Not surprisingly there's been an avalanche of heated emails in response to my post about the question of whether delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the Democratic National Convention. Oddly enough most of the people who wrote in from Michigan were actually against the effort to change the rules mid-way. But it's hard to know what that might mean or whether they're in any way a representative sample.
Let's start by stating what I think is not disputable. There's little real doubt that Michigan and Florida delegates will actually be seated at this summer's convention. Presumably one candidate will arrive at the convention with the nomination secured, even without those delegates. And under that candidates management it will be agreed that the delegates should be seated, whether most were for the winning candidate or not. And as is always the case, the result settled, everyone will come together and put the winner over the top unanimously. Certainly it would be foolish not to have representation from two pivotal swing states.
The question of course is what if we have a divided convention, or one where the votes of Michigan and Florida prove key to the result? For decades these have only been hypotheticals. But this year, on both sides, it's a real possibility.
That's what Hillary's trying to do here, lay the groundwork for seating those delegates -- which it now seems she'll win the majority of -- even though each of the candidates had accepted the decision of the DNC not to do so. I see no way that that's not trying to change the rules midway.