Jim Blanchard, the former governor of Michigan, noted yesterday, “I’m reminded of the old Will Rogers adage, which was: ‘I belong to no organized party. I’m a Democrat.'”
Ain’t that the truth. Mark Twain is believed to have said that those who respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made. If we wanted to throw in the resolution of a controversy over convention delegates from non-binding Democratic primaries, it would certainly fit the bill.
As with most compromises and negotiations, no one walked out of yesterday’s meeting of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee with everything they wanted. The party had punished Florida and Michigan for breaking party rules, deciding that the states deserved no convention delegates at all. That was an untenable solution. The Clinton campaign insisted that the non-binding results be honored in full, and that Florida and Michigan receive no punishment at all. That was an untenable solution, too. The Obama campaign recommended that delegates from Florida and Michigan just get split down the middle, 50-50. That was just as untenable as the other two.
So what did happen? Depending on how you look at it, there was a little something for everyone. Florida and Michigan have convention delegates again; Clinton has net gain of a couple dozen delegates; and Obama still has the insurmountable lead with which he started the day.
The Florida agreement included a provision calling for the delegates to be allocated on the basis of the state’s Jan. 29 primary, a decision that would net Clinton 19 more delegates than Obama. Clinton’s campaign had pushed for a proposal to seat the full delegation with full voting power, but when that failed, her supporters on the committee relented, and the compromise was approved without a dissenting vote, 27 to 0.
But it was the Michigan plan, approved by a 19 to 8 vote, that drew sharper opposition because of the way that state’s delegates will be awarded. Under the plan, Clinton will be given 34.5 delegate votes in Denver to Obama’s 29.5 delegate votes, a percentage distribution recommended by leaders of the Michigan Democratic Party but opposed by the Clinton campaign officials, who said it violates the results of Michigan’s Jan. 15 primary.
“This motion will hijack — hijack — remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton,” said Harold Ickes, who oversees delegate operations for the Clinton campaign and is also a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. “This body of 30 individuals has decided that they’re going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters.”
Arguing that the Michigan compromise “is not a good way to start down the path of party unity,” Ickes warned that Clinton had authorized him to note that she will “reserve her rights to take it to the credentials committee” later. Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson later affirmed that Clinton will reserve her right to challenge the outcome.
It’s worth noting that there are 13 committed Clinton supporters on the RBC, meaning that at least some Clinton backers endorsed compromises for both states.
Another detail that emerged last night was that the Obama campaign actually had enough votes to push through a proposal to split Michigan’s delegation 50-50, but the campaign pulled back, allowing the proposal that benefited Clinton more to pass.
Per multiple sources inside the closed Rules and Bylaws Committee lunch, Obama actually had the votes to get a 50-50 delegate split out of Michigan — but by just a vote or two.
However, it was decided to go with the 69-59 split to win a larger majority. That measure passed 19-8.
Allan Katz, a Rules Committee member and Obama supporter told the AP, “The ironic thing is Obama had the majority of that committee. The Obama campaign wants to move on and compromise. We did not muscle our way through it. It was a wise decision from a well run and wise campaign that will reverberate.”
Maybe, but maybe not. A closer look at the Michigan resolution highlights the most controversial aspect of yesterday’s deal.
The particulars of the Michigan experience and the legal fine points of DNC rules created a situation in which the two campaigns and the Michigan Democrats were proposing competing outcomes, all of which drew resistance from some committee members as unallowable under the rules.
Michigan Democratic chairman Mark Brewer and Sen. Carl M. Levin, representing the state, asked for their full delegation to be reinstated with full voting powers. But, calling their primary flawed, they recommended an allocation of the delegates based not only on the results but also on exit polls and an estimate of uncounted write-in ballots.
On the basis of those calculations, they said Clinton should receive 69 delegates and Obama 59. Clinton’s campaign called for allocation based on the primary, giving her 73 delegates to Obama’s 55. Obama’s campaign said the delegation should be split 50-50 between the two candidates but did not take a position on whether the Michigan delegates should receive a full vote or half vote.
The Michigan Democratic Party proposal drew skepticism from members of the rules committee. “It seems to me that this way lies chaos,” Elaine Kamarck said. “That if we start setting precedents that state parties can take a little bit of data from a primary and some data from exit polls and some data from assumptions they made, that we’re really in trouble.”
But in the end, the committee decided to set aside those qualms.
During the first session, Ickes pointedly challenged Levin over the Michigan plan, saying it would strip Clinton of delegates she had rightly earned through the primary. “Why not take 10?” he asked indignantly. “Take 20. Just keep on going.”
The problem, though, is that Clinton “earned” the delegates in a contest where she was the only top-tier candidate on the ballot, running in a non-binding primary that she publicly argued shouldn’t count. I suppose it’s a matter of perspective — she a) gained 69 votes instead of 73; or b) gained 69 votes instead of zero.
The “magic number” for the Democratic nominee moves from 2,026 to 2,118. According to the AP, Obama now has 2,052 to Clinton’s 1,877.
Whether yesterday’s compromise resolves the conflict or exacerbates it remains to be seen.