As a member of the DNC Rules Committee, WA attorney David McDonald was pretty active yesterday questioning the various people testifying on behalf of restoring Florida and Michigan’s delegates in one form or another. So I asked him for his take on yesterday’s proceedings:
Long day. Where you end up depends on where you start. Clinton’s folks assume that a proceeding held in violation of our rules is a primary within our rules and argue from there. Others believe a proceeding outside our rules is a beauty contest that may inform but does not dictate an estimate of what voter preferences would be in a proceeding held inside the time calendar and according to our rules.
I think we did our best to be fair and I am glad I stayed uncommitted through this proceeding.
(Personally, I was satisfied with the Florida decision, but think the committee went too far in reallocating delegates in Michigan; they should have maintained the 73-55 split, but given the uncommitted to Obama, as imperfect as that might be. I’m just uncomfortable with attempting to divine the will of voters after the fact.)
As a DNC member, McDonald is also a superdelegate, and one of the few from the WA delegation who remains uncommitted. A couple weeks back he told me that he planned to endorse after the May 31 meeting. Yesterday, he still wasn’t ready to commit:
Because of the level of the rhetoric I want to decompress before I decide for whom I will vote. But I expect to reach a decision next week.
I don’t know which way McDonald is leaning, but I expect Obama to wrap this up over the next couple weeks as most of the remaining superdelegates announce their support.
I haven’t gotten my right-wing-talking points memo yet… Is it the obama people or the clinton people that don’t want the votes of the citizens in florida or michigan to count?
“Count every vote” is now replaced by “manufacture some votes.”
When did Dean Logan’s election rules become DNC orthodoxy?
The Piper
@1 It’s the Rove people who don’t want to count votes.
Memo to The Two Stooges @1 & 2 (the third one will show up any minute): In a normal world, there are penalties for breaking rules. Of course, Republicans don’t understand this.
@4…RR…
Penalties…right…like not having your delegation seated, which is what should have happened. The honyots in Michigan and Florida must originally be from Oklahoma – a bunch of Sooners!
Dems cave to pressure one more time! All the spine of a jellyfish…or a rabbit.
The Piper
Marvin @1,
Um… it’s the exact same penalty, a 50% reduction, that the GOP has imposed on Florida and Michigan for violating their rules.
Piper @2,
The DNC has a “fair reflection” rule, and it’s hard to argue that the Michigan results were a fair reflection of the will of the voters when only one candidate was on the ballot. (Though Harold Ickes tried.) Any allocation would be imperfect, given the circumstances.
Regarding Michigan — I agree that trying to guess how the vote would have come out in a fair election is problematic. However, Michigan’s election was so far from “fair” that its results should probably have just been thrown out altogether. (It doesn’t matter that Obama was the one who chose to take his name off the ballot — the fact that only one major candidate was on the ballot AND voters were told the election didn’t count means that the vote cannot be considered an accurate reflection of the will of the people by any stretch of the imagination.) And apparently there were some 30,000 write-in ballots, but no one knows who they were cast for?? What was the deal with that? Why weren’t those votes counted?
In the end, I’m guessing the 69-59 split isn’t too far from how a valid election would have turned out — it might even be overly generous to Sen. Clinton. (I’ve seen several analyses suggesting Michigan would have been close.) The problem, of course, was that a valid election was not held. So the “fairest” solution would have been to discount Michigan’s vote altogether. Instead, at least a few extra delegates were awarded to Clinton. So she shouldn’t complain.
Goldy @ 6, not sure what your first point is, Democrats only have to be as fair as Republicans? Actually, the net result was to cage more Democratic votes than Thor Hearne in his wildest dreams could have ever accomplished. Yeah, I know, I know, rules are rules, but you have to also consider the outcome of their application as well. I would have thought the right thing to do would have been to grant the waivers for both Michigan and Florida when they were originally requested, months ago.
I particularly didn’t like the interpretation of the “fair representation” rule as allowing consideration of things other than votes cast. By that same logic, one could as easily argue that the results of the caucuses in Washington should be adjusted by the results of the “beauty contest” primary as having been more fairly representative than the caucuses.
But all of this begs the point, which is that the party’s selection process is arbitrary and confusing to the point of being anti-democratic. It only serves to make the party elders feel good that they have somehow involved us, the unwashed and ignorant, in their process.
One part of this seems never mentioned. And of course, it’s now hindsight. If Michigan and Florida had just stayed with their original time table, they probably would have been significant events in the post “stupid” Tuesday elections. It might have all been over some months before noe :)
The crucial point was made by MacDonald:
The Michigan primary “election” was an literally meaningless exercise, in which the voters who cared to vote knowing that they would be picking no delegates did so, voting either for the only two of the then-current six (I think) Democratic candidates who had not withdrawn their names from the ballot. 40% of those who did bother voting voted for Uncommitted. Had this election occurred on an allowable date, with all candidates on the ballot, no one knows how it would have turned out. Because of this, awarding Hillary 73 delegates would have been rdiculous and illegitimate.
Similarly Florida’s “primary” in which some people chose to vote, and others chose not to, in an election they all knew damn good and well would not count.
Hillary is damn lucky that Barack Obama’s people persuaded the DNC to throw her a fucking bone, and still her people whine and whine. They should have split both states 50-50 so that their results would not affect the contest that took place in the legitimate primaries and caucuses.
They should have & could have rescheduled a Michigan & Florida vote looooooooooong ago.
Silly not to when they saw how close this was going to be.
The committee chose to accept the recommendation of the Michigan Democratic party in allocating their delegates’ votes. If I was on the committee, I probably would have done the same thing.
11 c
Uh, I know paying attention is not your long suit, but your response ignores the many attempts at working out logistics, funding, and other considerations in both states. For example, had you been watching yesterday’s committee meeting (sure you did) you would have heard Florida U.S. Representative Wexler explain that Florida has recently passed a law requiring a paper trail for electtronic voting machines, and the voting machines have been discarded in four counties while they wait for new ones. A proposal for a mail-in election was rejected by the Republicans in the legislaure.
“Should have” is a matter of opinion. “Could have” is a matter of fact, and, in Florida’s case, couldn’t have.
It’s a sad day for our party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH92E5vWrjk
Hillary can go to hell. Enough of her horseshit. Obama’s campaign played by the rules, had a comprehensive strategy that included caucus states, and has been consistent. The same cannot be said for Hillary’s campaign. Obama is a leader with good judgment. Hillary just desperately wants to win.
Daddy Love–
I understand your point about Florida….to some extent.
Funding however is something the Dems COULD tackle had they really wanted to.
I believe Wexman’s comments were “excuses”.
Since it is a DEMOCRATIC PARTY problem, why would they be bound by these “problems”.
Had they wanted to fund it and work out logistics, they could have.
It is a Democratic Party election…not a national or State election.
I really think it came down to the Dems not wanting to spend their own money solving their own problem!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like every other issue.
PJ O’Rourke pegged it when he said the easiest thing to do is spend other people’s money on stuff for YOUR benefit!
When they found out THEY would have to pay 100% of the Election Cost,,,,they began looking for a litany of excuses courtesy of Mr. Wexman.
16 Cyn
The name is Wexler, and the state of Florida’s voting machines is not an excuse, it is a fact. However, knowing your political orientation, I can understand why you wouldn’t let a fact get in the way of your opinion.
Yes, it is a Democratic Party problem. And the Party solved it by a vote of member representatives on the Rules Committee, after hearing from all of the stakeholders. Done. Didn’t need a revote.
I watched every minute of it.
They took that public meeting into a private backroom so the public could not hear what was going on. It was a travesty.
If that’s their best, they need to go.
Short of that, a good share of the 18M Clinton supporters will leave the party. That committee will be named in history books for decades to come in terms that will not show them as honorable or ethical.
The Rules & Bylaws committee broke more of their own rules than anyone they chose to punish. But, they are in on the Obama fix.