mrsuper.org

DNC Statement on RBC Meeting

For Immediate Release
May 28, 2008
 

DNC Statement on RBC Meeting

Washington, DC - Today the DNC issued the following statement:

"Last night members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee received a 17 page memo that outlined a staff analysis of the Michigan and Florida challenges.  Included in the materials were copies of the challenges, and an overall timeline re-capping the process from the decision in 2004 to establish a Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling, through to current events. 

"The staff analysis is intentionally neutral; it does not make specific recommendations.  The analysis lays out a rules framework for each challenge, and the issues raised within each challenge.    

"The analysis maintains that the RBC did have proper authority and jurisdiction in imposing the 100% sanction.  The RBC had wide latitude in that decision.   

"The document also examines the 50% automatic sanction and how to implement such a sanction:  Under this scenario, one option would be to reduce the total number of delegates by half; the second option for consideration by the RBC would be to reduce the delegation's votes by half, so that each delegate gets a half vote. 

"We look forward to a thorough discussion of these issues at the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting this Saturday, May 31st in Washington, DC."

# # #

Nominations & Fairness

Politics aren't exactly fair.  And when attempts are made to make the process fair, politics gets complicated.  Recently the New York Times ran an article on altering the process, and a recent Ideas piece in Politico states that the process is somewhat irrational.  There is a method to all of this madness - even if it could use some fixin'.

The Supreme Court has ruled that unlike general elections, political parties have the right to determine their own nomination process.  The problem is that the national parties can set rules, but it's the state parties and governments that set the elections.  Then you've got the local delegates pledged to candidates but not legally bound to them.  It's complicated.

Up until this year, the debate on reforming the presidential nominating process has been over the nomination calendar - I linked to two of these proposals in a post on April 1st.  This is where Florida and Michigan got into trouble and there isn't a court in the land that can save them - they must resolve there issues directly with the DNC.

It's clear that delegate selection, proportional allocation and of course Supers will be an issue worth further examination over the next four years.  I expect to see some proposals at the Denver convention.

Winner-take-all vs. proportional

The reason that the Democratic Party allocates delegates on a proportional basis is because we try to make the process a bit more representative of the will of the voters.  It reinforces the notion that all votes count at the ballot box - even if a candidate is trailing by double-digits in the polls.

Thus the voices of the voters in the minority will still count for something in the way of delegates.  Well, looks good on paper anyway.

Should the Democratic Party move to a winner-take-all system?

I haven't done the math in a while, but I'm not sure that the standings would dramatically change from our current position if Democrats didn't allocate delegates proportionally.

Metrics

Lots of variables tossed around recently as to how to consider who should be the Democratic nominee.  Pledged delegates, popular vote, electoral vote, who leads in general election match-up polling, who has more blue state and/or red state wins.  Peter Funt satirically wrote that Senator Clinton has won more "new" states whereas someone else noted that Senator Obama has won more square ones.

This can be easily simplified: the one who figures out how to win the most delegates is the winner. 

Doesn't matter how they win those delegates, from red states or from Supers or from states with three electoral votes or 55 electoral votes or by any other means.  Because while all of those metrics may be things that Supers weigh when making public declarations of support, the rules call for the nominee to be determined by delegates - not just pledged delegates, not just Superdelegates, but all delegates. That is something that isn't lost upon any of us.

A note about general election match-ups: they don't matter at this point.  It was a sigh of relief last night to see David Gergen on CNN talking about general election polling in June of 1992 when Bill Clinton was running third in general and it looked like Ross Perot was about to be America's first President and CEO.  John Kerry was leading Bush II, even Michael Dukakis had a 17-point lead over Bush Sr. at one point.  The point is that polls for any election don't mean much when nearly six months out.

Spin & The Popular Vote

Last week I posted that if Senator Clinton won Pennsylvania by a certain margin, that the campaign would say they have the lead in the popular vote...if you count Florida and Michigan (and there are just so many "ifs" in there).  And today New Jersey Governor John Corzine, a Clinton supporter, alluded to this by saying he would prefer to back the popular vote winner.

The current popular vote tallies, which Obama does lead in, are likely to continue to weigh in his favor 13 days from now when Indiana (84 delegates) and North Carolina (134 delegates) have voted.

And as of this writing, delegate-rich and population-rich North Carolina likes Senator Obama by wide margins, whereas the smaller though more competitive Indiana isn't so sure who it likes.

Why the Credentials Committee Ruling is Accurate

Two interesting articles in Politico on Friday.  The first has to do with Party rules, and the notion that members of standing committees need not be delegates to the convention. I can attest to this truth because once upon a time, before I was a "Super," I served on a standing committee but was not a delegate to the convention.  No, the real story here is that the experts advising these campaigns didn't know that one could be on a committee and not be a delegate.   Good reason to rethink the branding of them as experts.

Though the composition of the credentials committee may potentially alter the outcome of the credentials report, we cannot pick and choose which rules we are going to abide by.  Gov. Dean's position is the correct one: if we are going to hold Florida and Michigan to the letter of the rule, the Party needs to hold to that standard at every turn - even in the credentials committee.

Yes, it does put the committee in an awkward position.  But these are the rules.  As I stated before, I do not think that this nomination fight will reach the credentials committee.  You've been reading reports recently that "things are being done" to ensure this battle doesn't make it to Denver.  I will offer you this: there is merit to this statement.

On another note, the second article is about Supers needing some political cover.  It reinforces my often referred to 3/19 post on this blog, referring to the two reasons why Supers wait to endorse.  Shortly, those reasons are 1) for political cover, or 2) for reasons pertaining to the belief that the primary process should run its course first.  This article demonstrates the reality of the first reason.