Thanks to JE -- A solution to MI & FL

Overlooked so far in the coverage of the John Edwards endorsement is that a new and clear path has opened to resolve the controversy over the Florida and Michigan delegations in a way that satisifes the demands of both states, both candidates, and preserves the integrity of the DNC.

Lets recap what everyone wants out of this deal:

1.  The DNC wants their pound of flesh for rulebreaking

2.  Obama wants delegations seated in a way that does not penalize the candidates or the other 48 states that played by the rules

3.  Hillary wants the delegations apportioned based on the actual primary votes.

4.  The states want their delegations seated.

Believe it or not, thanks to yesterdays endorsement, I think everyone can have their demands met at this point.  I explain all after the jump:

There is a general assuption -- quickly being confirmed -- that the 18 Edwards pledged delegates will likely cast their votes for Obama at the convention.

What this means -- by extention -- is that any Edwards delegates from Michigan or Florida would likely do the same.  This likely outcome opens the door for a seating proposal as follows:

1.  Accept the seating of FL & MI based on the primary votes.

2.  As all other major contenders (i.e. Richardson & Edwards) have endorsed Obama -- Obama is then allocated all uncommitted delegates from Michigan, and the combined total of Obama & Edwards pledged delegates from Florida.

3.  As penalty for breaking the rules, the delegations have their voting strength cut in half -- making each delegate worth 0.5 votes.

Under this scenario, based on the information gleaned at  The Green Papers Clinton would net +11 delegates from Michigan, and +14 from Florida -- for a total net of +25.

Factor in the likely move of the 18 other pledged Edwards delegates from NH, IA, and SC to Obama -- and the result of using the Edwards endorsement to leverage this solution is +9 for Clinton.

Think about it.  For the low price of a net +9 delegates for Clinton, Michigan and Florida get their delegations, they can say their votes counted, and they are still appropriately penalized for breaking the rules.

More importantly, this is an outcome based directly on the results of the rougue contests -- meaning Clinton could no longer claim that the votes are not being honored.  

This offers a clean, face saving way to bring the sorry affair over these states to a close.

If you think this is a good idea, please recommend so that this idea gets wider notice.

•  tip jar

  by ILPundit on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:31:11 AM PDT

  •  I have no real issue with the solution

    the problem is that I don't think Clinton will go for it.  Michigan itself suggested a Clinton+10 split compromise which her campaign rejected out of hand.

    Just winning isn't enough.  They need to either get exactly what they want, or keep it in doubt so they can claim it will eventually turn out that way and use that as their metric.

    by Rorgg on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:38:05 AM PDT

    •  But...

      That's what makes this proposal so powerful -- it is a solution that deprives Clinton of her strongest arguements.  Basing the outcome on the actual votes cuts her legs out from underneath her.

      If she fought this proposal, in her weakened state -- it makes her look petty and sore-loserish, rather than standing for a principle.

      The Emperor would no longer have clothes

      by ILPundit on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:45:43 AM PDT

    •  I don't think Obama will or should accept any

      solution that gives more than 10 PD edge to Clinton in MI or over 50% seating of FL's beauty-contest results. He followed the rules and he and other candidates took their names off the MI ballot following the footsteps of Gore and Bradley who also took their names off a similar a renegade primary by MI (on 2/22/2000) in 2000.

      Clinton selfishly keeping her name on the MI ballot probably encouraged MI (and then FL) dem party to continue on their path, leading to the mess we have today.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:51:53 AM PDT

    •  She does not get to go for it or not

      The committee's ruling is just that, a ruling. It has standing.

      by mlandman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:08:24 AM PDT

  •  Fixed your tags. Please read

    this.

    by Jacques on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:48:02 AM PDT

•  Couldn't the pledged delegates from Fl

  be sat as is, I have no problem with that since everyone was actually on the ballot, but not allow the super delegates to be sat. Since it was the state Dem party that decided to break the rules that makes sense to me.

  MI is another story since both Obama and Clinton, agreed to take their names off the ballot, but then Clinton ended up not doing it. Those results shouldn't count as is, since doing so would negate 45% of the people that voted against Hillary.

  by ryan81 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:35:12 AM PDT

  •  No they can't

    these states broke the rules, and for the rules to have any merit in the future, they have to be enforced and a penalty needs to be applied.  The DNC is insisting on this and they are right to do so.

    by IhateBush on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:46:32 AM PDT

  •  Also, at the time,

    Hillary Clinton had HUGE name advantage / national press advantage.

    Every time Obama campaigned in a state, he increased his percentage 15-20%...

    So that is totally unfair to the Obama camp IMO.'

    by rick on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

•  After June 3rd

  The plan sounds as good as any.  This will be resolved.  Only 5 primaries to go.  Give Clinton and her supporters a fair shake at every last contest.  The deal will be done.  The party will unify.  We will crush the GOP in November.

  by gaspare on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:36:06 AM PDT

•  Yes, he should be good for all "uncommitted" now.

  It is really pretty impressive what Obama has done as far as getting the endorsements of the other contenders. He got Dodd and Richardson fairly early in the process, and now he's got Edwards. And although Kucinich hasn't endorsed anyone, he told his caucusgoers in Iowa to switch to Obama anywhere he wasn't viable.

  Also a quick fix: 25-18 is 7.

  by Osaka on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:37:45 AM PDT

•  I think it is one of many

  reasonable proposals that Clinton's campaign will reject as they continue to battle through the Rules Committee and, ultimately, the Credentials Committee, to seat all delegates from FL and MI full strength without allocating any uncommitteds to Obama.  

  I have come to believe that Hillary literally believes the merit of her argument - or just doesn't care if it is meritorious or not - and will continue to fight until such point as she has no argument left that her pledged delegates plus all the FL and MI delegates she "won" based on the primary results plus all the Supers (including ones currently pledged to Obama) put her over the top.  I think that there is no scenario under which that happens (because she can continue to argue to the bitter end that Obama's Supers can jump ship and support her at the Convention and that they should do so), and so I honestly don't think she will back down until the floor vote at the Convention finally eliminates all arguments.

  Honestly.  Unless Party leadership steps in and lets it be known that she will be stripped of committee assignments or never considered for leadership positions or some punishment like that, and even then I think it is an open question whether she really cares that much or whether all she and Bill really want is the White House or nothing.

  by Mother of Zeus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:38:03 AM PDT

  •  Make her ambassador to Tuvalu or Guam...

    and take Bill with her.

    After the supers make the only principled decision, that is.

    by orangeuglad on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:50:55 AM PDT

  •  Diminishing returns vs. stubbornness

    Hillary and her people must realize that what leverage they have is reduced by time. As the race winds down, Hill's claims become less important with each new delegate.

    I know many here think Hillary is delusional, but she's been around too long (way too long!) to think she can dictate terms in this situation.

    I'm beginning to believe she'll agree to something on or shortly after May 31. If she waits, her leverage in negotiations falls continually until she is irrelevant.

    by Juan4All on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:53:14 AM PDT

    •  BTW, good plan ... the best yet IMHO. n/t

      by Juan4All on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:53:54 AM PDT

    •  I hope you're right.

      But she gives the appearance of being delusional a lot of the time.

      by Mother of Zeus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM PDT

•  Sounds good

  Finding a way to seat FL and MI is to the advantage of the presumptive nominee (i.e., Obama). BTD wrote something similar last night. He thinks that the obstacle is not the campaigns, but Donna Brazile. That would be the tail wagging the dog.

  by Demi Moaned on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:41:41 AM PDT

  •  I don't understand what is being said about

    Donna Brazile.  What is she saying that would be a problem?  She is definately for Obama and yes she, as well as most of the 25 members, are opposed to seating the whole Fla and Mich delegates with full votes.  They can NOT seat Fla and Mich without a severe punishment or there will be bedlam in 2012 when it comes to which states go first.

    It has nothing to do with punishing HRC or Obama but all to do with breaking the rules.  Rules will have to be followed or else.

    by ajleiker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:50:19 AM PDT

    •  "Severe punishment"

      Seems like a purity argument to me. For my part, I'm much more interested in winning in November.

      As far as the who-goes-first issue, I think it's a symptom of a fundamentally broken system rather than a problem in its own right. The whole nomination process needs a complete overhaul. And given that we'll probably be incumbent in the WH in 2012, that gives us plenty of time to consider alternatives.

      by Demi Moaned on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

      •  Yup. Absolutely true.

        The whole nomination process needs a complete overhaul.

        But this cycle, we've got the rules we've got.  And we should play by them.  Or would you take away Obama's win in Texas?

        Next cycle, let's try to inject some, more uniform idea of common sense into the process.

        Next cycle.

        by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:17:43 AM PDT

  •  It is irrelevant...

    ...to whom the advantage belongs.

    We have rules.  The Party leaders in FL & MI broke them.  The voters will make them pay, by voting against them for costing their state its political relevance and the money that primaries bring to a state.

    If we seat their delegates it will happen again in the next primary cycle.

    by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:43:04 AM PDT

    •  Where the buck stops

      The Party leaders in FL & MI broke them.  The voters will make them pay.

      The Presidential nominee is above all the Party Leader. And the voters in those state will make him (I'm assuming it's Obama) pay.

      Your comment is evidence that a faction of Obama supporters is more interested in settling scores than winning the GE. I can only hope the candidate is not among them.

      As for next cycle, see my comment above.

      by Demi Moaned on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:51:16 AM PDT

      •  I have no interest in...

        settling scores.

        If I am an Obama supporter - and if, as you point out, it is true that seating FL & MI delegates is to his advantage:

        Finding a way to seat FL and MI is to the advantage of the presumptive nominee (i.e., Obama).

        ...then you're not making much sense.

        What I do have an interest in the rules.  After seven years of Bush, that seems like a good idea to me.

        And the best time to enforce rules is always... now.

        by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:57:38 AM PDT

•  But Michigan already assigned Uncommitted dels

  The states decide who the delegates are.

  And Hillary worked the conventions in Michigan to grab a bunch of the uncommitted delegate slots.

  So, she actually now has about 70% of all Michigan delegates.

  Not sure how they get around that so Obama gets the 45% of the delegates based on the 45% of the people that did not vote for Hillary if the states still get to decide the delegate slates.

  by davidslane on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:41:58 AM PDT

  •  I didn't know that..... n/t

    by 57andFemale on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:15:22 AM PDT

•  Only problem is that

  the Clinton campaign keeps talking about popular vote this and popular vote that.  If the Florida vote is given legitimacy, I imagine that will give her the chance to keep arguing that she leads by popular vote.  Espeicially after Puerto Rico votes.  (don't jump on me, I don't think that should count in the total, I'm just trying to put myself in Clinton's shoes)  And yes...I know that the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates, I'm only trying to look at this in the way that the Clinton campaign will try to spin it.

  Does anyone worry that if she even has one criteria where she 'claims' to have the lead that she will do whatever she can to get this to go to the convention?

  by bleigh82 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:42:59 AM PDT

  •  The supers will not overturn delegate count

    .....because of the popular vote.  And frankly, if she needs Puerto Rico to make that claim, it's ridiculous on its face (it was ridiculous anyway).  

    She would need Obama to get zero credit for any popular vote in MI to make that happen.  That's absurd.  And she would still need to not count 4 caucus states.  Now come on:  you'll count the Soviet-style election with one name on the ballot and discount four states that played by the rules?  

    The party is moving on.  We need to coalesce around our nominee and beat the shit out of the Republicans.  

    I'm so ready.  I want to talk issues again, don't you?

    by 57andFemale on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:19:57 AM PDT

•  No doubt HRC will not go for it because

  she doesn't want Fla and Mich to be seated just to cause trouble.  She will insist that they get their full votes and that Obama not get the undecided vote either.  I'm not sure what the rules are but thing the 25 RNC committee members can make their own rules on the 31st of May.  I also suspect that HRC can then protest the rules and fight them at the Convention.  I suspect that she may say that now but would look very foolish if she insisted in taking it to the convention.  It would be somewhat of a minor irritation anywhy as she would definately lose there to.

  After May 31, I believe it will all be settled except for HRC campaign making a lot of noise but no one listening to her.

  by ajleiker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:44:28 AM PDT

  •  Plus Alegre will not approve the plan. :) n/t

    by ruscle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:29:31 AM PDT

•  It is actually

  C +18 in Michigan and +25 in Florida under your formula.

  If seated at half strength, it becomes a total of 21.5 delegates for Clinton.

  by IhateBush on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:48:43 AM PDT

  •  +21.5 from FL and MI...

    -19 Edwards delegates from NH, SC and IA.

    by Bull Schmitt on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

•  If it doesn't end with Clinton as the nominee

  She will have no reason to accept it. That is her stance on every issue. She has nothing left to lose. If it doesn't get her the nomination, she doesn't care.

  by AWhitneyBrown on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:49:06 AM PDT

•  Why is it important to seat MI & FL...

  ...delegates?

  That's just Clinton spin.

  Nobody's disenfranchised - they'll all vote in the GE.  And when those citizens vote, they'll hold their state and party representatives accountable, for breaking the rules of the party.

  It's a self-correcting problem.

  Appease them, and it'll happen over and over again as various states angle for increased relevance in the primary cycles.  There's a lot of money involved, and a lot of power.

  That why we have rules.

  by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:51:37 AM PDT

  •  As a FL voter, I concur 100%

    by mlandman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:05:41 AM PDT

•  Whatever we can do to cut a deal...

  and get this fiasco behind us would be a great service to our party...this is the only thing standing in the way of moving forward to the nomination...

  by dvogel001 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:06:06 AM PDT

  •  It does NOT stand in the way...

    ...in the way of the nomination.

    by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:44:34 AM PDT

    •  It does stand in the way of...

      party unity and winning the GE if Hillary uses MI/FL as an excuse to take this to the convention floor in Denver...we cannot be so smug and absolutist about this issue or we will all lose...

      by dvogel001 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM PDT

      •  I'm not smug. Although...

        ...yes, I suppose you could say I am an absolutist.

        In a practical sense though.

        I don't see Obama losing the GE because he comes down on the side of the rules, if that's what you're implying.  In fact - just as the Wright issue helped him in many demographics - I believe that strict adherence to the Party rules could also help him.

        It's been a long time since we've seen that - and I suspect the country is hungry for a candidate who will support what will be perceived as the rule of law.

        by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:23:00 AM PDT

        •  Unfortunately the rules specifically...

          state that the rules committee can change the rules at any time based on a majority vote...that is how they changed the rules from a 50% reduction in delegates to a 100% reduction in delegates...in addition the credentials committee can decide to seat whatever delegates they believe are ligitimate as well under the rules...

          Those are the rules and unfortunately they are not permanent set-in-stone rules like laws and can be changed at anytime even retroactively by a majority...so if we want to be absolutist and have Hillary fighting all the way to the convention...whatever...but I say...the end justifies the means...and that means compromise so that we can give Hillary her win and still give Obama the nomination and make everybody happy.

          by dvogel001 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:31:37 AM PDT

          •  I'm aware of all that.

            But this:

            the end justifies the means

            ...is not in my vocabulary.

            by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM PDT

            •  We agree to disagree...

              I want to win in November...period...with Barack Obama as POTUS...period...I don't really care how we do it...

              by dvogel001 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

            •  Look we have 2% - 4% ...

              of Democratic voters difference between Obama and Clinton...this is a democracy and we need to respect the will of the voters but we need to also respect the very close minority for the sake of party unity and not just say go pound sand...that is a recipe to a GWB 3rd term with McBush and is not acceptable...maybe end justifies the means is a little overstated but the tennants of our democracy is that we have some respect/compromise with significant minority voting blocks which I would include Hillary supporters in that block...

              Peace...Go Democrats!!!

              by dvogel001 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:41:27 AM PDT

              •  Yes. We need to respect the will...

                ...of the voters.  Fortunately, that's what general elections are for.

                But our party leaders need to be respected, and to respect their voters, as well.

                And those leaders need not only our respect - but that of our candidates.  Because without that, we'll wind up fielding the same kind of candidates as the Republicans: little children, constantly looking for loopholes.

                That's why I like Obama - he's a grownup.

                And I just don't buy for a second that seating MI & FL is to Obama's advantage.  It would be a cave.  It hurts his overriding message.

                And he is going to win the general.  Even with some slight hit from Clinton supporters on the MI/FL matter - which is only cover for issues that they won't raise.

                The great tragedy of this primary is that the first electable woman and the first electable black candidate were pitted against each other.  Nobody saw that one coming.  But we just have to deal with it as best we can: for me, that starts with adherence to our own, chosen set of rules.  We start screwing around with them, and that's what'll sink us.

                by Jaime Frontero on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:04:02 AM PDT

                •  Well lets see...

                  First of all I think all of our Democratic candidates are grown-ups and have been wonderful and I support them all...my first favorite for the record was Richardson...

                  I do not buy the whole cave issue with FL/MI...it would be about party unity...we are at the end of the primary season within the next 3 weeks and we need to bring the party together including FL & MI...this is not about Hillary this is about the voters of FL & MI

                  This election is more than just getting 270 EVs it is about change...change happens from the bottom up not from the top down...so while I agree that there is a good chance that he could win the election without Hillary's supporters, real change will not happen without a unified party and a massive victory which would have to include the vast majority of Hillary supporters.

                  Otherwise even if you win the change we all want from the bottom up will not happen because of a fractured Democratic party and Democrats that will not help change this country because they were not made part of the process...Have you been listening to Barack's recent speeches...I mean really listening...we need to act more like the Barack Obama campaign and less like the I Hate Hillary and her Supporters campaign

                  Ever since the ill-fated decision to go over the written rules of the DNC and not apply the 50% penalty to FL and MI this has been a disaster waiting to happen

                  by dvogel001 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM PDT

•  But what about the MI & FL Supers?

  That is what this is really about for HRC.

  by mlandman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:09:47 AM PDT

  •  Can 'em.

    They're the reason we're in this mess, the party leaders of these two states.  

    I think that would be apt punishment.

    by 57andFemale on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:17 AM PDT

  •  There are currently 33...

    undeclared FL and MI Superdelegates.  The count is Clinton 15, Obama 8 among those who have already declared.

    by Bull Schmitt on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:21:43 AM PDT

•  This is sound and plausible; however

  I think MI and FL should be stripped of their superdelegates.  It was these party insiders that led to this mess.  

  However, your conclusions about Edwards' delegates is plausible and irrefutable by Clinton, except for cravenly saying she wants all or nothing.  But you are right:  with Edwards, Richardson and Dodd endorsing Obama, Hillary no longer has an argument that Obama would not be somehow entitled to their share of the vote.  

  Excellent.  

  by 57andFemale on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:14:10 AM PDT

•  Another suggestion

  Since FL and MI knowingly scheduled their primaries out of turn and we want them to have representation at the convention, allow them to proportionally allocate delegates based on the percentage of elected and Superdelegates that have committed excluding MI and FL. That gives them presence at the convention but makes their clout neutral.

  by The Wizard on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:18:49 AM PDT

•  Still a problem with Michigan. A name on a ballot

  is a huge advantage. We simply don't know what people wanted. And there are others who haven't endorsed Obama in the race at that time.

  I think a 50-50 split is the only way for Michigan. Florida at least they were on the ballot. Seat the delegations at half strength as a penalty.

  by IndySteve on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:32:41 AM PDT

  •  As a Michigander

    I consider it an abject insult to seat any delegates whatsoever without letting us have a real vote. As a modest proposal, I suggest instead of cutting the delegation in half, we simply cut the delegates themselves in half.

    by dconrad on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:12:58 PM PDT