Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not: Obama Objects To DNC Rule In MI Revote Controversy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:14:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Rules are rules, except when they are not. This has been the Obama motto in this Democratic contest.

In discussing the Michigan revote, it is important to note that the basis of Barack Obama's objection is that the rules of the Democratic National Committee require that voters who vote in the Republican primary be excluded from the Democratic primary in the same year. The Detroit Free Press reports:

[Obama legal counsel] Bauer’s concerns come chiefly from the proposal’s requirement that voters who participated in the Republican primary in January cannot take part in a Democratic do-over.

. . . . On Tuesday, Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer called the proposed legislation “a legally viable process for an early June presidential primary.” “None of the legal objections to this legislation have any merit, and in my opinion, this legislation satisfies all DNC and legal requirements,” he said. He also noted that the provision that voters affirm they did not take part in the Jan. 15 Republican primary “is required by the DNC and must be part of the legislation.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Barack Obama's objection to the Michigan revote is because the rules of the Democratic National Committee preclude voting in Presidential primaries of both parties in the same year. Obama apparently would like to change those rules in the middle of the game.

Remember that the proposed Michigan revote is completely in conformance with the rules of the DNC:

Today, the DNC Rules Committee also said the legislation “would fit within the framework of the National Party’s Delegate Selection Rules."

Now we know that Barack Obama wants to avoid revotes in Michigan and Florida at all costs and he is merely grasping at any excuse he can find. But it is interesting to see that he is now grasping at the EXISTING DNC rules as his excuse to object to the Michigan revote.

< Obama Is The Obstacle To A MI Revote | Obama in His Own Words on Michigan >

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.

Rules Are Rules, Except When They Are Not: Obama Objects To DNC Rule In MI Revote Controversy | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Seriously, WTHeck? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by blogtopus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST

I know he's all about transparency in the office, but can he be any more transparent than THIS?

Look: DKos asked, heck, practically demanded that people vote for Romney in the GOP primary. You want to play with the process, bro, you gots to take your hits.

And no, not knowing that there was a chance for a revote is no excuse. All the merry pranxters who ran to Romney blew their vote on a joke, so why should they get so steamed when they aren't allowed take-backs?

It's either one of two things. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:57 AM EST

It's either an utterly transparent ploy to stall/thwart any chance of a revote.

Obama is so desperate for votes that he's willing to let people vote twice, in hopes that they'll vote for him.

Neither one is honorable. Killing a revote when it could actually net him legal delegates? Allow people to vote in both party's primaries when no other state allows that?

(Am I evil for thinking "Milli Vanilli" every time Obama changes his spots?)


Um (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by commonscribe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:11:50 AM EST

Is there a problem with everybody voting twice?
Isn't that the point of having a re-do?


Well, technically (none / 0) (#39)
by qnr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:35:48 AM EST

The people that voted Democratic haven't really voted. Those that voted Republican originally would be the only ones whose votes would be counted twice.


No (none / 0) (#42)
by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:56:33 AM EST

The revote is only for people whose votes didn't count the first time - those who voted in the Dem primary, or chose not to vote because of the DNC sanctions. People who voted in the GOP primary chose to do so freely, and have had their votes counted in the GOP race.

You don't get to vote in both primaries.


: If (none / 0) (#48)
by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST

Democrats bolted so easily to the Republicans because the Republicans "had a full slate," perhaps they aren't really Democrats at all.

Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:58 AM EST

I don't know how Obama thinks that this works to his benefit. He can't really argue now that that Hillary is trying to change the rules, when she's agreed to something the DNC says is within the rules, and he is objecting to it.

If Obama thinks that voters in MI and FLA are going to forget about this in the fall, he's kidding himself. How does he go to those states and urge them to vote for him when he will be seen by those voters as having stood in the way of a re-vote? They're not going to blame their state party leaders -- they are going to blame him.

Not good politics.

What this opens the door to (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:26:32 AM EST

is, if the delegates and pop vote are close at the end of the day, Hillary saying that all of the votes weren't counted, and that she could have won if they had been. It will be difficult to disagree with her.


Many (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST

of Obama's supporters have been reciting "the roolz are the roolz" so long and so loud that it has escaped at lot of attention that some of them, in fact many of them, don't actually know the roolz. I have read numerous Obama supporters insisting that Hillary broke the rules when she didn't have her name removed from the ballot. A lot of folks are also insisting that SHE is the only one that did not.

Quite frankly, there are a whole lot of people commenting on the rules without having the faintest idea what the rules are. I plead guilty. Because I don't care what the rules are and how they may benefit Obama or Hillary. I am just appalled that any "progressive" would want to disenfranchise voters. Any voters. Any where. Any time. And if you don't care ethically you should care politically because this one will come back to take a bite.

And the whole "vote for Romney" bit was really, really tacky IMHO. Encouraging that kind of behavior seems more Limbaughesque than progressive.


You don't need to know (1.00 / 1) (#43)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:57:14 AM EST

the rules when you've got the talking points ;-).


Your post (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST

is hilarious. It reminds me of all my evangelical christian relatives who don't know what the Bible says and yet they constantly lecture everyone on the scriptures.


: Unfair (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by gifford on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:26:10 PM EST

You are being unfair to the OP. The vast majority of people vote in all kinds of elections without understanding the rules in great detail. The amount of reading material required to be 100% informed on the rules for your vote would easily fill a law school class: the US constitution, your state constitution, the voting rights act, FEC guidelines, enabling legislation at the federal level, the state level, the county level, etc. The rules for an election are literally thousands of pages, and hundreds of hours, worth of reading material. They are not required reading; we no longer have poll tests for voters.
In fact, the OP is right: Michigan voters were disenfranchised, denied our vote by the Democratic Party. You can quibble over exactly who in the Party is responsible if you like, but I don't think that most Michigan voters are that interested. I'm certainly not.
I have already told both campaigns, the DNC, the Michigan Democratic Party, and my state legislators I will not be supporting or voting for any Democrats if they are not able to work this out. And I intend to keep my pledge, just as Clinton and Obama kept their pledge to the 4 early-primary states to not participate in our election.
I don't know what people who are telling upset Michigan voters that we got what we deserved think they are accomplishing. This primary is just the warmup for the big game in November, and the rules for that game aren't set by the DNC. Michigan's generally loyal Democrats have no obligation to show up that day, or to vote for the Democrats. They have no obligation to donate. These decisions are going to cost the party dearly in the general election.
You can learn more about the Michigan primary debacle at WhoStoleMiVote.org

So it's down to this? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Teresa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST

a) either your vote doesn't count at all, or
b) you get to vote twice!

It's the "Chicago Way" -- voting twice (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST

or more. Really, folks, google "Chicago Way" and read what columnists in his city are telling us.

Do we want a country run the "Chicago Way"?


"chicago politics" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:58:41 AM EST

I about choked when I heard people talking about Chicago Politics in a positive sense at dk.

Obviously not students of politics and history! Chicago+politics has had the connotation of dirty political machines from since JFK, AFAIK.


: Maybe (none / 0) (#50)
by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EST

some Democrats have descended to the point that they think it's the only way to beat the Republicans, of course, then they are being hypocrites if they criticize Hillary for "doing anything to win."

Obama's nomination will forever be tainted (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:24:40 AM EST

by charges of voter suppression etc..... How sad and undemocratic....The GOP will have a ball with the ads in the general election...

That's the REAL Obama (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:36 AM EST

and we are saying lots of it lately.

: sorry: seeing (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by felizarte on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST

not quite too late for the remaining primary voters to see.

Sausage making (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by rilkefan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST

Would only be a surprise to the walks-on-water segment, which presumably is quite small. It's only in the context of HRC-bashing that this is at all worth noting.

What would independent and Obama-leaning (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:53:17 AM EST

Republican voters in MI have done had they known their votes in the Dem primaries might count?

If they voted in the Republican primary thinking the Dem primary wouldn't count, they can't take their vote back and now vote in the re-do.

Isn't that the issue for the Obama camp?

: Elections aren't about what people might've done (none / 0) (#45)
by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST

How would Nader voters in FL in 2000 have voted if they knew they were throwing the election to Bush?
Psychoanalysis is not part of the election process. You cast your ballot and it gets counted. The do-over is for people whose votes weren't counted. The people who voted in the GOP primary chose to do so freely - what their reasons were is irrelevant to the outcome - and their votes were counted.
Speculating about voter psychology in the context of running elections or counting votes is just lame.

Chirs Dodd... not the Dodd I liked any more... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by TalkRight on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:12:21 AM EST

Dodd's statement:

"Even though I left my name on the ballot, it is clear that the results of the Jan. 15 primary should not be used to apportion delegates. Many candidates were not on the ballot and many voters who might have voted in the Democratic primary did so in the Republican primary. Now, those voters would not be able to participate in a re-do election.
"For that reason, as well as concerns about private funding and concerns raised by clerks who would have to administer this election, the best outcome is to come to an arrangement where the delegates are apportioned fairly between Sens. Obama and Clinton, so the Michigan delegation can participate fully in the Denver convention."

He is more worried about the voters how voted for Rep... man I just can't believe him.. he is ready to disenfranchise all the voters for the scant (if any) that voted in rep primary...

I tell you give Obama an extra .005% to compenstate for this logig... and lets hear the voice of the rest of the 99.995%

: Heh (none / 0) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST

He left his name on the ballot!!!
What a joke.

seriously.. (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by vivicajane on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:02 AM EST

"Obama apparently would like to change those rules in the middle of the game."

So would Senator Clinton.

Not in Michigan or Florida (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST

Revotes conform to the existing rules.

Try again.


The rules (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST

Don't prohibit revotes. If they did the DNC would not have approved the plan.

At best you can say she changed her priorities and rhetoric.

Clinton has always adhered to the rules.

Even when it wasn't in her best interests in doing so.


Seriously, how? Link? re Clinton (none / 0) (#16)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:39:38 AM EST

wanting to change the rules on this? She is working within the rules on this. So what in heck do you mean with your unfounded charges here?


They are false charges (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST

as the readers of this site know.


: It's another Jane (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST

"I object!" (none / 0) (#1)
by Fabian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:16:06 AM EST

Well, at least that part of his legal training is coming in handy.

Does it work on the Senate floor too?

It occurs to me (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST

What's to stop a campaign staffer from moving to Iowa, caucusing there, then moving to, say, New Jersey and voting there, then moving to PA and voting there? Isn't it possible for people to vote several times in the same primary, in different states?

Yes -- in those states such as Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST

with same-day registration and very loose requirements on residency -- only three days of residency required in Iowa.

I saw a story in an Iowa paper on how many voters, a remarkable number, registered same-day.


I know what you would be called at (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:17 AM EST

Orange Obama if you said that.


: I know, too, because I was blasted there (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:51:48 AM EST

for linking to the roolz in Iowa, the accounts in Iowa's press of problems in the caucus, and personal accounts from Iowans (and/or "Iowans for three days") whom I know. I musta made it all up, eh?

: Btw, even in my state with same-day (none / 0) (#24)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:54:03 AM EST

registration but six-months' residency required, I know a lot of people who have gotten around it. Same goes for getting around in-state tuition residency rules. You fly in early, you get a driver's license, or even just get your name on a telephone account, and you leave again . . . to return later and claim residency, for voting purposes and/or for in-state tuition rate purposes.

I don't get it (none / 0) (#10)
by Chimster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:28:30 AM EST

Why is this not being covered by the MSM? I thought this would be bigger news to them. Its not as juicy ast the Wright stuff, but it is potentially huge.

The MSM is already committed (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:20 AM EST

to the McCain-Obama presidential race and they're not gonna
let a little thing like democracy get in their way.


It Is Being Covered In The Local Papers (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by MO Blue on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST

in MI and FL though. So this is a double edged sword. Nationally the voters are getting poor information about what is really going on and are being feed "Clinton is desperate" rather than hearing what is really happening. Locally the voters are seeing and hearing "Obama is preventing a revote" which means that MI and FL voters will not be counted in any decision as to who will be the Dem nominee. Not having the whole story reported nationally saves Obama from a backlash in other states in the primaries and kills any chance of winning MI and FL in the general if Obama is the nominee.

Of course, I do think that the Republicans will make sure that reports of Obama stopped the revotes will receive national attention in the GE.


This is where 527s (none / 0) (#37)
by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST

and Hillary's ads and mailers to voters in the remaining primaries comes in...and they need to do a good job with the local press and local letters to editors...

...yer basic ground game + GOTV


Dear Hillary, (none / 0) (#40)
by Chimster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST

Since Jeralyn has been on MSNBC, and TL has been getting some MSM coverage, I'm 99% certain that members of Hillary Clinton's campaign are reading this blog to get a sense or pulse of what her supporters are saying. If this is true, then I say...

Dear Hillary,
Please make Obama's stance on the revotes a topic of conversation in your next conference call with reporters. If you bring this up, Obama will be forced to either give in to the revote or stand his ground and look bad. You owe it to your campaign to do this. Great things will come from it.


: Snide snark. Unattractive. (none / 0) (#57)
by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:42 PM EST

Unamusing.
Uncalled for.

Borrow and rephrase a Canadian slogan (none / 0) (#58)
by anniethena on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM EST

from the 1995 Quebec sovereignity referendum:
"My Canada includes Quebec"

"My America includes Florida and Michigan - my party should too"


It's gotta be an open primary (none / 0) (#25)
by commonscribe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:56:29 AM EST

You can't punish good Dems for trying to smurf the GOP primary.

But is fine (none / 0) (#30)
by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:08:52 AM EST

to punish good Dems who did not try to smurf the GOP primary?


how do they get punished? (none / 0) (#34)
by commonscribe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST

If it's a re-do? They voted in a primary the knew wouldn't count- now they get to vote in a real one.


: No (none / 0) (#46)
by standingup on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST

You are advocating that the position that people who chose to vote in the Republican primary and had their vote counted should be allowed to have a second vote. This position is being used by Obama to object to a revote that would allow the voters who voted for the Democratic ticket in the primary to be counted. It is not fair when a solution, within the rules, is offered to enfranchise voters is discounted so that another group can participate twice. This is illogical.

: They won't try (none / 0) (#47)
by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM EST

to do this again if they are forced into a re-vote. Letting it stand, is saying it was ok to move up. They were not to have their vote before Feb 5, if they have it later, this is keeping within the rules.

: No one (none / 0) (#51)
by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:00 PM EST

should be smurfing no one.

So they (none / 0) (#33)
by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:12:42 AM EST

should be rewarded? They should get to vote twice for doing what we blast the republicans for doing?

Must be Obama rules.


ah--- so only some Dems get to vote twice? (none / 0) (#35)
by commonscribe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:17:52 AM EST

Either they all get a new vote, or nobody does.


No one gets to have their vote counted twice (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:20:56 AM EST

Those who voted in the GOP primary had their votes counted already. Those who voted in the Democratic party did not.


: Ahh...those pesky facts. (none / 0) (#38)
by oldpro on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:34:44 AM EST

Nothing like a little logic to win the day.

Has it occurred to you that what you (none / 0) (#41)
by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST

are suggesting is unfair to REPUBLICANS?
You are advocating letting Democrats vote to sabotage a GOP primary, and then cast a legitimate vote in the Democratic primary.
Shame!


How does Clinton win this... (none / 0) (#44)
by mike in dc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:58:55 AM EST

...if FL and MI aren't in the mix in any way?

seems like she has to blow him out in most of the remaining contests. I'd expect she'd need at least 6 wins out of 10 remaining. Otherwise, this will be a done deal shortly after June 3, and possibly as early as May 7.

Same way Obama has to win this (none / 0) (#56)
by echinopsia on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST

Superdelegates. Neither one can win without them.

Now, if she makes the case (which she can and should) that she'd be the popular vote winner if Obama had not disenfranchised Florida and Michigan, she'll win. And I hope she does.

Obama does not have the franchise on hope, his is the franchise on disenfranchisement and stealing elections.

It's not over in June. It's going all the way to the convention, baby. And you can thank Obama for that.


: math gives us a reality check... (none / 0) (#61)
by mike in dc on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM EST

If Obama keeps a 150 pledeged delegate lead, he'll have about 1700 pledged delegates after June 3. He already has 211 superdelegate endorsements, giving him a total of 1911 delegates. Without FL/MI in the mix, 2024 is the magic number. Ergo, he needs another 113 superdelegates, or about a third of the remaining SDs. Even if his pace of SD pickups slackens between now and June 3, and he only picks up 1 per weekday, he'd still pick up another 50-60 between now and then, and be only 50 or 60 away from clinching the nomination. It's actually fairly likely that he'll pick up the SD endorsements he needs to clinch the 2024 mark by the end of the primary season.

Michigan Votes (none / 0) (#52)
by mookiedog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:29 PM EST

I am one of those Michigan Voters who voted in our primary. I felt that it was my duty to vote even though it was not going to be counted. It is my right to do so.
As to Repub's voting when I voted they asked did I want a Democratic or Republican ballot. So to all who say they can't tell who voted it is listed by your name what ballot you asked for.

: Thanks for affirming this -- I posted here (none / 0) (#54)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST

as well, having looked up your local press, that you had separate party ballots so can easily tell who already voted in the Repub primary.
Hang in there, Michigander. I'm from next door in Wisconsin and know how easily this could have been screwed up by my state legislature a couple of years ago.

That's DailyKos biting him (none / 0) (#55)
by facta non verba on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:32 PM EST

in the you know where. Markos made that rather asinine suggestion that Democratic voters cross-over and vote for Romney in order to disrupt the Republican nominating process. Now he has no moral authority to complain when Rush Limbaugh does the same thing. I was never a DailyKossack, I commented there on occasion. I did like their polls but I never care for their tactics. The Michigan suggestion ended my association with the DailyKos.

Obama doesn't want a revote because he will lose it. It is that simple. And he likely lose 60-40 or worse.

Wow! (none / 0) (#60)
by aprild on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:18:05 AM EST

The comments here are hilarious. Each posts is so concerned about the DNC rules and the national party rules and so forth. But nobody said a word when the states decided to BREAK the rules and move up the primaries. Oh boy, people will feel "disenfranchised" (insert sarcasm). So what? Take out your frustrations on the politicians that allowed this to happen. Get rid of them.

Just be honest and admit that you only care about the revote because you support Hillary. Don't be ashamed to admit it, it shows your loyalty. But don't make this about the voters of MI and FL because all this talk now instead of before January is a little unbelievable.

: It really is about Michigan and Florida voters (none / 0) (#62)
by gifford on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:47:29 AM EST

aprild,
If we have a new election here in Michigan, I will vote for Obama. Although I have not been allowed to participate in the primary process, I have been rooting for him from the sidelines since fairly early on in the debates.
Lots of people said lots of words when we were disenfranchised. Disenfranchised simply means denied the right to vote, so there's no need to say it with sarcasm.
For me this is 100% about the voters of Michigan. I have been working on this for months (see WhoStoleMiVote.org, which I set up before our primary). I suspect many others feel the same.
I plan to take out my frustrations with the Democratic party on the Democratic party by not contributing to or voting for any Democrats this election cycle. That seems to me an entirely rational thing to do.

Rules Schmules (none / 0) (#63)
by bettym47 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 09:56:29 PM EST

Yes. I have called this Rules Schmules on my blog. What is amazing to me is that Obama wants the superdelegates to vote as the voters did unless they voted for Hillary, of course. Then he wants to block all votes anywhere. How people think Obama will win in any general election is beyond me. Feel free to check out my blog at http://www.elections2008online.com. Thanks!

Total Redo (none / 0) (#64)
by bettym47 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:01:34 PM EST

I think we should have a total redo of all primaries and caucuses after the Rev. Wright debacle. I think all those white males will change their mind now. How is that for letting everyone vote. Ha!!

As far as Obama screaming that Republicans are crossing over to vote for Hillary, wasn't he boasting not too long ago that Republicans crossed over and voted for him in Virginia?