MI Dems Approve Revote, Now Up to Legislature and Campaigns

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:39:00 PM EST
Tags: Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

As expected:

Michigan Democrats agreed Friday to push a do-over primary in early June to give them a say in the close presidential race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Amid talks with the two campaigns, the four Michigan Democrats said in a statement they were "focusing on the possibility of a state-run primary in early June which would not use any state funding." Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, one of the Democratic participants, said a likely date is June 3.

Update (TL): The Michigan Democrats agreed but the campaigns still need to approve. [More...]

The agreement now hinges on getting the campaigns and party officials to approve legislation, still being written, that would set the primary for early June. In the statement, Brewer said party leaders would need to write legislation "that is acceptable to the MDP and both the Clinton and Obama campaigns."
To go forward, any plan would require the approval of the two campaigns, the Democratic National Committee, state party leaders and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is backing Clinton. Brewer said a revised delegate plan would also need to be approved by the state party's executive committee and the DNC's rules and bylaws committee.

< Clinton And Obama To Rein In Supporters | Obama Says Rezko Played a Bigger Fundraising Role Than Previously Known >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

MI Dems Approve Revote, Now Up to Legislature and Campaigns | 59 comments (59 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Awesome. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by sweetthings on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 04:59:44 PM EST

Just goes to show that if the locals want it to happen, it can happen.

Congratts to the MI voters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by TalkRight on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST

THEY WILL HAVE THIER SAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now only if FL gets under pressure over the weekend..!

Congrats! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Fredster on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:05:05 PM EST

The locals should be able to work this out for the benefit of their constituents.

: And MAYBE... (none / 0) (#29)
by lilburro on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:18:35 PM EST

the locals will be able to build up the Democratic Party by standing for something and doing something!
Why, I'll be durned, they don't need coattails after all!

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:05:16 PM EST

At least my friends in Michigan have their act together more than Florida does.

A June date could be tricky for Obama because the students will be home. U of M has a ton of out-of-state students.

Off to go email my MI friend... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by kredwyn on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:07:03 PM EST

to let her know she gets to vote again.

: Both campaigns need to approve still (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by catfish on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:05:14 PM EST

hasn't happened yet.

One down, one to go! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by frankly0 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST

Clinton should make her approval (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:48:48 PM EST

Contingent upon seating the FL delegates as is. All of them.

Obama gets his way in MI.

Clinton gets hers in FL.

Genius!! (none / 0) (#18)
by dunsel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:56:30 PM EST

So, the price of having a real election in one state is letting the results of a fake election stand. Awesome logic.


It wasn't fake (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:04:29 PM EST

Go ask Floridians if it was fake.


What people were told at the time.. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by dunsel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:09:54 PM EST

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/29/617700.aspx

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings argued that in taking away Florida's delegates, and rendering the primary election little more than a beauty contest, the Democratic National Committee was disenfranchising Florida voters. Hastings claimed the real victims are the people he calls "Joe and Jane Lunch Bucket." Ultimately, they lost that federal case, but the bitter sentiment still resonates.

The average voter in Florida was led to believe that votes in the "beauty contest" would not count. An election where the candidates agree not to campaign, and everybody is told in advance that it won't count is not legitimate. To count Florida's fake election is to cheat all the voters who relied on those statements, and the states that actually followed the rules.


Actually (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:27:57 PM EST

the major newspapers all encouraged people to take the election seriously and emphasized that there was a possibility the results would ultimately count in one way or another. Someone posted a bunch of quotes yesterday.


And yet they showed up (3.50 / 2) (#27)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:13:16 PM EST

In record numbers.

Now go ask them if it was fake.


it doesn't matter what the subjective views of (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST

Some Floridians (because I'm sure you don't pretend to speak for all of them) thought. Turnout was depressed, as I'm sure you know. It doesn't matter if some people thought it was real. Some people knew it was meaningless and you want to disenfranchise them.


Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:49:03 PM EST

The numbers were unprecedented.

Jeralyn has told you stop repeated that misinformation.


: Turnout is irrelevant. (none / 0) (#48)
by jtaylorr on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:07:19 PM EST

As long as there was at least one Floridan who decided not to vote because they were told it was merely a beauty contest, someone has been disenfranchised and a revote is needed.
And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, my aunt in Pensacola voted for Hillary so she could say she voted for a woman in her lifetime but recently told me, had she known the delegates would eventually be seated, she would have voted for Obama, and if a Florida revote is held, she will vote for Obama.

And ask yourself how many more would have voted (none / 0) (#49)
by chudd on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:34:51 PM EST

if it hadn't been a non-election for purposes of presidential delegates.. The average age of voters was up markedly, indicating that Obama's younger voters didn't turn out but older voters did, likely because they vote for local issues in addition to president.

It's also possible that some older voters mayn't have been aware of the "details" like the fact that the vote would result in no delegates, since their legislature had sold them down the river. These would be the same people who get in the booth and see only one name they recognize, and vote for her.

Honestly, what possible objection could someone have to a sanctioned election that would allow all delegates to be legitimate and be seated, other than the fear that the results wouldn't turn out so favorably for their candidate, since the field had since been leveled?


: LOL (none / 0) (#55)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:48:17 AM EST

"The average age of voters was up markedly"
Outside of Gainesville and maybe Tallahassee you're not going to find a very umm 'robust' demographic here in FL.

edgar, my donkey loving brother, (none / 0) (#52)
by cy street on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:18:02 AM EST

if everything was kosher in florida, then why not take your case to court? it worked for bush.


Ridiculous... (none / 0) (#54)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST

...in early caucuses, Kucinich voters either showed up or stayed home knowing full well that they wouldn't come close to reaching the 15% viability threshold and thus, wouldn't count ...

now if you're prepared to say those caucuses are fraudulent because many voters were told that a vote for their candidate wouldn't count, I'll at least give you points for consistency.

but when 1.7 million people turn out for an election which 'didn't count', it sufficiently blunts your notion that it wasn't taken seriously.


that would seem the most efficient (none / 0) (#19)
by cpinva on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:01:12 PM EST

way of handling it. as such, rest assured the DNC won't hear of it.

since out-of-state students generally should be voting in their state's primary, the fact that school will be out should have no effect whatever on clinton's or obama's chances in a re-vote. unless you're suggesting all those out-of-state students illegally voted in MI's primary to begin with.


As far as I'm concerned (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST

Obama is getting a second chance at an election he would have lost if it was held correctly and WHEN it was supposed to have been held.

How many second chances should he get?


Actually, Michigan voters (none / 0) (#41)
by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:46:59 PM EST

are getting a first chance at a meaningful election. I take it you would prefer them to have zero chances.


: Michigan "re-do" (none / 0) (#59)
by TLE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:54:07 PM EST

Our primary was not "meaningful" in the sense that the line "Uncommitted" stood in for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden (I know Biden was out by then, but so was Dodd, and some people voted for him, since his name appeared on the ballot).
Since we do not declare party affiliation in Michigan, I don't see how a re-vote is going to be any more meaningful than our first vote. There are two possible ways to go: either a) only allow people who requested a Democratic ballot during the January primary to vote in June, which means all those who supposedly didn't bother since it wouldn't count STILL wouldn't be able to vote or b) only allow paid up members of the state Democratic Party to vote, which means that people who identify with the party but can't pony up what amounts to a poll tax, or don't get their application in on time, won't be able to vote. How much more "meaningful" do you think either of these scenarios will be?
I call BS on a revote, and I call BS on a 50/50 split. Seat our delegation or don't seat them: those are the only choices. No matter which way the DNC goes, somebody is going to be angry.
Michigan and Florida did something that should have been done a long time ago: they took a stand on the ridiculous tradition of letting two small, atypical states decide who the rest of us can select from for our nominee. In any other campaign cycle, they could have safely made their point, whatever the consequences, and possibly started a long-overdue discussion of how to remedy the situation (rotating regional primaries, etc). I don't think anyone foresaw how ugly this primary season was going to get.
Obama, by withdrawing his name from our ballot when instructed to do so by the DNC, showed that he doesn't care about the people of Michigan, and that he dances to the Dem establishment tune. So did Edwards and the other two candidates who pulled their names off the ballot. I can't speak for other Michigan Democrats, but I will not vote in November for anyone who did not appear on my primary ballot in January.

The Supreme Court would like to have a word (none / 0) (#23)
by dunsel on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:06:38 PM EST

SYMM v. U.S, 439 U.S. 1105 (1979) established that students can vote where they go to school, even if they weren't residents of that state before.


: interesting. (none / 0) (#30)
by cpinva on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:21:34 PM EST

that case happened after i graduated, i had to use an absentee ballot to vote in the 78 election.

Actually (none / 0) (#32)
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:26:50 PM EST

out-of-state students can generally choose to vote in either place, although they can't choose both of course.

At least in MI, this was settled long ago by a Michigan Supreme Court case that said voting officials cannot require any "extra" documentation of residency from students. If you have an address and you consider that your residence, that's good enough.


Great idea! (none / 0) (#25)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:08:37 PM EST

Good idea (none / 0) (#31)
by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:25:25 PM EST

If you are looking to ensure that absolutely nothing gets done, I think the best way to do that would be to require that any deal in one state be contingent on the other state.

You do realize that Obama would be perfectly content with not having any deal at all, right? He'll just wait until June and them, when he has both the delegate lead and popular vote lead, he will wait for the DNC to force Clinton to bow out so that there won't be a floor fight and Fl and Mi will have their delegates seated.

Perfect is the enemy of good.


If that happens (none / 0) (#33)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:27:43 PM EST

Obama loses the GE as Floridians and Clinton supporters stay home.

What I just said above is imperfect.

But at least it's balanced and imperfect, instead of Obama getting his way on everything and imperfect.


Your argument is (none / 0) (#37)
by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:39:30 PM EST

nothing more than political gamesmanship. "You better do what I want or you'll be sorry".

That isn't going to work.

You can be angry that Obama is getting what he wants if you like. It won't change political reality.


That's the entire Obama Supporter (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:47:47 PM EST

Raison D'etre.

I think we discussed this earlier. I'm the one Clinton supporter who behaves like an Obama supporter.

But I also used to think that what got me PO'd was limitted to just myself. Then I found out that while some will not behave as I do, they still feel the same way.

There might not be lattes flying all over the place in Denver but there'll be a lot of festering if Obama wins this cause of...... ahem.... revotes.

It will have a ripple effect in the GE.

My suggestion to you and Obama is give up on Florida, focus on Michigan and PA, win those or do the best you can, if you win the nomination, when you meet a disgruntled Clinton supporter you can say "Look. We gave you Florida, OK? Not everything went Obama's way!"

And then the Clinton supporter still isn't happy but he or she gets over it in time for November.


: Actually, no. (none / 0) (#51)
by tbetz on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:16:14 AM EST

Twice as large a percentage of Hillary supporters hold that position as Obama supporters.
Hillary's campaign has even bragged about this fact.

But it *is* political reality... (none / 0) (#56)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST

...per a recent poll, at least 5% of Democratic primary voters in FL say they'll sit out the general altogether if delegates aren't seated. I believe the final tally is that up to 25% of those Dems who voted in the initial primary may be lost votes come November.

That's much closer to political reality than your wishful thinking on the noblesse of voters.


You're living in a fantasy world. (none / 0) (#35)
by MarkL on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:34:04 PM EST

Clinton is not bowing out, and if Obama muscles the FL and MI delegates off the floor, there WILL be a huge floor fight.


The choice is not (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:51:04 PM EST

If they will be seated. They will be.

The choices are under what terms.

That is what is being brokered right now.


Sure (none / 0) (#38)
by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:40:26 PM EST

So Clinton is willing to sacrifice the good of the Party for her own political desires. Sounds like a great idea.

Luckily I don't hold Hillary in such low esteem.


Come on (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:42:35 PM EST

what he said is nothing more than the mirror image of every Obama supporter's claim that if Hillary "steals" the nomination, there is going to be some big blow-up.


And I assume you think those Obama supporters (none / 0) (#43)
by JJE on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:48:52 PM EST

who say that are wrong. So why is this ok?


: What I think (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Steve M on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:53:11 PM EST

is that people on both sides need to assign responsibility in the right direction.
One of these candidates will win the nomination. We may like the way they do it, or we may not.
Once that happens, people will need to make a choice about whether to accept the result or not. In my view, if they don't, the consequences are on them. Not on the candidate who "forced" them to make a scene. They are voluntary actors.
Most people seem able to assign responsibility only in one direction.

You're killin' me dude... (none / 0) (#57)
by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST

...spoken as though it's written in stone that an Obama candidacy is 'for the good of the party' and Clinton is just taking up oxygen.


Edgar08 (none / 0) (#36)
by Andy08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:36:45 PM EST

I like your plan. Sounds more than fair to me; especially since it wa sobama's choice to leave his name out of the MI ballot as Jeralyn has repeatedly
explained.


If Obama's smart (none / 0) (#5)
by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:06:32 PM EST

He'll now agree to seat 50% of the Florida delegates based on the January primary.

It won't threaten his pledged delegate lead, the FL popular vote will continue to be marred by an asterisk, Clinton won't be able to gain momentum by winning FL in June, and FL will be seated according to the rules in effect at the time they decided to move their primaries.

It's the best of all worlds.

What if he is the only one who agrees (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by RalphB on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:16:55 PM EST

to seating 50% of the FL delegation? Think FL wants to be cut in half?


Bill Nelson (none / 0) (#12)
by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:28:48 PM EST

Does.


: Good thing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST

It's not his decision to make.

The Clinton Campaign (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Boston Boomer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:20:15 PM EST

shouldn't accept that. Ed Rendell was just on CNN, and he wants a real revote in FL, not a mail in one. He has offered to raise money for it too.


Send that memo to Hillary supporter Bill Nelson (none / 0) (#11)
by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST

Who has proposed the 50% solution.

If the FL dems can get it together to do a real primary, Obama won't stand in the way.


: The 50% solution would muddy the waters (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by catfish on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:04:10 PM EST

and make Hillary's popular vote lead (or Obama's lead) by convention a more compelling case to make to the superdelegates.

I thought that too after March 4th, but (none / 0) (#9)
by tandem5 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:21:15 PM EST

there is also the popular vote to consider. Seating even 50% of the delegation based on the earlier election gives inarguable validity to Florida's popular vote tally, and its in Obama's best interest to lead in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote at the convention. A re-vote in Florida would not result in a win for Obama, but with Edwards off the ballot he would definitely pick up more votes than before.

Of course Obama has to weigh ever changing perceptions. If the pledged delegate count is seen to be paramount for the super delegates then he would want to avoid re-losing Florida all over again.


Seating 50% of the FL delegation (none / 0) (#10)
by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:26:20 PM EST

does not give "inarguable" validity to the FL popular vote. It is very arguable.


This is an argument (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Warren Terrer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:34:33 PM EST

against said solution.


: For Obama (none / 0) (#15)
by AF on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:39:20 PM EST

It is an argument in favor.

This is strict semantics (none / 0) (#28)
by tandem5 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:14:21 PM EST

To officially appoint a delegation (even half) in proportion to a state's election results is to officially recognize the validity of those results. If the punishment in some way modified or ignored the proportion then there is room for argument.


If the mechanism for the MI re-vote must (none / 0) (#47)
by oculus on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:06:15 PM EST

make it through the MI Legislature, what are the chances that will happen?

MI legislature (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by jsj20002 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:12:16 AM EST

Can't predict where the Republican Michigan Senate will come out. Michigan has always had an open primary system that allows crossovers. I expect the Republican Senate will insist that a June primary be open to crossovers as well. And, unlike January, there will be no competitive race on the R side to discourage crossovers. In effect, the D donors who are willing to pay for the do-over in Michigan will be paying a much higher cost because the R's will be voting as well as the Ds. Then there is the very real problem of our very Republican (5-2) Supreme Court. When the lower courts set aside the January 15 primary, the Supreme Court simply reversed them. The Chief Justice, Cliff Taylor, is up for reelection this fall and the Democratic Party has already put a target on his back. If Cliff Taylor thinks the June election will help D's in November, he may find some way to stop it.


: What, in your opinion, are the chances (none / 0) (#58)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST

there will be new Dem. primaries in Michigan?

another congrats!! (none / 0) (#50)
by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 01:01:01 AM EST

This is great news. Hope all the final details are worked out, and the mail-in details actually are fair.

Now let's figure FL out. I'm happy with the current vote. But a well done and fair mail-in revote, or full revote would do.