May 8th, 2008
08:17 AM ET
14 years ago

Michigan Dems send latest delegate plan to DNC

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption="Michigan Democrats have accepted a new compromise."](CNN) - Michigan’s Democrats have accepted a compromise proposal in their latest attempt to ensure their state will be represented at this summer’s Democratic National Convention, CNN has confirmed.

The state party has voted to sign on to a plan devised a week-and-a-half ago by the working group seeking ways to end the impasse, including Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic National Committee Member Debbie Dingell and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger.

The group urged the Democratic National Committee to seat the Michigan delegation under a formula that would give a 10-delegate edge to Hillary Clinton, and allow all 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated this summer.

Clinton was the only major candidate to appear on the ballot in the state’s January contest, which she won with 55 percent of the vote. No delegates were awarded because of national party penalties on Michigan Democrats for moving up their primary date. Forty percent of January’s primary voters chose the “uncommitted” option on the ballot; a majority of those “uncommitted” delegates are backing Barack Obama.

Clinton’s campaign has said that the results of the January vote – which would give her an 18-delegate edge, 73-55 – should count. Obama’s campaign had said the delegates should be split evenly, 64-64. Another compromise plan submitted by DNC member Joel Ferguson – which would have given half a vote to each pledged delegate, and a full vote to each superdelegate – had been opposed by the Michigan working group.

Under the latest proposal adopted by the state party, which splits the difference between the Obama and Clinton proposals, the state’s 128 pledged delegates would be split 69-59, with the majority going to Hillary Clinton. Michigan Democrats has asked the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee – which meets at the end of the month – to consider the plan.

If both campaigns do not agree on the compromise, the issue will head to the DNC’s Credentials Committee for a resolution.

Filed under: Michigan
soundoff (395 Responses)
  1. The Pill Of the Century

    If I had my way that woman would never win another primary. She wouldn't get close to winning another office. She's a joke.

    May 8, 2008 10:52 am at 10:52 am |
  2. Brett

    Wow, how generous. If Michigan's delegates were seated as-is, Sen. Clinton would get a 12 delegate boost with 55% of the vote. So the state party's solution is to give her a 10 delegate lead. That equates to a 54% win instead of 55%. Do the math... that is retarded.

    Oh, and all you self-titled "Hillary Dems" claiming that you will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nod, think for a second.

    That's like saying you would rather eat dog shiat because your friends ordered a pizza when you wanted Chinese food.

    Yeah, it doesn't make sense, does it?

    May 8, 2008 10:52 am at 10:52 am |
  3. Poli Sci Nerd

    Read the Constitution people: Time, Place, and Method of Elections is under the authority of the STATE! Not the federal government, not the democratic or republican parties, not some TV personality. DNC has no authority under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES to penalize them for FOLLOWING the rules.

    May 8, 2008 10:52 am at 10:52 am |
  4. Jane, College Park, Maryland

    Again, the Clinton's sense of entitlement.

    How do you allocate votes to people whose names were not on the ballot? This is not Democrary, and it will come back to haunt the spineless DNC.

    Why set rules at all if you do not have the spine to implement them?

    May 8, 2008 10:52 am at 10:52 am |
  5. kristen in PA

    just what we need another president who disregards the rules...

    May 8, 2008 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  6. s

    Now, this is getting really ugly. I can't believe this unfair tactic. This is going to be a long Summer.

    May 8, 2008 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  7. Sue Z

    Everyone needs to listen to people like Ken from Michigan. People keep arguing that the votes should count or residents from Michigan and Florida will be disenfranchised. However, what about those voters who did not go to the polls because they were told the votes would not count? If you now count MI and Fl as is, those voters are disenfranchised.

    And to those who say Obama had an ad on TV – it was within the rules because it was a Nationally aired ad and therefore Florida voters happened to be able to see it, too. Doubt that would make a huge difference, though – Clinton had 8 years in the White House to gain name recognition. Obama needs to triple her advertising just so people learn who he is.

    Who knows what the right solution is...but I certainly wouldn't allow either Clinton or Obama to decide. The solution needs to be fair, taking into account voters that went to the polls, and those that did not – as well as those that didn't have the option to pull for Obama because his name was not on the ballot (he was following the RULES!)

    May 8, 2008 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  8. Dan in CO

    ""Not a perfect solution, not completely fair because Barack was not even on the ballot, but better than nothingfor both, and the slight edge for Hillary won't hurt Obama in the end.""

    Is cheating suddenly okay just because it doesn't end up affecting the outcome?

    May 8, 2008 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  9. Logs

    Someone wrote that Obama can have the kids in college. As a student at university, I know that plenty of us are not planning on voting Democratic if he gets the nomination. I personally would much rather see McCain in power than him. Plus if you look, Hilary seems to have more pull in "swing states" (and I'm not saying all of them). Florida and Michigan should count because it's not the people's fault that the state parties held early primaries.

    May 8, 2008 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  10. Dennis Saratoga Springs

    In the Democratic Party if you are BIG, POWERFUL and IMPORTANT the rules DON'T apply to you. If the two states that broke the rules were Idaho and Montana the entire discussion would be “they broke the rules and the rules are the rules.” But Michigan and Florida are big important states so there will be no negative consequences for braking the rules – so much for PRINCIPLE.

    Do something with pledge delegates BUT BAR ALL Michigan and Florida Superdelegates.

    May 8, 2008 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  11. The Pill Of the Century

    Whatever happens Hillary will spin this situation. She will either say the voters were robbed, if they don't get to be seated. Or, she will say she has the most popular votes if they are seated. Hillary cheats and lies, and everyone knows it.

    Today we should be talking about John McCain, and once again this selfish woman wants everyone talking about her. It's all about Hillary, 24/7. Just Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Enough.

    Obama 08 and 12 !

    May 8, 2008 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  12. Petition for Barack

    I would like to see Barack's campaign start up petitions for Michigan voters to sign:

    Petition 1: I voted for Hillary because Barack was NOT on the ballot. Michigan residents were told this was a "beauty contest" that wouldn't count. Since you are trying to make it count now, please recognize my voice as a vote for Barack Obama.

    Petition 2: I voted UNDECIDED because Barack was NOT on the ballot. Michigan residents were told this was a "beauty contest" that wouldn't count. Since you are trying to make it count now, please recognize my voice as a vote for Barack Obama.

    Petition 3: I am placing my vote for Barack Obama now because after I was told by the DNC that the Michigan primary would not count, I choose to withhold my vote. Since you are trying to make it count now, please recognize my voice as a vote for Barack Obama.

    May 8, 2008 10:56 am at 10:56 am |
  13. Dennis

    10 delegates really aren't going to hurt Obama at this point. If it'll resolve the issue in Michigan, do it. Let's move on.

    May 8, 2008 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  14. Billy From Fla

    That's BULL, Hillary won in Fla and Mich, Obama made the decision
    to take his name off in Mich. Neither one campaigned in either state,
    but Hillar won. Why should she have to split with Nappy Headed Obama.
    I guess if they don't the blacks will riot in the streets along with
    Sharpton . It is a shame that we will have a president because 99%
    of the blacks voted for him. He is not qualified and everyone knows it.

    Give me Colin Powell, I'll vote for him every day of the week. He is a true american and has the experience American needs.

    May 8, 2008 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  15. fairandstraight

    Wake up people!!! Talking about Fla and MI some much is a scheme to derail this election. Sen. Clinton is no more concern about the voters in those states than she is the Democratic party as a whole. Sen. Obama knows a re-vote in the state of Florida could never be fair. Those who really want to know how unfair Sen. Clinton is, go to yahoo search and type in "Hillary Clinton campaigns in Flordia." If you do that, you will see why she wants the re-vote.

    People are being decieved by the world greatest deceiver which is Hillary R. Clinton.

    I am sorry the official, not the DNC, of those two states broke the rules but there are 48 states that did not.

    Senator Obama 08

    May 8, 2008 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  16. Montreal

    To quote " Obama showed poor judgement in removing his name from the Mi. ballot as agreed to"
    So according to Clintonites; integrity is equated with poor judgement?
    Well the followers are like the leader.

    May 8, 2008 11:01 am at 11:01 am |
  17. Baby B

    You know what would be GREAT? Hillary to run as an Independent!

    I would vote for her and Millions of others! Obama would get his butt kicked!

    May 8, 2008 11:01 am at 11:01 am |
  18. Peter in PA

    Saddam Hussein claimed he won the presidency with 98% of the vote when no one opposed him in his country. If we allow Clinton's argument that every vote should be counted and accept either FL and MI results, we send a bad message to the world. The ONLY fair way to seat those delegates is split them evenly. There were lot of people who didn't vote because they were told their votes wouldn't count.

    May 8, 2008 11:01 am at 11:01 am |
  19. Spirit of America

    This plan cheats Hillary and unfairly rewards Barack. Do the math.
    55% of the vote translates into 87 delegates. Less than 40% of the vote (which is unfairly given to Barack) translates into less than 60 delegates. What about the delegates minor candidates got? The whole thing stinks. A revote is needed.

    May 8, 2008 11:02 am at 11:02 am |
  20. Amazed

    I'll give her a few in Florida but she should not get any from Michigan as he and Edwards were not on the ballot. Do people not understand the importance of following the rules? How do you think other countries will view her inability to follow the rules when they try to deal with her?

    May 8, 2008 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  21. SEB

    they need to be seated 50/50 or nothing. This is total BS

    May 8, 2008 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  22. Bobby tray

    The split they are proposing STILL puts Obama closer to the nomination with Clinton's inability to catch up. C'mon people this is not rocket science!

    May 8, 2008 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  23. Marc

    I don't know why they think they have the right to give Clinton any kind of an edge. She barely won in Michigan and she wasn't even running against anyone!

    The argument that those who voted undecided were votes for Obama a) is a hypothetical, since there's no way of knowing for sure, and b) doesn't address the fact that many didn't vote at all! Same issue with Florida. I'd also wager that many minds have changed since then.

    This "plan," like all the others put forth by Clinton supporters, exhibits the same arrogance she showed earlier in the race when she presumed she'd be the nominee and started gearing up for the fall.

    In the end it doesn't matter if they do give her those 10 votes because she'll lose unless something catastrophic happens to Obama's campaign, but her arrogance and sense of entitlement irk me to no end.

    And another thing – I found it so hypocritical, the other day, when she answered "We have to follow the rules, until it's clear who the nominee is going to be." to the question of whether or not she thought winning Tuesday's contests would help her prove she's the stronger candidate. To give that answer when she has virtually no chance in hell of winning UNLESS exceptions are made to the rules is just... gah, she disgusts me.

    Does she not realize the double-talk she puts out? Or does she just think people are stupid??

    May 8, 2008 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  24. Truth

    I wonder whether she will be happy with this!!
    Remember she is a greedy woman.
    Why not do the follwoing:
    Cancell all the primaries and caucuses that Obama won.
    Give all the delegates of the state that were one by the greedy.
    this is only way to satisfy her.

    I am not happy with the whole fiasco. A rule is a rule. If it happens, there will be chaos during next election cycles. every state will change thier primary dates since there will be no punishment for doing so.

    May 8, 2008 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
  25. Maggie

    OK, here goes. Sen. Obama intentionally removewd his name in MI, knowing darn well he would lose, now he wants 50/50.

    I agree with ya'll Sen. Obama is comparable to former Presidents Kennedy and Lincoln....Keep a close eye on his VP nomination, that is who you may end up picking as President in the long run....

    Obama was grandstanding by removing his name....MI and FL he could care less about don't matter to him.....That is who you would vote for as President????? However, he wants to negotiate with terrorists who don't play by the rules and that is acceptable? Double standard? Or wolf in sheeps clothing?

    May 8, 2008 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16