Florida and Michigan delegates

[ZenFountain]

February 6th-

Quote:

The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold presidential caucuses so the delegates they lost for holding January primaries could be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said Wednesday.

DNC member Debbie Dingell of Michigan said it’s unclear whether either state would hold caucuses since they’ve already held primaries, Michigan on Jan. 15 and Florida on Jan. 29. She said the DNC is asking the states to consider such a plan.

Source

February 8th-

Quote:

A prominent civil rights leader has told the Democratic National Committee that refusing to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan would disenfranchise both states' minority communities.

In a Feb. 8 letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, NAACP chairman Julian Bond expressed "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Refusing to seat the states' delegations could remind voters of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," he said.

Source

February 11th-

Quote:

The controversial Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries will most likely not be rescheduled, as some activists have recently demanded, according to sources in both the national and state parties who spoke with The Huffington Post.

The sources claimed that neither state party nor the Democratic National Committee had the sufficient financial resources to restage the primaries and that any money raised for such an effort would be better spent on the general election.

Source

So.

In the frenzy of wanting to be first to go, like impatient children Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries knowing full well the consequence, but expecting to dodge punishment. We were bombarded with cries that the early state system wasn't fair, yet had Florida and Michigan scheduled their primaries when the DNC asked they would have been very influential states and the candidates would have campaigned there.

The DNC now wants Florida and Michigan to re-caucus but the state parties say they don't have the money for another vote. Irony? I wonder if this issue will be vaulted back into the forefront if Obama pulls ahead by a decent margin after March 4th and Clinton is pressured to drop out.

[Puppycow]

I was just reading about this.

This is stupid, stupid, stupid. Julian Bond is a dork. He's making a false analogy. It's sooo obvious whose water he is carrying. The NAACP is a moribund artifact of a bygone era. The last conceivable shark is now jumped.

Quote:

Chairman Julian Bond says in letter to Howard Dean that refusing to seat the delegates recalls the “sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries.”

Racial discrimination doesn't have a darn thing to do with it. This is like a false start in a race. Like in sports, once an umpire makes a call, it has to be set in stone. You can't go back and change balls to strikes 8 innings later. The states knew the rules and the consequences. Rules have to be enforced or they are meaningless. The real disenfranchisement would be of those voters in the other 48 states that obeyed the rules.

[Kaylee]

As I understand it the Democratic party is a private organization and they can decide how to go about selecting a presidential candidate for the general election in November.

But, obviously, the effect was that voters in Florida and Michigan got disenfranchised from the process.

In this case where do private rights and political rights start and end?

If voters decided to sue, could they sue? Do they have standing to sue? And if they do, who should they sue? The DNC or the Democratic state politicians who decided to hold the primaries early?

Re Bond of NAACP -- its interesting that he is basically deciding to endorse a white candidate (Hillary Clinton won in FL and Michigan). My understanding is that the NAACP settled out of court agreeing not to disclose the terms in regard to the disenfranchisment of African Americans in FL during 2000. So, given that, I don't for one moment believe that he is really concerned about disenfranchisement. I don't believe an organization really concernd about that concept would have settled on those terms.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Kaylee

Re Bond of NAACP -- its interesting that he is basically deciding to endorse a white candidate (Hillary Clinton won in FL and Michigan). My understanding is that the NAACP settled out of court agreeing not to disclose the terms in regard to the disenfranchisment of African Americans in FL during 2000. So, given that, I don't for one moment believe that he is really concerned about disenfranchisement. I don't believe an organization really concernd about that concept would have settled on those terms.

Hmmm. IOW, it's actually about $$$. Figures.
The rhetoric is just a pretext, and a pretty shabby one that shouldn't fool a retarded goldfish.
Watch what they do, not what they say.

[Meadmaker]

What I can't grasp is how states got roped into holding elections for private organizations like political parties. This whole system is just plain weird.

[ZenFountain]

The parties pay for the elections. As I said in the OP it looks like even if there was a will to re-caucus in Florida and Michigan, the state parties don't have the cash for another go.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

The parties pay for the elections. As I said in the OP it looks like even if there was a will to re-caucus in Florida and Michigan, the state parties don't have the cash for another go.

Well, if that's the case, I stand corrected.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

The parties pay for the elections.

Not true, at least not in Florida.

http://www.google.com/search?q=prima...ient=firefox-a

Quote:

May 20, 2007- But whereas Florida taxpayers would underwrite the primary, the Democratic Party would have to pay for the caucuses — estimated to cost as much as $10 million.

Quote:

the Primary costs the state $18 million

While the party may pay some of the cost (I don't know if they do or not), the state of Florida did tell the DNC (and the RNC) they were free to hold a primary any time if they wanted to pay for it.

If a winner is determined before the convention in August then it won't make any difference. And then they'll have 4 years to come up with a better system to set the dates for primaries. Maybe they can figure out a system that doesn't start with the assumption that Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have some sort of god-given right to always go first.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Al Sharpton has chimed in in a letter to Dean.

Summary: he says they should not be seated.

Quote:

Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere.

Sharpton...thinking...rationally..........head...e xploding

[T.A.M.]

Well given none of the candidates got a chance to campaign in either state, and only Clinton's name appeared on Michigan's Ballad, I think seating them in anyway that would effect the nominee choice is completely ridiculous.

A Caucus sounds like the best compromise.

TAM

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by bozothedeathmachine

Al Sharpton has chimed in in a letter to Dean.

Summary: he says they should not be seated.

Sharpton...thinking...rationally..........head...e xploding

Good. His argument is correct on the merits and gives Dean cover to ignore Bond's bad-faith pretext.

Originally Posted by Al SHarpton

Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair...
Some have said that not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan disenfranchises Democratic voters -- especially African American voters -- from those two states. That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument.

That is the main thing. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

[ZenFountain]

@Bob Klase

You're right, it looks like state election commissions do front much of the cost. I had sincerely believed that caucuses were entirely funded by parties (it's a party meeting) and that they had to front the expenses for primary votes. However in this case it does like the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties would have to pay for a re-caucus from their own pockets since the states paid for the primaries.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

@Bob Klase

You're right, it looks like state election commissions do front much of the cost. I had sincerely believed that caucuses were entirely funded by parties (it's a party meeting) and that they had to front the expenses for primary votes. However in this case it does like the Florida and Michigan Democratic parties would have to pay for a re-caucus from their own pockets since the states paid for the primaries.

Originally Posted by Kaylee

As I understand it the Democratic party is a private organization and they can decide how to go about selecting a presidential candidate for the general election in November.

But, obviously, the effect was that voters in Florida and Michigan got disenfranchised from the process.

In this case where do private rights and political rights start and end?

If voters decided to sue, could they sue? Do they have standing to sue? And if they do, who should they sue? The DNC or the Democratic state politicians who decided to hold the primaries early?

I agree that it would be unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game and to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic convention. But because the democratic party officials that could make decisions on the state level decided to ignore the DNC and held their primaries early anyway -- many voters in Michigan and Florida got disenfranchised.

Were these voters consulted? Did they get to vote as to whether they wanted to try to break the rules also? I'm guessing they weren't.

So what should these disenfranchised voters do? Should they sue the democratic party officials on the state level that made the decision that caused them to be disenfranchised? Or should they just let it go?

I find this area confusing and I'm not sure where the boundaries are between private and political rights. Does the state democratic party officials have any accountability to the voters? Or are they free to do whatever they wish? Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

[ZenFountain]

Even if Michigan and Florida had delegates restored and awarded according to the previous vote, a rough guess is that it would only give Clinton a 30-40 delegate lift. Hardly seems worth it considering that a battle for them could have serious political fallout.

[T.A.M.]

Well since having a redo of the PRIMARY in each state would be astronomical in cost and co-ordination, I think a Caucus for each state, after allowing the candidates to campaign in the area, would be a better idea.

TAM

[Puppycow]

I can't blame other states for thinking it's unfair for Iowa, New Hampshire and a couple other states to have a permanent deathgrip on going first.

Maybe there needs to be a trainwreck this time so there can be change next time.

I think there needs to be a change there next time. We need a whole new system.
I think a rotation would be best. Next time, say Nebraska and Delaware, then Oregon and and Maine, and so on.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

Even if Michigan and Florida had delegates restored and awarded according to the previous vote, a rough guess is that it would only give Clinton a 30-40 delegate lift. Hardly seems worth it considering that a battle for them could have serious political fallout.

Perhaps from a candidate's point of view. From a voter's point of view, disenfranchisement is a serious problem for whatever reason it occurred.

Upon thinking about it, I think the states involved could be sued also. It appears that the democratic party officials on the state level did not have the authority to give them the go ahead to set up the primaries on the early dates, and they must have known that.

It would be similar to a business knowingly signing a contract with someone who doesn't have the authority to speak for the other business supposedly involved in the deal.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I can't blame other states for thinking it's unfair for Iowa, New Hampshire and a couple other states to have a permanent deathgrip on going first.

Maybe there needs to be a trainwreck this time so there can be change next time.

I think there needs to be a change there next time. We need a whole new system.
I think a rotation would be best. Next time, say Nebraska and Delaware, then Oregon and and Maine, and so on.

That's an interesting idea. I think it would be good to take into account different factors when selecting the combination of initial states to make sure that the various interests are represented -- rural areas, states with large cities, manufacturing (to the extent it still exists in the USA), the various ethnic groups, etc.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Well given none of the candidates got a chance to campaign in either state, and only Clinton's name appeared on Michigan's Ballad, I think seating them in anyway that would effect the nominee choice is completely ridiculous.

A Caucus sounds like the best compromise.

TAM

If they were looking for a compromise, yes.

[T.A.M.]

There you go again with your "all is predetermined" line.

Oh well, we will see.

TAM

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once again, my Democratic Party has made a mess of things. I can only hope it works itself out without turning people away from the Party.

Seeing the outcomes vary so much by whether there is a caucus or a primary, having two important states have no vote and the super delegates are all disasters.

I do think it is disingenuous of the Obama people to whine about the Michigan and Florida delegates at the same time they are whining about the super delegates. Jesse Jackson was making the claim the rules shouldn't change midstream. Oh sure, and he would just keep quiet if Obama lost to the super delegate vote. Riiiiiight.

And I think if Clinton wants Florida and Michigan counted then perhaps she should ask the super delegates to divide themselves up in proportion to the voters.

Of course Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot and that is an issue. Yet there was a campaign to vote undecided if you were an Obama supporter there. And why wasn't he on the ballot? Whose choice (mistake or not) was that? I don't think any of them campaigned in either state (but I'm not sure about Michigan) so they can't really complain that the other campaigned unfairly.

I am disgusted with the caucuses here. It reminds me of local politics where anyone showing up with enough supporters gets action regardless of the actual population's preferences. But then I suppose that's the same when the voter turn out is a small percentage of the eligible population.

Mostly though, the Democratic Party needs to get more consistency from state to state and get rid of the super delegate stuff that seems outdated to a lot of people. If Obama supporters see him win the states and lose to the super delegates it would be a disaster for the party. That alone indicates the super delegate system is a bad idea. And so what two states moved their primaries up? Come to some consensus. Rotate the early primaries. Surely not counting votes was also a very bad idea now that we have this particular race.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

@Bob Klase
You're right, it looks like state election commissions do front much of the cost. I had sincerely believed that caucuses were entirely funded by parties (it's a party meeting)

It's possible that caucuses are entirely funded by the parties, but Florida and Michigan are both primary, not caucus states. Two big differences- caucuses are not an election by secret ballot, and caucuses can not have votes on issues other than party candidates.

[pgwenthold]

I was listening to the Bill Press show, and he had on a Senator from Mich (sorry, forget the name). The Senator was going on and on about how we need to change the system (fine with me) and that Michigan and Florida's delegates should count. What about the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan? His decision to remove himself from the ballot.

None of that say well with me, but then it went out of control. See, the guy, being a senator, is a superdelegate. What about Obama's contention that the superdelegates should have their hands tied? Oh you can't do that! That would be changing the system in the middle. If you want to do something like that, you HAVE TO MAKE THE CHANGES BEFORE THE PROCESS BEGINS. It's not fair to change the rules in the middle of the process.

Seriously. The guy seriously said "you can't change the rules in the middle of the process" just after saying that they need to allow Michigan and Florida delegates to count.

I also love the nonsense about how "we can't let New Hampshire and Iowa control the outcome of the primary" while at the same time, complaining that no one is going to be able to get enough votes to win the primary. Who is controlling what? Right now, the Wisconsin and Texas outcomes are going to be HUGE, with tremendous stakes. If Michigan had waited to Super Tuesday, their votes would have mattered. A lot. Of course, that isn't the problem. The problem is that the candidates are not spending lots of campaign money in Michigan. It's not about having votes that matter, it's where the money is being spent.

I have no problems rotating the primary schedule. Doesn't bother me in the least (although I would prefer my state never comes to the top of the list). But current campaigns are designed around the current system, and therefore it is not fair to change the process retroactively.

PS I do agree that instituting a caucus in Mich and Florida is a fair compromise. I think the outcomes will be very different from the primaries.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by Kaylee

I agree that it would be unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game and to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic convention. But because the democratic party officials that could make decisions on the state level decided to ignore the DNC and held their primaries early anyway --

It was not the Democratic party decision to hold the primary early. They had not choice about when the primary would be held. Their only option was to have a caucus or primary at a later date if they wanted to pay for it.

[Bododio]

To have the best chance at winning the November presidential election, the Democrats need to present a unified front and a single candidate who best espouses the party's principles, and the best path forward for our country. While the election is still several months away, the Democrats have their self-induced work cut out for them. Unification seems impossible, but becomes more imperative as the Republicans quickly coalesce behind their FHB. All the infighting might make good news stories and certain persons might even find it entertaining. But it obscures the real value the Democratic party and its policies and positions, as well as those of its candidates, bring to the national debate at one of the most crucial times in our nation's history. I've been able to vote since Nixon-Humphrey, and I can't think of any election more important than this one. In short, the Democrats need to get their act together -- and fast. If they can't even unify among themselves, how are we to believe they can unify a nation?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I do think it is disingenuous of the Obama people to whine about the Michigan and Florida delegates at the same time they are whining about the super delegates. Jesse Jackson was making the claim the rules shouldn't change midstream. Oh sure, and he would just keep quiet if Obama lost to the super delegate vote. Riiiiiight.

Apples. Oranges.

No-one, so far as I know, is suggesting that the superdelegates should be stripped of their votes 'cos they don't like the way they're voting. This still leaves room for a vigorous opinion on (a) how the superdelegates should use their votes (b) whether the whole system was a bad idea in the first place.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

It was not the Democratic party decision to hold the primary early. They had not choice about when the primary would be held. Their only option was to have a caucus or primary at a later date if they wanted to pay for it.

Whose decision was it then? The states' legislatures?

FWIW, apparently the Republican National Party was also not pleased that Michigan and Florida held their primaries early, but have chosen to seat half the delegates instead of none.

Unfortunately I forgot to bookmark this, but I read an article that explained that the DNC prefers to have 4 elections held early in states where the voting population is small and allows for a lot of interaction between the politicians and voters vs. heavy reliance on commericals only. They think it makes for a better vetting process. I have to say, I think that makes a lot of sense.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Bododio

To have the best chance at winning the November presidential election, the Democrats need to present a unified front and a single candidate who best espouses the party's principles, and the best path forward for our country.

Really? I would have thought that the candidate who best espouses the party's principles would be the candidate the majority of its voters would have the chance to vote for. Were I a Texan Democrat, for instance, I would resent my party declaring a "unified front" before I, a citizen, had the chance to participate in the process of moving my party forward as I see fit.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Apples. Oranges.

Apples and oranges have previously been shown to be remarkably similar; Marc Abrahams, editor, Annals of Improbable Research

The issue is arguing against counting the 2 states' delegates on the basis of not changing the rules midstream which is the argument I'm hearing. If that's the case, then how do you argue for changing the super delegate rules midstream?

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

No-one, so far as I know, is suggesting that the superdelegates should be stripped of their votes 'cos they don't like the way they're voting. This still leaves room for a vigorous opinion on (a) how the superdelegates should use their votes (b) whether the whole system was a bad idea in the first place.

Oh yes they were saying they shouldn't exist at all. The Obama supporters were griping loudly that the super delegate system was inherently unfair when they thought Clinton was ahead 2:1 in super delegate count.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

The issue is arguing against counting the 2 states' delegates on the basis of not changing the rules midstream which is the argument I'm hearing. If that's the case, then how do you argue for changing the super delegate rules midstream?

I don't. I can't find anyone who does.

Quote:

Oh yes they were saying they shouldn't exist at all. The Obama supporters were griping loudly that the super delegate system was inherently unfair when they thought Clinton was ahead 2:1 in super delegate count.

Yes, but saying that it was a bad idea in the first place is not the same as saying that it should be changed right now, in mid-election. So far as I know, no-one, but no-one, has proposed this --- certainly not Obama himself; whereas calls to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates have come from Clinton herself.

[Bododio]

Tried to add a post, but fingers and brain uncooperative.

[Bododio]

Originally Posted by steverino

Really? I would have thought that the candidate who best espouses the party's principles would be the candidate the majority of its voters would have the chance to vote for. Were I a Texan Democrat, for instance, I would resent my party declaring a "unified front" before I, a citizen, had the chance to participate in the process of moving my party forward as I see fit.

It's a panacea anyway, since:

[fz]
Your mind is totally controlled,
It has been stuffed into my mold,
And you will do as you are told,
Until the rights to you are sold.
[/fz]

[Bododio]

Tried to edit, but messed up somehow. Not my morning.

[TheJim]

I am one of the "disenfranchised" votes being a dem in Florida and i hope that my vote does not count. I was not planing on wasting my time voting in the primary as i and just about everyone else in the state knew are vote would not count but did at the last moment because of yet another stupid amendment. But, to my real point I was not disenfranchised mainly because well it is up to the party on how they pick the president there is no constitutional reason for there to be a primary. And well if Florida goes to the Dem candidate this fall the election will not be close anyways.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kaylee

As I understand it the Democratic party is a private organization and they can decide how to go about selecting a presidential candidate for the general election in November.

But, obviously, the effect was that voters in Florida and Michigan got disenfranchised from the process.

In this case where do private rights and political rights start and end?

If voters decided to sue, could they sue? Do they have standing to sue? And if they do, who should they sue? The DNC or the Democratic state politicians who decided to hold the primaries early?

Re Bond of NAACP -- its interesting that he is basically deciding to endorse a white candidate (Hillary Clinton won in FL and Michigan). My understanding is that the NAACP settled out of court agreeing not to disclose the terms in regard to the disenfranchisment of African Americans in FL during 2000. So, given that, I don't for one moment believe that he is really concerned about disenfranchisement. I don't believe an organization really concernd about that concept would have settled on those terms.

Actually what they should do is give no funds to the Democratic National Committee/Party but only to local candidates until the DNC changes to an anyone can hold their own state primaries/caucuses whenever they damn well please because who give a crap if it makes otherwise mostly pointless states (re: the political process) feel important. Every state should have exactly the amount of power it's population gives it. No more, no less.

[EvilSmurf]

It would be unfair to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida for the simple reason that if Michigan and Florida were actually on the table, who knows what would have happened if every candidate actually campaigned in those states?

Secondly, the fairest way to decide the order of the primaries would be a random drawing, no?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Kaylee

Whose decision was it then? The states' legislatures?

I heard the following on the radio so don't have a link and am too lazy to google for it.

I listened to an interview with some Democratic official from Florida. He said the Florida state legislature and governor are all heavily Republican and that they (the Republicans) wanted to move their primary forward but the Dems did not because the DNC had said they would not seat the Florida delegation. The Republicans were threatened with only losing half their delegates so they voted for the early primary and the Dems were screwed through no fault of their own.

If that scenario is true, I don't think the DNC should have punished Florida Dems for the scheduling of the Florida primary.

Don't know about Michigan.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I heard the following on the radio so don't have a link and am too lazy to google for it.

I listened to an interview with some Democratic official from Florida. He said the Florida state legislature and governor are all heavily Republican and that they (the Republicans) wanted to move their primary forward but the Dems did not because the DNC had said they would not seat the Florida delegation. The Republicans were threatened with only losing half their delegates so they voted for the early primary and the Dems were screwed through no fault of their own.

If that scenario is true, I don't think the DNC should have punished Florida Dems for the scheduling of the Florida primary.

Don't know about Michigan.

It seems like this would be more plausible during the general election. I don't see why a Florida Huckleberry voter, for instance, would care if Obama and Clinton were marginalized in that state during the primary.

[SezMe]

Well, it wouldn't be plausible for the general election because that date is cast in stone for all states.

I agree that the average Mittens voter (is that an oxymoron? ) wouldn't give a damn about the Dem race, but the Reps did want to move their primary date up to get more clout (or so they thought at the time) on the Rep side. Since the state apparently can afford only primary, the Dems were dragged along, kicking and screaming.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

....
Yes, but saying that it was a bad idea in the first place is not the same as saying that it should be changed right now, in mid-election. So far as I know, no-one, but no-one, has proposed this --- ...

This is getting into a bit of a semantics argument here. I spoke of hypocritical opinions, you want to make it about the wording of the criticisms as if that takes the hypocrisy away. I don't think so.

Both sides want what gives them more delegates. I'm disappointed in both of them. I'm not saying Clinton is right, though I do wish the party leaders hadn't been so stupid in the first place to not be able to settle the dispute without disenfranchising voters like they did. It's a terrible idea in hindsight.

But listening Jesse Jackson, for one, (whom I have supported in the past, BTW) arguing out of both sides of his mouth depending on which votes he was calling unfair was noticeably hypocritical. I haven't heard Clinton saying much about the validity of the super delegate system, though I could have missed it and/or it could be there is no reason for her to call attention to them not knowing who they will favor in the end and having a slight advantage from them for the moment.

In Florida, both candidates equally did not campaign. Those votes seem fair and Obama is hypocritical to whine about fairness there since over a million people voted under neutral conditions. I think having a million people vote is at least a reason to reconsider. Why do you think they bothered knowing the votes wouldn't count and how can you say since the vote wasn't going to count people wouldn't bother voting?

I'm going to vote on Tues here even though our state is ignoring the primary votes. I imagine a lot of people are going to vote. It will be interesting to see if the outcome contradicts the caucuses or not. I'd like this state's super delegates to know what people want besides the ones who showed up at the caucuses. I understand the super ds are being bombarded with emails from Obama supporters. That can give a skewed view of the actual will of the people.

In Michigan, not having Obama on the ballot is a legit issue, but I do know because I heard it advocated on the radio, that there was a campaign to have Obama supporters vote "undecided" in order to get delegates awarded that could eventually be Obama delegates. I think at the time the division in Michigan between undecided and Clinton is probably pretty close to how the Obama Clinton split would have gone. I'm not positive but I'm sure there are Michigan polls from around that time which could corroborate that (or not).

It's all a moot point right now until we see how Texas and Ohio vote. If Clinton wins those states then Florida and Michigan and the super delegates all matter again. If Clinton loses then it's unlikely the states or the super ds would make a difference.