Mavs<Spurs
05-16-2008, 01:35 PM
.
Nedra Pickler on Florida/Michigan
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/May/16/florida__michigan_delegates_cannot_save_clinton.ht ml
In this article, Nedra Pickler (Nedra’s article is located at www.realclearpolitics.com) makes several points that I find interesting and important. I posted a number of these points myself in the last week or two. I know that I have been posting often about Florida/Michigan and 2208 recently. However, the reason is clear.
More delegates are at stake in the resolution of the Florida/Michigan controversy than all the other remaining contests combined. While even if Florida/Michigan delegates are fully seated at the Convention, we probably still win. Her chances become much better in a sense. I would give her a 1 in 8 chance of winning if Florida/Michigan delegates are fully seated according to the original election. This is considerably better than zero. If your opponent has essentially a zero chance of winning (as she does now), then why elevate her chances to one in eight?
“It's also possible that any vote that recognizes the Michigan and Florida results would legitimize their elections.” Some of you will remember that I warned our Obama posters that this is a possible outcome. And some of you may have read my posts in the last 24 hours which include popular vote projections. All of my projections which include Florida yield a Clinton victory in the popular vote.
“It has to be a fair process for both candidates," said member Yvonne Gates, an Obama supporter from Nevada who said she wasn't sure what position she would support at the meeting. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other. In my opinion that wasn't an election when they didn't have a chance to get out and talk to the people of that community." “I posted this as well. Splitting up the delegates in any other way implies that she would have won the elections even if they had been contested. It also implies that the results of that “election” were legitimate.
“Because Obama is in the lead for the nomination, his camp heads into the meeting in a position of strength. It is possible the Illinois senator could clinch the nomination by the time the panel meets if he picks up the pace of superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks. “I do not remember stating this. To me, the math looks a bit more daunting here.
“But Obama has such a lead that he may be able to afford to be generous and give Clinton most of the delegates. That would help put the issue behind them and help him build good will in Michigan and Florida heading into the November election.” The first sentence directly follows from my projected total delegates final tally which I posted yesterday. Old NJ Dem (a fellow Obama supporter) stated this earlier than I did. However, it does seem improve Clinton’s chances and gives her life. I find any move that gives her life a mistake.
If their elections had been held according to party rules, Michigan and Florida would have allocated a total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of the vote. Using the results of the January elections, Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a 111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180 delegates, so that would not catch her up even under that unlikely scenario. Giving up 111 delegate votes is a bad idea when it cuts your lead by about 80%! Additionally, she is certain to take away the lion’s share of the remaining pledged delegates, as all honest people will admit. My projected final vote tally leaves her with an advantage of 75.5 pledged delegates after June 3.
“An open question is how to handle the other type of delegates each state lost — the superdelegates who are party leaders not bound by the outcome of the vote and are free to support whatever candidate they personally choose. Michigan has 28 superdelegates, and Florida 25. A total of eight have declared for Obama, seven for Clinton and the rest are undeclared.” This would introduce 38 more undeclared Superdelegates into the Equation. Since they are free to do what they will, it exposes us to more unnecessary danger if we dod so.
“Many are long-standing party officials with close ties to the Clintons. The former first lady has 13 members publicly supporting her, including campaign advisers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy who are working to build her delegate count. Eight are openly aligned with Obama. Nine others are officially undeclared.”
This refers to the rules committee which has 30 people. Gigi (another fellow Obama supporter) and I both wrote about this committee. She has a valid point: most of these people like the Clintons. So, did I. Most of these people are undeclared or support Obama. Furthermore, liking the Clintons is not equivalent to supporting them politically. Also, supporting them politically is not equivalent to pushing their positions in the rules committee. Finally, given their place on the rules committee, they will want to appear to follow the rules. This favors Obama. The results of this can be appealed to two larger bodies both of which favor Obama. However, those appeals could take place as late as August.
The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, a 30-member panel charged with interpreting and enforcing party rules, is scheduled to meet May 31 to consider how to handle Michigan and Florida's 366 delegates. Unfortunately, this date is inconvenient. I would rather have this meeting after June 3 for obvious reasons: all the contests would be over and few Clinton supporters would have the stomach or rationale for voting for her positions in this committee.
:lobt:
This article substantiates many of my recent posts regarding Florida and Michigan. It also shows that the positions I took have a sound basis in fact.
Nedra Pickler on Florida/Michigan
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/May/16/florida__michigan_delegates_cannot_save_clinton.ht ml
In this article, Nedra Pickler (Nedra’s article is located at www.realclearpolitics.com) makes several points that I find interesting and important. I posted a number of these points myself in the last week or two. I know that I have been posting often about Florida/Michigan and 2208 recently. However, the reason is clear.
More delegates are at stake in the resolution of the Florida/Michigan controversy than all the other remaining contests combined. While even if Florida/Michigan delegates are fully seated at the Convention, we probably still win. Her chances become much better in a sense. I would give her a 1 in 8 chance of winning if Florida/Michigan delegates are fully seated according to the original election. This is considerably better than zero. If your opponent has essentially a zero chance of winning (as she does now), then why elevate her chances to one in eight?
“It's also possible that any vote that recognizes the Michigan and Florida results would legitimize their elections.” Some of you will remember that I warned our Obama posters that this is a possible outcome. And some of you may have read my posts in the last 24 hours which include popular vote projections. All of my projections which include Florida yield a Clinton victory in the popular vote.
“It has to be a fair process for both candidates," said member Yvonne Gates, an Obama supporter from Nevada who said she wasn't sure what position she would support at the meeting. "My definition is a 50-50 split is something that is fair. It cannot be a situation where you give one candidate more votes than the other. In my opinion that wasn't an election when they didn't have a chance to get out and talk to the people of that community." “I posted this as well. Splitting up the delegates in any other way implies that she would have won the elections even if they had been contested. It also implies that the results of that “election” were legitimate.
“Because Obama is in the lead for the nomination, his camp heads into the meeting in a position of strength. It is possible the Illinois senator could clinch the nomination by the time the panel meets if he picks up the pace of superdelegate endorsements in the next two weeks. “I do not remember stating this. To me, the math looks a bit more daunting here.
“But Obama has such a lead that he may be able to afford to be generous and give Clinton most of the delegates. That would help put the issue behind them and help him build good will in Michigan and Florida heading into the November election.” The first sentence directly follows from my projected total delegates final tally which I posted yesterday. Old NJ Dem (a fellow Obama supporter) stated this earlier than I did. However, it does seem improve Clinton’s chances and gives her life. I find any move that gives her life a mistake.
If their elections had been held according to party rules, Michigan and Florida would have allocated a total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of the vote. Using the results of the January elections, Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a 111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180 delegates, so that would not catch her up even under that unlikely scenario. Giving up 111 delegate votes is a bad idea when it cuts your lead by about 80%! Additionally, she is certain to take away the lion’s share of the remaining pledged delegates, as all honest people will admit. My projected final vote tally leaves her with an advantage of 75.5 pledged delegates after June 3.
“An open question is how to handle the other type of delegates each state lost — the superdelegates who are party leaders not bound by the outcome of the vote and are free to support whatever candidate they personally choose. Michigan has 28 superdelegates, and Florida 25. A total of eight have declared for Obama, seven for Clinton and the rest are undeclared.” This would introduce 38 more undeclared Superdelegates into the Equation. Since they are free to do what they will, it exposes us to more unnecessary danger if we dod so.
“Many are long-standing party officials with close ties to the Clintons. The former first lady has 13 members publicly supporting her, including campaign advisers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy who are working to build her delegate count. Eight are openly aligned with Obama. Nine others are officially undeclared.”
This refers to the rules committee which has 30 people. Gigi (another fellow Obama supporter) and I both wrote about this committee. She has a valid point: most of these people like the Clintons. So, did I. Most of these people are undeclared or support Obama. Furthermore, liking the Clintons is not equivalent to supporting them politically. Also, supporting them politically is not equivalent to pushing their positions in the rules committee. Finally, given their place on the rules committee, they will want to appear to follow the rules. This favors Obama. The results of this can be appealed to two larger bodies both of which favor Obama. However, those appeals could take place as late as August.
The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, a 30-member panel charged with interpreting and enforcing party rules, is scheduled to meet May 31 to consider how to handle Michigan and Florida's 366 delegates. Unfortunately, this date is inconvenient. I would rather have this meeting after June 3 for obvious reasons: all the contests would be over and few Clinton supporters would have the stomach or rationale for voting for her positions in this committee.
:lobt:
This article substantiates many of my recent posts regarding Florida and Michigan. It also shows that the positions I took have a sound basis in fact.