DRC Hearing Live Blog IV: Michigan Portion One
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Mark Brewer the Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party is arguing for Michigan. the problem for Michigan is it has no rules based argument to support it. In essence, Brewer argues that if you want to win Michigan in November you better seat us.
Brewer speaks of asking for the waiver. No one questioned the Committee's power to grant a waiver. The RBC granted waivers to other states that violated Rule 11, we are asking for that type of waiver.
Michigan has no argument imo.
In terms of dividing the delegates, Michigan proposes a 69-59 split. Brewer argues that uncommitted was trumpeted as the placeholder for those candidates who took their names off the ballot.
This is a strange argument indeed, Because if you want to give Obama all the uncommitteds, which is what seems to be happening, as Brewer is pointing out, then why not seat the uncommitted for Obama. That makes it 73-55.
The essence of Michigan's 69-59 argument is that the exit polls had Clinton winning 45-36 with all other candidates under the 15% threshhold.
There is no rules based way of accepting this proposal. to me the only thing the RBC can do under the rule is reduce the penalty to 50%, with Clinton getting her share and the rest being uncommitted, which are going to Obama anyway.
But this a complete joke.
McDonald ask how many votes? 600,000 + 30,000 write-in votes, none of the writeins would be for Clinton? Seems fair.
Kamarck asks uncommitted means uncommitted according to the rules, how is it that work. It is almost certain that the uncommitted delegates will go for Obama, but the way Michigan is doing it, is the way to chaos. I agree. And Obama is getting and has gotten most of the uncommitted anyway. So why do it?
The fact is Michigan has no real argument for even seating more than half of the delegates UNLESS it argues selective enforcement and fairness. I do not know where we go from here with Michigan.
Other than the fact that we need Michigan in November, I think that a 100% penalty seems appropriate to me, IF you exclude the fact that the RBC did not strictly enforce its rules.
I think Levin better make a fairness argument because Brewer sure did not.
Are you relying on any rule? Uh no.
Ickes points out that the candidates who withdrew their names withdrew it voluntarily, no Party rule required it and there was no such pledge to withdraw.
True. But Michigan has no rules based argument to make here. And Brewer is right. Now he is making the care about the voters argument.
Here is the REAL problem - they can not possibly give Michigan more delegates than Florida. At best, Michigan will get half delegates.
If I hear the LOST VOTES argument from asnybody in the DNC or the Obama camp again I am gonna shoot somebody. Caucuses DELIBERATELY disenfranchise voters. and the DNC LOVES THEM. Shut up about the LOST VOTERS.
Now Carl Levin. Will he bring up New Hampshire? Let's see.
Unity. Michigan Dem Party achieved unity. Please preserve it. Full seating of full delegates is supported by Obama and Clinton for Michigan. disagreement on the allocation.
I repeat, there is NO WAY to seat Michigan fully and not seat Florida fully.
Levin argues that Clinton will argue for 73-55. Obama will argue for 64-64. Michigan Dem Party split the difference, 69-59.
Levin's argument is . . surprise, Unity.
My early impressions, based on the arguments presented by Michigan, give them 0.Finally, Levin gets to his anti-Iowa and NH argument. No state should have the right go first and second in every election. Levin fought to open up the process.
In 2004, Levin was going to fight it out over NH but McCauliffe promised him they would fix the schedule. They was a new schedule, a minor change, but important - the change was that NH would go 3rd. Putting one or two first tier caucuses between Iowa and NH. NH hated it. Voted against it.
Michigan accepted it and praised it. Michigan applied to be one of the 4. We accepted that decision. Proivded NH accepted it. And then New Hampshire BROKE the rules. They announced they would break the rules.
MI asked, demanded that the DNC penalize New Hampshire. the RBC did NOTHING. Instead it gave NH a waiver for breaking the rules.
That is why we are here with regard to Michigan.
Carl Levin talks about the RULZ, if you are not enforcing the RULZ, then what is the point of having them?
Huzzah for Carl Levin.
RBC Member Ben Johnson ignore the NH violating the rules issue.
Levin says I agree about the rules. And this Committee did NOT enforce the rules against New Hampshire.
Alice Germond, who I find extremely annoying, avoids the New Hampshire issue. I wonder If Levin will ask her why she did not enforce the rules against New Hampshire.
Michael Steed, Clinton supporter, talks about precedents. Talks about the Uncommitted. And about taking away delegates from Clinton.
In a way, there is nothing related to the rules in THIS discussion.
The Emperor has no clothes. all this talk about the ROOLZ is just blather is what is most apparent from this discussion.
Ickes arguing for the primary results. which in the end will be 73-55.
What amazes me is that no one is even thinking about the problem with fully seating the Michigan delegation and giving half votes to the Florida delegation.
When Levin defends the allocation plan, it seems to me he is arguing for NOT seating Michigan at all.
And indeed, I think the rules argue for one of two results for Michigan- no delegates for Michigan, or 50% seating based on the primary.
Bonior for Obama. Adopts Levin anti-NH argument obliquely. Admits that Obama supporters voted uncommitted. And he cites exit polls ot support this proposition. Hmmm. I find it that he is persuasively arguing for a 73-55 split. I am sure that is not his intention.
Buuut, a 64-64 split is Obama's position. To me, might as well be zero then. there is no rules based, fairness based or any other good reason to seat the delegates of Michigan in the Obama position. I thought they might endorse the Michigan Democratic Party position.My own view is that Bonior is not making a good argument but at least he mentioned the fact that Michigan will not get more seating than Florida. EXCEPT - Obama supports giving FULL VOTING to Michigan Super delegates but OPPOSES giving FULL VOTING to Florida Super Delegates.
Explain that one.
The CAUCUS is a very flawed process. INDEED do not speak to me of LOST VOTES please.
Bonior responds Obama was following the path of the RBC that the votes would not count. No campaigning. Uhm, uhm, uhm.
We all know the reason was to pander to Iowa.
I am finishing up with this observation, Wexler did better for Obama on Florida than Bonior did for Obama on Michigan.
Comments closed.
| < DNC Rules Meeting: Review of Florida Speakers | DRC Hearing Live Blog V: Michigan Portion Two > |