Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A question about that magic number
So we all know the Clinton campaign is trying to set the magic number at 2,209 or whatever instead of 2,205. My question is, do you think it's going to happen? The committee is to meet on MI and FL on May 31st, but does anyone know if they will get to determine then and there whether MI and FL will count in any manner. And if they do, will this not indeed affect the number of delegates needed to win, likely favoring Clinton?
This is not to stir any hate-mongering among the Obama people against Clinton, but to ask a legitimate question. What happens on May 31st, and does Clinton still have a chance in this sense?
Advertisement
Comments (23)
If the Rules and Bylaws Committee agrees to seat Florida and Michigan as is, they'll be disregarding their own rules and setting a slippery slope precedent. They'll also be agreeing to allow this fight to continue until August, the Democrats cannot afford a convention fight which is why you see more Clinton super delegates defecting to Obama's camp than the other way around. Even if they decided the magic number was 2,209 Obama would still be ahead of her in pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, and fund raising.
May 14, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure, but I don't think they have to make a decision immediately. Obama would of course like to get Hillary out of the race before settling the issue. But I've read that Hillary supporters are in the majority on the committee.
May 14, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but to my knowledge, Clinton has the committee stacked with at least half of its members being supporters of her. Now of course most of them will choose the party over her, but I can't help but think many of them will think it in the best interest of the party to try and include MI and FL in the nomination process in some manner. Perhaps this will be like the Republicans and they will give each state half of its delegates. Then, Obama's task would be a bit sloper giving Clinton more time to hold him off until the end of the primaries and make her case.
But yes, I certainly see your point. I don't think people want this to go on and hurt the party, regardless of who they support. However, I also think people want a shot at winning FL and MI for the Dems in November.
May 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post was in response to Spade, btw
May 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for putting that in your post!
(Lately reading here I have been reminded of Mike Myers' character Dieter on the old Saturday Night Live and his famous phrase "you have grown tiresome.")
May 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if they wew seated as is (which they are not going to be) she still has already lost.
May 14, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
wew = were
I am typing and proofing even worse than my pitifull norm today.
May 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry McAuliffe said this last weekend that he would not object to the DNC's seating the FL and MI delegations, but giving them all only half-votes. As Clinton's campaign manager, and a former DNC Chair himself, McAuliffe is uniquely positioned to understand both the party's prerogatives and what Clinton would settle for.
If Howard Dean took this suggestion, the new magic number would be neither 2025 nor 2209, but 2117.
You heard it here first.
May 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we're talking.
And I think the Clinton camp wants to do this so that several things may happen:
A) It will take longer for Obama to secure the nomination
B) Clinton will cut into his delegate lead somewhat
C) Everyone will go crazy about what to do with the popular vote count: at the very least, Florida will likely become an official part of the popular vote total.
All of these favor Clinton. Moreover, they can press this case while making Obama look bad if he continues to deny the seating of these delegates in any form.
May 14, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no 'Official' popular vote count.
May 14, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to give you all something to do here are the DNC rules for this election cycle.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf
May 14, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read th DNC rules I linked above, there does seem to be a bit of confusion between the rules and what has happened to MI and FL. My reading said they should be stripped of half their delegates not all. However, I only skimmed.
May 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to consider the four-state primary agreement that each candidate signed--which says that "I, ____________, will not campaign or participate in any primary that is moved ahead of...
The word "participate" is not talked about. Taking one's name off the ballot is adhering to the rules. Right?
May 14, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that. Relevant citation, from page 20:
"Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation."
If I'm reading this right, FL and MI pledged delegates would get 1/2 vote each, and the FL and superdelegates would still lose their votes entirely.
The new magic number would be something very close to 2095.
May 14, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic National Commitee voted to strip Florida and Michigan of all its delegates in 2007, after the two states scheduled early primaries.
This decision was made specifically to exact a harsher punishment for the states that chose to move their primaries early.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/01/AR2007120100722.html
May 14, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry McAuliffe doesn't care about the delegates from FL and MI.
Nor does Hillary, or anyone from the Clinton campaign.
They want the DNC to legitimize the FL and MI primaries and, in so doing, they can add to their pop. vote claim.
Of course, this is only my opinion. I continue to believe that the DNC should uphold its original rules--that the results of those two primaries remain null and void.
The candidate with the most delegates from all the other states that followed the rules is the legitimate winner of the primary.
(Aren't there enough pledged and super delegates for one candidate to reach 2025 this way?)
FL and MI have only broken primary rules, so those delegates can be seated at the convention and be included in the GE.
Unless they break the GE rules. Which is a possibility if they aren't sanctioned for breaking the primary rules.
May 14, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto makes a good point when he says that the Committee doesn't have to make a decision right away. Chances are, they'll dither until the primary season is over and the results are obvious, then halve Florida and Michigan's numbers because fair-minded people know that they shouldn't be seated as is, and we'll have a nominee before July.
May 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and because those appear to be the rules. (See above.)
May 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC rule that is being quoted (about delegations being cut in half) appears to be a "standing" regulation, on the books as of August 2006.
I haven't looked it up, but my take is that when various states started jockeying last year to be first in line, the DNC took an even harder stance, warning states about to jump the gun that they faced even stiffer penalties -- a complete loss of delegates.
Note that even the "half-delegate" rule also specifies that none of the state's superdelegates are to be seated; you can bet that will be a key point in the March 31 discussions.
Incidentally, Donna Brazile told CNN last night that meeting would be an open one; she invited the network to televise it.
I find that hard to believe, unless it's expected a deal will have been hashed out beforehand.
May 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as an aside, I believe the official magic number is now actually 2,026 due to an extra super-delegate being added to the mix.
To answer the question, however, I'd give it about a 10-20% chance of getting bumped up to where the Clinton campaign wants it, and about a 30% chance of it getting bumped up half-way—i.e., about a 40-50% chance of it getting bumped up half-way to that point or higher.
May 14, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the ideal scenario is for the magic number to remain where it is -- 2025-6 -- until the nominee is settled. Once Obama (the preumptive) is named, the MI and FL delegation will be returned from purgatory with whatever penalty is applied after there is a nominee so there will be no change in the rules under which the campaign has been conducted.
just learned Edwards will endorse vi Chicago Trib alerts... YAY!
May 14, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, that seems like a terrible undemocratic way of doing things. "Sure, your votes will count in some manner, but not until after the game is over."
I somehow doubt the party leaders would be that stupid. Or would they?
May 14, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
He will be ahead by either count so they matter or they don't. Just as much as any similar sized groupe of delegates.
May 14, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment