MICHIGAN UPDATE: Obama Picks up most uncommitted slots (updated)

Chris Bowers in his OpenLeft diary reports that Obama has won at least 23 of the 36 uncommitted slots in Michigan.

Current totals:

47 Clinton
27 Obama
1 Controlled by United Autoworkers
9 Unconfirmed

Details on the jump.

In his OpenLeft Diary, Chris Bowers reports:

Michiganders for Obama currently claims 15 delegate victories, but their list is clearly incomplete. I have found news reports confirming that Obama supporters won both uncommitted spots in the 3rd, 7th, and 8th, districts, along with two of the three in the 9th, adding at least another six to Obama's total. Montague also expressed confidence that Obama supporters won both uncommitted slots in the 2nd district, which would increase Obama's total to at least 23 or the 36, although I can't find a confirming news report at this time.

UAW supporters, but not necessarily Clinton supporters, appear to have won at least four of the uncommitted slots, snagging at least one in each of the 9th, 12th, 13th and 14th districts. The UAW in Michigan has not endorsed a candidate, so this move harkens back to old-school, pres-1972 conventions. Back then, unions and local party bosses locked down blocks of delegates, thus giving them tremendous leverage at the convention. The UAW appears to have pulled exactly that off in Michigan, to the tune of at least four delegates, and possibly more. Maybe we should start a "UAW" column on delegate counts, right next to the Edwards totals. If Obama stumbles in upcoming states, the nomination might go through Edwards and / or the UAW.

With the following update:

Update: Both 2nd district uncommitteds confirmed for Obama. Still looking for more info in the 12th, 13th and 14th districts. The 24 uncommitteds outside of those districts are confirmed as 23-1 in favor of Obama, with the remaining delegate going to the UAW in the 9th CD by a single vote.  

Now, I don't believe for a moment that the Credentials Committee is going to vote to seat the delegates from Michigan 47-23, 47-36, or any variation thereof, unless one candidate has already cinched the nomination.  It just violates any reasonable person's sense of fairness.

However, this is important as Michigan now represents a much lower potential advantage for Clinton.  In the leadup between June 3 and the Convention, the argument for Clinton to take this to the Credentials Committee will be moot, if by doing so, she could not add enough pledged delegates to gain an advantage.

Presently, Obama leads pledged delegates by 160-170 (depending on who's counting).  Presuming that Clinton counts Florida and Michigan, Obama's advantage might drop by, at most, 60.  In the remaining contests, it's virtually impossible for her to gain 100+ pledged delegates.  As recently pointed out, a 20% win (that's 60-40) in Pennsylvania would net her only 9 delegates.  Obviously, after NC and IN, the other contests are much smaller, meaning that there just aren't many places for her to gain ground.

Secondly, even if the Michigan delegation were to be seated "as is", the popular vote would not be added to Clinton's column (this just wouldn't make sense -- what would you add to the Obama column?).  I don't believe in using the popular vote as a metric anyhow, and there are inherrent structural problems to that argument, the most significant being that caucus states are completely unrepresented in such a scenario -- and there's a lot of caucus states.

So, barring a Clinton blowout in IN/PA, there is virtually no way that Obama will end June 3 without winning the most states, most delegates, and popular vote -- with our without Michigan and Florida.

UPDATED: Chris Bowers further reports:

Obama supporters won both uncommitted slots in the 11th, not just one. Also, people who claim to be Obama supporters won all three slots in the 12th. So, that makes the count 27-1, with results from the 13th and 14th CDs still unknown. However,  these are not exactly the most solid Obama delegates around, as some of them were won by old Edwards supporters, and even some people who switched from Clinton a couple months ago.

In other words, it appears that Obama has ostensibly won just about all of the 36 uncommitted delegates, perhaps only missing one delegate in the 9th because of divisions among Obama supporting groups. However, a dozen or so of the Obama delegates are weak supporters, and might actually be truly uncommitted or even backing Clinton. I'll consider it a 35-1 Obama victory for now, but that number is tentative pending future information. In truth, mistrust of some of the more machine or union oriented Obama supporters who won the uncommitted slots is probably just hard-core Obama grassroots paranoia. If someone publicly says they are for Obama, I see no reason not to trust them until they publicly declare something has changed.

•  Tips?

  by Canadian4Obama on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

•  How is he claiming anything?

  I thought Michigan was dead in the water?

  Those results should not stand in ANY WAY SHAPE FORM OR FASHION.

  If they want to count Michigan's delegates in any way other than equally, there needs to be a re-vote, since there will be no re-vote, they should be split 50/50

  by Muzikal203 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:51:08 PM PDT

  •  Worst case scenario still important

    The district convention is still important; if (through an act of God) the Credentials Committee votes to seat the Michigan & Florida delegates, 23-36 delegates from Michigan goes a long ways to reaching 50%+1 required to win the nomination.

    Obviously, I agree with you that the results of the primary should not stand in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

    I also think that it should a 50/50 split at convention.

    by Canadian4Obama on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM PDT

    •  agreed

      I see this as a sort of fallback position for Obama. In the worst-case scenario, he makes sure that most of the Uncommitted delegates are actually for him. Smart move.

      by lauramp on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM PDT

      •  Not only that. If the best case for HRC is

        one in which she still can't win, then there is no longer any point to her fighting to seat them in the way she wishes.  So maybe it will bring things to a nice end that they go this way now.

        by mvr on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      If Obama scores as many uncommitted delegates as possible, and thus builds a 60-75 delegate lead even with Michigan and Florida included, then it closes off Clinton's last possibility.
      

      It is extremely smart for Obama supporters to win all of these seats. Now, Obama has a healthy lead even in the worst-case scenario. It would be mind-blowingly stupid to have not scored these uncommitted slots. Take nothing for granted.
      

      Now, when Clinton supporters demand that Michigan and Florida be seated, Obama supporters can just say "fine, whatever. We win comfortably anyway. What else you got?"

      by Chris Bowers on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM PDT

  •  50/50 is the most unfair

    option - either count as is, or don't count at all.

    by FerrisValyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM PDT

    •  Why is that MORE unfair

      than counting a result in which voters were unable to vote for one of the candidates? That strikes me as the single MOST unfair option which should not be done under any circumstances (quite apart from the massive meltdown of the primary process that would result from no penalty accruing for breaking the rules everyone agreed on).

      by anastasia p on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:29:48 PM PDT

      •  Because it arbitarily places my vote

        which was cast in good faith, to someone who did not earn it (FWIW, I voted uncommitted - I am not an Obama supporter or Clinton supporter).

        The election was a bad faith election, I don't deny that, but the ballot box is sacred, and you should not change votes - you either accept them, or get rid of them if there is evidence of widespread scandal - you do not change them.

        by FerrisValyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM PDT

        •  Your vote WAS NOT cast in good faith

          If you "voted" in MI then you voted in the knowledge that you
          were not actually Voting at all !  YOU WERE TOLD that it was
          NOTHING but a beauty contest and that it would NOT count!
          More to the point, YOU KNEW that 2 of the then-major candidates
          were not even on the ballot at all, so you knew that what you
          were "voting" in was a sham and NOT a Democratic primary!

          by ge0rge on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM PDT

          •  Sorry, no I don't agree

            the idea that I violate the law or rules - I don't agree - the people who violated the rules and created the mess was the leadership of the MDP.  I didn't vote to move it forward, and this was the only option the MDP was offering that had the potential to be counted as an election.  

            I agree it was a sham - I have never denied that.  But you do not change the votes - you either except them, or you don't count them.  Those are your only truely fair options - you don't change them after the fact

            by FerrisValyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM PDT

        •  Now you're contradicting yourself

          The election was a bad faith election, I don't deny that,

           Except you DO deny it: her is your denial:

          but the ballot box is sacred,

          The ALLEGED "ballot box" of "a bad faith" election IS NOT a ballot box
          because "a bad faith election" IS NOT an election!

          by ge0rge on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:20:51 PM PDT

          •  If its a bad faith election

            you throw it out - you do not tamper with the ballot box, even if someone pees in it (figuratively or literally).

            As for arguing that a bad faith election isn't an election - sorry, but I don't agree.  An election was held - whether it was legitimate, and of good faith, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Frankly, it reminds me of Bush saying that no torture happened because the US doesn't torture.

            by FerrisValyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM PDT

    •  50/50 IS

      "don't count at all" but some Michiganders get to go to the big confetti party in Denver.

      by Anarchofascist on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM PDT

      •  Another reason to hate it

        a few people get something, while the rest of us don't

        And as for it not counting the MI vote - actually, it does, since the vote totals get added.  It just doesn't affect the resulting totals - thats not the same thing as not counting

        by FerrisValyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM PDT

  •  **Huh?

    Why should HRC benefit because there is no revote?

    by greylox on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:43:08 PM PDT

•  Typo in last sentence?

  You wrote:

  there is virtually no way that Obama will end June 3 with the most states, most delegates, and popular vote

  ...

  I think you mean "without."

  Thanks for the update on the confusing MI situation. My sister, nephews and Dad live there, and are still livid about not having had a chance to vote for Barack.

  by earicicle on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:52:16 PM PDT

  •  LOL thank you for the catch :)

    changed it to, "without winning".

    by Canadian4Obama on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:56:34 PM PDT

•  Even more

  I have since discovered that when the Michiganders for Obama candidates lost, in almost every circumstance they lost to other candidates for Obama. MfO was not the only pro-Obama group organizing for the uncommitted slots.
  

  Right now, I can confirm 27 uncommitted for Obama, and 1 for the UAW. The other eight come from the 13th and 14th districts, where we currently don't have any reports. I would be surprised if anything changed there, so it probably wen 35-1.
  

  One note is that while all of these delegates are ostensibly and publicly for Obama, there are rumblings that a few of them, possibly even 12 of them, are actually either truly uncommitted or Clinton supporters. Basically, it means that they are machine types that the grassroots don't trust, and that some suspect could flip in the future. But hey, they are publicly for Obama now, and in truth basically anyone could flip in the future if they felt like it. Looks like a 35-1 Obama sweep, which pretty much closes off Clinton's final avenue for the nomination. Much bigger event than PA on Tues.

  by Chris Bowers on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:01:44 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the update

    Agreed -- I think that what's lost is that "end of the race" means no more goalpost-moving.

    by Canadian4Obama on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM PDT

  •  That was true in my district (MI-11)

    The female Michiganders for Obama candidate lost to an Obama supporter who was a Teamsters member. The UAW strongly contested the male seat and almost won it (see downthread), but the Obama uncommitteds together won more than 80 percent of the votes for the female seat.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:52:55 PM PDT

•  GREAT NEWS!!!

  This truly is great news.  I know the Michigan Primary was certainly suspect, but this means seating Michigan and Florida will no longer be Hillary's deus ex machina it could have been if the uncommitted had gone to her. This also means that she can't claim to the super delegates that the will of the people would be behind her (more pledged delegates) if Michigan were sat. This  is really does close it off.  Probably a bigger deal than the PA primary tomorrow.

  by okiedem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM PDT

•  Mrs. DTM and I did our part

  In the 11th District, a Michiganders for Obama candidate won a delegate seat by less than 2 votes (we use a proportional voting system). I'm glad we got ourselves out of bed and showed up: for once, it made a difference.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:50:36 PM PDT

  •  Great!

    Thanks for your efforts =]

    by Canadian4Obama on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:37:42 PM PDT

•  Energy tells another story

  I attended the 4th congressional district's convention.

  There were 89 voters in the Uncommitted caucus, 49 in the Clinton caucus.  Not exactly a good indicator for Clinton, in a district that has trended red.  The Uncommitted caucus participants were clearly NOT CLINTON supporters, as they were very happy when both selected Uncommitted Delegates said they would support Obama should they go to Colorado.

  The Uncommitted caucus finished earlier than the Clinton caucus, in spite of the size of the group and the number of potential delegates running for the two seats.  They had no problems whittling it down to the two folks who'd been working for the Obama campaign for as long as 14 months.

  There was only one formal member of the Clinton campaign in attendance, and they've only been working for that campaign for a few months.

  Across the entire 4th district in attendance, there were (2) people wearing Clinton buttons.  In contrast, there were (8) folks wearing Obama buttons, (2) more people wearing Obama t-shirts, and at least (3) people with Obama signs and bumper stickers.  

  Lastly, one of the delegate candidates was a high school teacher, who in explaining why he wanted our vote, said that of his 300 students in a northern Michigan public school, that he had no problems finding kids to represent Obama's and McCain's campaigns in a mock election exercise, but NONE to represent Clinton.  (For this reason I am so sorry that we couldn't elect a second male delegate; this person clearly wanted to teach his students more about democracy by example.)

  (I have some reservations about what actually happened in the Clinton caucus, which I did not observe; there were UAW members in that caucus, while the bulk of UAW downstate were in the Obama camp.  Was there some effort to shape delegate outcome here?  Hmm.)

  The energy in this overwhelmingly white district isn't with Clinton. They will be very disappointed if the outcome of Michigan's delegates and superdelegates does not match the energy.

  by Rayne on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM PDT

•  Michigan Delegate Poll

  My option would be AS IS divided by 2 and SDs with 1/2 vote each. After all, the state went against the rules. Obama still wins, yet he does the generous thing.

  by sevenstars on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM PDT