Michigan Dems propose Clinton 69 / Obama 59 delegate split

[Mr. Morden]

I see no reason why Obama wouldn't go along with this, as he'll win the nomination anyway:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-michigan-delegates_N.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Any idea where they plucked those numbers from?

Probably by cutting the Clinton/Obama margin approximately in half.  If it was to be Clinton 73 / Obama 55, then going to Clinton 69 / Obama 59 is like cutting the margin in half.  (Not exactly half, since they have to use an integer number of delegates that adds up to 128.)  So really, it's as good as using the original numbers, but counting each delegate as a half vote....except, this way, the Michigan delegates will get to feel better, as they won't actually be casting half votes.

[Mr. Morden]

My point is just that last October, it really looked as if Michigan would not make a difference, since no one thought the nomination battle would be so close. So it made sense for Hillary not to make a big deal out of it, even if she felt there was something not quite right about it...

It also made sense for her not to make a big deal out of it because she wanted to pander to IA/NH/NV/SC like the other candidates were.  But the second those states have already voted and she doesn't need to worry about them anymore, FL & MI have to be seated.

[Mr. Morden]

The DNC asked the Democratic candidates to remove their names from the Michigan ballot; otherwise, why would Biden or Dodd have bothered? Clinton and Kucinich left their names on in defiance of the DNC. (The same was not asked in Florida because the deadline to remove names from the ballot had passed by the time sanctions were imposed.)

No, the DNC never asked them to do that.  That was pure "let's suck up to IA/NH/NV/SC" and "let's deny Hillary Clinton any bragging rights for winning even a delegate-less Michigan".  Biden and Dodd bothered because, assuming they even thought they had any chance of winning, that chance would have depended on strong showings in the small, early states where they could afford to compete.  So anything that diminished the role of FL/MI would have benefited them.

[Mr. Morden]

I guess I was misremembering. My apologies, Beet.

Well, misremembering on the whole FL/MI mess is understandable, since the media has repeatedly screwed up the facts in their reporting.

Here are the points the media repeatedly gets wrong:

IA & NH cheated too, but the DNC rewrote the rules for them rather than punish them.

The DNC never asked the candidates not to campaign in FL & MI, and they never asked anyone to remove their names from the ballot.  That was all done by the candidates to appease IA/NH/NV/SC.

Clinton suddenly started complaining about how FL & MI should be seated right around the end of January, when she no longer had to worry about pandering to the four chosen early states.  (This isn't misreported so much as it's never mentioned....at all.)

[Mr. Morden]

One other reason why this compromise benefits Obama.  As I mentioned before, they are *effectively* counting the delegates from the primary results as half votes, but not doing it explicitly.  Officially, the 69/59 split is a number that was pulled out of thin air.  That means that by agreeing to it, Obama would not have to concede that the January primary was in any way a legitimate expression of the voters' will.  If Obama were to agree to any kind of remedy that conceded that the January votes were valid in some way, then that would strengthen Clinton's argument that the FL/MI primary votes should be counted in the "popular vote", and that that reflects that she is the real "choice of the voters".

Not that that would be enough to deny him the nomination, but it would be an unnecessary headache for him.  He wants to wrap this up as soon as possible, and that involves convincing the supers in short order.  Part of that process is making the case that he has a "moral claim" on the nomination because he's the choice of the voters.