WWTBAM Bored

The DNC rules committee had their meeting on what to do with the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida today. After some 10 hours of discussion, they voted. I saw the voting on CNN. Florida got stripped of all its' delegates. They tried to pass a motion that would have given Florida's delegates 1/2 vote each, but it didn't pass.

Then came Michigan. They passed a motion giving Michigan's delegation (69 pledged to HRCm 59 to Obama) 1/2 vote per delegate. How do you cast 1/2 a vote?????

Harold Ickes doesn't like this, and he's threatening to go to the Credentials Committee at the convention in August. Stay tuned-the fat lady is warming up!

I'd say the fat lady has left the building.

Kazoo, the DNC sat both state delegations at half-vote for each delegate.

So, as I write this, Obama needs 65 delegates to clinch the nomination.

Jim Roosevelt and Alexis Herman, the chairs of the credentials committee, are the same two people who are the chairs of the rules committee.

The fat lady has sung, gotten out of costume and is in the taxicab going home.

Nonsense. Anything can happen at the convention.

it is their reward for misbehaving

The Clintons firmly believe in profiting from bad behaviour then whining about being called on it.

They leave a wide slime trail.

We usta do it all the time here in Colorado just to send more people on to the next level. Then the State party got tired of dealing with it so asked us to please not do it unless we absolutely had to. Which we did, at the caucus level anyway, because everyone who meets the 15% threshold has to have representation at the County Assembly.

We had one caucus go more or less like this:

Total delegates present: 20
15% threshold: 3
Delegates allotted to County Assembly: 2

Raw votes (of the 20) for Obama: 10
Raw votes for Clinton: 5
Raw votes for Richardson: 5

Obama delegates: 1
Clinton delegates: .5
Richardson delegates: .5

Anyway, I doubt anybody in Colorado blinked at the half-vote concept.

Kazoo65 wrote:The DNC rules committee had their meeting on what to do with the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida today. After some 10 hours of discussion, they voted. I saw the voting on CNN. Florida got stripped of all its' delegates. They tried to pass a motion that would have given Florida's delegates 1/2 vote each, but it didn't pass.

Then came Michigan. They passed a motion giving Michigan's delegation (69 pledged to HRCm 59 to Obama) 1/2 vote per delegate. How do you cast 1/2 a vote?????

Harold Ickes doesn't like this, and he's threatening to go to the Credentials Committee at the convention in August. Stay tuned-the fat lady is warming up!

I'd be more sympathetic to Clinton if it hadn't been that originally her representatives supported the DNC when it warned states that they risked being disenfranchised if they moved their primaries up. NPR had a story on Saturday about this. The only reason she wants "every vote counted" is because it's her only chance of persuading the superdelegates that she's the one they should support.

Now don't get me wrong - I think Clinton would be a good candidate, but it's rather disingenuous of her to want to count the votes now, because it benefits her. Were the shoe on the other foot I doubt she'd be clamoring for the delegations to be seated with full voting rights.

earendel wrote:Now don't get me wrong - I think Clinton would be a good candidate, but it's rather disingenuous of her to want to count the votes now, because it benefits her. Were the shoe on the other foot I doubt she'd be clamoring for the delegations to be seated with full voting rights.

On the other hand, if the shoe were on the other foot with Obama, he'd be screaming to the high heavens about disenfranchised black voters, especially in Florida. And you know what? He would be right.

Personally, I don't care much about Hillary's motives on this. I know lots of people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Or for self-serving reasons, if not exactly "wrong." At the end of the day, they are still doing the right thing and that's what matters most to the people who are affected by what is done.

The DNC was stupid to allow all this to occur, and stupider (?) still to punish the voters for the faults of the leadership. And all because they refused to stand up the the NH Sec of State (who, ironically, is a Republican).

I don't get this- is the threshold to clinch the nomination more than a simple majority?

Or do Edwards, "Uncommitted", etc all have enough delegates to keep either Clinton or Obama from clinching before the convention?

I don't see how, in a two-person race (essentially) that neither can get enough delegates to clinch the thing outright.

hf_jai wrote:

earendel wrote:Now don't get me wrong - I think Clinton would be a good candidate, but it's rather disingenuous of her to want to count the votes now, because it benefits her. Were the shoe on the other foot I doubt she'd be clamoring for the delegations to be seated with full voting rights.

On the other hand, if the shoe were on the other foot with Obama, he'd be screaming to the high heavens about disenfranchised black voters, especially in Florida. And you know what? He would be right.

Personally, I don't care much about Hillary's motives on this. I know lots of people who do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Or for self-serving reasons, if not exactly "wrong." At the end of the day, they are still doing the right thing and that's what matters most to the people who are affected by what is done.

The DNC was stupid to allow all this to occur, and stupider (?) still to punish the voters for the faults of the leadership. And all because they refused to stand up the the NH Sec of State (who, ironically, is a Republican).

Oh, there's no doubt that the DNC was stupid in allowing this to come to pass, but, to give them their due, it would have been total chaos had they not tried to put their collective foot down and keep the primaries from moving into the fall of 2007 (which might have happened as each state tried to move to the head of the line). If there were any rational thinkers on the DNC they would try and come up with some sort of regional primaries - not necessarily geographically balanced but balanced by electoral votes. 538/4 = 134.5, so have two primaries with states whose electoral votes total 134 and two with states totalling 135. Yes, it would be difficult but it could be done. Heck, one could even exempt Iowa and New Hampshire (11 electoral votes), allowing them to have their traditional role. Then rotate the order of the primaries so that one group doesn't get to be first each time.

If that's not manageable, then divide the states by the number of delegates to the DNC. There are better solutions, and it's about time someone started thinking about them so that the party doesn't have to go through this debacle again.

Jeemie wrote:I don't get this- is the threshold to clinch the nomination more than a simple majority?

Or do Edwards, "Uncommitted", etc all have enough delegates to keep either Clinton or Obama from clinching before the convention?

I don't see how, in a two-person race (essentially) that neither can get enough delegates to clinch the thing outright.

Neither has enough elected delegates to win outright. The superdelegates, who can in theory vote any which way they please, therefore control who will get a majority of all the delegates at the convention and the nomination. In reality, many are already pledging their convention vote to Obama or Clinton. The total of elected plus pledged delegates are the totals generally reported. Not all superdelegates have pledged, though, so neither candidate has a "majority" yet.

Nothing stops the superdelegates from voting differently from their pledge at the convention. A few have already switched their pledge from one to the other. Again in theory, the convention could be interesting in that regard. In reality, barring major catastrophe, it won't happen in any significant manner.