« Michael Mukasey’s Disingenuously Dangerous Defense of the Bush Torture Regime
Move To Discredit McClellan For Anti-Bush Memoir Has Begun (UPDATED) »
Of nails and coffins at the Dem. rules committee
While many have been waiting with varying degrees of patience for the conclusion of the Democratic primary season next week, the true end may be crafted not in some far off primary voting booth but in a Washington, DC hotel this weekend. That’s where the rules committee will meet to decide the fate of the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Early indicators are not looking good for the Math Troopers in the Clinton campaign.
A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.
Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party’s legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.
Limiting the number of delegates to one half, in accordance with current party rules, will likely push the elusive nomination prize even further from the reach of Senator Hillary Clinton. Large scale protests outside of the hotel where the meeting will be held are already being planned. Most of these seem to be organized by Clinton supporters whose latest claim in a long series of benchmarks is that Senator Clinton is ahead on the popular vote count.
Having reviewed these claims myself, they seem to require some “new math” which may well involve bat wings and eye of newt. To reach the desired answer to this equation, a couple of assumptions are required. The first is that (while it’s vitally important to make sure every vote is counted) votes in caucus states do not count. Apparently the caucus process provides an inordinate advantage to black and/or male candidates while being unfair to white and/or female candidates. As a side note, you will get no argument from me that the caucus process, simply put, stinks. They range from “pretty bad” (as in Texas) to “outright egregious” (to wit, Iowa.) But I have long felt that they are unfair to voters, not individual candidates.
The second required assumption is that the vast number of Michigan voters (where Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot) who failed to vote for Hillary Clinton included either zero or less than one in ten who would have voted for Obama had the choice been available. Apparently Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were hugely popular there. (Who knew?)
In any event, assuming the anticipated protests don’t do anything to convince the rules committee to go against the advice of their lawyers, the Michigan/Florida debate may finally be drawing to a close – and, along with it, the Democratic nomination process. Regardless, it still seems likely that we should have our “final answer” (with a hat tip to “Who wants to be a millionaire“) in the next couple of weeks. With no elections left after next week, there should be little reason remaining to stop the superdelegates from trotting over to the Obama camp, finally putting this story to rest.
5 Responses to “Of nails and coffins at the Dem. rules committee”
Actually, according to the same rules, there will be no “final answer” until the superdelegates vote on the Convention Floor in Denver, as their “trotting over to the Obama camp” is not an analogue to pledged delegates, who are legally bound to vote as they were actually elected directly by the people. I doubt if Hillary will take a hint from a bunch of lightweights and second raters. Having worked in two national Dem presidential campaigns, I know how fickle and excitable the Dems are, and Hillary might win the nomination in '12 if Obama loses this year.
The superdelegates were selected by ninnies like Howard Dean. Teddy Kennedy went to the convention floor for a vote in '80 while still 700 delegates behind. It ain't over til it's over.
[...] her route to the nomination became more improbable, Jazz Shaw at the Moderate Voice says things are “not looking good” for the Clinton camp, and the Political Machine claims this is a “Clinton [...]
People keep bringing up Kennedy in 1980 in defense of Hillary. You do know how that ended, right?
Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early
No they don't. They mandate a 50% penalty for violating Rule 11.A, no more and no less. Yet that same rules committee earlier decided those rules didn't count and they would strip 100%, which is how we got to this point. And then decided not to enforce those same rules against the three out of four early states who themselves moved their primaries ahead of the dates allowed FOR THEM in Rule 11.A, thus ALSO violating Rule 11.A just as FL and MI did. Funny, ain't it?
The Rules Committee will do as it wishes (I predict they'll go with the traditional 50% penalty as originally listed in the rules, now that their ruling won't affect who has the lead) but the idea that they're bound by the original rules is freakin' hilarious. If they were bound by the original rules and not by their own fluctuating and arbitrary decisions, we wouldn't be here. If they were TRULY bound by the original rules, IA, SC, and NH would ALSO be getting whacked for 50% of their delegations for violating Rule 11.A, and we'd be having a different discussion.
The idea that this is about “the rules” as originally published is just plain fall-down funny. It's about the internal politics of the DNC, and always has been.
As for the uncommitted delegates from MI, they will vote as they wish. Their votes may be influenced by the MI state party, but the bottom line is that there is NO legal requirement for ANY delegate, pledged or unpledged, to vote for any given candidate. They are bound ONLY by their word, and nothing else. That too is explicitly spelled out in the the 2008 DNC Delegate Selection Rules. Until the first round of voting occurs, it really IS still an open race.
They're more loosely “tied” than are the Electors.
* * *
Why do a few want to avoid fussing and fighting? This should be settled at the convention. This convention is promising to be worth something, for once. The prospect of far-left agitators and opportunists in the streets makes this better still.