Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Obama: Working it out w/Michigan Dems

By

Michigan Dems to DNC: We’ll split the difference

The Michigan Democratic Party’s 80-member executive committee voted last night to go to the DNC with the delegate plan that Senator Carl Levin and three other state party heavyweights introduced last week: seat all 128 of the pledged delegates, giving 69 to Clinton and 59 to Obama – halfway between a 50/50 split and a straight allocation based on the January 15 primary.  Neither candidate campaigned in the state and Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot. All 29 superdelegates would also get full voting rights.

The Obama campaign sounded open to the arrangement, as long as they were still able to maintain the ability to minimize the  primary results. “It is clear results in January won’t be used to allocate delegates, and we agree with that decision,” spokesman Bill Burton told the AP. “We have been talking with Michigan leaders about this proposal and will continue to do so.”

The Clinton campaign did not respond, but their delegate counts — including the magic number necessary to win more than half of the overall delegates — have included Michigan and Florida at full strength. Last week, a spokesman responded to split-the-difference plan by saying, "The bottom line is that Michigan’s votes must be counted so that they have a voice in selecting our nominee."

A compromise like this is basically a recognition that Michigan’s popular votes aren’t legitimate.

-Snip

(h/t Ben Smith)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Perhaps now we might stop hearing the nonsense that Obama is trying to quell those states.
    Despite what Hillary supporters have trumpeted, Obama had not prevented their re-votes from going forward.
    This is just more proof that he is willing to work towards compromise, despite the pledge that both he and Hillary took, for the sake of the party.

    • Sources I read, such as the if-anything-pro-Obama TPM Election Central, were pretty clear that it was objections from the Obama camp that prevented previous MI solutions (like the firehouse primary) from going forward.

      • Does MI’s “Senate Dems” equal Obama’s camp?

        <

        p>

                                   ‘Do-over is dead‘ via Ben Smith

        The headline from MIRS, Michigan’s Hotline:

        Ding-Dong, Do-Over Primary Is Dead
        “Time of death for the do-over Michigan primary? Call it at about 11 a.m. today.”

        A Lansing insider IMs to explain:

        The Senate Dems just had a long caucus meeting following their long phone call with the Gang of Four [as Carl Levin and others pushing a re-vote are called], and the result is that no one moved. Votes aren’t there. Thus, it will not go to a vote in the Senate. And barring some other last minute miracle that doesn’t involve those four, the Governor, and Hillary traveling to Michigan, it is dead as a doornail.

        I tried to link to the MIRS:
        MIRS provides comprehensive news and analysis of state government delivered in written reports detailing the activities of the House, Senate, Judicial and Executive branches of Michigan state government.
        It is a subscription service, it seems.

      • No mention of the DNC, OR the Clinton campaign (unless Carville is authorized) agreeing to the solution proposed.
        All parties must agree, the MI DNC said. Any link for the other two parties involved?

      • I OWE BEN SMITH BIG TIME!
        http://dyn.politico.com/mainse…

        <

        p>Detroit’s county clerk against Michigan re-vote
        DNC, on the record for Michigan
        Another blow to Michigan revote

        <

        p>Maybe this led to Obama being assigned 100% of the blame:
        Obama won’t back Michigan

        In a memo, Obama’s lawyer, Bob Bauer, reiterates a series of technical, procedural concerns about the Michigan primary.

        Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative – questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.

        For the reasons discussed briefly below, there are such questions and they are serious both in nature and in their potential, if not likely, impact on the June election proposal.

        It’s a move short of flat opposition, but it’s likely to have the same effect: Michigan legislators – facing pressure from some Democratic leaders to approve a new vote, and facing a Hillary Clinton roadshow this morning – have said they want the support of both candidates.

        They don’t have it.

        If there’s small consolation for Clinton here, it’s that Obama can be blamed for scuttling the re-vote. But that’s pretty small consolation.

  2. Sources: Clinton supporter pressures Pelosi

    By Ed Henry
    CNN White House Correspondent

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — Hillary Clinton supporter Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut off contributions to congressional Democrats unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi embraced his plan to finance revotes in Florida and Michigan, three officials familiar with their conversation said.

    Sources say Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut contributions to congressional Democrats.

    Weinstein and Pelosi talked on the phone late last month, the sources said.

    The three officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the conversation.

    They said Weinstein, a top supporter of Clinton’s presidential campaign, appeared determined to buy Clinton more time in her battle against Sen. Barack Obama by pushing for the revote. He was also pressing Pelosi to back off her previous comments that superdelegates should support the candidate who’s leading in pledged delegates in early June, the sources said.

    Weinstein, a co-founder of Miramax Films who now runs the Weinstein Company, called CNN Thursday to vehemently deny that he issued any threats. “Never, ever was the thought about denying funding to Democrats,” he said.

    Weinstein said the phone call focused on his offer to put together a team of people to help finance a revote in Florida and Michigan. “I told her people felt there would be a disenfranchisement of voters” unless Democrats came up with a remedy, he said.
    -snip

    In March, 20 Clinton fundraisers scolded the speaker in a letter for her remarks on the superdelegate issue, hinting they might hold back funds for the DCCC if Pelosi did not allay their concerns. Weinstein was not among the fundraisers who signed the letter.

    “We have been strong supporters of the DCCC,” the fundraisers wrote to Pelosi. “We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.”

    Pelosi did not back down then either, and Democratic party officials hardly seem scared by any of the threats. The DCCC reported more than $44 million in cash-on-hand recently, far outpacing its rival, the National Republican Congressional Committee.
    -snip

  3. Use January results, but give all delegate slots elected as unpledged to Obama.  All votes for Clinton should be honored in appropriate proportion.

    • Even though it is a false metric, Clinton will try to use it.

      <

      p>I am wary of giving her any air whatsoever. Remember, we are talking about a Clinton. Ya know, the definition of what “is” is.

      <

      p>We won’t lose MI and we can work around FL by moving into TX, VA, CO, NM, OH, IN and KS. Not to mention SC, NC and the deep south where McSame will sweat it hard, if not lose across the board.

      <

      p>Speaking of FL, remember how in Bush v. Gore there was squaking about suppression of the black vote. Who here thinks Obama’s FL black vote will even be close to being “supressible.”

      <

      p>Keep the screws tight!

      • Yes, this is a Clinton we’re talking about her, which is a large part of why I support her.  Both states are swing and if I were a GOP operative I would salivate at the idea of telling voters that they don’t count to the Democrats.  She has every right to use whatever argument she wants, even if that means if one argument doesn’t work trying another.

    • What if a voter cast a ballot for “unpledged”, but voted in their heart for Edwards.

      <

      p>Is it fair for their vote to be cast to Obama arbitrarily. Should all of Edwards support, and all the other candidates other, then Clinton, be allocated to Obama across this whole process.

      <

      p>Where would that put the race? Ya, Hillary gets hers and Obama gets everyone elses!

      <

      p>Does that sound fair to you?

      • It will be interesting to see which way Edwards delegates go considering he apparently isn’t going to endorse.  If Edwards himself or any other candidate were still viable I would recommend splitting them somehow.  Other than Michigan, delegates for other candidates and unpledged delegates should vote their consciences, choosing between Obama and Clinton.

Archives