My prediction for Florida: The credentials committee will seat 1/2 the delegates

[Orangepeel]

I'm not advocating that this SHOULD happen, but it's what I think WILL happen.

I don't think that they will hold a vote before June (which is what I think ought to happen). It would be hard enough for them to get their act together to do it even if there wasn't opposition to it.

But I don't think that the DNC will be completely hardassed. There will be enormous pressure to "compromise" given that it is the party/elected officials fault, not the voters themselves.

It is my understanding (although it might be wrong, it comes from a Florida party activist) that the DNC could have levied a penalty of losing 1/2 of the delegates instead of the penalty it did levy. So I think the compromise will be to reduce the penalty.

[lapfog_1]

1. I don't think so...

the committee having proportional representation from both Hillary and Obama... meaning Obama controls the committee.

[Orangepeel]

3. Well, I don't think those 30 or so net delegates will matter at that point

I have high hopes that more superdelegates will come around to Obama so that the Florida delegates won't make a difference. :D

[lapfog_1]

6. No, it's going to be over 120 net delegates.

and likely 160 to 180 pledged delegates.

And that means he controls the committee.

Even by only 5 or 10 votes. But the votes are simple majority. 1 vote should be enough.

FL and MI can go pound sand (at least they HAVE sand to pound).

[Orangepeel]

9. No, I mean that if 1/2 of Fl's delegates were seated, Clinton would net about 30

I think that Florida needs to hold a vote that conforms to the rules, which they still could do before June, or shut up and stay home. But, I also think that there will be enormous pressure to compromise and that if the additional delegates won't change the outcome, compromise will happen.

I think/hope that Obama will have it cinched by the actual convention.

[dansolo]

4. He may still go for it

Compared to a revote, he may actually come out ahead if this were to take place. All around, it would be better for him. The atmosphere is toxic down there. By agreeing to half, he would only get 20 fewer delegates, whereas if there is a revote, and he doesn't narrow it to single digits, he could lose by many more. Hillary would be hard pressed to object, because she would get more delegates out of it. But whatever happens, the superdelegates should not be seated.

[lapfog_1]

7. You realize that right now, the super delegates are going to

be seated, right?

Only the pledged delegates are at risk.

Obama might do it if he is very comfortably ahead in pledged delegates and it ends the FL controversy (which really ISN'T a controversy, they violated the rules, they were told in advance what would happen, what they were told came to pass... no controversy).

MI is a whole different matter. Under no circumstance should any of their delegates be seated without a caucus or re-vote to determine the true numbers.

[mohc]

12. That is not correct

Right now neither pledged or superdelegates from FL or MI will be seated. Recently the DNC corrected the residency of a superdelegate originally from Maine as being from Florida, and that person will no longer be seated at the convention and it changed the "delegates needed to win" number. The language in the rule that governs what happens when a state holds its primary too early (or too late) stipulated that the pledged delegates be cut in half, and that no superdelegates be seated. No matter what happens, I do not believe the superdelegates will be seated, even if there is a revote.

While we are on this topic, I have wondered how the 50% rule would take effect. The states that hold late primaries, especially ones that move from an early date last cycle to later dates this cycle, get bonuses between 5% and 30%. The bonuses increase at-large and district level delegates. If a state gets an extra district delegate, the district that has the largest allocation remainder gets the extra delegate. But would the same process be applied to Florida or Michigan retroactively? Districts with even allocations would be easy enough, a 4 delegate district would now have 2, but every other odd delegate district would lose an extra delegate. This could substantially change the delegate allocation. A 4 delegate district like district 1, where Clinton received 2 delegates and Edwards and Obama both got 1, if reduced to 2 would now split 1-1 between Clinton and Obama with Edwards losing his delegates completely. The 50% rule would have been much easier to apply if done before the primary. After the fact it is going to either have to be somewhat artificial with respect to the district allocation or it is going to possibly create very different results than just reducing each candidates delegates by half.

[lapfog_1]

13. Do you have a source for that

because there were many posts here yesterday stating the opposite.

It didn't make sense to me (you either seat everyone from a state or no one). But I got shouted down when I stated that... and I didn't have madfloridian (who has an near encyclopedia amount of links and info on the topic of the Florida Primary) in the thread to reference or ask for definitive information.

[mohc]

14. The best source for superdelegate info

is the demconwatch blog. You can see on their page all the superdelegates, and they mark the FL and MI superdelegates because they do not count per the status quo. If you want a second source you can use The Green Papers to see what the allocations would be on the FL and MI pages, it breaks down both pledged and supers. Both sites show what allocations would be if FL and MI are eventually seated, but they assume the supers will come along with the pledged. As I stated in my previous post, I have serious doubts the FL or MI superdelegates will be seated regardless of what happens with the pledged delegates. Under the original rules, the 50% reduction happens to pledged delegates only, and no supers are seated at all. With a revote, the pledged delegates would be redeemed, but some form of punishment would be needed for breaking the rules in the first place, and not seating the superdelegates who were in large part responsible for this problem seems like a fair ruling.

[mohc]

15. This is the original rule

For anyone wanting to know the original rule

Rule 20 C 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party
provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes
the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior
to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the
event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after
such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to
the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
(50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National
Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from
that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In
determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s
delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the
nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the
next nearest whole number.

DNC 2008 Delegate Selection Rules

[dansolo]

5. He may still go for it

Compared to a revote, he may actually come out ahead if this were to take place. All around, it would be better for him. The atmosphere is toxic down there. By agreeing to half, he would only get 20 fewer delegates, whereas if there is a revote, and he doesn't narrow it to single digits, he could lose by many more. Hillary would be hard pressed to object, because she would get more delegates out of it. But whatever happens, the superdelegates should not be seated.

[0007]

2. Who has whispered something into your ear?

[Birthmark]

8. That will resolve the issue.

No one will like it, therefore, it is the correct compromise. :)

[madfloridian]

10. I don't care how they do it anymore. FL and MI caused a disaster

so they could look like big shots.

I don't care who the nominee is...it is pretty obvious truth and honesty do not matter anymore.

[HockeyMom]

11. Screw Florida

I live here and I voted. Let this damned state secede.