Who will Michigan's Uncommitted delegates be?

If the Democratic presidential race goes all the way to the convention, and if Michigan's disputed delegation is ultimately seated, an absolutely crucial question will be the identities and loyalties of the state's 55 "Uncommitted" delegates.

Hillary, you may recall, won 73 delegates to Uncommitted's 55 in the January 15 Yooper Tuesday primary. "Uncommitted" was basically a proxy for Obama and Edwards, who weren't on the ballot. The substantial majority of "Uncommitted" voters, it's safe to say, were Obama supporters -- but that doesn't necessarily mean Uncommitted's delegates will be Obama loyalists.

Their loyalties are very important to determine, though. If all 55 of 'em are de facto Obama delegates, Hillary only gets an 18-vote boost from seating Michigan's delegation, which might not be enough to salvage her nomination chances. But suppose they're evenly split; suppose half of them are actually Clinton loyalists. Then Hillary's Michigan advantage becomes a huge, huge deal mathematically. (In that scenario, 73-55 would turn into something like 100-28.) So I decided to do a little research into the process by which these delegates will be selected.

The Green Papers explains the schedule. The 83 delegates that were allocated based on congressional district results -- 47 for Hillary, 36 for Uncommitted -- will be selected at fifteen Congressional District Conventions on March 29.

Then on May 17, the 45 at-large delegates -- 26 for Hillary, 19 for Uncommitted -- will be selected at the State Central Committee Meeting.

But how will they be selected? Or, more to the point, who will select them? An official FAQ from the Michigan Democratic Party answers that question, with regard to the district-level delegates:

Q: Who is eligible to vote for delegates and alternates at the March 29, 2008 Congressional District Conventions?

A: Enrolled Democrats are the only persons eligible to participate in the district conventions.

It goes on to list more details about the registration deadlines and such, but that's the important part. So basically, it sounds like anybody who's a registered Democrat can show up and vote in the District Conventions. Keep in mind, they're not voting for Clinton vs. Obama, or even Clinton vs. Uncommitted; they're voting for Potential Clinton Delegate A vs. Potential Clinton Delegate B, and separately for Potential Uncommitted Delegate A vs. Potential Uncommitted Delegate B.

Now, on the face of it, that would seem to open the door to some serious shenanigans. You might ask, for instance, what's to stop a bunch of Obama supporters in an Obama-friendly district from running for the office of "Clinton delegate", and being elected to that post by their fellow Obama supporters, thus leaving Hillary with a soft underbelly of disloyal delegates?

The answer to that question can be found elsewhere in the FAQ:

Q: How can I run for delegate or alternate to the National Convention?

A: To qualify as a candidate for delegate or alternate, an individual must file a “declaration of candidacy” form with the MDP. The forms will be available from the MDP after January 1, 2008. An individual can qualify as a candidate for district-level delegate or alternate by joining the Michigan Democratic Party and by filing a statement of candidacy with the Chair by 5 P.M. February 28, 2008 at 606 Townsend St., Lansing, MI 48933. ... Presidential candidates have the right to approve all candidates for delegate or alternate pledged to them.

Ah, but that last rule doesn't help Obama, does it, because Uncommitted isn't a presidential candidate (or a human being, for that matter), and therefore cannot "approve" (or "disapprove") the candidacies of his would-be delegates. So that means that Clinton supporters can offer themselves up as candidates to be "Uncommitted" delegates, and if the attendees at the district convention in question are majority pro-Clinton, they can elect those candidates, thus causing the Uncommitteds to be de facto Clinton delegates instead of de facto Obama delegates.

The key question is: does the Obama campaign realize this? Do they recognize the importance of "getting out the vote" for these District Conventions on Saturday, March 29? They need the make sure the Uncommitted delegates (or as many of them as possible) are in fact Obama loyalists, so that if Hillary's attempts to seat the Michigan delegation do actually succeed, her resulting numerical advantage won't be too overwhelming.

Oh, and as for the at-large delegates who are elected on May 17 at the State Central Committee Meeting:

Q: Who is eligible to vote for delegates and alternates at the May 17, 2008 State Central Committee meeting? A: State Central Delegates, Alternates, Michigan DNC Members, and MDP Officers and Officers-at-Large are eligible to vote. There is no proxy voting.

I've too lazy to try and figure out who all those big-wigs are and where their loyalties are, but suffice it to say, if they're majority Clintonites, and if they don't feel the need to respect the intent of the voters (which was obviously to help Obama, and to a lesser extent Edwards, by voting for Uncommitted), it's entirely possible they could effectively award Hillary the 19 at-large "Uncommitted" delegates that were really intended for her opponents.

This will be worth keeping a close eye on as it gets closer. It's possible that the Democratic presidential nomination could effectively be decided by the Michigan Democratic Party's Congressional District Conventions and its State Central Committee.

Comments

The answer is obvious: Make them be for Mike Gravel.

[Joe Loy]

Good work. / They veryprobably Do know all about it but just in case Not, I suggest you forward a copy to the Obama campaign, both nationally & in Detroit.

btw Check the Greenpapers re Texas Dems. I'm reliably Told :} they have a Bifurcated system, whereby a verygoodly Chunk of the total Pledged delegates are Not allocated by the Primary, but rather are "Initiated" at Precinct "Conventions" [which, like these Michigan CD "conventions", apparently amount to Dem Caucuses for purposes of Voting eligibility] that are Convened in each Precinct beginning 15 minutes after the primary Polls close on March 4. I gather (?) that In Iowa-et-cetera-like fashion, these Texas caucuses-which-are-called-Conventions elect delegates to the County conventions which then elect delegates to the State convention which elects 60-some-Odd (some Very so :) Delegates to the National Convention in a process entirely Stovepiped from the altogether Separate chimney which vents the Texas Primary Results as regards 100-something-something National convention delegates.

(btw, all this delightful state-by-state Variety exemplifies why I Switched Parties long long ago. Unlike the royalistical Dieu-et-mon-Droit Republicans, th' Dimmycrathic Party embodies the robust American values of Diversity, Federalism, and Chaos. :)

[Brian Foster]

There's no front-page post focused on the Republican race, and I don't want to disrupt the robust discussion (24 comments and counting) occurring on the more recent political post regarding the "dishonest Clinton spin," so I must resort to "borrowing" this space to note the following.

Remember that nutty idea I put forth about McCain's nomination representing a potential "revolution" for the GOP, a chance to remake the party for a new era, whether he wins or not?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jonathan Rauch and his National Journal column from Feb. 15:

So McCain offers Republicans hope of a revitalized center, a connection to independents, a productive presidency, improved fiscal credibility, improved moral credibility, a restored constitutional balance, a firm instead of flimsy war on jihadism, and a way forward on immigration. You have to look back to Reagan to find such a serendipitous match between the man and the moment.

The eclectic McCain is a handyman, not an architect. His skills and positions are well suited to fixing the Bush-era mistakes and getting the country to listen to Republicans again. But he is not a man of ideas like Reagan, Barry Goldwater, or Newt Gingrich. He could lead the party out of the cul-de-sac and back onto the main road, but, at age 71, he does not look like the man to point it toward a new destination.

Still, in 2008 a lot of Republicans don't yet understand that they're lost. The first job of work is to loosen the grip of the party's ideological satraps and veto groups. Never mind whether he wins the presidency; just by closing in on the nomination, and by drawing boos at CPAC, McCain has begun cutting his party free.

Where's my hat tip, Mr. Rauch???

(he asks obnoxiously :) )

[Brian Foster]

Crap -- forgot to add a link to this comment, which expounds on my theory and runs even more parallel (yeah, I realize there's technically no such thing) to Rauch's column.

[Joe Loy]

Here's hoping your theory is correct, Brian. Such a Republican Evolution would surely be a Good thing.

[Andrew]

Eh.

[Derek]

I'd also like to interject for a moment, unrelated.

I'm curious how the Kosovar declaration of independence would play into the race. Bush, McCain, Clinton, and Obama all support an independent Kosovo. Of course, there could be military unrest in the region, and Russia strongly opposes the move. Would the U.N. support military intervention? If it chooses not to, would the United States send its own troops to support its independence? Could a candidate try to be pro-independence but anti-U.S.-military-intervention? Or would that appear to be far too contradictory? Alternatively, would an anti-Iraq model dictate one's position on military intervention in Kosovo? Or Iraq become the blame for why we can't "spread our troops too thin"?

I think instances like this, if Campaign '08 focuses on them, would be a huge benefit to McCain, neutral-to-beneficial for Clinton, and likely detrimental to Obama. If the debate swings around to the domestic economy (which it inevitably does), I'd tend to reverse McCain's and Obama's positions. But it's a significant development that may play out in the next few weeks--do Americans think that international turmoil demands the "experience" that's been undervalued (relatively, I mean) this season?

[Abby]

I'm deputy director for Michiganders for Obama and we are running an aggressive campaign to elect our slate of Michigan Obama delegates. We aren't going to let the Clinton campaign gain any of our hard fought for uncommitted delegates.