RBC Open Thread #2 - Michigan

by: Christine

Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EDT

Exit polls confirm that those voters were not 'uncommitted' but were committed to Obama and Edward.

Exit polls indicate that if the voters had a full ballot available, Clinton would have received 44%, Obama 36%, etc.

Write in votes are not counted for candidates unless the candidates give advance notification that they are candidates.  This is why we encouraged voters to vote 'uncommitted'

There were 30,000 invalid write-in ballots.  Those were probably cast for Sen Obama.  So a fair reflection must recognize that the 'uncommitted' was primarily for Obama.  The MDP proposal reflect what we believe to be the true Democratic preference in Michigan.  This is more fair than using the primary results.  

(there's that fair reflection thing)

12:44 - Flournoy - "You are saying that the votes in the primary are not valid, so we have to turn to exit polls, which we've shown in the last 2 elections have not been valid .. so why go there?"

Kamarck - "It is fairly clear in the rules that 'uncommitted' is a presidential preference.  We have many contests where 'uncommitted' has appeared on the ballot and it has broken threshold ... Uncommitted delegates are bound by no one and they get to make up their mind ... my problem is a willy nilly, arbitrary assignment of vote, when you had a contest between two options on the ballot that are recognized by the rules."

(I wrote that poorly, but that's basically what she said)

Brewer - "This is not the normal situation where you have a full compliment of candidates on the ballot .. every type of evidence suggest that those uncommitted votes were going for Obama, Richardson, or Edwards, so we believe it makes sense to assign them to Barack Obama."

Fowler - "On the one hand we have hard votes, and on the other hand, we want to discount those votes with exit polls.  If we could do that, John Kerry would be the President of the United States."

Bloggers' note - Fowler, don't be a tool.

Jumping

Dudes, I'm starting to get really irritated with these Alice in Wonderland references to Michigan.  

McDonald - "fair reflection rules ... and how do you read the language 'shall'"

Bloggers note - Oh sweet lord.  I remember fighting over the word "shall" when we were writing the charter for the student coalition at U of M.  I hated it then.  I hate it now.

12:54 - Ickes -

"It's my understanding that the 4 candidates in question voluntarily withdrew their names from the MI ballot.  No party rule required them to do that.  The DNC did not require them to do that.  The pledge that was entered into among the 4 early states and the 8 Presidential candidates made no mention that they withdraw their names.  That was a completely voluntary effort.  Some have said that candidates did that in order to curry favor with the likes of Iowa.  But in terms of the decision they made, there was nothing in the Michigan rules that required them to do that?"

Brewer - "..that's right, but my concern is not the candidates, but the voters, having their
will expressed"

(By the way, kind of a cheap shot on the "curry favor with the likes of Iowa .." But, whatever)

12:57 - Hynes ... "Alice in Wonderland ..."  

Bloggers note - arrgghh!!!

Hynes goes on - "voters who did not vote, and therefore we really have difficulty in knowing how many that is, and ... many of the people who did vote ... I think there are votes that Hillary Clinton received in the primary that went there because her opponent was uncommitted .. (duh) .. you've done a good job in trying to bring in these other factors .."

Brewer - "We have used exit polls in this committee to establish affirmative action goals.  If we can do that ..."

Coming up - Sen Carl Levin

1:04 - Carl Levin - the MDP has achieved unity, and we're asking you to support it.  The executive committee has overwhelmingly accepted the proposal before you, to do 2 things - 1) to seat all delegates ... the two candidates are unified on this issue, and the MDP support this position.  The MDP has reached a compromise on the allocation of the delegates, and it is imperfect.  There is no perfect way, but this is a fair way, this is a path forward.

If you don't seat our delegation in full, then you are going to introduce an element of DISUNITY.

If you can come up with a better allocation, go for it.  We've done our best.  ...

Levin -

"How did we get here? ... Michigan decided long ago, that we've got a totally irrational system of nominating our President.  We've got different rules, different states, trying to go first, but what has happened, consistently, is that Iowa and New Hampshire have taken a privileged role in deciding our nominee. ... so we fought to open the process ... so in 2004 we tried to open the process ... that commission worked for a year, and we came up with a system ... it was an historic, significant recommendation ... it was that the first caucus be in IA and the first primary in NH, but that there be an additional 1 or 2 first-tier caucuses between IA and NH.  NH voted no.  They wanted to maintain that privileged status of being right after IA. ... Some of us deeply object to it ... we don't believe that we are a party of privilege ... so this commission said .. insert 1 or 2 caucuses between IA and NH.  Michigan accepted it.  We praised it.  We applied to be 1 of the 4 early caucuses, we were not selected, and we accepted it.  NH did not accept it.  The NH SoS unilaterally announced they were going to jump ahead ... we tried to get the DNC to enforce the new rule, and we couldn't even get an answer to the question. "

"The commission concluded that IA and NH are not fully reflective of the nation ..."

"We decided we were not going to wait another decade or two, while one or two other states have decided that they have a God given right to a privileged status!"

"If the matter is not effectively resolved, then we urge you to ... seat a full MI delegation with full voting rights. ... If you 're going to have an open system here, if you're going to move in that direction the way you promises to move, then seat this delegation with full voting rights.

YES!

(Christine loves her some civil disobedience)

Brewer voted to penalize Florida?  What?

Levin again - "This rules committee adopted a rule with a sequence that was important to the process, and this committee acknowledged that.  That orderly process required the sequence to be changed, so that it wasn't always those 2 states that would go 1st and 2nd"

Germond (1:23) - "thank you .." blah blah jibber jabber "MI is difficult because not all the candidates were on the ballot .. while it is true that the DNC did not take their names off the ballot, since we had said the whole thing wouldn't count, why would we say that?"

(Can I insert the B word here?)

Ok, back to Germond - "we told the voters of MI that this event wasn't going to count ... help me with 69-59 ... yes we want to seat MI, yes we want MI at our convention."

(BFM also wants MI at the convention, so we have some people to sit with)

Levin - "We did our best."  (Dummy!)

I wonder if my laptop has crashed yet.  I'm using it to capture all this ...

Steed - "I'm concerned about precedents ... 1) in our charter we have, as a protected presidential preference, 'uncommitted'.  If we give credence to the primary that took place, we would be moving delegates from one group to another group ... 2) if there is a voluntary removal of a person from the ballot ... taking votes from one candidate to give to that person ... I'm worried about those two precedents."

Levin - we have reached a resolution that we think is fair.  Don't undo this formula unless there is a better one.  We did try to get another vote, but the legislature would not approve it.

Ickes - "a compromise to one person is not necessarily a compromise to another person ... the party is asking to take 4 delegates from HRC and give to Obama ... I find it stunning, that given the importance of fair reflection, why not take 10?  Take 20?  Just keep on going.  So, I am where you are on the full delegation and full votes .. but .. when you think about fair reflection and what it means to the history of this party ... I did not think that this committee has the jurisdiction to entertain this proposal as drafted"

Levin - "You're calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary ... what we're trying to do is to keep a party together so we can win a critical state in November."

(AMEN)

Levin (1:41) - "we're here as a reform group, and we're proud of that, by the way, we're proud that we tried something to get something other than these two states to go first."

(paraphrasing)

"We tried to get another primary and we couldn't."  

BN - Longwinded people are hard on my laptop ....

David Bonior -

"I am David Bonior and I jump on bandwagons as soon as I know what those bandwagons are and I now support Barack Obama proudly ... "

"In MI state law permitted candidates to keep their names off the ballot consistent with the determination of this committee.  ... Clinton told NH Public Radio that the MI primary would not count.  And she added that her name would stay on the ballot so as not to offend MI voters."

Note to Bonior, Obama should have done the same.  

Bonior .. African American voters supported Obama, blah blah ...

This is worse than Wexler.  Plus I'm mad at Bonior, so that doesn't help.  Sorry but I just hate the arrogance of demanding 50% of the votes of a state that you didn't even have your name on the ballot.  

"The delegates should be split evenly out of simple fairness."

Boo!!!  (Blogger's note)    

1:53 - Bonior - Obama was not responsible for blocking the re-vote.

(Blogger's note - Bah!)

"We are anxious to engage the people of the state of Michigan directly..."  

2:00pm - Smith - "We call MI a flawed primary .. because the candidates were not on the ballot .. and yet it's not a requirement of this committee, that their names were not on the ballot.  ... Why would a candidate ... withhold his name from the ballot?  ... Most people want to go vote their preference ... for [these people] to say that they aren't going to be on the ballot, I'm puzzled by it, and I'm deeply saddened by it ... as brilliant as you are for coming up with these different ways of deciding what the voters might have meant ... I am deeply troubled that the Democratic Party ... is thinking of overriding the actual outcome of a vote."

Bonior - "but ... but ... you said it wouldn't count."

(Ok, I kinda made that up ... but Bonior did say that everybody said it wouldn't count)

Reiley - "I can be convinced to revisit the seating of the delegation ... but I believe we have to respect the integrity of the vote."

Flournoy - help me with the numbers again?

Brewer interjects - lots of math

Flournoy -

"So, the Jan primary numbers have been used in your formula.  ... on the 50-50 and fair reflection ... the people who go into the voting booth .. expect that their vote is going to be respected .. what is being proposed here is that you go into a voting booth and at some point somewhere down the road, someone can decide that your vote goes somewhere else.  If we're going to do that, let's sit in this room and decide the delegates for 2012."

Oh thankfully we're on the next person.  Laptop weeps from hours of service to video xpress.

Governor Blanchard

Blanchard is presenting the case for the Clinton campaign.  

"Clinton took no position on whether [Michigan] should have a primary or caucus, or as to what the date should be.  4 other candidates took their names off the ballots. ... It doesn't make the election flawed.  In my opinion they had a flawed strategy.  ... 4 candidates did leave their names on the ballot. ... Neither the DNC rules, nor MI law, nor the pledge they all signed, required them to take their names off the ballot. ... There was an organized, vigorous, uncommitted campaign.  There was local media urging people to vote uncommitted. ... We would like our delegates seated on that ratio .. Our position is that you've got to honor the 600,000 voters of MI.  ... I can't explain to the people of MI ... that we're going to seat 48 states and PR and Guam, and not MI.  MI is a pivotal state.  Our party leaders have already been punished.  ... For very good reasons, our party leaders ... worked very hard to put MI in the forefront.  What is the future of manufacturing?  How do we get health care?  How do we protect the Great Lakes?  [etc] ... No advertising money, no tourism.  We've already been punished.  It makes no sense to punish the voters of MI because you think the party leaders were overly aggressive, however good their intentions.  ... I don't want my party and this committee of 2008 to be viewed like the Supreme Court of 2000.  Respect the voters of my state ..."

Blanchard - Clinton campaign supports delegation allocation based on primary results.  "I wouldn't call it flawed .. I think that's an unfair use of the word .. I think that a mistake was made in that the law was not identical to FL, that the candidates could not remove their name.  ... They could've left their name on the ballot and not campaign ... people followed this election ... people showed up to vote and they wanted their voices heard."

Hynes - "Hi, I'm a tool."  ... "Do you think the Democratic Party should have rules .. so that there is an orderly process?"

Blanchard - "I think you need a schedule, I think you've made a big mistake not rotating the schedule, I agree with Carl Levin. ... His argument is that you shouldn't let IA & NH have a lock on the nomination.  .. I agree we should have rules, I do not think you should have rules that disenfranchise voters."

Hynes - "I disagree that these rules disenfranchise voters ..."

Co-Chair tables

SD says it's sweet to be last.  "If you had it to do over again, would we be going through this?"

(I don't know the SD person's name, sorry)

Blanchard - "HRC took no position on primary or caucus, or WHEN.  ... I would have suggested, that they not allow candidates to remove their names from the ballot.  As far as MI going early, I tend to agree with Carl Levin."

Fowler - "..everybody from MI who has made a presentation, has suggested some allocation of the delegates contrary to how the votes were cast.  To do that is directly in violation of the charter of the Democratic Party."

Katz - "What are we going today for the 600,000 people who voted?  What I'm going to do is vote to give some of MI's delegates back ... the people who voted didn't do anything wrong .. however, I .. agree with Levin and Brewer .. this was a flawed primary for the reasons we discussed.  ... " We should not penalize candidates for not participating in a process that we said should not count.  "What happened in FL in 2000 is not equivalent to arguing over how many delegates are sent to the convention. ... That election was stolen ... what you have here is a dispute over how we allocate the votes."

Blanchard - "The principle of the right to vote is sacred ... and I don't think it's minimizing it to worry about that.  ... I also want to make the case that 600,000 people in MI should not be ignored, and the candidates who gave our state the courtesy and respect of leaving their names on the ballot should not be punished."

Martha Fuller-Clark - (2:43) - "I don't believe that the voters in MI who were told that this .. would not count .. should also be penalized for not voting. ... I think it's important that we acknowledge the 30,000 write-in votes ... "

Blanchard - "There should be a way to count write-in votes ... Brewer and Levin tried to get people to vote uncommitted."

Brazile - " .. do you believe that the petition by the MDP is fair?"

Blanchard - "The Clinton campaign had no representatives on the committee that came up with that formula.  I agree with Levin's characterization that it was an honest attempt to bring about unity. ... I don't want to disparage the effort that they made ... "

Brazile - "my momma always taught me to play by the rules, and to respect those rules, and my mother also taught me that when you decide to change the rules in the middle of the game and the end of the game, that is referred to as cheating.  So in that spirit, and the spirit of unity ... we come in the spirit of unity ... we also [should] pay tribute to those who might have written in, and those who might not have shown up because they thought their votes would not count ..."

(Jeeze is she campaigning for something?)

Blanchard - "Hillary Clinton went along with the rules.  She took no position ... she just said, whatever it is [in MI] we'll try to win it."

John Conyers is recognized by the committee.  Everybody stands up & cheers.  (And .. why isn't Bush impeached yet?)

Thank you all, break for lunch, let's go!  My laptop is dying!