote is a far better option than 100% seating (0+ / 0-)

        if the state parties can get it done by 2nd or 3rd week of June.

        He'd have a good shot at winning MI and come within 5-10% in FL (if not win it). He has the money to do well and she doesn't.

        Since she's likely to end up ahead on the popular vote (if we count FL and MI fake primaries results as they are, she already is ahead), there is no particular reason not to go for  revotes (if they can still be done).

        After a full revote, no one can raise questions about the legitimacy of the results (that's why I supported revotes from the get go when the FL+MI controversy was pushed to the front).

        McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson

        by NeuvoLiberal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:27:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK, one circumstance (0+ / 0-)

        under which he could agree to 100% seating is if she agrees to drop out after that and puts it in writing and signs it.

        McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson

        by NeuvoLiberal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:28:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  More than nominating Obama involved. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There is more involved than simply acknowledging who is the nominee this year.
      The DNC set rules which FL and MI broke.
      Ignoring that would set an atrocious precedent.
      Giving each delegate half a vote, OTOH, might make sense.

      "The three main issues in this campaign are Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq." -- Bill Foster

      by Frank Palmer on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:27:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the most salient point: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the Clintons' campaign posturing on this issue is based on lies, hypocricy, deceit, and sanctimonious and insulting hyperbole. They were signatories to the DNC ruling. Basic contract law says it's a done deal - move on.


    •  In spite of all this great analysis, it is too (0+ / 0-)

      risky for obama to agree to seat FL and MI on clinton terms. next thing the clinton campaign puts a legal challenge to the results in another state. and it wouldn't give him goodwill with all those who wouldn't have voted clinton in the first place there. (probably 2/3 of the voters, like in other states)

    •  I have 56 FL & MI super-D's, not 55. (0+ / 0-)

      I wonder where the discrepancy is?  What do you have that's different than this?

      Florida - 26

      1. Clinton (8): Sen. Bill Nelson, Reps. Corinne Brown, Alcee Hastings, Kendrick Meek, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,  and DNC: Ken Curtis (?), Raul Martinez, & Chuck Mohlke,
      1. Obama (5): Reps. Kathy Castor, Robert Wexler, add-on Dan Gelber, and DNC: Joyce Cusack, & Allan Katz.
      1. Undeclared (13): Reps. Allen Boyd, Ron Klein, Tim Mahoney, add-ons Steve Gelber, Alex Sink, and DNC Jon Ausman, Terrie Bradie, Mitchell Caesar, Diane Glasser, Janee Murphy, Rudolph Parker, Karen Thurman, & Andrew Tobias.

      Michigan - 30

      1. Clinton (8): Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Reps. John Dingell, Dale Kildee, Sander Levin, and DNC - John Cherry, Joel Ferguson & Mark Schauer.
      1. Obama (5): Rep. John Conyers and DNC - Eric Colement, Robert Ficano, Virgie Rollins & College Dems Laurie Wolfe.
      1. Undeclared (17): Sen. Carl Levin, Reps. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Bart Stupak, 2 add-ons TBA, DNC - Arthenia Abbott, Lu Battaglieri, Mark Brewer, Elizabeth Bunn, Debbie Dingell, Joyce Lalonde, Jeffrey Radjewski, Richard Shoemaker, Michael Tardiff, Richard Weiner and misc: Kwame Kirkpatrick, Brenda Lawrence (national mayors head).

      "You can't depend on your judgment when your imagination is out of focus."
      . . . . . . . . . Mark Twain

      by Land of Enchantment on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't agree (5+ / 0-)

    The issue HRC has with her reluctant uncommitted-but-supportive supers is that, as of right now, if they come out, they will not be on the winning side regardless of their support.  No one wants to go down with a sinking ship!

    BUT if the numbers get close-- and including FL and MI in full would bring them close-- it's much less of a gamble for the uncommitted HRC supporters to jump and close the deal.

    Letting HRC get close is dangerous.  DLC loyalties run deep.  No, hold her feet to the fire and keep the gap large enough to not tempt the conservative party loyalists of status quo!

    `You have a much too willful will. You think that what you do not do... does not happen' -Zen master to E. Herrigel

    by tmc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:39:45 AM PDT

    •  Why did I just waste my energy? (29+ / 0-)

      BUT if the numbers get close-- and including FL and MI in full would bring them close-

      The work I just put in conclusively disproves the premise of your objection.  Mathematically.  What more would I have to do?

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:43:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama may well be planning what you suggest (12+ / 0-)

        Per Al Giordano:

        Who are these remaining undeclared superdelegates? They come in various categories. Many are on the fence because it is in their nature to not want to upset or offend anyone, be it a candidate, or their constituents on each side. Others have projects or ambitions that require support and good will from players in both camps. A few - like some members of Congress - probably will not even attend the convention or vote in the nomination fight because they don’t want their GOP rivals to whack them in ads for supporting either of the "liberal" presidential candidates. And a great many have already made up their minds to vote for Obama, but are waiting until all states have voted to announce their decisions.

        Which is why I had to laugh aloud at an email I got today with the strangest of conspiracy theories. It posited that the remaining superdelegates might somehow force Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate. That is too funny. I have looked over the list, I know many of these undeclared supers, and these remaining undeclared ones are, by and large, the most milquetoast and neutrality-loving "wanna-be-friends-with-everyone" types in the entire party! They’re the least likely to try and impose anything on a nominee.

        So, whether this will be decided by The Gang of 165 (of which just 15 would need to break Obama’s way) or the larger Gang of 197 (of which just 50, about one out of every four, would be needed to sew up Obama’s nomination), it is a piece of cake, a sure thing, a lead-pipe cinch that Obama will soon be the nominee.

        Which is why, I suspect, that after giving Senator Clinton enough rope to continue to behave ridiculously as she did today in Florida for the next ten days, the Obama campaign may - a day or two before the May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting - pull the chair out from under her and call for seating the whole shebang, looking gracious and magnanimous in victory, and leaving her presidential campaign hanging by the rope of its own making.

      •  They're not disputing your math (0+ / 0-)

        but in politics it's more than math.  Hillary's argument all along is that she's close enough to put doubt in the mind of delegates and get them to change their commitments.  Throw in some bribes and political pressure and she may actually get some to switch.  Then the math no longer holds up.

        I don't think she has the clout anymore to do that but their campaign is looking at every possibility.  You want to completely dash hope in them not allow them even a sliver.

        "I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence" Doug McLeod

        by artmartin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's not just about numbers (27+ / 0-)

    it is more importantly about principles. To seat both delegations in full renders the DNC powerless and leaves the party without rules and regulations. It punishes all the other states who followed the rules. And serves only to make future primaries more chaotic.

    And it is a bad message to send to future candidates who believe they can change the rules anytime and in any way to suit them.

    Both camps are on record as saying a 50% reduction is il line and an acceptable solution. For the Clinton camp to now insist the full delegations be seated only to her benefit is not only unfair, but ridiculous. And they know it. It will not happen. They know that too.

    "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars." Barack Obama

    by DWKING on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:44:38 AM PDT

    •  Not if you seat them in a way that doesn't affect (3+ / 0-)

      the result.  This renders their primaries meaningless as they are give votes that don't affect the outcome or the narrative.  They might as well have not voted at all.

      •  No - you have to follow through with (8+ / 0-)

        your punishment.

        Imagine it with your kids.  "If you do X, no TV for a week".  OH PUHLEESE DAD..  PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE.

        OK - but only for 2 hours.

        Guess what that does to your credibility in dolling out future punishment.

        -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

        by DrWolfy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:21:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think it's a matter of priorities (0+ / 0-)

          You're obviously right in principle. But if it comes down to seating "as-is" being the best way of avoiding a convention fight, I can see the leadership deciding to just cope with the primary chaos next time (hopefully 2016, with a popular incumbent making it a non-issue for 2012). That would leave a good bit of time to reform the process anyway, so there might not even be a problem next time.

        •  Punishment is a conservative meme (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CarolinaWoolf, dogheaven, hillgiant

          Progressives believe that you fix the system by fixing the system, not by keeping a broken system and then punishing people who take advantage of it.

          Governing children through fear is a Republican family value. Raising children through example and inspiration, and making sure the system enables and encourages constructive behavior, is a Democratic value.

          Not to mention the condescension of comparing MI and FL to children, and the authoritarianism of comparing Democratic leaders to parents.

          This whole "punishment" thing, at this point, seems driven more by emotion than reason. I'm just waiting for someone to make the argument that seating MI and FL would be "appeasement".

          Let's fix the problem, and make sure it doesn't happen again - and then let's make sure every American voter feels enfranchised, and that every potential Democratic voter feels welcome.

          There is a simple proposal to create four, rotating regional primaries that is supported by many in the Democratic leadership. Agreeing to it as a condition of seating MI and FL would be a win-win scenario, and I believe Obama will pursue that kind of wise, sober, realistic solution.

          •  Punishment's a bad word (0+ / 0-)

            The intent of the poster though is more likely requiring responsibility for actions.  Is it punishment that we have to pay a fine for illegal parking or is it simply enforcing the law that the violator is fully aware of before pulling into the spot?

            "I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence" Doug McLeod

            by artmartin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:43:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A better analogy (0+ / 0-)

              Would be having broken meters at all the parking places, and telling people they have to time themselves and drop the right amount in a bucket - and then trying to keep order by punishing violators.

              That is not the way to create an orderly system. Fix the system so that there aren't irresistible incentives to break the rules. You can punish all you want, but that will not prevent chaos next primary season.

          •  It is like the Fed bailing out banks (0+ / 0-)

            for bad lending practices.

            There is no incentive to not do it.

            It's not punishment, it's abiding by the rules and paying the consequences (not punishment), when they are broken.

            Yes, we need to fix the system, but if we allow people to break the rules with no consequences, then it will be that much harder to fix.

            -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

            by DrWolfy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:58:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ah yes the parent analogy (0+ / 0-)

          for very adult problems.  Sorry the voters are not kids and the DNC are not parents.  There are more "grown up" ways to deal with this problem.

          Some are articulated up thread very nicely.

    •  Both camps are on record? (22+ / 0-)

      Hell, Hillary Clinton is on record saying Michigan isn't a real vote.  What does "on record" mean with the Clintons?  Think about that one, really.

      I understand the argument about the DNC needing to keep its rules and I tend to agree.  But maybe I should update with a clarification - it's technically not in Obama's power to "agree" that they be seated in full.  The DNC itself can still punish Florida and Michigan and might.  But if Obama says, sure, seat 'em in full, and then the DNC doesn't, Obama still wins the perception game, and there's no outcome that can hurt him, whatever the committee votes.

      It takes the steam out of all that protesting and demonstrating at the meeting, etc.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:52:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  red'd for foresight...thank you! (8+ / 0-)

      It's not all about this primary (Well, maybe to Clinton it is)  

      If you don't like the rules, you have to change them before the game starts.  Criminy, everyone understands that.

      And you don't let one side of a competition make the rules.  Everyone knows that, too.

    •  Right...And Wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Land of Enchantment

      You';re right that it is...or should be...about principles.

      But then you chose the lesser principle. The important principle here is that of watching out for THE VOTERS.
      To hell with the DNC, to hell with either candidate (and both of them are guilty as hell on this charge) playing "what scenario benefits me".  The important thing here is the franchise and finding a fair way to avoid disenfranchising a
      few million Democrats.  And if THAT principle had been a priority for the party and candidates since January we would not be having any discussions about any of this now.

      Both candidates thoroughly abandoned a key progressive principle here.

      •  Let's not forget (as too many conveniently do) (9+ / 0-)

        that if you seat MI and FL, then you disenfranchise those that DIDN'T VOTE because they thought it wouldn't matter.

        -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

        by DrWolfy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:22:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Call Bullshit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          On that argument.

          People who CHOOSE not to vote (for any reason whatsoever) have disenfrachised themselves.  Voting is a civic duty and obligation and not something to be casually tossed away.

          Morally you HAVE to consider the rights of the millions who bothered to come out and vote before trying to accomodate the wishes of those who didn't bother.  To do otherwise is to undermine the basic concept of citizenship.

          •  Well - rather than call bullshit... (7+ / 0-)

            I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

            If there is no effect of your vote (e.g. a Stalin election), then why would you feel it is your duty?

            And - you really need to deal with the core of the argument, why FL and MI should be rewarded for breaking the rules.

            -6.5, -7.59. John McSame - running for Bush's third term. We can't afford it.

            by DrWolfy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:01:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not so fast... (9+ / 0-)

            If, as an educated and aware voter, you have been told that your vote will not matter, and you then do not vote, based on those assurances, I assert that you did NOT choose to disenfranchise yourself.

            If those same "leaders" then come back and say that the votes do count after all, I think that you have an extremely powerful case to call foul.

          •  high-minded, but not practical (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RoscoeOfAlabama, hillgiant

            It's a civic responsibility when it could possibly affect outcomes, as this is the whole reason that voting is a civic duty (i.e. it's not important just for show or some inherent moral obligation, but rather because it has real consequences for everyone and their country). People were told their votes wouldn't count (which is different from saying their candidate is unlikely to win imo), so why should we expect them to show up when it has nothing to do with their civic duties at that point. This does not undermine the basic concept of citizenship (particularly in a primary election, but that's another discussion).  

            Now maybe you're arguing that people shouldn't have believed the DNC that their votes wouldn't count, and continued to consider it part of their duties to the democratic party to vote anyway. But that's not civic responsibility, that's actually cynicism about our leadership's fortitude in setting rules. That view I can understand.  

      •  Also, I have seen posted at several other blogs (6+ / 0-)

        from Fla voters that the Presidential race was not the reason many came out to vote in the first place, there was also a Property Tax increase issue that sent a lot of people to the polls.

        "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars." Barack Obama

        by DWKING on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:26:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They weren't disenfranchised (0+ / 0-)

        They chose to disenfranchise themselves. They could hold a valid primary tomorrow if they wanted. Many people have been asking them to do that. Just because you can't get your act together and have a real election doesn't give you the right to substitute a straw poll or the results from the last local election for county dogcatcher.

      •  I distinctly remember (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StrayCat, artmartin, hillgiant

        that every Democrat in both states were aware that the state was being sanctioned before the primary day, before they voted. Voters went to the booth, or chose to stay home, aware that it would not count.

        How can we avoid disenfranchising a few million Democrats when that has already happened? It's akin to rewriting history. I believe that the punishment must be to halve the delegates in the exact same way the Republican party halved theirs.

        It is painfully apparent that the Clinton campaign is not out for justice as claimed in speeches, but seeks to gather more delegates and to gain ground on Obama.

        I started out with nothing and still have most of it left.

        by Batbird on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:54:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Everything they have said/alleged about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the MI and FL situation has been unfair and ridiculous. I see the two of them, arduously dragging the goalposts across a muddied field, long after the fans have left the stadium.

      I am delighted with the (proven above) inevitability of Obama's nomination, I just want it over.  With so few pledged delegates still at stake, I don't understand why the supers don't step forward now rather than later.  If Obama secures the requisite number to become the presumed nominee with his Florida delegates and his Michigan 31 included, everyone should know that before the May 31st meeting.

      On that day, everyone can act together in the effort to unify the party; the FL & MI delegations brought back into the fold, and the remaining supers released to unite behind Obama.  Even Hillary, having achieved everything she wanted, will be forced to rejoin the Democratic Party and start bringing back her misguided with her.

      I know, I know.  I'm dreamin'.

  •  It doesn't work that way (7+ / 0-)

    Hillary will not accept any deal in which he even gets the Michigan UNCOMITTEDS

  •  I agree PocketNines (6+ / 0-)

    He needs to agree to seat them all as is. That would take her argument off the table. Of course, she would probably pull something else out of her ass to argue with, but most of the wind would be taken out of her sails.

  •  ok (6+ / 0-)

    Obama has won. Your analysis is elegant but the conclusion is too obvious to warrant such elegant analysis.

  •  ok then (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Land of Enchantment

    Let's fight it out at the convention or even past it, I don't care as long as Hillary political future is destroyed by the end of it

  •  great stuff P9! i am going to miss (3+ / 0-)
    all those great predictions and results posts you do when the primaries are over
  •  Two problems with this analysis (7+ / 0-)
    1. Clinton would then argue that she won the popular vote (including FL and the Joseph Stalin Michigan Primary), and she should be the nominee, and the superdelegates should overrule the pledged delegate count.
    1. Ickes would argue that since Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot in Michigan, that all Uncommitted delegates should go only to those who have met the 15% threshold, and thus all 128 pledged delegates should go to Clinton.

    The Clintons are corrupt selfish race baiting zero character scumbags. I'd rather be run over by a tractor-trailer than willfully vote for any Clinton again.

    by IhateBush on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:48:08 AM PDT

  •  Mi and Fl cannot get their way here. (18+ / 0-)

    I live in MI and did not vote because it didn't count.  I was angry, but at our politicians and party idiot  Everyone that says that MI and FL (and I don't care what they say the politicians and party in FL did vote for this date change, there's video to prove it) should get all their delegates are wrong.  They knew what the rules were and they were told what would happen and figured they'd play chicken with the DNC and lost.  If they don't suffer that loss we will have this same fiasco year after year.  We may not agree with the rules, but if we don't have them and don't make states etc... follow them we might as well give it up and let it be a free for all.  It's absolutely ridiculous when these state party people start acting like a bunch of spoiled little brats who didn't get their way at the expense of the voters they are supposed to be representing.  I really hoped they would get any delegates because they need to suffer for their stupidity and I still hope they seat them with no vote, but at the very least I hope they get no more than 1/2 a vote and no superdelegates.

    Boycott all Corporate Media with dishonorable journalistic standards. Obama vs McCain 2008

    by psdunc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:49:22 AM PDT

  •  just wow (4+ / 0-)

    On all that work. Thanks for doing it and thanks for sharing it.

    I'm strongly opposed to seating their delegates in full. I'm a big fan of rules and following them, fully aware of the consequences down the road of not doing so.  

    Also, I'm a big fan of making sure the party leadership in Florida and Michigan are strongly punished. They created the problem to begin with.

    •  They can't be seated in full unless Obama agrees. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kydoc, hillgiant

      That means that any state contemplating doing this in the future would have to count on all the candidates agreeing to seat them. And that would be taking a big chance.

      I'd normally agree with you, but there will be a price to pay for ushering Hillary off the scene and this is the lowest price we're going to get. Better than a bloodbath all the way up to and through the convention.

      Zillary Clinton: The psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic Party.

      by expatjourno on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:12:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Punishing the leadership (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I like the idea of seating the Florida and Michigan pledged delegates but punishing the leadership by banning the superdelegates. I think that would send a strong message.

  •  Ickes argument dows not hold water. (3+ / 0-)

    Harold Ickes or for that matter anyone else, cannot insist that a delegate be committed or uncommitted period. Delegates are free to do as they please. This is a stead fast rule above all others and has at times been stated by both champagnes. To suggest or request or demand that a delegate, any delegate be forced to be committed to a candidate or uncommitted as the case might be it against all rules every conceived by the Democratic Party.

  •  Great post, thanks for all the work!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment, Joe Beese
    •  "Great" may not cover it (0+ / 0-)

      I'm awed. If anyone in the Corporate Media is this on top of the numbers, I'm not aware of it.

      But I think Hillary is going to convention no matter what happens.

      If the RBC doesn't agree to full-strength seating in order to punish the states, she'll say principle demands she continue fighting for "voices to be heard", yada yada.

      If they do agree to full-strength seating, she won't be able to continue bullshitting her supporters it's about "the will of the people". She'll simply switch rationales - yet again - and say, fairly enough, that delegates are free to change their minds before the convention. Then she'll spend the next 11 weeks desperately trying to dig up sleaze.

      Either way, everyone will know what the final magic number is going to be. And once the supers put Obama over it, he's "the presumptive nominee" - end of story.

      Hillary will do her best to undermine the legitimacy of his nomination - either with an eye to 2012, or out of spite. But only the most resentful of her hardcore supporters - those who will never vote for Obama under any circumstances - will still be paying attention.

  •  No No No No No (20+ / 0-)

    I'm a Floridian.  Hillary and Barak signed a pledge not to count these states.  In fact Terry McCauliffe threatened Sen. Levin of Michigan (when McCauliffe was DNC Chair) not to seat delegates if Michigan moved its primary.

    Seating all the delegates gives Hillary a win for perpetual lying and it does nothing to advance Obama's position in these states.

    "Seating Delegates" is an inside the beltway problem now.  Nobody in Florida....NOBODY....cares about this now.  The only discussion you hear is Obama vs. McCain.

    •  I agree with you on principle. I get all that. (10+ / 0-)

      I agree.  But here's the reality.  Maddow is right, the Clintons will go out brutally and ugly.  They are who they are.  They have to be Eight Belled out of this one.

      A "win for perpetual lying" amounts to nothing.  What is won?  Nothing helpful for her.  Look at the math.  If Obama calls her bluff, it's over.  

      Clinton's biggest "win" here is poisoning the well by stoking embitterment among her supporters, the only thing she is still capable of pulling off.  She wins if she is allowed to do that, because it's her last threat, her last bargaining chip.  Give me X or I poison your well, Barack.

      Obama takes that away from her by taking away Florida and Michigan.  It's not about "advancing his position" in those states.  It's about the fact that his opponent cannot be trusted.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:15:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  oh man, I wish you hadn't said Eight Belled. (5+ / 0-)
      •  I don't like it.. (3+ / 0-)

        and I live in Florida.

        If he gives in, he will look soft, not willing to fight. I think he should stand her ground, make her look bad and unreasonable.

        Hopefully, one of his surrogates can calmly explain the rational behind his decision and the desperation behind Ickes and Hillary's comments.

        I honestly don't think holding out and being strong is going to hurt Obama. Hillary will be long gone by November.

        •  He's got the superdelegates he needs (or so we (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Trial Lawyer Richard

          led to believe by various media).  NOW is the time for them to declare, BEFORE the May 31st meeting.  That way he can accede to Hillary's demands in full; the race will already be over. She will be forced to agree or look even more foolish than she does today.

        •  And the longer (0+ / 0-)

          the feud lasts, the stronger McCain gets.

          Rachel Maddow suggested, then PocketNines confirmed, that Obama could agree to seat MI and FL as is, take the wind from her sails, and still win the nomination.

          This may be a good strategy although I'm in the camp that doesn't want to reward bad behavior.

          The only other scenario that will deflate Clinton's baloon is for the Superdelegates to move heavily to Obama before the May 31st meeting.

          I started out with nothing and still have most of it left.

          by Batbird on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:16:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Impossible to take away FL and MI from Clinton (0+ / 0-)

        As you say these 31 delegates will most likely vote for Obama but the Clinton campaign want Michigan seated so that Obama gets no delegates.

        It appears as though there is nothing Obama or the DNC can do to sit Michigan the way the Clintons want.

        Therefore by definition Michigan cannot be settled to the satisfaction of the Clintons. And it will continue to be a part of her argument to superdelegates and to pledged delegates to switch their vote regardless of what solution is found for Florida and Michigan.

        Settling Florida and Michigan will make Obama look magnanimous to his supporters and the pundits but that doesn't matter because they already know Clinton has lost. It will do nothing to stop Clinton using those states as talking points for why she should be the nominee.

        The only choice is between her dropping out and loudly and forcefully endorsing Obama or her continuing under any pretext, manufactured or real and poisoning the minds of many of her supporters that Obama needs in the general election.

        •  Clinton has convinced (0+ / 0-)

          everyone she's going to convince.  The longer this goes on, the more pathetic she looks.  I cannot believe she will be gaining any supporters through these tactics.  Even the media is beginning to laugh at her.  I don't wish her ill, but it is her own decision to continue along this path of distortions and her legacy will be her responsibility alone.

      •  I'm still hoping (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Trial Lawyer Richard

        KO  has some greater personal knowledge of how the Clintons might behave that supports his belief that they will not go all the way to Denver. And what about Wolfson's book deal?

        -7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann

        by nicolemm on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:19:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  X = VP (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm still quite worried about her poisoning the well unless selected as VP. Or maybe the appropriate extension of the metaphor is that she's already poisoned the well, and I'm worried that she will claim to have the antidote to the poison, which she will only provide if given the VP slot. Something like that.

      •  There is no "last bargaining chip" (0+ / 0-)

        for the Clintons.  I think you're underestimating their ruthlessness.  Think bribes and political extortion on already committed delegates if the numbers get close.  Everyone has their price.

        It's like the election fraud claims with the recent elections.  It only really works when it's close.  It's too hard to carry off when there's a blowout.

        "I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence" Doug McLeod

        by artmartin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's not literally true that no one here (0+ / 0-)

      in FL cares about the HRC candidacy by now.
      Second hand, but: just this morning a fellow Democrat, Obama supporter, told me a number of her friends are up in arms about sexism and unfairness and swear they will vote from McC if Hillary isnt recognized...etc. I very much doubt the strength of that, but, heck, I don't know those ladies. But there is some resenting and it should not be ignored.
      So, by all means,let's take away the arguments soon, yes

  •  It seems to me for the future (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment

    to really discourage this kind of thing
    Fla, and Michigan (like the Republicans) should halve the vote/delegates right off the bat, and split the delegates 50/50 down the middle. This should of been done before hand.

    If you seat the delegates in full, Clinton will claim, she won the popular vote and shut up.

    It seems to me (as Maddow mentioned), the cleanest thing to do is to get to 2026. But it seems the DNC (as you suggested) are going to wait unitl after June 3rd.

    Don't know who's right. But that is taking a risk, I think. Everybody seems to think Hillary is boxed in or she's going to play nice.

    We'll see!

  •  Numbers make my head spin (6+ / 0-)

    but your analysis is awesome. thanks for the work. Numbers dont lie or wear a pantsuit.

  •  The analysis is great (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment, NewDealer

    But I think the more important aspect is not what it does for the candidates to count the illicit primary votes, but what it does for all of these states trying to get the jump on one another. The US Presidential election process is far too extended, draining so many funds that it takes a quarter of a billion dollars already to just run for the nomination - never mind the general election.

    If states are rewarded for primary queue jumping, it is only a matter of time before they leapfrog out of the election year, and push back even farther how long it takes to elect a President. Can the US really afford to have Senators and Governors taking off from their job more than the two years they already take?

  •  That's cutting it a little close for comfort. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, davidincleveland

    Yeah, you'd have moral authority but some people have no ethics and delegates can be bribed, bought, and ultimately switched.

    It's the fascism, stupid!

    by lastman on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:06:34 AM PDT

  •  Problem and suggestion (18+ / 0-)

    Just one problem with the MI tallies.

    The MDP is holding the results of those conventions hostage--the posts you link to are by far the most comprehensive lists. I think they're doing so for two reasons (both utterly shitty). One, they want to ignore them so tehy can bargain for seating as if there is a clean slate. And two, because in all but two CDs, the "slate" candidates lost to people who were recognized by their fellow citizens as real activists. (There's also the problem that Hillary pulled most of the UAW and AFT people who had been on her slate at the last minute, so the results seriously underweigh the amount of representation that the MDP likes to give unions. [Note, I have mixed feelings about this--the unions simply didn't get their members to the conventions, which should be teh final say of who gets to go.]

    So that's the first problem--while I'm fairly confident in my 31 estimate, the MDP is holding those 31 "hostage" and we don't know what crazy thing they're trying to do with the delegates.

    The other suggestion is that you run this assuming that the MI and FL supers are not seated. I think that's a likely possibility at the May 31 meeting (and I think, a good one, because it punishes the people who jumped the gun while still seating the activists we need to win MI). Also, in both states, Hillary has a huge lead in super support (my very rough estimate for MI is 20-8 Hillary). If OBama were to offer to seat he elected delegates at full strength, but not the supers, it would send Hillary squawking.

    Incidentally, when (I think) Ickes was asked about how many votes he thought he had for the May 31 meeting, he said peopel had their support but they also had other issues at stake--I think the punishment issue is that other issue, and that's why I think the RBC is leaning against seating the supers.

    This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

    by emptywheel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:11:33 AM PDT

    •  hmm, i just asked about this below. (2+ / 0-)

      as i didn't know whether the MI/FL supers were being included or not. (i hadn't heard anything about them, actually.)

      not seating them certainly seems like one of the more sensible compromises, since, as the party leaders, they can be viewed as generally responsible for this clusterfrack.

      I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

      by UntimelyRippd on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:22:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for commenting in the diary (14+ / 0-)

      Your information is always a gold mine and obviously it's the origination of all the number running I did.

      I'll update with a link to your comment about what the MDP might do so people can see it's not quite as clear cut as I present it in the diary.

      DCW has 10 total supers for Obama in FL/MI now, and she definitely has more.  I also fully agree that such a solution of stripping the supers would work - it would satisfy the people who feel that some punishment needs to be meted out to set a precedent for the future (including me).  It would also take away "We wuz robbed!" from the Clinton fusillade.

      2208, minus 53 supers from MI/FL = 2155

      Total pledged delegates already secured: 1753.5
      Superdelegates outside of MI/FL: 306.5
      Total: 2060
      Needed: 95

      The 100% group (43) gets Obama to needing 52.

      The 80%-100% likely group (69) basically gets him there.

      The 208 group is reduced by 28 undeclared MI/FL supers, down to 180.

      The reason I did the worst-case scenario is that any deal that reduces the numbers in any way gets him over the top even faster.  Of course, your suggested deal is probably the only version of deal-making that stifles the oxygen Clinton requires in order to play out the game Maddow expects her to play.  I am convinced they want something, anything, that can be appealed and yelled about all summer unless they get their behind-the-scenes demands met.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:36:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let me clarify about pledged delegates (10+ / 0-)

        The MDP is supposed to publish the list of those elected on April 19. It has not done so, and has, in fact, refused to give out such a list every time reporters ask for one.

        One reason they did so, I suspect, is because releasing the list triggers a deadline for challenges. The MDP ignored at least 2 challenges submitted by party activists, and I think they're "justifying" it (even though it violates MDP rules, based on the fact that they have not released that list.

        But I also suspect that they haven't released it because they want to be able to promise Obama 59 delegates. Frankly, even though it harms Obama, I'd rather have the results from April 19 count, since that was the only thing resembling democracy to happen so far this year. But if they're serious about giving Obama 59, they may actually negate ALL the results of the April 19 conventions (or at least the uncommitted side).

        In either case, until the MDP releases that list--and I don't think they ever will--they're in the position to fuck with the delegation. Assholes.

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:53:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I originally complied the list (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of who won the Uncommitted caucuses, that is being quoted here. I'd like a little credit for that...

          The only other thing I have to say is, if I am bumped to make more room for folks who did not show up at the district convention, it is the end of my involvement with the Democratic Party.

          Mark E. Miller
          Kalamazoo County Campaigns Chair
          Michigan 6th District Uncommitted (Obama) delegate

      •  2155? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        2208, minus 53 supers from MI/FL = 2155

        I think this number should be 1(or 0.5) more than (4415-55)/2 = 2180

      •  Sorry - let me retry that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I meant to go to bed 8 hrs ago and should have.  Mental blurp - edfox is correct below.

        4417 minus 55 = 4362.  2181 is half, 2181.5 is over the top.

        Pledged secured, new number w/today's announcements: 1755.5
        Supers outside of FL/MI: 309.5
        Total: 2065
        Needed: 116.5

        The 100% group (44) gets him to needing 72.5
        The 80-100% group (67) gets him to needing 5.5-13.5
        The 204 group is reduced by 28 undeclared FL/MI supers, down to 176.

        So 5.5-13.5 out of 176.

        I am going to god damn bed.

        Calloused hand by calloused hand.

        by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Land of Enchantment

      If OBama were to offer to seat he elected delegates at full strength, but not the supers, it would send Hillary squawking.

      Her argument is that the poor disenfranchised people should be heard via the popular vote.

  •  Except (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmhowell, MsCasey, SherriG, Essephreak

    Where have the superdelegates been these last three days?  Haven't seen the usual 4-5 a day come in.  What are they waiting for?

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:13:11 AM PDT

  •  compromise, but don't capitulate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    artmartin, hillgiant

    But still, the DNC needs to show that it won't be pushed around by states, so compromise, not capitulation is in order.  Full delegations voting at 50% power (as per the Republicans) is ideal.

    "If we believe that all humans are human, than how are we going to prove it? It can only be proven through our actions." Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire

    by djs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:16:03 AM PDT

    •  what's next - an "appeasement" argument? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What is ideal is fixing the system so that this doesn't happen again, not leaving a broken system and relying on punishment and intimidation to keep people in line.

      The issue is not "capitulation" or other emotionally-laden terms, the issue is how do we, rationally and realistically create a primary system that works for everyone?

      If a reform proposal, such as the one I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, is adopted as part of an agreement to seat MI and FL in full, where is the harm?

      Supposedly, the goal of "punishment" is to avoid a repeat of the primary leapfrogging and ensure that everyone's votes count, and that the primary system does not drag on forever. If the goal can be achieved without the punishment, what is the problem?

      Obama is a mature leader, not a vindictive, petty and self-absorbed politician like Hillary Clinton. I trust him and the mature team he has assembled to do the right thing - look to the future, and not the past.

      •  The harm is to the DNC, not to Obama (0+ / 0-)

        The party needs to have credibility on issues like primary scheduling.  If it gives FL and MI everything, it'll be self-emasculation of the worst kind.  (Not that, come to think of it, there's any of kind!)

        "If we believe that all humans are human, than how are we going to prove it? It can only be proven through our actions." Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire

        by djs on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A punitive system is self-emasculating (0+ / 0-)

          the solution is reforming the system so that the incentives encourage order, not worrying about the DNC's testicles.

          I do not support, nor have I argued for, just looking the other way. What I have said is that seating the delegates is a powerful bargaining chip that could be used in order to push through reform as the price of the seating.

          Letting FL and MI slide is only a problem if the system remains as is. If we don't have a primary system that gives arbitrary advantage to being first, there will not be an incentive to leapfrog to the front of the queue.

          The problem is the system, not those that exploit it. Relying solely on punishment is a losing game.

  •  what if we seat MI and FL pledged delegates, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    schroeder, math4barack

    not the supers? (which actually makes a bit of sense, when you think about it.)

    I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

    by UntimelyRippd on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:17:17 AM PDT

  •  I'll add, this completely deflate's Clinton (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    webweaver, davidincleveland, ROh70

    She has her rally at the May31 meeting, demanding all the votes be counted, and her supporters have their protest.  And then the Obama campaign comes in and says, "we're fine with seating everyone, we want everyone on board for the GE" and leaves.

    Then all the protesters mutter for half an hour and then chant "that's not fair"

  •  AAAARGGG, I'm a visual person (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, stagemom

    Can't you make a couple pie charts or something?

    All these numbers make my head spin.

    That said...good job, I think.

  •  Wow, thanks. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, stagemom, hillgiant

    As a Florida voter, I thought oh no not another one of these diaries. But it was pure statistics without any psuedo-ethical posturing.

    Basically, go ahead seat all the delegate, I dare ya!

    It might actually send bad mojo to repubs because their delegate vote in FL was halved. And the meme of Dems disenfranchising can be turned on them.

    "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" -George Washington

    by House on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:22:23 AM PDT

  •  still, no seating them 100% (5+ / 0-)

    They broke the rules, the rules have to be enforced to some extent. If they get 100% of their vote it will make a mockery of the DNC and they will be impotent to try to make rules in the future...future primaries will be a huge mess. This isn't just about this primary, it is about the future too.

    I say give Obama the uncommitted from Michigan, and split both Florida and Michigan's delegations in half. Everyone gives a little, everyone wins a little. Without a revote that is the next best option, and still gives Hillary more than she deserves.

    •  could still keep delegate split and seat at 50% (0+ / 0-)

      "And if I don't see ya, in a long, long while, I'll try to find you left of the dial" - Paul Westerberg

      by D Wreck on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:23:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what about seating 100% AND fixing the system? (0+ / 0-)

      Ultimately, this is about fixing a broken primary system.

      If, as a condition of seating the delegations, an agreement is reached to reform the system to ensure that this doesn't happen again, is that not a better solution?

      If this is about the future, then it should be about reform, not punishment.

  •  By the delegate math he can allow them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    webweaver, Sheffield157, hillgiant

    to be seated in full and it won't hurt him.  But there is also a principle involved.  Florida and Michigan broke the rules, and to let them get away without any penalty will only encourage states in the future to break them again.  I think a fair compromise for Florida is to seat them as is, but every delegate gets a half vote.  This is what the DNC rules state is the standard penalty - removing all the delegates was within their power, but further than they were required to go.  Michigan is more complex, since Obama (and Edwards) were not on the ballot.  How do you allocate those uncommitted?  I think at a minimum, you do the same as in Florida - each delegate counts half.  I think Obama and Edwards were the only ones not on the ballot, and in fact had been on the ballot but removed themselves due to a pledge made by all the candidates, including Clinton, not to contest the race as part of the punishment.  Therefore, I think a fair solution would be to find a formula to split uncommitted between Obama and Edwards.  It could be using some composite of polls immediately prior to the primary, or a proportion of delegates won to date up to the Michigan primary.

    This does not address the problem that the elections in themselves were not representative due to the presumption that they didn't count.  But I think it is the best we can do under the circumstances.

  •  This is why yesterday Wolfson was pushing (3+ / 0-)

    that Uncommitted shouldn't go for Obama.

    What a slimeball

  •  Great job (0+ / 0-)

    and lots of work summarizing the numbers. My concern isn't the numbers. As several people upstream have sugggested, if MI and FL are seated as is, there are 2 main issues:

    1. It aids Clinton's spin...and gives her no incentive to STFU. She is doing an incredible amount of damage right now and I don't know whether she realizes it, or cares.
    1. I do think there has to be some penalty for MI/FL who broke the rules and did so with an "in your face" attitude.

    That said, if they can come to an agreement with Camp Clinton to STFU if they do this, then I can see that the argument is a compelling one.

    Inconceivable! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    by hopeful on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:26:17 AM PDT

  •  This analysis is WRONG. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, JPZenger, GreenCA, xyz, Essephreak

    It's hard to know where to start, but here goes:

    1.  How can delegate totals from PR, MT, and SD be 'guaranteed' when the primaries haven't been held yet?  Theoretically HRC could win all the delegates from those contests.
    1.  The analysis leaves off the fact that we know who won the primaries and caucuses that were already held but for which add-on delegates have not been included.   The analysis only factors in the states where Obama won.  It is not reasonable to say that he only stands an 80% chance of winning these without considering that he stands some chance, say the corresponding 20% chance, of getting some of the add-on delegates from states where Clinton won the primary.
    1.  Superdelegates are free to change their minds at will.  The risk exists that, should HRC be very close in delegate totals going in to the convention, she will be able to sway enough committed-for-Obama SDs to her camp so that she can win.  If Obama maintains his 170 delegate cushion, that risk is virtually nonexistent.
    1.  As previously mentioned, seating the delegations 'as-is' enables Clinton to push the lie that she won in the popular vote and therefore should be the nominee.  This could be used as a wedge to win over the uncommitted supers.
    1.  Michigan and Florida's combined delegations, if seated 'as-is,' total 368 not 366.  Therefore the number needed for a majority is 2209 not 2208.

    Since we have not seen a swarm of superdelegates endorse Obama after he clinched a majority of the pledged delegates on Tuesday (as I had optimistically predicted in a diary entry), and since the superdelegates are apparently circulating the story that many of them will endorse Obama after the last primary,  I think that the best scenario would be for Obama's folks to push for a postponement of the committee hearing until after the 6/3 primaries.  That way the Obama team will have a full picture of what they can concede in the way of seating those delegations.

    •  Replies (5+ / 0-)
      1. There are 55 pledged in PR, 15 is absurdly low, from losing along the lines of 78-22.  As for SD and MT, let's bet.  I dare you.
      1. As for add-ons, caucus wins are locks for Obama to get the add on.  I don't have time to explain this at great length, but it's true.  If Obama wins a primary state by double digits (for example, Vermont, Wisconsin, Oregon), then I feel very comfortable putting it in a grouping where Obama is at least 80% or more to get the add-on.  Some other states like Texas are not listed in the 80-100% grouping.  Only caucus wins or double digit primary wins.
      1. Superdelegates are free to change your mind.  Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go read Al Giordano's blog and realize why this protestation is absurdly Chicken Littleish.
      1. She will push the popular vote lie either way.  Nothing changes with that.
      1. 313 pledged and 53 supers.  Florida has 185 pledged and 26 supers.  Michigan would have 128 pledged and 27 supers.  Add those numbers all up and you get 366.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:12:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are not counting the 2 add-on supers from MI. (0+ / 0-)

        That makes 368.

        Regarding (1):  I personally think it will be something between 22-33 and 28-27 in PR, but that's besides the point.  The claim was that they were 'guaranteed,' and they are not.

        Regarding (2):  I agree with you on your point, but you are missing mine.  You are leaving out the delegates that Obama is likely to grab from amongst the add-on delegates in states Clinton won.  For example he got 2 from CA.  Maybe he gets some from PA for example.  In this case there is an undercounting in the estimate for how many delegates Obama is likely to get going in to the convention.

        Regarding (3):  First of all we have already seen multiple instances where supers have switched from Clinton to Obama.  The Clintons and their cronies still have a lot of political power to put behind their feeble electoral arguments, and if it's close at the convention might be able to push their weight around.  I personally know of at least one instance where a prospective Obama-supporting superdelegate in PA was forced by Rendell to pledge to Clinton; there's no reason to think it couldn't happen to more from here on out.  Just the other day (to give another example) a Guam superdelegate broke her promise to support the winner of the Guam caucus and endorsed Clinton.

        Also, regarding, (4)... the issue is whether the lie can get traction with enough superdelegates to make a difference.  When she needs only a few supers to switch, it might.

        •  I apologize about the two supers. (0+ / 0-)

          I was wrong, you were right.  Everything corrected in the diary.

          But on PR, let me put it another way.  Does Obama feel 15 are guaranteed in PR?  If so, then he can operate strategically with regard to the math accordingly.

          I got your point on the add-ons.  I am not leaving those add-ons out.  I am just not putting them in a 80-100% likelihood category.  They are in the category below, there are 20 of them.

          Also, of course the Clintons will use whatever power they have to leverage the gain of more power.  It's beside the point.  It is over in Democratic superdelegate minds.  The Clintons know that.  The Florida/Michigan argument is not for the supers, it's to gin up their voters, to use as leverage to threaten Obama no peace unless he concedes whatever demands they seek.  I just find it exceptionally laughable that no supers have ever switched from Obama to Clinton but if Obama says, ok, seat the delegations in full all of a sudden he's going to have defections.  It's an argument that bears no relationship to what is actually happening.

          Calloused hand by calloused hand.

          by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:05:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  oh please (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, kydoc, hillgiant

      Theoretically HRC could win all the delegates from those contests.

      As Bill Cosby once said, riiiiiiight.  I mean, theoretically, Dennis Kucinich could win all those delegates.  But in a world where hell is significantly warm, and pigs remain sadly earthbound, it's reasonable to assume that someone in Puerto Rico is going to vote for Obama.  Even in defeat, he's going to get a proportion of the vote that corresponds roughly with his poll numbers there.

      I mean, do we know beyond all shadow of a doubt that the sun is going to come up tomorrow?  I guess, technically, no.  But it has every day for the last million days in a row, so it's pretty safe money.

  •  One problem! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Essephreak
    Your math skills berak down in the face of Clinton convince people to overturn the pledge delegate lead because she can now claim the popular vote.

    You don't give up that kind of edge for free.

    •  The risk is different (0+ / 0-)

      and probably unavoidable at this point anyway. Clinton's claim on the "popular vote" is bullshit now, and will be bullshit no matter what happens to the delegates from Michigan and Florida. The May 31st meeting does not--in reality, as opposed to propaganda--have anything to do with the so-called popular vote that Clinton is going on about.

      The people with the power to make any difference in the nomination, i.e. the superdelegates, are completely aware that the popular vote argument is bullshit. She will not convince anyone with the power to overturn the pledged delegate lead that she has a legitimate claim of more popular support.

      The people she can convince are certain voters, having the effect of "poisoning the well" as P9s put it upthread. It seems that she's going ahead with that anyway, and what happens to MI and FL delegates isn't going to change that.

  •  Excellent analysis. (0+ / 0-)

    Elegant in its simplicity.

    About the 31 uncommitteds that Obama obtained at the Michigan state convention, it was my understanding that they could support whoever they wished since they weren't automatically pledged to a particular candidate. This leaves me with a couple of questions.

    1. Did the other five uncommitteds support Clinton? I'm unsure of whether their choice was limited to candidates still actively campaigning or if they could remain uncommitted until the convention, support someone like Edwards who has dropped out, etc.
    1. On what grounds is Ickes arguing that Obama should get zero if uncommitteds are free to choose their candidate? It seems the 15% threshold/viability argument is what placed them in the "uncommitted" category in the first place and that designation ends there.
    •  I'd just recommend clicking through a few of (3+ / 0-)

      those links to get Michigan clarity.  The state convention has not been held yet.  There are 19 uncommitted up for grabs, and the state convention is currently scheduled for June 14.  

      The district conventions are where Obama got the 31.  There are 15 CDs in Michigan, and each held a convention back on April 19.

      Ickes is arguing on grounds of "I will shamelessly argue anything for Hillary Clinton."  It's just something to laugh at.  It's purely because the public isn't aware of the 31, so he's trying to lay the groundwork PR-wise for Obama getting 31 as "unfair."  Any scenario where Obama wins the nomination is going to be "unfair" to Ickes.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:17:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Divisive and destructive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, Batbird

    That's what I call the Clintons.  I am writing to my Clinton supporting supers and uncommitted state delegates and ask them to get this over with and commit to Obama.  I am very weary of the Clintons, they've overstayed my welcome, and need to exit stage right now.  

  •  I feel better now! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, stagemom, hillgiant

    Brilliant analysis, PN.  Simply awesome. Thanks!

    Some answers to outstanding questions that might come up around this:

    Q. If the math is inevitable (and it is), then why hasn't/doesn't Obama agree already?
    A. Because doing so would mean he is directly opposing the DNC mandate, and that's not his call. He needs the committee to decide this.

    Q. Wouldn't seating everyone feed the "anarchy fear" argument, laying the groundwork for future rule-breakers?
    A. Not if the committee seats the delegates with the provisal that they would NOT have done so if the outcome would have materially affected the results.  By adding this provisal, the decision becomes one of simple expediency: the DNC can save face (barely) by arguing that it really would have stuck to its guns had the results mattered.

    Q. What about the popular vote?
    A. This is a fiction.  Seating the delegates doesn't change a thing: the vote percentages being kicked about don't change, whether the delegates are seated or not. I really don't know why this concern gets any traction at all:  the votes exist, and can be used to argue the "will of the people", regardless of whether they "officially" count or not.  The argument around this should really be about whether the votes as recorded an accurate reflection of the will of the people. And that has nothing at all to do with delegates (and so the official nomination process), or even with what the people's will is today.  The SDs know this (at least, the smart ones do: they'll be reading the tea leaves at the national level now).

    A point of speculation: my appreciation for Obama's campaign grows exponentially day by day.  I absolutely agree that they are up on this math, and I believe they see the political landscape pretty much the same as I've described above.  Is it actually possible that they've been on top of this all along?  

    And a question: It looks like the DNC has a way out of this mess.  Does Obama actually have to request that all delegates be seated, or can the committee put forward the solution itself, and simply request agreement?  That would be perfect for Obama: he'd have a track record of having made several attempts to help resolve the solution, but when the decision finally comes out he can honestly state that he's just agreeing to a decision that he did not directly influence. As for Clinton, well... good luck with that.

  •  Math brain hurts (0+ / 0-)

    What part of MI and FL broke the rules don't you understand? That being said there will have to be a compromise. MI and FL will be important in November. Both states need to acknowledge they made a mistake. The solution will have to be fair and equitable to everyone. This of course will be mutually exclusive with Hillary's idea of fair and equitable.

    "Never have so few taken so much from so many for so long."

    by londubh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:35:24 AM PDT

  •  Not seating MI or FL is important for the future (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LEP, Subversive

    If Democrats seat MI/FL after promising they wouldn't--and Obama ends up even symbolically punished for doing what the DNC told him to do in MI, then say goodbye to any change of getting control of the primary calendar in the future, or of breaking the IA/NH duopoly.

    Regardless of the current race, we must consider the future.  Delegations must be either unseated, or split 50/50.

  •  NO seating of MI/FL in full (7+ / 0-)

    It would invite complete chaos in 4 years when the state parties realize they can violate the rules at will with no repercussions.

    At best, seat half the delegates or all of them with 1/2 vote and only AFTER those delegates cannot affect the outcome. Anything beyond that spells disaster - not for Obama, but for future primaries.

    "Don't Piss Down My Back And Tell Me It's Raining"

    by Helzapoppin on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:37:24 AM PDT

    •  exactly!!! Rules are rules for a reason.. The (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, stagemom

      problem is that the Clintons think rules don't apply to them.

      What do you think a HRC presidency would look like if she can't follow primary rules that she had a hand in setting?

    •  I'm not sure states will be keen to be early (0+ / 0-)

      In this contest the states that followed Super Tuesday have had much more interest place on them.  Every state but Hawaii had multiple candidate visits.  Even Guam saw Chelsea Clinton campaigning there (she also went to Hawaii, nice work if you can get it).  In retrospect, I think a lot of the Super Tuesday states realize they got lost in the shuffle and are more than a little envious of all the attention West Virginia had.

      Ideally, the rotating, regional primary system will be put in place.

    •  Well, hopefully the problem comes in 8 years (0+ / 0-)

      rather than 4, 'cause hopefully we're going with an incumbent in 2012. And while I agree with you in principle, avoiding a convention floor fight may be worth risking the "complete chaos" you're talking about, especially since we have at least 4, hopefully 8 years in which to reform the process ahead of time and preempt problems with the next primaries.

  •  Y shld H be rewarded for thugery (0+ / 0-)
  •  270 (0+ / 0-)

    270 to win. O can not win WV,ARK,OH,PA or F. He is a nice guy who makes you fell fuzzy,but I want to win. Clintons elector base is 217 college votes with 13 swing states. She only needs 53 votes to win. The super dels must pick the person who can best reach 270 votes.Who can win WV? Who can win Ark? Who can win FL? Who can win OH? Who can win PA?Clinton can win the swing states that O can not. On election night if its O vs McCain , McCain will win OH,PA,WV,Ark and FL turn off your TV its over.270 to win. McCain base in a race vs O is 249 electoral votes, McCain only needs 21 votes to win.

    •  You are trollicious. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno, stagemom
    •  BO polling ahead (5+ / 0-)

      in Virginia and Pennsylvania now.  Get with the latest polls, gmlr.  Both win: one with honor, and one with gutter tactics.  I know how I want to win.

      by claytonben on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:57:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He can too win OH PA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He's leading in PA already in all the polling vs McSame and it's close and heading to pro Obama in Ohio.  Then there are all the other states that he brings into play and she does not. CO, IA, VA, WA, SC, probably MO, WI, possibly MT, AK and ND and I actually think FL is likely IF she stops stirring the pot and letting the people decide that he doesn't hate the Floridians.

      Even though he hasn't begun to campaign against McCain because of a certain dillusional/meglomaniacal person he's winning in EV according to this great site:

      And I'm pretty sure McCain will need more than 21 VOTES to win :D or did you mean EV?

      •  McCain (0+ / 0-)

        21 EV for McCain to win from a base of 249 EV. O will not win WV,FL,OH,PA nor ARK. 270 to win. A lot of people want to that fuzzy felling not me. I just want to win. In the dem nomination process its hard for Clinton but in the General election its easy to see 270 electoral votes. Also O does not poll at his correct  value because people say one thing then hold there noses when they vote. A poll may say O is up by 4 vs McCain and the result may be a lose by 4. O closes weak. Clinton closes strong. Clinton has sure wins in FL,Ark,NY,NJ,OH,PA and a good shot at WV. 270 to win. Clinton has a base of 217 EV vs McCain.

        •  You are wrong. I will accept your apology (0+ / 0-)

          on the day after the general when Obama/Edwards (or whoever else other than Hillary Obama picks) wins the election.

          That is, unless Hillary takes the fight it to the convention, screws the pooch, and makes it impossible for any Dem to win.

    •  Clinton's elector base will be squat... (0+ / 0-)

      if she is perceived to have stolen the nomination from Obama. And that's really the only chance she has now. So she loses either way.

    •  First of all (0+ / 0-)

      since when did West Virginia become a swing state? Secondly, SUSA has a new poll that shows Obama winning a head-to-head matchup w/McCain in OH 48-39; VA 49-42; PA 48-40.

      Obama takes OH and PA.

      I started out with nothing and still have most of it left.

      by Batbird on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:42:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  John, seriously (0+ / 0-)

      Ok, we'll give you two donuts and one cookie for the effort, but the 'fell fuzzy" knocked off the points.

      Next time, do a spell check and with good wishes and good luck, you may get the 50 points needed for a McCain is '80 t-shirt.

      If Appalachia was a country, Hillary Clinton could be President -- RON REAGAN

      by jjmn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton will have her own problems (0+ / 0-)

      in states Kerry/Gore carried: WA, OR, MN, WI, IA.

      In what universe do you have McCain with 249 "solid" votes? That assumption is quite pathetic.

      •  249 (0+ / 0-)

        O vs McCain. McCain starts with 249 EV. O will not win ARK nor WV nor FL- thats not because O is not nice. O does not connect with working class people in certain states. OH will not go for O nor will PA. The polls can say he up 2 or 4 or 6 but in certain states people lie to poll takers. McCain will start the night with a base of 249. I want to win not fell or feel fuzzy. 270 to win. 270 to win.Hillary is a fighter,270 to win.

  •  why do you include Dean in the "Obvious Club"? (0+ / 0-)

    From what I know, he's gone to painstaking lengths to remain neutral.

    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

    by CaptUnderpants on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:40:48 AM PDT

    •  Do you think Dean will support the 50-state (3+ / 0-)

      candidate or the Clintons, who openly despise and whose surrogates ridicule him in public?  I don't see a scenario, particularly given his comments about wanting to move to the general after the primaries are concluded, where he wants to leave open a massive chaotic Denver convention.  There is only one candidate who can be the nominee at the end of June.  Plus, remember his comments after Clinton started going ugly, he said "I need the supers to start declaring now."  It's obvious, IMO.

      In any event, I left open the possibility he won't by putting him in the 80-100% group.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:23:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If HRC gets them seated, BARACK wins (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, stagemom

    That will put Barack over the top and end the campaign.

    The Seminole Democrat
    A blue voice calling from the deep red

    by SemDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:45:10 AM PDT

  •  since it is safe to do, do it, disarms her peeps (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, stagemom

    from saying the election was stolen from them...we all know this is a delegate contest, not a popular vote contest, people weren't pissed in 2000 because Gore had more popular votes in the country, they were pissed because losing those 10,000 votes in FLorida cost him the state of Florida and thusly cost him the electoral college

    If Obama says he wants it done, let Dean and the committee look like the bad guys when they enforce the rules, makes Obama look good...I don't see the harm in Obama saying let the votes stand at this point

  •  thanks for 'The Math' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidincleveland, beijingbetty

    really appreciate the work that you have put into this.

    May 6th 2008: IN Insignificance Day

    by stevej on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:50:07 AM PDT

  •  While this careful analysis (6+ / 0-)

    clearly shows that seating all MI and FL delegates comes down in Obama's favor, I'm still deeply troubled that to do so would toss away rules that were agreed to by all participants.  If Obama agrees to seating all FL and MI delegates, states will get the idea that they can violate DNC rules without consequence.  I worry about what this would auger for future presidential primary races.  I mean, isn't the process already sufficiently chaotic?

    -5.13,-5.64; When pygmies cast such long shadows, it must be very late in the day. -Gian-Carlo Rota

    by gizmo59 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:52:05 AM PDT

    •  I agree with your concern (6+ / 0-)

      but I think that all Obama has to do is AGREE to seat the delegations in full.  That way there is no argument against him.  Then, the DNC, MI, & FL will hash out what they can accept and its a done deal.  HRC will not be able to blame it on Obama and if she rallies against what the states themselves have determined is fair then she'll look (even more) ridiculous.

      •  EXACTLY!!!! Obama looks like the good guy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland, gizmo59

        and the DNC gets to put out the black hat but at least there is no backlash against Obama...face it people, no one is going to vote against Obama because of this issue if he puts it on the table and no one is going to stop voting as a democrat because the DNC upheld their rules

        everyone knows this is a delegate contest, popular vote is a fun metric but it is meaningless

    •  that is not the point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, Red Bean, gizmo59

      The point the diarist makes is the Obama can be gracious and give the full scenario.  Then since both campaigns really must agree to have legitimacy, it boxes Clinton into a corner and there is nothing she can fight about.  At that point, the DNC can do its work and my guess will create some penalty.  They can not allow the full allottment, some penalty must be added.  But the point is that HRC can not kick it down the road.

      Excellent analysis to the diarist!!!

    •  You're Not Tossing The Rules (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The same rules that took the delegates away give the RBC AND the credentials committee the authority to seat the delegations.

      When someone loses a court case but wins an appeal, they aren't "breaking the rules."

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:40:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not about an Obama win, damn it! (5+ / 0-)

    It's about what is best for the party.  On the one hand, we don't want the party dragged down in the fall because of a handful of weepy crybabies who are unhappy about getting spanked after breaking the rules.  But on the other hand, without enforcing some discipline, instead of learning to behave, states are going to learn that they can break the rules with impunity and we will never be able replace the broken primary calendar with a rotating or lottery system that is much fairer.  If some concessions must be made in the name of allowing Florida and Michigan to save face while being defeated, thereby allowing some minor delegate presence at the convention, then ok, but they still need to be punished severely if anything positive is to come out of this at all.  

    If the pledged delegates are not to be pulled from these two states as is deserved, then at the very least the superdelegates from these two states have to be.  This would at least have the advantage of establishing as a clear future responsibility of a state's superdelegates to ensure that a state's primary happens in accordance with the primary schedule established by the party.  Although, personally, I don't think that is enough to reasonably guarantee that no states follow Florida and Michigan in the future.  I think that in addition to stripping a state's superdelegates, it will also be necessary to cut the voting power of the pledged delegates in half and to disregard the illigitimate primary in deciding whose delegates are sent.

    Vote John Edwards and break the corporate media stranglehold on American politics.

    by Subversive on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:55:24 AM PDT

  •  You've done a lot of work, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but I disagree.

    It ignores the entire point of the punishment.  States  must follow the rules, and there must be some punishment for not.

    Secondly, there's a an equally important point.  If Obama were to cede this to Clinton, it will be viewed as a weakness, which anybody and everybody should know they would exploit.

    Beyond that, Clinton herself will have to make a choice on May 31.

    Is she a Democrat, united to winning in November, or not?

    A much better argument.

    All aboard the O train!

    by xyz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:55:25 AM PDT

    •  I think Obama can come off as gracious (6+ / 0-)

      and not weak with a statement.  I am sensitive to your concern and all the other concerns about seeming to give Florida and Michigan a reward for their behavior.  I actually agree.  But I see competing needs here.  

      If you don't think Clinton will poison the well unless Obama weakly gives into her behind-the-scenes demands, then hardball with MI/FL makes sense.  

      OTOH, if you agree with Maddow, you have to weigh competing needs.

      The notion that Clinton can be shamed into making a decision on May 31 if she is a Democrat or not is one I find disconnected from observable behavior.  We are deep into the victimology and well-poisoning phase, and it will continue unless Obama gives her whatever she wants.  Any power or influence ceded to her is bad for America and for the world.  This is not someone who should be near power or control over other people.  That trumps the need to send a message to Florida or Michigan, because it is far more toxic.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:31:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You make good points, (0+ / 0-)

        and I definitely think he can and should give some, but there has to be some form of punishment, and he can't just give her the whole kaboodle.

        And I think we can agree on that!

        All aboard the O train!

        by xyz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  But the Clinton argument centers on popular vote. (4+ / 0-)

    That is their new mantra (and has been in play since her "hard-working whites" comment leading up to West Virginia.

    It is not an argument designed to sway superdelegates, I believe. (The supers will ignore it or laugh it off.) But it is an argument designed to freeze Clinton supporters and keep the wedge in place between them and Obama.

    In other words, it's leverage to gain her the VP spot. The old, "You need my supporters to win, and if you don't give me the VP spot, I'll continue to trot out the 'sexist,' 'unfair,' 'undemocratic' themes that will keep many of my supporters from ever supporting you."

    •  Obama isn't agreeing that 0 people in Michigan (0+ / 0-)

      is the fair and just number of votes for his column by making an announcement.

      And as far as Clinton yelling about the popular vote and stoking her supporters' outrage, she is going to to that either way.  Regardless of what Obama does.  So, in my mind, it sits separate from seating delegates.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:34:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's The Thing (0+ / 0-)

      Seating the MI & FL delegations has zero impact on 'the popular vote.'

      The popular vote is already a meaningless statistic.  Any Super Delegate who is going to make their consideration on it is going to count MI & FL in their head either way.  The popular vote argument is based on electability in the General Election.  Michigan and Florida WILL be participating in the General Election whether they sit at the convention or not.

      Seating MI & FL changes nothing about the popular vote argument, because those votes were still cast and everybody knows it.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:44:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Leave it as it is. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Land of Enchantment, 174winchell

    Why should voters in 48 other states be screwed by two who broke the rules?
    Hillary's attack is against Howard Dean, let them do a cage match at the next royal rumble and be done with this stuff.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:01:00 AM PDT

  •  He would be almost as bad as she is (0+ / 0-)

    The principle is clear. Obama's name was not even on the ballot in MI. She is now incensed that democracy is being short circuited, when she is only motivated to win at all cost. If he agrees to seat MI and FL, as is, knowing that he will win anyway, then he is doing it just to win, not out of principle, and he is giving in to blackmail.

    The much better way to proceed is to allow MI and FL to attend the convention, without voting rights on the first round, and to demonstrate that he would win even if they had voting rights.

    Once again the Democratic Party is eating its own. Even McCain is making fun of this. Are they trying to demonstrate that this is the party that you don't want to run the nation?

    •  if we do that, if we let it play out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      instead of just appearing gracious and granting the seating of the delegates, then it would be suicide.  It would mean three months of Clinton raging on, day after freakin' day in the press and bad-mouthing Obama, and trying to make him seem unelectable...... all the way through the whole summer until the convention.

      I'll take the blackmail over another 1968 or 1972.

      Who is going to feel optimistic about Obama after listening to that jerk Clinton for the whole summer?  Get RID OF HER. Get rid of her only argument.

  •  OK--so the numbers would work out (0+ / 0-)

    for Obama. But the states that defied the party's primary schedule, after being clearly warned that their delegates would not be seated, have to bite the bullet. Sorry, but allowing full seating of their delegates would only lead to more chaos in the next primary season. Just because the Clintons want to throw a temper tantrum like three-year-olds doesn't mean that the "parents" should give in to them.

    It takes a village to raise a special child.

    by roses on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:20:20 AM PDT

  •  Two NH Edwards delegates back Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Posted this morning at

    Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. - Paul Valery

    by inclusive on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:20:31 AM PDT

  •  Too risky (3+ / 0-)

    once you let it get that close it looks like shifting momentum.

    I am toying with seating FL/MI pledged delegates only and disqualifying supers. The argument of disenfranchising voters would thus be moot ("only the politicians are being punished").

    John McCain - Like W. Only Older.

    by InsultComicDog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:26:02 AM PDT

    •  I don't agree (obviously) (0+ / 0-)

      it looks much more like, this is over, let's just settle this and move onto the general.  All the supers know it's over.  As McCaskill said awhile back, we have undeclared, not undecided, and then referred to James Brown's "I Feel Good."  I know insider stuff is sometimes intangible and hard to prove quantifiably.  But I'm just telling you, there's no momentum risk.  Zero.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:38:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's say you're correct about the math (0+ / 0-)

        Wouldn't the Clintons make a big stink about Obama being assigned the delegates in MI that he didn't get votes for?

        John McCain - Like W. Only Older.

        by InsultComicDog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:29:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  MI Delegates (0+ / 0-)

          But the 31 delegates were not from the primary voting but the district conventions.

          A bit like the Texas system where there are 3,491 (kidding) levels where delgates are picked.

          And there remains the state convention where more delegates will get picked.

        •  They weren't "assigned" (0+ / 0-)

          They were up for grabs.  Obama did not win all 36, he won 31.  

          Think of it this way.  Technically they aren't Obama pledged delegates.  They're just 36 delegates who were elected to go to the national convention.  It just so happens we know from firsthand reporting that 31 of these individuals intend to vote for Obama when they get there.

          When the state convention rolls around, there will be 19 more up for grabs and people who intend to vote for Obama at the convention are going to try to be elected to those spots, but there is no guarantee they will.

          Calloused hand by calloused hand.

          by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed..It makes Obama look weak (0+ / 0-)

      and unable to stand his ground. And anyone who thinks that the Clintons' won't use it to their advantage is just kidding themselves. Sure it's all nice and reasonable and the numbers sound good. But the delegates CAN change their minds and this will be used by the Clintons to encourage them to do so.

      John McCain - Strange you can believe in.

      by Bitter Elitist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Have I said how much I love Pocketnines? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This, together with at 3, 4, 5, supers -- and I'm a very happy camper today.  

    •  two from CA today so far (0+ / 0-)

      one of which is another switch, not countable by P9, which is fine by me at this time but will still count in the final numbers.

      Republicans: Your history has earned you a new mantra: "War and waste." ~~ Marta Jorgensen (CA-24 in '08)

      I am an Edwards Democrat!

      by Scubaval on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:52:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My head just exploded. nt (0+ / 0-)

    I started out with nothing and still have most of it left.

    by Batbird on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:28:15 AM PDT

  •  Those states needs to be PUNISHED! (0+ / 0-)

    I would award them ONE FOURTH of the delegates, give Obama ALL the UNCOMMITED and THAT'S IT!

    That is charitable enough.

  •  SLiding off the rec list! oh, nooooooooo.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirk Thrust

    keep this diary up!

  •  Repubs "halved" delegates and no one's complained (5+ / 0-)

    Why should Democrats go further than the Republicans did in pandering to FL and MI?  It would just send a message that there is NO PENALTY for a state violating the DNC schedule in future elections, and we will start having states vote two years prior to the general.

    •  What's more, MI's tried this crap 3x in a row now (5+ / 0-)

      They tried it in January of 2000.  Gore and Bradley responded by doing what honorable and sensible major presidential candidates do:  They pulled their names from the Michigan ballot.  Michigan Democratic leaders, dismayed at the prospect of a meaningless primary, hurriedly organized a March caucus and were thus allowed to be seated at the 2000 DNC.

      They threatened to try it again in 2004, when Carl Levin dared Terry McAuliffe not to seat Michigan's delegates.  Terry Mac held firm, Michigan held its primary at the normal time, and all was OK.  (Of course, Terry Mac now works for Hillary, so suddenly he's done a total 180 from where he was in 2004 or even six months ago, before Clinton lost Iowa.)

      They now tried it again.

    •  exactly. (0+ / 0-)

      please see my comment as well.

      McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson

      by NeuvoLiberal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:16:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There Is No "Pandering" Going On (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Why don't people understand this?  The real punishment has already happened.  Nobody came here and talked to us.  Nobody gave two shits that our economy has been in the tank for fifteen years.  Nobody announced any initiatives that would help us.  That was our punishment and we've already received it.

      That said, go ahead and take the 50% away.  Our state party works hard and so do we, we deserve some delegation at the convention.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Need. More. Facts. /snark- GREAT JOB PocketNines! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    VOTE DEM 08! I'm VT ConQuest and I approve this message of HOPE and the CHANGE that We The People WITH President Barack Obama will bring to America.

    by VT ConQuest on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:52:33 AM PDT

  •  No. He should tow the DNC line--no delegates (0+ / 0-)

    she will not concede even if you give her everything she publicly says she wants right now. It's a game. She will still take it to the convention because "as we know when you get to the convention, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN." And really, do you want her to be that much closer when it comes to the convention fight. I don't. I can't stomach that.

    •  Obama can't tow that line (0+ / 0-)

      It makes him appear just like Hillary wants him to appear.

      He has to state that he simply respects rules that the party enforced and state that he is for Floridians being represented.

      The rest is up to the DNC. And that isn't good for Hillary because completely reversing themselves would not only make them look impotent, it would make them look like idiots and the party overall as unprincipled.

      No one wants that.

      Hillary is not the force she's portraying herself as. Once all the cards are on the table, the party will tell her to kick rocks.

  •  Florida Edwards Delegates (0+ / 0-)

    I recall reading somewhere that the majority of them have already said they would vote for Obama at the convention.  (I think it was announced right after the endorsement.)  Does anyone have a link to that?

    •  DCW only lists (0+ / 0-)

      two of Edwards' thirteen Florida delegates as having endorsed Obama. (Link.)

      You may be thinking of South Carolina, where (again according to DCW--same link) seven out of Edwards' eight delegates are on record as supporting Obama.

      Of course, DCW has missed important news before once or twice....

  •  My thoughts (0+ / 0-)

    First of all, GREAT breakdown, PocketNines.  

    Now, I believe that for reasons OTHER THAN math, MI/FL should not be counted 'as is'. Yes, it would be gracious and yes, it would get the whole MI/FL thing behind us.

    However, I would much rather have the Superdelegate strength to go in and say:

    "Look, we are gonna clinch this nomination regardless of how Michigan is Florida is seated, because we have an overwhelming number of delegates.  However, the sanctity of the process is important, and therefore, they should not be seated as is."

  •  Don't forget the VP nomination (0+ / 0-)

    If Obama does what you are suggesting, it pretty much guarantees Hillary the VP spot, if she wants it.

    Anything that makes the pledged delegate count that close assures Hillary of VP. She'll win enough of the unpledged delegates there to win that.

    Obama is better off not letting MI and FL count at all.

    •  No It Doesn't (0+ / 0-)

      Because Hillary's SuperDelegates aren't going to vote against Obama's choice for his own VP.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:41:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do we know that? (0+ / 0-)

        How do we know more of Obama's supers won't defect? How about Obama's pledged delegates?

        Hillary's pledged delegates aren't going to defect if they have a chance to vote for her. But do we know that Obama's will support an unknown VP pick at this time? They may only feel obligated to vote for him, not his VP choice.

        If the numbers are close at that point, I think the dynamic there favors Hillary. And, insidiously,  the more divisive she makes it, the more it favors her. Putting her on the VP slot becomes the way to "unify" the party. This is the game she's playing.

        At the very least, Obama needs to make a good popular VP pick to help  avoid this scenario. But he should also fight for every delegate. If he gives that much ground on FL and MI, it's asking for trouble for his VP pick.

        •  You're Correct (0+ / 0-)

          All I have is almost every political convention in history, whereas you have wild speculation and conjecture.

          I guess that means it's 50/50 either way.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:01:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Correction needed-- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There are 313 pledged delegates in Florida(185) and Michigan(128), and 53 supers including add-ons.

    That's incorrect. It's pretty clear that the fault lies with DCW's confusing wording, but if you look closely you can see that there are actually fifty-five superdelegates from Florida and Michigan:

    Florida: 26 superdelegates, including 3 add-ons....


    Michigan: 27 superdelegates, and 2 add-ons still to be selected on June 14....

    (Italics added by me.)

    So Florida does have 26 superdelegates, and the 3 add-ons are included in that number; but Michigan actually has 27 + 2 = 29 superdelegates. Boo hiss DCW.

    The math on DCW's superdelegate trackers makes the same point: as you've noted, at present the site lists the supers from non-MI&FL jurisdictions as 306.5 for Obama, 279.5 for Clinton and 210 undeclared. As you stated, those numbers add up to 796.

    The same sum for the DCW superdelegate counts that include Michigan and Florida is 318.5 Obama + 293.5 Clinton + 239 Undeclared = 851. And 851 minus the 796 from non-MI&FL jurisdictions = 55 MI&FL superdelegates, not 53.

    I fear that this means you're going to need to revise several numbers in the diary. I'm sorry!

    •  I agree. 55 Supers from MI/FL (0+ / 0-)

      Go to GP to do the math yourself, or at DCW.

      I was about to rip into Shapiro's piece at Salon the other day (well, I did anyway), an the 2210 number was one of them, but then I did the tally and figured with Edwards, this was the correct number.

      The difference is GP still counts Wynn as a super (since he hasn't resigned yet). So they still list 797, while DCW has it as 796, though it will be 797 since there will be a special.

      GP is correct in the total number, but DCW has it right on what the current candidate count is.

      Great stuff otherwise. I did a similar calculation a couple of days back, but lacking the power and sterling delegate street cred. of PocketNines (all deservedly so), didn't make the rec. list.

      •  By my count, (0+ / 0-)

        if we include Michigan and Florida at full strength (and Donna Edwards but not Al Wynn), that will be 3,566 pledged + 852 super = 4,418 total delegates. 4,418  ÷ 2 = 2,209, but Obama only has to get over the halfway line by one-half delegate.

        So I believe the Magic Number is 2,209.5.

    •  You can probably guess how I felt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      about realizing I misread they way they wrote that.  But thank you for calling my attention to it - everything in the diary is fixed now.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:56:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great work but there would be a big risk here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    First, while I'm sure Obama's campaign must have an excellent sense of which uncommitted superdelegates are leaning towards him, there's no systemic reason why this % must be 60%, 50%, or 10%.  Supers leaning to him have an obvious incentive to declare now or soon.  Supers leaning towards Clinton have an obvious incentive to wait until they're 100% certain she can win the nomination (eg. the convention).  Past performance is no guarantee of future results (this would be repeating a mistake similar to the one the Clinton campaign made during the Fall of last year, when they assumed that because she was constantly ahead 20% in polls it was unlikely that public opinion would change, no reason to prepare for a long campaign, etc.).

    Second, superdelegates don't cast their official ballots until the convention, and until that happens Clinton can make the case that she's more electable, not making her the nom would offend more Dems whose support is needed by the party, Obama is a greenhorn and should wait his turn, etc.  While most Obama-pledged superdelegates have committed to him for serious reasons, I'm sure, one can't discount Clinton's ability to persuade some supers with these sorts of arguments, especially if it looks as though she has some ability to leverage her position beyond what it should be (the only way superdelegates will become convinced that Clinton can lose, frankly, is if Obama wins the final vote and is declared the nominee).

    Full seating of the MI and FL delegations would hand Clinton not just a big victory.  It would give her an unfair or unreasonable one.  And while that wouldn't be enough for her to win, it would make many superdelegates think twice about whether she could win, and that could give her the opening she needs (esp. since the convention will take place three months from now, if Clinton thinks she'll have the chance to pitch superdelegates--and that will depend entirely upon the margin of Obama's delegate total in mid-June, we'll be hearing variations of the "he can't win" argument now until the final vote is taken, also not good).

  •  Exit Poll in Michigan (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder, has anybody suggested seating the Michigan delegates according to the exit poll data?

    CNN's exit poll shows that if all candidates were on the ballot, the results would have been:

    46% - Clinton
    35% - Obama
    12% - Edwards

    Considering Edwards didn't reach 15%, you could throw him out and divvy up the delegates so that Clinton gets 11% more than Obama.

    Granted, this still isn't fair because he wasn't allowed to campaign there and he would almost certainly have closed that gap if he had.

    But I do think this makes it somewhat clear what the true voters' intent was.

    •  The Problem With an Exit Poll (0+ / 0-)

      Is that it polls people who voted.  Many stayed home.  I voted in the Republican race for Romney.  The exit poll isn't indicitive of the ACTUAL outcome had all candidates have been on the ballot.

      I would agree that the poll indicates the "voters intent" as far as people who participated in the Democratic Primary.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Frankly I think the 56/44 was about right (0+ / 0-)

      Had there been an actual contest at that time, given her name recognition, she would have come out a few points ahead. I have no problem using that number.

  •  Question On Your Update Point Two (0+ / 0-)

    The convention credentials committee will "outrank" the DNC in a couple weeks.  Obama will control a majority of the CC... can't he at that point seat whoever he wants?  I mean assuming his delegates on the CC go along?

    ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

    by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:15:35 AM PDT

  •  Doing that... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sun dog

    DOES disenfranchise everyone who was told that their vote did not count, and stayed home.  It DOES ignore that the supers in FL and MI made a decision to break the rules, knowing fully what the rules were, and the consequences of breaking them.

    All it does is shut up the whining.  Which would be pleasant at this point...

    So, when my nephew whines, we should just hand him the half gallon of ice cream and a spoon, apparently.

    "2009" The end of an error

    by sheddhead on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:20:09 AM PDT

    •  I can't believe how flakey people are being (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      on this.

      How is it up to Obama or anyone to 'negotiate' this?  You can't trick people out of voting by saying that it doesn't count and then later count it.  It's insane.  

    •  It Doesn't Disenfranchise Anybody (0+ / 0-)

      Nobody in Michigan was told to stay home.  The MDP told us to vote.  You can't disenfranchise anybody unless you either prevent them from voting or don't count a vote they legitimately cast.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:24:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, a vote they legitimately cast (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's not legitimate when the voters of MI were told that it wouldn't count.  So the ones who guessed that it would anyway are rewarded with a vote over the people who believed what they were told by the party AND BY THE CANDIDATES?  It's insane.  

        There really isn't room to equivocate on this.  

        •  The State Party is the ONLY Authority on.... (0+ / 0-)

 and when we select our delegates, and the STATE party told us to go out and vote.  The DNC didn't say Michigan voters might as well stay home, nor did any of the candidates.  Anyone who chose to stay home or participate in the Republican party (like I did) made a conscious decision to do so.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:34:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You mean the state party (0+ / 0-)

            that chose to break the rules.

            That knew the consequences.

            That knew that driving the truck through the store window was dumb and against the law, but did it for the fun factor.

            "2009" The end of an error

            by sheddhead on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:21:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  No No No (0+ / 0-)

    It's not up to Obama to legitimize an illegitimate election any more than it's up to Clinton.  

    There are people who stayed at home because they were told there was no real vote in their state. There are people who never saw the challenger because he agreed not to participate, just like the establishment candidate.  So people weren't really given an honest choice.  

    You can't pull a freakin switcheroo on people, telling them there is no legitimate vote and then afterwards saying those who voted anyway actually get counted.  Screwing people now doesn't erase the mess that happened.  

    •  Both Remedies Screw People (0+ / 0-)

      It's just a question of "who you want to screw."

      I would have voted for Obama if he were on the ballot.  He wasn't, I voted for Romney.  I'm not suddenly "Screwed" if Michigan gets to go to the convention.

      They're all going to vote for Obama anyway if he goes in destined to win.  

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:22:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        By legitimizing an illegitmate primary, you screw everyone.  You screw the future.  You have to stick to the rules that were set out before the contest even if some of them suck.  You can't agree to the rules at the beginning and then change them after things are under way.  If that's the case, all future contests are totally in doubt.    

        What about every other state in the nation that took part in this?  We fought tooth and nail for every delegate.  I'm going to have my vote negated by an illegitimate contest?  

        It sucked for the people of MI and FL when the thing got decided last year.  Messing around with it now isn't going to fix anything.  

        •  There Was Nothing Illegitimate About the Primary (0+ / 0-)

          And how can you be "legitimizing" it when seating the delegates has no effect on the outcome?

          It's actually silly that we're having this conversation.  Both Dean and Obama have virtually guaranteed the MI & FL delegations are going to be seated.  All we're doing is arguing about whether or not we hate Hillary enough to disagree with them on it.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:29:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They should be seated (0+ / 0-)

            at zero net to either campaign.  50-50.  They need to be there at the convention but they cannot change the percentages.  

            •  That Wouldn't Make Any Sense (0+ / 0-)

              That's the same as not seating them.  When people vote, and you ignore the result, that's disenfranchising them.  How can you claim to oppose disenfranchisement if it's the only way you'll allow them to be seated at the convention?

              ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

              by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're doing this on purpose aren't you? (0+ / 0-)

                I can't believe you're that thick.  I can understand that it's in Republican's best interest to stoke this argument and I get the idea that's all you're trying to do here.  

  •  The Principle (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sun dog

    I just need to vent. I know everyone on here has heard all of the arguments for and against seating the delegates. There is no way Michigan had a legit election. There was low voter turnout and the results do not reflect the will of the people. I started doing research on voter turnout as a percentage of population and Michigan was by far the lowest. The OPEN Democratic primary only attracted 5.9% of the population based on the 2000 census. New Mexico had the second lowest rate at 8% in a CLOSED primary before I quit. (was searching alphabetically)

    We Michigan voters did not believe the primary counted and did not show up. Do not seat the delegates.

    •  You Would Have a Case If (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There was voter suppression or something.  People who didn't vote in the Democratic Primary CHOSE not to participate in it.  Hell I voted for Romney.  I'm not going to feel "Disenfranchised" if they suddenly seat our delegation.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:31:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is voter supression! (0+ / 0-)

        Good grief Folk, you're not making any sense on this. (then again, you voted for Romney?)

        Having the party and the candidates tell people their votes won't count is voter supression.  

        •  You're Playing a Word Game Here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Red Bean, beijingbetty

          The DNC said "We won't seat your delegates."  The DNC did not run the Michigan Primary.

          "The Party" is "The Michigan Democratic Party" who DID NOT tell people their votes wouldn't count.  In fact they spent a bunch of money telling people to vote, and to vote uncommitted if their candidate wasn't on the ballot.  Obama supporters in Michigan told people to vote and vote uncommitted.  NOBODY told ANYBODY not to particpate in the primary.  Ever.  With the possible exception of Kos, who told us to vote in the Republican one.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:37:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If the voters (0+ / 0-)

        If the voters don't believe an election is legit, it's not. I voted Uncommitted. My brother did not.

        Clinton won Wayne County (Detroit), there is no way that happens if AA turn out to vote.

        •  So You're Saying (0+ / 0-)

          If the voters don't believe an election is legit, it's not.

          George W. Bush hasn't been President for the last eight years?

          Seriously though, you're mistaken about turnout.  The population of Michigan is 14% African American.  Participation in the primary was 23% African American.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:50:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Voter turnout was low (0+ / 0-)

            I was talking about the turnout as a percentage of the population, not ethnically. Michigan still had the lowest turnout percentage. I did my own math with CNN election results and the 2000 census.

            Where did you get your AA numbers?

            I'm not going to get into the 2000 debate.

            •  I Got My AA Numbers (0+ / 0-)

              From the same CNN Election results you claim to have read.

              White (72%)
              African-American (23%)
              Asian (1%)
              Other (3%)

              And turnout was low because people decided not to vote.  That was their decision.

              ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

              by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:07:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Congrats (0+ / 0-)

                I clicked on the exit polls, but missed the arrows for two more pages of data. 23% AA turnout is correct.

                I'm still not backing down from my total voter turnout was low premise. Would you have voted for Romney if there were no issues with the Democratic primary?

        •  I think at that time (0+ / 0-)

          Wayne County would have gone for Clinton

  •  No, you're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

    This is about more than this election.  If MI/FL get away with moving their primary, warning in the future will get ignored as well.  Why not hold the 2012 primaries in 2010?  Why not let California vote tomorrow?

    Because it's against the rules.  If you break them, you pay.  It really is THAT simple.

    The solution?

    Seat MI/FL both with half delagations as they voted (yes, with Obama zero in MI).  While it was a name-recognition contest, the votes should be counted to appease those who did vote.  But also be punished to not piss off those who stayed home.

    Then strip them of all Superdelagate votes.  Punish the pricks who moved up the primary by taking away their superdelagate powers.

    The voters have their say, though not as much because they were not fair/sanctioned elections.  The people who caused this mess loose their superdelagate votes as punishment.

    It's semi-fair to all parties, punishes the people who's fault this really is, and it shuts everyone the hell up.

    The math, Obama wins no matter what.  This is about more than the 2008 election.

    "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." ~Voltaire

    by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:35:57 AM PDT

    •  We Aren't Getting Away With Anything (0+ / 0-)

      The point of moving the primary was to force people to campaign here, and nobody did.  Not only that, but the candidate we voted for is going to lose the nomination.  

      So in other words we achieved zero percent of our goals in moving the primary, and our delegation is going to side with the loser.

      What exactly have we "Gotten away with?"

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:51:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Punishment is not just about FL & MI (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The BBQ Chicken Madness

        It's about trying to make sure that no other state in the future tries this again.  True, the gambit played by Florida and Michigan blew up on them.  But what if they had both been leaning Obama all along?  The DNC needs to make it clear in all future primaries that this sort of misbehavior will NOT be tolerated, no matter what candidate they are supporting.

        Vote John Edwards and break the corporate media stranglehold on American politics.

        by Subversive on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:02:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But It Wasn't Tolerated (0+ / 0-)

          Again:  All we seeked to gain by moving our primary was to get the candidates to pay attention to us.  They didn't.  It failed.  Why should another state in 2012 or 2016 assume it will work for them?

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:08:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What Subversive said. Plus: (0+ / 0-)

        I should note I'm a Florida voter.  So don't talk down to me with your "we" comments, like I don't know what it's like to be a part of this mess.

        It's the State's fault.  And yes, the Dems in the state were perfectly fine moving up the date.  I would have left the dates the way the DNC had them.  But it's not like me calling and saying "Don't move it, I'd like not to be punished for you giving the finger to Howard Dean." did a damn thing.

        You know who doesn't care about the voters in FL/MI?  The dumbasses who didn't try to resolve the deal the second Dean laid out the punishment.  Instead they said "you won't do it" to Dean while waiving my vote at him.

        I'm not worried about THIS election.  Obama will win the nomination.  That's a given.

        I want to make sure this crap doesn't happen EVERY election.

        "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." ~Voltaire

        by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hm... I Wasn't Aware That Telling Someone (0+ / 0-)

          I'm from Michigan was "talking down" to them.

          It's hard for me to take the rest of your comment seriously after that silliness.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:16:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough. (0+ / 0-)

            I apologize, as "talking down" probably wasn't the right choice of words.

            Arguing "we" in terms of "what willwe get away with" indicates a charge that I was making against YOU.  I wasn't, unless you're one of the Dems who voted to move up the primary.

            To answer your question more directly.

            Q: What would MI/FL get away with?

            A: Moving up their primary ahead of the date at which the DNC set for them.

            The rest of my points only reinforce this fact, describe how it happened, and it's ramifications...whether you take them seriously or not is up to you.

            "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." ~Voltaire

            by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Am A Proud Member of the... (0+ / 0-)

              ...Michigan Democratic Party.  I am a precinct captain and a candidate for precinct delegate.  I was not one of the Democrats who "voted" to move the election, but the MDP advocated for it, and while I disagreed with it I take responsibility for it, because our party is built from the bottom up, not the top down like some other national party we could mention.

              All I'm saying is MI & FL already didn't get what they wanted.  And I would support a 50% slashing of their total delegate count instead of just seating the whole delegations.  Nothing the RBC or Credentials Committee does at this point can make it so that MI "Succeeded" because all we wanted was candidate attention.  We didn't get it and without a time machine, we never will.  Not only that but our delegation is going to go and cast their votes on the first ballot for the loser.

              ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

              by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Succeeded or not... (0+ / 0-)

                It doesn't matter whether the result was what MI/FL wanted or not.  It has nothing to do with it.

                If an olympic athelete took performance enhancing drugs and finished 2nd, they'd still have to give back their medal and go home.  That's the rules.

                MI/FL wanted candidate attention.  To get it, they broke the rules and were punished.  The argument that just becuase they didn't get the candidate attention they were cheating to get, doesn't mean they should be let off the hook.

                I steal a car because I want a Ferrari and crash it.  Will the cops let me go when I tell them: "Yeah I stole it, but I just did it to get a Ferrari.  Obviously I don't my we're good right?"

                Because they missed out on the primary, they will in fact get more attention in the GE in hopes of cleaning up the mess.

                To now have to re-woo the voters in both states takes time and resources that might not have had to be spent, and now makes it that much harder to win the White House.  And all because those states (selfishly) wanted a bit more "face time".

                ps - I don't like Iowa and NH dominating the cycle either.  Just for the record.  But what MI/FL did is NOT the way to fix I think everyone can see now.

                "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." ~Voltaire

                by The BBQ Chicken Madness on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:05:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  What ARE you PocketNines...? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Some kind of half-man, half-math, alien from another planet?

    Or maybe you are a messenger from the post-Republican future, a utopian land where our kids (and our media) can do math on their own, unaided...

    Thanks for brilliant diary!

    The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

    by beijingbetty on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:36:38 AM PDT

  •  There needs to be a penalty of 50% to comply (4+ / 0-)

    with the rules. Then MI ought to be divided 50-50 since it wasn't a fair election at all. Florida can be split the way people voted. This complies with DNC rules, treats Clinton and Obama fairly and seats the delegation (all can be seated, only half the votes count).

    Don't look at what is necessary to win (for either Obama or Clinton) and work backwards. Look at what is principled and go forward from that.

    Clintonites won't go along with anything except what Ickes proposes, which you point out is ridiculous. But don't expect them to want anything but a Clinton nomination.

    •  I agree, as long as there are NO ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      super-delegates from Florida or Michigan, and Obama gets to designate the "uncommitted" delegates from Michigan.  As I recall, the rules call for a minimum penalty of the loss of all super-delegates, and half the elected delegates.  There's no way the party leaders and elected officials from those states, who are responsible for bringing us this screwed-up mess, should get into the Convention other than as spectators somewhere in the galleries.

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

      by leevank on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:45:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ignore my comment about the uncommitted ... (0+ / 0-)

        delegates.  Obviously, if they're split equally, as you propose, my suggestion isn't applicable.

        "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

        by leevank on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:47:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Doesn't this increase chances of Clinton as VP? (0+ / 0-)

    Giving Sen. Clinton more delegates gives her more opportunity to force herself on the Obama ticket. As I understand it, votes for President and VP are separate at the national convention, and it's conceivable that Clinton could wield her considerable patronage influence over delegates to support Obama for President and herself for VP.

    Many of the supers in particular have demonstrated that they don't want to have to choose between the two candidates, and this might be a way of appeasing (har) the Clintons while still supporting Obama. More to the point, that argument could be made powerfully to MI and FL pledged delegates who might see Clinton as having been their champion throughout this primary, and to pledged delegates in general who have been consuming the dream ticket meme.

    I'd be delighted to be convinced that I'm wrong about this.

    •  No, It Doesn't (0+ / 0-)

      The SuperDelegates are not going to go against Obama's choice for his VP.  And that includes Clinton's superdelegates.  In fact her PLEDGED delegates wouldn't be obligated to vote for her for VP, and there's no reason to suppose all or even most of them would since she's guaranteed to lose.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Will you elaborate? (0+ / 0-)

        The SuperDelegates are not going to go against Obama's choice for his VP.

        Why do you think so? It seems to me that people who are unwilling to pledge because of the political costs of choosing one sider or another might see voting for Clinton for VP as a way of having their cake and eating it, too. They could see it as a way of pleasing all their constituents ("I voted for both of them!") and the Clintons ("I went for Obama for president, but I tried to get you into the White House, too. Don't forget about my support").

        In fact her PLEDGED delegates wouldn't be obligated to vote for her for VP

        This cuts both ways. Obama's pledged delegates aren't obligated to vote for his pick for VP, either.

        •  Sure Thing. (0+ / 0-)

          It seems to me that people who are unwilling to pledge because of the political costs of choosing one sider or another might see voting for Clinton for VP as a way of having their cake and eating it, too.

          Once we get to the convention, there will be nothing for them to gain from supporting Clinton.  Nothing.  If Obama has a simple majority (and he will) he wins the nomination.  If she "took it to the convention" her own SuperDelegates would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by voting for her if Obama was already going to win.  The convention tradition is for our nominee to be nominated unanimously, and even if it doesn't happen on the first ballot, it's going to happen.

          After that, you've got a nominee.  Typically, the first "decision" a nominee makes is who their running mate is.  Obama and his campaign have already indicated he will be "choosing his own."  

          Once he's made that decision and announces it, there will be a vote on it.

          The SuperDelegates and pledged delegates who just UNANIMOUSLY supported Obama as the nominee for the Democratic party are not going to say, with the VERY NEXT VOTE, that they do not trust his judgement on a running mate.

          This cuts both ways. Obama's pledged delegates aren't obligated to vote for his pick for VP, either.

          You are correct, but again think about the convention.  Obama announces, "I have chosen as my running mate Fred Fredrickson from the great state of Fredland!"   If you're an Obama pledged delegate, you just cast your vote that he was the person best qualified to lead the party and the country.  What possible reason would you have to not vote for the person he just selected?  And again:  The SuperDelegates will OVERWHELMINGLY vote with whoever has the majority, which will still be Obama.

          If the point is that it's "mathematically possible" for Clinton to become the VP via a vote at the convention, that's true.  But the PROBABILITY is so low as to be impossible to estimate.  By in large, everyone at the convention is going to be an experienced activist or partisan.  This isn't their first rodeo.  No matter whose "Delegate" they came as once we nominate our President they are HIS delegate.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Obama can't agree to anything (0+ / 0-)

    He signed the pledge not to participate or be involved with Michigan or Florida. Any agreement would break that pledge.

    That a signed pledge has meant and still means nothing to Clinton doesn't change anything.

    The simple arithmetic is this:

    Michigan and Florida don't count, never did, and won't ever. Unless your party agrees with Clinton that a signed pledge is worth less than soiled toilet paper and rules don't apply.

    And that party is not worth electing. The message they'd be sending loud and clear is you can't trust them as their words and signatures are worthless. This already applies to Clinton and the people she has surrounded herself with.

    •  Obama Has ALREADY Said Publicly (0+ / 0-)

      That Michigan and Florida will be seated at the convention.  All the pledge he signed said was that he wouldn't campaign or participate in MI & FL, and he didn't.

      ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

      by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:47:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wasn't aware of that. (0+ / 0-)

        Do you have a link?

        You use the past tense, as in it only applied on the day of the votes, which I disagree with. It applied before, during, and it applies after.

        'Participate' continues all the way to the convention. Any involvement with any delegate or official from either state to affect the process, outcome or result of the nomination at any point in time is 'participating'.

        Clinton has broken her pledge many times over and continues to do so. Are you saying Obama has too? My faith in him diminishes if he has.

        •  PS. Unless he is saying (0+ / 0-)

          they can be seated just as observers and voyeurs with no influence on the outcome whatsoever. That wouldn't count as participating in the process because they wouldn't be part of the process.

          •  From what I understand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Australian

            that is what sometimes happens when delegates get stripped like this. They will get seated by the nominee after s/he has been chosen.

            I think there may be other party business to do at the convention, besides just choosing the nominee. So it is still meaningful for people to be seated.

            I cannot provide a link to verify this however, and if anyone has any insight that would be great.

            The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

            by beijingbetty on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  People Have Pasted His Quotes in This Thread (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Australian

          So you can find them here in blockquote.

          And yeah, it is in the past tense.  The pledge he signed said he would not campaign or participate in any primary contest.  A primary contest doesn't go on forever.  A primary contest ends after the totals are certified.  The bit about how a primary magically continues until the convention is something you're sort of making up.  That's why we know which primaries are "already over" and which ones are "still coming."

          So no, Obama hasn't broken his pledge.  He's just breaking the part that you say is in there that actually isn't.

          ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

          by TooFolkGR on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:59:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps I'm being too pedantic (0+ / 0-)

            or too idealistic, but I see accepting any delegates as 'participation'.

            Refusing to participate in the Michigan and Florida processes to me also means refusing the results and/or any delegates. Not just on the day, or the day after or two months later (as I've seen some states have done), but all the way to the end.

            Put simply, accepting any delegates changes him from an observer to an active participant and breaches the pledge he signed. Clinton is prepared to do it, but I would hold Obama to a higher standard than her low one.

            Leaving it up to the DNC and just voicing opinions may be okay. As long as his opinions don't influence the process.

    •  The DNC made the rule (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chiniqua, The Australian

      And in the interest of electing a president, the DNC can rewrite the rule. The earlier decision not to seat Fla. and Mich. hardly rises to the level of a sacred oath.

      Greed makes a really shitty foundation for a civilization to build itself upon.

      by Red Bean on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can rewrite the rule (0+ / 0-)

        but Obama can't rewrite his pledge.

        If they do award him delegates from those two states, his signed pledge of non-participation in the process (and hence result/delegates) forbids him from accepting them.

        Clinton would accept them, because she's already made clear that a signed pledge from her is worthless. Her word means nothing.

        But they won't change the rule. And Clinton knows this too. As has been reported, Clinton's strategy is to appeal the inevitable knock-back, and then appeal again to take it to the convention. Where she will lose because she's already lost, so this is just a stalling tactic. Call her bluff. Don't concede anything to her at all, especially just for expediency. Stay out of the gutter politics of shifty deal-making where she wants to take it. Obama is above that. Should be above that.

  •  Excellent diary, (0+ / 0-)

    As I have said before, take away H's straw man arguments and she does not have anything left to campaign on. I think Obama is smart and understands this. I really think no matter what they decide at the rules committee meeting, as long as it appears fair, once June 3rd is past and all pledged delegates are doled out, most of the remaining supers are going to declare for Obama.

    H will not willingly leave the stage, she will try to invent other straw men. It is important at that point for the party to coalesce around the nominee and see Clinton for what she has become (I say this sadly by the way, but it is the choice she made).

    The first true test of Obama's leadership skills will be on display at that point, and I feel that he will handle the matter with integrity, honesty, and with a display of core principles that has been lacking on the Clinton side. People will be won over by his handling of the situation, and he will come out stronger. Remember, as much as I wish this were not going on, it is, and presents itself as an opportunity for him to display himself to the voting public. He can come out of this stronger if he is the man I think he is. And that will finally put a nail in the coffin of the Clinton campaign.

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."-George Orwell

    by Babsnc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:53:33 AM PDT

  •  Disagree with you on Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    because I agree with you on the math (of course, you've gone into far more detail, as always).

    As you say, if you know this and a bunch of us other number geeks know it, then Hillary's campaign knows it.  Which means that the DNC knows it, which means that by about mid-June any patience the party will have for Hillary's shenanigans will fade rapidly.  She's already had ten superdelegate defections, that will likely pick up.

    Which means she'll be burning through her political capital in record time, for no discernible benefit.

    Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds

    by synchronicityii on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:55:06 AM PDT

  •  Pocketnines, you are the man! (0+ / 0-)

    Now take a break from that calculator!!

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying the cross."- Sinclair Lewis

    by IamtheReason on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM PDT

  •  folks (0+ / 0-)

    the inclusion of Florida and Michigan is not an Obama or Clinton issue is a DNC issue. If the DNC wants to reverse itself and seat those two delegations it BETTER do it in a way that it does not upset the apple card. If they do anything that reverses the present path towards Obama's nomination they (the DNC) will secure a woman in the white house,CINDY McCain. I consider myself to represent Joe Public and I will be so unhappy with that maneuver that I will refrain from voting for the top of the ticket therefore making it the lowest turnout possible election in history. So folks do not think for a moment that any betrayal will go unpunished.

  •  Would HRC support Communist elections (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    - We have to "count" every vote right?  So when millions of USSR citizens voted for Brezhnev according to HRC that was a valid election.  It seems that votes should only be considered in valid elections.  If people didn't know what they were voting for, then it can't be a valid election.

  •  So you're saying 1+2+1+1?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

  •  Woo hoo, Front Page.... (0+ / 0-)

    Let's get this sucker front paged with an excerpt of the magic number calculations.  We need legacy media organs sorting through this math to get it circulating.  This sounds a lot better than the Maddow framing of "oh, super delegates, please save us."  When you get to the bottom line on the real super delegate magic number, it seems like a drop in the bucket at this point.

    •  OTOH... (0+ / 0-)

      I was just thinking that there could be a counter argument here.  As Obama nears the de facto magic number on the supers (let's call it 36), maybe it's better to not have any individual superdelegate recognized as "the one" that clinches the nom.  I could see many people balking before assuming that mantle.  Maybe it makes sense to keep the math fuzzy while the current trend continues.

      Here's a question--can we identify the members of the pool of 210 supers?  Is there some way to collect a subset of 36 who seem likely to eventually come in for Obama?  And maybe then it would make sense to exert pressure on certain specific supers who ought to have announced already?  Is there a blog that's tracking this anywhere?  This seems like a Social Security Conscience Caucus/Faintedhearted Faction style and scope of project that the blogs are awesome at.  Paging Josh Marshall.

  •  Pocketnines, explain "guaranteed" to me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viriginia liberal, fleisch

    See, I was told by Psyfighter37 that, in a worst case scenario, Obama was GUARANTEED 16 pledged delegates from Kentucky.  This used the viability argument, which fell flat in one of Kentucky's districts in which hillary got 91% of the vote.  Obama ended up getting 14.  I really don't like getting burned like this.  So when you say guaranteed, are you for real, or are you just guessing as PsyFighter37 was?

  •  Seating in full (0+ / 0-)

    would give HRC more leverage to try to force her way onto the ticket (VP) by vote at the convention. No?

  •  Forget the math (4+ / 0-)

    Any attempt by Obama to intervene is a lose-lose situation. The DNC needs to take this out of the candidates' hands and make the necessarey decisions, whether it's in the Credentials Committee or Rules Committee, or wherever. I would favor sticking to the agreed upon rules, but that is neither here nor there. The important thing is that the nominee not be saddled with any responsibility in the decision. If Obama concedes any ground to Clinton, he will appear weak and Clinton's argument that she is the stronger candidate appears more credible. If Obama does not make any concessions, he will be painted as being against including all voters and trying to steal delegates from Clinton. Obama merely needs to say that he has already agreed to the rules that all candidates agreed to and that if the DNC wishes to change the rules he will abide by their decision. He cannot appear to give any ground to Clinton and the DNC should do the right thing and what will be best for the nominee.

  •  DNC cannot seat those delegates as-is (0+ / 0-)

    They broke the rules.  That's like allowing known steroid users to continue to participate in their sport.  Next election, every state will try to move to the front of the line and presidential elections will be starting a year earlier.  I can't take that.

    •  FL's arguement has merit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      since they were screwed by the GOP. I agree that we should stick to the rules, BUT when the rules are exploited by the opposition (Florida GOP), we can and MUST mitigate. I would seat FL in full, but plan for a thorough review of these rules for the future.

      The official results in Michigan, despite its significance in the GE, simply can't be honored on principle. A revote is the only fair solution. Frankly, I thought it was a reasonable idea. The fact that we couldn't get it done is very disheartening.

      •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

        I think a revote would have been a horrible idea.  It would have rewarded FL and MI with tie-breaker status after they broke the rules.  If the revote idea went through in March, and scofflaw FL and MI were elevated to tie-breaker status, then why shouldn't PA, IN, NC, and all the other DNC rule-abiding jurisdictions who had patiently waited their turn and had not voted not be allowed to change their primary date to some time after the FL/MI revote in order to gain tie-breaker status?

        It is absolutely inexcusable to let FL and MI go unsanctioned.  Those scofflaw jurisdictions should not have influence on the party platform or the outcome of this primary season.  Otherwise, I fear what could happen in 2012 and beyond.

        The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there. - Ralph Wiggum

        by jim bow on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:12:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I like the math, but do not seat MI and FL (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Clinton and her supporters (well the unreasonable ones) are going to make unreasonable demands no matter what you do.  If you seat MI and FL then they will find some new more grandiose crazy demand to start up on.    Might as well let them carry on about MI and FL as they think it is important, but it no longer really is.  Let them continue to flail on MI and FL.

  •  Update 2 question (0+ / 0-)

    It includes a switcher according to DCW, so if you are going to exclude the MD and DC switchers, you should exclude Cardoza too.

    •  No - different (0+ / 0-)

      Superdelegate switches are not the same as pledged delegate switches without being released.

      Calloused hand by calloused hand.

      by PocketNines on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:47:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well technically, only a few states... (0+ / 0-)

        do not allow legally any pledged delegate to change who they will support at the convention.

        I do not know which states.

        But a Clinton pledged delegate (elected by the citizens of the state) could vote for Obama on the First Ballot at the Convention in most states and likewise an Obama pledged delegate could vote for Clinton on the First Ballot.

        The way you minimize the liklihood of this is for the various campaigns to "ensure" those people elected as delegates are truly loyal to the candidate they are pledged to - but that is not an ironclad guarantee they will vote accordingly.

        Very similiar to the general election Electoral College - in most states they should support the statewide winner of the popular vote, but history shows some have bucked that and supported someone else.

  •  But it is worse that this!!! (0+ / 0-)

    Ickes has put down a marker, of not letting Obama have any delegates from Michigan at all!!! He can still win from that position, but it puts 37 delegates into a fuzzy uncommitted position.  Which makes things murky. It could mean Clinton has the possibility of getting ALL the delegates from Michigan (even the uncommitted ones.)

    The nominee was always going to seat the delegations, as long as the result didn't overturn anything. The punishment argument is silly to me.

    Clinton is now taking the farthest reaching argument, so that they can appeal the ruling, as long as Obama doesn't agree fully.

    Anyone not taking Rachel seriously... does so at their own peril here! Hillary has done everything she can, to prove Rachel right in the last 48 hours.

    •  Of course, if any MI delegates at all are ... (0+ / 0-)

      allowed to vote at the convention, full vote, half vote, whatever, no fucking Ickes can say how that person should vote.

      If the Clinton people continue down this ugly sore loser path, some "Clinton" delegates may vote for Obama out of shame.

      And watch, Harold fucking (who fully supported disenfrachising MI and FL last year during the rules committee) Ickes will take these Clinton turncoats to court and insist the Supreme Court intervene before the Democrats know who their nominee is.

      Meanwhile, by the time that case is heard at the Supreme Court, President McCain will probably have appointed his first justice to the Supreme Court.

  •  didn't you get the memo?!?!? (0+ / 0-)



  •  It's not about math, it's about perception. (0+ / 0-)

    Caving in like this would make Obama look weak and unable to hold his ground against Billary. And guess what...Wimps don't win the presidency.

    The idea that this will turn her supporters into happy Obama lovers is absurd. They will just cheer Hillary on as she leverages this concession going forward into the convention. The narrowing of the gap, the rabidness of HRC's supporters and and the perception of weakness may well cause delegates to re-think their positions.

    John McCain - Strange you can believe in.

    by Bitter Elitist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:47:30 AM PDT

  •  Man, I love this post! Thanks! Numbers simply (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troutnut, keeplaughing, Tim in CA

    don't LIE, but the Clintons and their supporters think that's the only way to "win" when they're obviously LOSING.

    I want to cheer at the top of my lungs for my candidate, but the Clintons want me to hang my head and mumble something under my breath, so as not to offend them.  

    Well, they're offensive to ME.

    BARACK OBAMA is one of the best candidates to come along in decades!!!  I am so proud of him, I can't sit still!!

    OBAMA 2008!!!!!  The next President of the USA!!!

  •  Great work. But hands up if you think this system (0+ / 0-)

    has to be scrapped as soon as this primary cycle is over, never to resurface.

  •  The path forward is clear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Florida and Michigan delegates CAN NOT be seated as if a proper election had occurred. They must be held accountable for their having violated party rules else this same problem will occur next time around. Yes, it's good that whatever happens here will not affect the overall result, but MI and FL still need to be  punished so that this doesn't happen again. Let's not be short-sighted.

  •  One of the best diaries ever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tim in CA

    Thank you for this thoughtful and complete analysis.  That was a lot of work.  How come people who get paid to do this analysis for a living cannot even come close?

  •  As a matter of principal (0+ / 0-)

    It's just not right to seat Michigan and Florida "in full".  Especially Michigan, where the law that created the primary itself was completely invalidated.

    What Obama and Obama supporters need to do is say over and over and over again that "even if we did seat them in full, it wouldn't matter".  But there HAS to be some punishment, as Clinton and everyone else enthusiastically agreed to.  Otherwise what on earth is the incentive for states to keep to the nominating calendar?

    Yes we can? Yes we did.

    by cartwrightdale on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:07:40 AM PDT

  •  So tell me someone- (0+ / 0-)

    what happens when billary goes to the convention still fighting for the nomination?

    •  Well IF that happens, (0+ / 0-)

      it will be all over the evening of Wednesday, August 27 when the delegates vote for their nominee for President (or should I say the wee hours of Thursday, August 28 if we have multiple ballots!)

      Another nightmare I have not seen mentioned - what if Obama IS nominated as President but the Hillary forces orchestrate a revolt for her to be Vice President and Obama picks Jim Webb for example, but the Hillary folks vote for Hillary instead?

      I guess Obama's VP pick would win, but not by acclamation, and that would "embarrass" Obama and it could be McGovern/Eagleton - Shriver, all over again (that is what happened in the '72 convention - a whole slew of people were voted on for VP - I actually stayed up until 2:30am ET to watch McGovern give his acceptance speech!)

  •  No Appeasment!! (0+ / 0-)

    But comprimise,, 50/50 on MI, All delegate each with half a vote in FL.. There has to be punishment of some sort or we'll have anarchy in the future.

    If McCain wins, the Supreme Court will be changed for 20 years. Something to Ponder.

    by Blue Texas on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:14:49 AM PDT

  •  Another brilliant analysis from PocketNines (0+ / 0-)

    I've been saying this for months.  In the end, Obama's best bet is to give Hillary everything she wants and STILL end up the winner.  He is magnanimous in victory, and unquestionable in his ethics and margin of victory.

  •  No, of course they shouldn't be seated in full (0+ / 0-)

    Wow.  Funny how the tide constantly turns here.  

    This doesn't change the fact that Clinton is going to play games with the numbers to give her a "popular vote" argument to try to win the VP slot.  We know that's their game.

    Why should a soviet-style primary from Michigan be validated.  THAT would disenfranchise the voters.  No, instead Obama must and will negotiate a fair comprimise that A) does not completely reward states that break the rules (we can't go through this again) B) is fair to the people of the states (many of whom did not vote or voted "other"). C) does not seem a complete capitulation to Clinton.  We need to end this and not let them set up more goalposts.  We can't let them drag this out to the convention.

  •  In theory, this could short circuit a Clinton ... (0+ / 0-)

    talking point and take that issue away from her at the convention.

    But by allowing MI and FL's "illegal" primaries to stand as is, the DNC will be in a bind to enforce rules in the future.

    I suspect they will be allowed 1/2 their votes and apportioned as you suggest (ratio-wise).

    But heck, if Clinton can challenge this FL and MI disenfranchisement (even though her campaign including people like Harold Ickes, the scum, backed it in 2007), what's to stop her from challenging the "unfair" caucus states as disenfrachising "those poor old folk and working stiffs who can not meet for a few hours on a Tuesday night" and saying we whould ignore those results and only use primary state popular votes to determine the winner?

    You (the DNC) give in on one rule to a power obssessed candidate, you risk all your rules being challenged.

    Far fetched?

  •  Good analysis (0+ / 0-)

    The only thing I would mention is that I don't think the Pelosi club should be counted as 100% in Obama's camp.  Look at Pilar Lujan from Guam.  She said she'd endorse the winner of the Guam caucus and then she still endorsed Clinton.
    I think it's extremely likely that the Pelosi club will (abd should) endorse Obama, but no-one should be counted 100% until the delegates specifically confirm their endorsement of the specific candidate.

    This makes little difference to the overall #'s, though and I agree with your overall conclusion that it's in Obama's best interest to recommend seating the delegations in full.  Although I don't think that's in the DNC's best interest as there should be some repercussions for all the hoopla.

  •  I don't agree (0+ / 0-)

    I appreciate your analysis but I have posted my own take on how it should be handled Here

    To summarize he should roll out enough supers to get to 0 needed to get the nomination next week, agree to only give them half a vote at most, at which point the last 3 primaries put him over the top again 3 days later and he can tout how reasonable he is.  

  •  HUGE news from Al Giordano (0+ / 0-)

    The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.

    Would this be the 23-36 delegates Obama is looking for? :)

    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

    by CaptUnderpants on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

  •  PocketNines (0+ / 0-)

    You are the man!  Thanks for doing the math and making it simple.  90 to go with seating MI/FL is still too high.  Hopefully the supers will get off the pot.

  •  Wow, really nice work, as usual!!! nt. (0+ / 0-)

    "The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving." Oliver Wendell Holmes

    by AvoMonster on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:20:09 PM PDT

sdf, emptywheel, Phlip, maxomai, thewittyname, easong, tunesmith, Chi, Phoenix Woman, cassandra m, Stevie, True North, Savage, jimmyjames, Valerie, teacherken, Sparhawk, kate mckinnon, jneufnyc, Steven R, Superribbie, MrPlow, catfish, Unstable Isotope, nicolemm, whataboutbob, Robespierrette, Emerson, mkpj, maddercow, John Campanelli, Pompatus, autoegocrat, WI Deadhead, marjo, Rieux, Abou Ben Adhem, object16, musicsleuth, bumblebums, Voxefx, expatjourno, Ruth in OR, strengthANDwisdom, sardonyx, kissfan, bara, Troutnut, concernedamerican, thm, missLotus, Babsnc, wonkydonkey, SamSinister, msbatxnyc, whenwego, OCD, peace voter, KMc, peacemom, AlyoshaKaramazov, stevej, Scoopster, MisterOpus1, The Ice Cream Man, allysonsta, taonow, badlands, CodeTalker, jbeach, drdave, House, ryder92111, frightwig, thingamabob, Yomberto, navajo, dmsilev, ChristieKeith, jdmorg, SneakySnu, webweaver, Getreal1246, Red State Rebel, jhpdb, danthrax, jzso, pat bunny, nj mom, Nancy in LA, Nina, synth, JimWilson, churchylafemme, EngineerEd, ArcXIX, Jimmy Crackcorn, DH from MD, daveholden, 4jkb4ia, TheJohnny, General Disarray, svotaw1992, ChiGirl88, smartgo, DemDog, tomjones, SanDiegoDem, cartwrightdale, Nova Land, snowbird42, rmx2630, Timroff, Frank Vyan Walton, wolverinethad, weelzup, jonathan94002, davidincleveland, Bluesee, Tarindel, IamtheReason, simca, MasonLee, rweba, sap, Jibbly, RequestedUsername, billy pilgrim, stagemom, majcmb1, chicagovigilante, uato carabau, aaraujo, Little Lulu, lauramp, Hastur, sundancekid11, nanobubble, Red Bean, LisainNYC, hcc in VA, empathy, roubs, Land of Enchantment, melvin, forbodyandmind, Fasaha, keeplaughing, sherlyle, Bluesman48, plum, BlueInARedState, kestrel9000, SherriG, DeweyCounts, MJ via Chicago, StrayCat, taraka das, DJShay, FatPath, el cid, max stirner, Potus2020, carp, smartballs, llbear, profh, fezzik, rsie, Jbearlaw, HRs Kevin, The Lighthouse Keeper, WarrenS, blandiz, Compostings, Intercaust, sasher, Batbird, DBunn, Clancy Use the Remote, clinging to hope, Acee, darrkespur, c0wfunk, YoyogiBear, Cronesense, dgdeakin, Loudoun County Dem, oscarsmom, Femlaw, moodyinsavannah, LV Pol Girl, ColoTim, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, kath25, some other george, Jimdotz, rkelley25, jimotto, walkingdeer, Kyle the Mainer, sashalina, vbdietz, Oreo, jnhobbs, mwilli, Moderation, gchaucer2, Ruby K, leonard145b, BasharH, cacamp, sable, Assaf, Samantha Jones for President, Empower Ink, extradish, poblano, chapter1, mconvente, dbeach13, Spoonfulofsugar, DraftChickenHawks, alonewolf, NotGeorgeWill, zerone, abundance, NewDealer, pepper mint, John Barleycorn, Pragmaticus, mcthatch, Its any one guess, jdt112, NMLib, DailyKingFish, royalscam, JedReport, MalachiConstant, RoscoeOfAlabama, omegajew, punkdavid, dogheaven, Scubaval, The Wuz, BrockAun, ryangoesboom, B P Pgh, Bule Betawi, jjackso1, artmartin, cybrestrike, Texanomaly, Coach Jay, Tim in CA, mtundu, Trips, Lowbeam, ManahManah, cantelow, Baldur, RandomActsOfReason, jontabb, MingPicket, zackamac, bikerjim, EquationDoc, DefendOurConstitution, SaintCog, Michael Lawrence Gallagher, zathlazip, oak510, The Mort Man, beijingbetty, jimmyhoffa2222, lizardbox, The Great Gatsby, AvoMonster, Dr Funkenstein, bluestatemeant, cavebird, Rick in Oz, gcensr, rdxtion, billssha, jkddude, yamanote, marcirish, Underground in Ohio, yaddab, Roxy Hope, 57andFemale, orangedem, Joe Beese, archidem, D Wreck, Nonconformist, reesespcs, Canadian4Obama, GWinkler, azadmanish, BA BarackUS, Cronk, voila, Phil In Denver, Wisteacher, jpmassar, Josselyn, eurthamudtoes, uzay, jonger27, TallJames, differance, Clyde the Cat, canuckster, Julia C, Just Bob, ZAP210, BigVegan, rgrrl, Fairy Tale, kydoc, MarthaMyDear, GeeMa, hillgiant, MariaWr, possodent, rb137, CarmenT, Jampacked, Theolonius, Theis, Dirk Thrust, stonepier, vixenflem, kidkavon, Christopher Shea, fleisch, C 1, rrussell, wiprogressiveguy, BlueColoradoSky

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site