The state Democratic Party has decided to postpone the slating of its delegates, which had previously been scheduled for March 29. They'd do that only if they really intended to keep fighting for a new primary of some sort.
« The latest anti-Obama video circulating | Main | The Full Wright » A Faint Heart Beats In Michigan21 Mar 2008 12:35 pm Comments (11)
You're missing the point. They're hoping that they can come up with a compromise that would get a slate of delegates seated. They're simply waiting because they don't yet know what that slate would have to look like. 
My question for Marc is where did he hear this? haven't seen the news anywhere yet. I In answer to Nate, the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) had 15 district conventions scheduled to take place on March 29. Delegates to the national convention would have been chosen at that time. Clinton would have won a percentage of pledged delegates based on her percentage of the popular vote in Michigan's January 29 primary. 40 percent of the delegates would have been officially pledgeds as "uncommitted" although these are really Obama delegates and pro Obama candidates are (were) running for the "uncommitted" delegate slots in the 15 districts. You might ask why was the MDP was going through this process even though the DNC has said the delegates won't be seated? The answer is that the MDP has (had) a stubborn belief that the Michigan delegation would be seated and they wanted to be prepared for that eventuality. So Marc is right. This means that they're working on something.
Keith Hood:
Hillary got 55 percent of the vote the first time around and you're right she doesn't have a chance with or without Michigan. I seem to be one of a small group of people who think that Obama would win in Michigan in a revote but I understand Obama's reluctance because he just doesn't need Michigan's delegates for the nomination. The MDP argues that not seating the delegates would cause Michigan to vote for McCain in November but the arguments are specious.
I agree with some guy. Michigan would like to be able to compromise to get "a slate" seated. It's easier to do that if they haven't actually filled its slate. Even if they were to fill it there is some question as to how to fill the "uncommitted" delegates. Until Clinton concedes it would seem likely that any sort of compromise would have to at least give Obama the final word on how to fill those delegates.
I seem to be one of a small group of people who think that Obama would win in Michigan in a revote but I understand Obama's reluctance because he just doesn't need Michigan's delegates for the nomination. If it's true that he doesn't need Michigan, then why not get behind and indeed loudly advocate for a full revote? The party, and the respective state legislatures would surely accede to pressure from the combined campaigns. Seriously, if I were Obama, I wouldn't want any irregularities to taint my nomination. Allowing Hillary-friendly Florida and the more neutral Michigan to revote would remove any taint, and demolish in advance any HRC talking points about exclusionary politics. Moreover, such a move would greatly bolster Obama's chances of taking either of these states in the general election. The answer, of course, is that Obama knows full well suppressing the votes of these two states is in his interest, and that Hillary Clinton's chances of taking the nomination are still very much alive. I think it's obvious that Obama is headed to victory, but it may be a very pyrrhic victory indeed. The ironic part -- and surely even Obama fans would agree with this -- is that he would still be heavily favored to win the nomination even if both of those states revote and both of them go for Clinton. Obama has run a brilliant campaign up to this point, but he's being badly advised on the issue of Florida and Michigan.
Dear Michigander, From a fellow Michigander, I think this is a point in which we have to agree to disagree although I agree with some of what you say. I agree that the party would accede to to pressure from the "combined campaigns. However, I don't think Republican Senate leader, Mike Bishop (and other Republican legislators, will accede in spite of forked tongue statements to the contrary and this could make the whole point moot. I agree with you when saying that that you don't think Obama would want any irregularities to taint his nomination but I'd qualify that by saying there are irregularities and there are irregularities. The irregularities that taint are ones where obvious vote rigging has taken place or similar evidence of unfairness. The situation in Michigan is a different kind of irregularity. The DNC set the rules saying that rule breakers would be denied delegates. The MDP broke the rules. My opinion is that they have to pay the penalty. Yes, it's an irregularity but I think it's a fair and reasonable irregularity. You also write that "such a move would greatly bolster Obama's chances of taking either of these states in the general election." I don't think Clinton or Obama will win Florida in the fall. I just don't think Florida is in play for Democrats. Ditto for Texas and Ohio. I think either one of them will win Michigan in November in spite of the shenanigans. I'll restate my mantra. McCain vs Clinton will be a repeat of Bush vs Kerry in 2004. In a best case scenario Clinton wins the states Kerry won in 2004 and McCain wins the states that Bush won in 2004 and that lands McCain in the White House. I believe that McCain vs Obama would be a different story. Obama, too, would win all of the states Kerry won in 2004 but I think he'd also pick up Virginia, Kansas, and a few other red states. That's all it will take to tip the balance and secure the presidency. Part of my argument is also based on the belief that Clinton's negatives are too high to win outside the states that Kerry won in 2004 (she could even lose some)./P> The bottom line is that there is way too much hullaballoo about Michigan in Florida. Florida is not in the Democratic win column anyway. Michigan is probably a win for the Democrats anyway. The thing is that Obama's appeal in red states is being overly discounted by old school Democrats. I actually believe that he'll pick up enough red states (Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas) to tip the balance to the Democrats and I, honestly, would not be surprised to see a Reaganesque landslide in a majority of the states./P>
My main question is still the central focus of this topic. I still don't see any news that the MDP is canceling the delegate selection planned for March 29.
Assuming Obama becomes the nominee, won't he just go ahead and seat the Michigan delegates anyway? This seems like a non-issue at this point.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The wording of this post confuses me. Is it that the Michigan Democratic Party would only slate its delegates if they intended to keep fighting, or is it that the Michigan Democratic Party would only postpone slating its delegates if they intended to keep fighting?
Posted by Nate | March 21, 2008 12:46 PM