Michigan's 69-59 proposal

Posted: Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:46 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats

From NBC's Mark Murray
For the past hour, Michigan's representatives here at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee have offered this proposal: seat its delegation in full, with full voting rights, with a 69-59 Clinton-Obama split of its 128 pledged delegates.

State party chairman Mark Brewer said the proposal was based upon the primary (in which Clinton got 55% of the vote and "Uncommitted" got 40%), exit polls (which showed the support breaking Clinton 46%, Obama 37%), and write-in ballots for Obama (which weren't accepted).

"There is a fair way, there is a reasonable way," noted Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who followed Brewer. "It is a fair path forward.

But both men faced tough questions, especially from Clinton supporters on the panel, who want the January 15 primary to reflect the delegate split. Clinton supporter Tina Flournoy asked why exit polls were being used when they've proven unreliable in the past. Brewer responded, "Because you had an incomplete ballot, which didn’t give us a true reflection" of voter preference.

Elaine Kamarck, another Hillary backer, pointed out that "Uncommitted" has been a preference in past Democratic contests, and that it was problematic awarding those delegates to a candidate who wasn't on the ballot. Brewer answered that this was a "unique and extraordinary" situation. Every bit of evidence in Michigan, he added, was that those uncommitted votes were for either Obama or Edwards.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Has anyone answered the question of how Senator Obama can receive any delegates seeing he didn't get any votes?

Wanna Know (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:54 PM)

So, Clinton supporters don't want to seat any non-committed delegates ergo disenfranchising voters for Obama because it is based on exit polls.

Will these same Clinton supports then renounce and condemn Clinton's surrogates in her campaign when they cite exit poll data to try and prove that Clinton is more electable than Obama? By the way, does Camp Clinton know that Obama now polls 13% ahead of her in California, a state SHE won and says that he can't win in the GE but she could?

Kudos to Bob Wexler....keep kicking around Ickes like a soccer ball!

Women for Obama.

Lana, California (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:58 PM)

Well, well, well. Now we're just down to the committee making things up as they go along. Or, did they find some rule in that little book of theirs that lets them do this, kind of like with 'Abortion is in the Constitution'? Listen, just do what the Republicans do. Count the votes, declare a winner, and move on.

Roemary Watkins, Greendale WI (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:58 PM)

How dare clinton supporters demand every vote in Michigan! She was the only name on the ballot! What happened to her fake empassiioned please for democracy?

Bobbi, Eau Claire, WI (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:00 PM)

How dare clinton supporters demand every vote in Michigan! She was the only name on the ballot! What happened to her fake empassiioned please for democracy?

Bobbi, Eau Claire, WI (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:00 PM)

It really sounds like the Clinton supporters want to continue this until the Convention.

Good grief Charley Brown!

Mighty Blogger, Seattle, Wash (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:00 PM)

Wow...Hillary has a winner in Mr Ickes, doesn't she? After googling "fair reflection", I now understand why he didn't answer Mr. Wexler's question. Because then the American public (that would be us the voters) would really understand the machinations of her campaign. A 49 year old, hard working white woman who wants to rescind her Hillary vote.

Flabbergasted in the Heartland (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:02 PM)

So far it sounds like one candidate is willing to compromise and the other isn't. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Pat - Seattle (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:03 PM)

Pipe dreams ...and unpresidented...
exit polls data
who, where, when???

Let the rules stand and end of this bleeding heart crap

BJ, CA (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:03 PM)

Originally Clinton said her name would be removed from Michigan's ballot but then later said she'd missed the deadline by one day to remove it. If I remember correctly, she, Obama, Edwards, Todd,and others all MUTUALLY agreed to withdrawal their names! It seems really unfair that her underhandedness could net her anything!

Jeri McEwen, Hummelstown PA (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:03 PM)

I'm at rather a loss to understand, or continue my association with, a party that would in any way penalize a candidate for deferring to, and abiding by, the rules of the Rules and Bylaws committee of said party. I am dismayed, but not surprised, that Harold Ickes took that tack that Barack Obama should in some way be penalized for removing his name from the ballot, and for not participating in the delegate selection process. To insinuate that apportioning the uncommitted delegates to Obama in some way "disenfranchises" the "uncommitted" "candidate", is ludicrous and obviously contrived. To further state that the committee has no jurisdiction to do so is again monumentally idiotic. As partisan as he is behaving, I don't really see how there is a reasonable expectation that this TOP adviser to the Clinton campaign would not be in a place to affect the decision in a malevolent way.

And please, MSNBC, LET US HEAR THE TESTIMONY. We want to hear the testimony of the representatives and THEN your analysis. We would rather not hear your analysis INSTEAD of the testimony. Otherwise, great job as always!

Mark, Northern MI (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:04 PM)

Michigan's votes for uncommitted should be counted and go to uncommitted delegates. They can be seated at the convention in Denver and cast their ballots for the candidate of their choice then and there.

Steve, California (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:06 PM)

Hillary's toadies on the RBC, have the temerity to pontificate that Michigan's rogue, and undemocratic polling results, should stand, if we are to be fair to Hillary the Cheater turned Stalker.

But for the delicate situation we are in, regarding our need to unify, (yesterday for heaven's sake), I would love to see somebody step up, and give these unreasonable shills a good smacking down.

donna (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:07 PM)

PLEASE DO NOT INTERRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS - THERE IS ALL TIME LATER TO LISTEN TO THE ANALYSTS
Switched to CNN- Thanks!

LP, Maryland (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:07 PM)

I've noticed how Harold Ickes is in campaign mode and trying to get everything for his candidate while giving nothing to Obama. I don't care if the Michigan split in delegates is 69-59 or 73-55, either would work for me. As long as this committee can achieve a decision today with a fair compromise for each candidate then this will be a good day for our party and a great object lesson in democracy that we can show the whole country and world.

Let's hope we celebrate not only a good decision today by this committee but also a perfect launch of the space shuttle Discovery!

Go Discovery!
Go Obama 08/12!

Eric, Salinas, CA (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:08 PM)

Pffft. If FL will take full delegates but half vote and at least Sen. Obama was on the ballot, pretty nervy that MI wants full and he wasn't even on the ballot??
Halfsies or 50/50 full.

Deborah Greenlawn, NY (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:09 PM)

How does one go about letting Rev. Sharpton know of one's desire to be part of his suit on behalf of Florida voters? I did not change my registration to Democrat because Hillary and the DNC said our votes would not be counted. Obama 08

reinadelaz (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:10 PM)

how is it that all the biased individuals (for both sides) are allowed to participate? ITs absolutely absurd.

The real question that has not been asked, Why are you such cowards that you cannot stand by your decision to disavow the vote? IT is really the cowardice of the board that is at issue.

jdb133 (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:13 PM)

I hope the Hillary Supporters remember that there are 'Other' people who 'DO NOT' support their candidate.

The rabid support of some of you seems to discount the fact that the there are those who disagree with you.

WW, NJ (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:13 PM)

Since Ickes, Flournoy, Kamarck and Joyner seem to only care about what's good for Hillary Clinton, Lets hope the other 26 members of the committe can stop and realize that the State of MI itself is offering a compromise to seat its delegates.

It's funny how the Clinton camp has been going on and on about seating the MI and FL delegates but reject the plans of the People themselves. Wake up MI and FL this isn't about you! It's about Hillary Clinton, you're being manipulated and used. They won't be happy unless they get everything they want, and they'll keep throwing rocks at the beehive until they get their way.

Lets try logic for a change. But honestly from the responses of the Clinton 4 it really makes me wonder if this committee meeting is just a puppet show. Why bother with the fake presentation of cases and oral arguments if your minds are already made up? Make a decision and make it public and then live with the consequences.

This is a complex situation that obviously requires some kind of compromise, but the Clinton camp keeps acting as if it is a democratic principle with only one correct solution (convenient that it is the one that benefits her the most).

Virtus, Albany NY (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:13 PM)

Tina and Elaine, way to fight for your candidate.
But in the end, let's be fair. After all, if you were on the other team, you'd be arguing that it's totally unfair (and some on this blog would say sexist. Cue Geraldine Ferraro).

But somewhere in between those two is the right answer and let's hope you folks get this figured out in the next couple of hours.

Roofin Reality, Houston, Tx. (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:14 PM)

Great. A solution that makes Michigan happy and p**ses off Clinton folks, who come off looking greedy and unreasonable. No longer can they claim to be "standing up" for Michigan Democrats - their motives are now completely transparent.

Walt, San Antonio TX (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:15 PM)

I have one question for the Clinton supporters, and I'm sure that you have a valid answer. I really would appreciate your honest answers and feedback on this. Why didn't Senator Clinton raise this as an issue when it actually happened months ago? (Ok, three questions).....and what ABOUT caucus states? Why don't "every one" of those votes count? Please, any of you, PLEASE explain. I'm trying hard to understand. I'm serious. I really want to know your thoughts. Thanks

GardenParty, NC (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:16 PM)

Hartina Flournoy just said that deciding the delegates, and not going strictly by the vote, was unfair. It was saying to a voter that someone else could decide how to count your vote. I wish the speaker would have told her that the voters were already told their votes didn't count! Let's use her argument to say none of the votes should count then, that's it, done!

Jeri McEwen (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:17 PM)

Mark. Please comment on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/the-trap-clintons-briarpa_b_104198.html

Terry, IN (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:18 PM)

why are we not able to watch the live coverage of the democratic committee meeting on florida and michigan?? it says all over the nbc website 'watch live coverage' and then the video says 'due to restrictions we are unable to provide this video'. is there a reason for this? will we not be able to watch now? i am living abroad so i can not watch it on normal tv.

julie larsen, zurich switzerland (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:19 PM)

It is worth noting that whether the committee adopts the Levin proposal or whether they seat in accordance with the primary (but with 50% power) makes very little difference. Hilary nets either 10 (Levin proposal) or 9 (seat all at 50%) delegates.

Geoff in Brooklyn (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:19 PM)

The Democrats are so cavalier with their peoples votes. Just like they are with their tax money.

Rodney Thomas (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:19 PM)

The Hillary supporters who are trying to cite precedence re: uncommitted votes staying as uncommitteds need to cede the fact that (I'd wager) there was NO OTHER circumstance in which a full range of voting options was not reflected. If everyone is on the ballot, then, yes, uncommitteds can be apportioned according to the fair reflection concept. There is no way to do that when only Hillary is on the ballot. If you want to do some extrapolation of the fair reflection concept, you'd have to note that 40% of the voting populace went out of their way, when told their votes wouldn't count, to vote AGAINST Hillary and by that understanding are not likely to want her to gain everything from MI and Obama (or even Edwards and Obama) gains nothing. It's not realistic, it's not democratic and it's disingenuous to suggest that those 40% of voters really wanted to choose uncommitted as opposed to a non-Clinton name which did not appear.

Dr B, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:21 PM)

Why do all of the pundits continue to state that Senator Clinton won MI. I just read another AP article on MSN's website reiterating that point. Is the truth just too complicated to explain. No wonder Americans believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that we would be treated as liberators, that Bush shares their values, that Republicans are stronger on issues of defense, that Clinton is the friend of working class Americans, that Obama is a muslim.
Is this what a free press looks like. If so I'm not sure its worth fighting for. Maybe they should hire some elitists aka wee-educated people who are capable and comfortable talking truthfully about nuanced issues rather than writing tabloid-like pieces.

Stacey (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:22 PM)

I've enjoyed watching every one. The thing that disturbs me most is that the committee takes little responsibilty for this mess. Voters and candidates thought the rules were fixed, they proceeded on that asumption. Now the commitee is acting like...we didn't tell anyone to stay home...and we didn't tell anyone to not put their name on the ballot. They want to throw the blame back on the voters and candidates instead of assuming responsibility for what they did. I suspect they are going to give Clinton everything she wants.

Bonnie, Ut (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:22 PM)

I LIVE IN MICHIGAN.THERE IS NO FAIR WAY TO SEAT OUR DELEGATES EXCEPT TO SPLIT THEM 50/50.WHEN ALL THE CANDIDATES WERE NOT ON THE BALLOT AND ONLY 7% OF THE STATE DEMOCRATICS SHOWED UP TO VOTE HOW IN THE WORLD CAN ANYONE IN THERE RIGHT MIND CALL IT A LEGAL PRIMARY?

RENEA,PLYMOUTH,MI (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:22 PM)

Chuck's been watching and telling us about that large,
ticking bomb of supers in CALIFORNIA, right?
We all know how Nancy Pelosi (CA) feels about all of this.
Think it will detonate any time really soon?

Deborah Greenlawn, NY (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:23 PM)

Hilary's people are smart but as usual unreasonable.
There was no allowed primary. Hillary agreed with the original. They are saying now it makes a different whether there were names on the ballot. It makes no difference. There is absolutly no way to change rules after the fact and makes absolutely no difference what the results were. The determination based on the outcome of the primary should make no differnce. There was no primary and I guess no legal primary if they agreed as they did that it would not count. I was wondering if there were written agreements signed by the canidates that it would not count. Nothing matters since ther was no primary. IT matters not how any voter voted. There was no primary agreed by all.
Mute points by the Clintons. And to go back and not regconize caucus's. Try in 2012 to change all this!!
Now if the DNC wants to now forgive and seat delegates, then I believe they can, But the rules and understandings of the original primary were clear to all and agreed by all.
THERE IS ONLY ONE FAIR WAY NOW AND THE MICHIGAN DELEGATION SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR EVEN BEING SEATED AFTER THEY IGNORED THE RULES. There could have been a legimate primary if Michigan had respected the DNC.
Seat 100% but only one fair way. 50%-50%

L Brown (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:26 PM)

It is very seeze that the Clinton campiagn wont to sit Michigan delegates 73/52. The fair way to honor Mich. delegates is 50/50 because as Sen.Levin stated, "the process was flawed.

Can someone please explan to me why Harold Ickes gets to question the repesentatives that are representing each canidate?

Linda, AR (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:27 PM)

It make sense to me that since Barrack Obama's name was not on the ballot and he follow the rules and Michigan knew that they would be punish for moving their primary, how can they now even suggest that all delegates should be seated with a split of 69/59 favoring Clinton. It should be an even split if any. If not, where is the punishment what president is this to be setting for future Primaries. Maybe every state can choose to move their primary whenever they like.

Waverlye , Clinton Maryland (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:28 PM)

A decision was made that if a "vote" were held prior to February 5th in either Michigan or Florida, the result of that voting "event" WOULD NOT COUNT in the determination of the Democratic nominee for President. That decision, and the resulting reality that neither the delegates from Michigan or Florida will be seated at the Democratic National Convention, (and however much the voters of either State may feel disenfranchised by the decision of the DNC) should stand COMPLETELY, with no attempt to undo or redo or reguess, or whatever you want to call the fiasco that is now unfolding in front of a national audience,be pursued IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

Agonizing over "how to make sure the voters of both states are recognized, honored and respected" is now a mute issue, and a misshapened attempt to "undo the past", an effort that will surely result in greater, not less, division in the Democratic Party. The decision has been made, one made in clear violation of the clear rules of the DNC, that neither "event" would count should a 'vote" be held prior to February 5. That decision should be final - simple.

Bill Humphreys (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:28 PM)

Wow, the DNC makes up its rules, then decides not to apply them in order to set a precedent for future presidential elections. The DNC is like an irresponsible father that makes up rules but doesn't apply them. I don't think Florida or Michigan delegates should be seated when everyone knew the vote was bogus. Shame on the DNC for making up rules and changing them. That's like playing a game of Monopoly and then changing the rules in the middle of the game. You can't enfranchise voters who participated in primaries and who didn't follow the rules. I guess the DNC believes in democracy without rules. The only people who profit from this sideshow are the Clinton supporters.

Raphael, Lawrenceville, VA (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:29 PM)

I think its a fair solution especially one that will allow us to move on to Democratic unity.

patrick,califorina (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:31 PM)

Just watching the comments from the Clinton camp so far. And I'm wondering how Hillary Clinton is going to have a political career after this. Her surrogates have parsed so many excuses, technicalities, and emotional pleas that are clearly directed at her passionate base.

She's not going to get the nomination for President, and she's burning every bridge in the process. What little clout she had in the Senate will be gone after this. This leaves her two choices: 1) Labor quietly in the Senate for many years hoping to rebuild credibility--which doesn't sound like her style. Or 2) Leave the Senate and claim it was part of her plan all along.

Either way, her position as a major player in national politics is over after this.

If any Clinton supporters disagree, please feel free to generously use exclaimation points and ALL CAPS in your rebuttal.

Mark, Seattle (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:32 PM)

The hillary logic disenfranchises all of the dem voters in Michigan who did not support Hillary....Her supporters should be ashamed to be so brazen

Robin, Detroit, Mi (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:32 PM)

Of additional note related to FL. Should all 14% of the Edwars Delegates vote Obama HRC's gain is 5 or 6 delegates out of FL after halving the total.

JDB133 (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:37 PM)

Exit polls have not been shown to be unreliable in the past. They are used world-wide to judge the fairness of elections. The people of the Ukraine protested a stolen election, based on exit poll information, until the government fell. The fact that the Bush-supporting computers in Ohio in 2004 and the cheating in Florida in 2000 led to results different from the exit polls doesn't mean the polls were flawed ... it is more likely that the election results were flawed. There is no survey question more easily answered accurately than, who did you just vote for for President? Karl Rove is a criminal genius ... when the exit polls showed Bush losing Florida while brother Jeb was delivering the state through cheating, Rove used it to beat the networks into submission and they have since hesitated to report exit polls that vary from the reported vote,setting the stage for their theft of the 2004 election. Brilliant.

40 years in the DemNPL (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:38 PM)

These Clinton supporters are laughable human beings. As a MI resident who couldn't vote for my candidate (Edwards, at the time), how dare they suggest "all votes be counted".

What about MY vote, you selfish twits? All Clinton wants to count is the votes for her, which she agreed last fall would be discounted as part of the penalty.

What a horrible human being she is, and what a waste of space on this planet her so-called supporters are: Republicans in disguise.

John S., Dansville, MI (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:40 PM)

Changing the rules in the fourth quarter after the two minute warning is far from "fair" no matter how you slice it. And, despite the sunny disposition of some, unifying the democratic party is a dream at this point.

I only hope that you democrats follow the advice of the DNC and get it together as best you can and very soon. This endless and useless bickering has to stop because you are losing us independent voters that you tried so hard to win over.

By the way, I went through a 4-hour democratic caucus process to cast my vote in February...but apparently caucus state voters don't matter in this primary, only Florida and Michigan voters, so it's a mute point.

Marty, Idaho (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:45 PM)

Can someone tell me why MSNBC keeps saying that Clinton will be ahead in the popular vote after all this wraps up? Doesn't that mean we would be excluding or "disenfranchising" the Caucus states?

CC, Seattle, WA. (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:46 PM)

Sounds like only 50% of the delegation will be seated in MI. Hope so!

Obama for President (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:47 PM)

Clinton supporters are again disillusioned by power. They have no regard for what is fair overall. Anything other than not seating any delegates from Michigan is right! The rules are the rules. Now, who cares what the DNC says. They are all bark and no bite.

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton had agreed to take her name off the ballot initially then changed her mind, to be the only name on the ballot and get more votes. These people want to rule the country!!! Can people honestly say that people that would say ANYTHING or do ANYTHING should be in such a position?

I wouldn't give her anything! She is tenacious but so are roaches. I don't want to share anything with them either.

Stephanye Houston, Texas (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:52 PM)

Since there is no fair way to a flawed MI primary; it is fair for 64-64 split. Simply because HRC is not a fair nominee by saying uncommitted is a fair ZERO. Her campaign is not fair to honor a voluntary signed pledge, renege, excite your base; then turn around and blame your opponent f or playing fairly.
She can’t have it all.

Beverly in Chicago (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:53 PM)

CAN HILLARY CREATE A NEW POLITICAL PARTY TO REPRESENT THE WOMEN AND WORKING CLASS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION? MILLIONS OF VOTERS HOPE SO.
The DNC has made it clear that they have a nominee that represents blacks and college kids and that they don't care about women and working class voters. Obama's supporters have made that abundantly clear in their comments to these blogs. What hasn't yet dawned on women and working folks is that the democratic party no longer represents their interests - which means a new political party has splintered off from the democrats - a working class and women party to be exact. Hillary Clinton represents that constituency. Since the democrats will not be able to convince these voters - the ones that Obama has blatantly and consistently insulted - to accept the lesser of 2 evils - McCain vs. Obama - they will either change parties or vote for the lesser of 2 evils - McCain. The DNC has forced a split in the party - by its reckless disregard for women and working class voters - thank God Hillary is there to represent them.

Chris Hastings, Seattle, WA (Sent Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:55 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1089940