home

Michigan Legislature Adjourns Without Passing Revote

Bump and Update: Michigan Legisature adjourned without taking up the revote plan. More here and here.

There's only one fair solution left: Award and seat the delegates per the first primary vote. Obama made his bed, he can now lay in it.

***

Obama Again Asks for 50/50 Delegate Split in Michigan

Barack Obama is back to his unfair plan of demanding 50% of the delegates in Michigan.

I explained in detail last week why this is unfair and I'm going to say it again here.

On January 15, 2008, 594,398 Democrats went to their polling places and voted in their state's primary. The official Michigan election results are here.

[More...]

328,309 Democrats in Michigan voted for Hillary Clinton. She won all but two counties, Washtenaw and Emmet. 238,168 voted uncommitted. 21,715 voted for Dennis Kucinich. 3,845 voted for Chris Dodd. 2,361 voted for Mike Gravel.

Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, Edwards or Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel won 5% of the vote.

Barack Obama now proposes he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama.

That's called stealing an election.

Obama prevails in this crazy theory at his peril. There will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the country who will refuse to vote for him in November, thinking better a Republican than a cheat.

By early September, 2007 when Obama took his name off (pdf)the ballot, he trailed Hillary in multiple polls.

For the reasons I set forth here and here, the DNC should remove the penalty from Michigan and Florida) and award and seat the delegates from the Jan. 15 primary now.

As Hillary told NPR last week about Obama's withdrawal of his name from the ballot:

"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."

That's being generous. Several media commentators have suggested he withdrew his name was for strategic reasons, wanting to keep Hillary from claiming a win in a race he knew he would lose. That could also be why, unlike Hillary, he refuses to support a re-vote, maintaining it wouldn't be fair and would be fraught with peril of fraud. Only if the DNC orders it will he agree to the process.

And this is rich:

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated [at the Democratic National Convention] and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

His reasoning seems to be, if we don't seat the delegates until the convention, we don't have to count their votes now and I'll be ahead by convention time. Once I'm the nominee, by all means, let's seat them.

There's a very simple, fair answer to the Michigan dilemna: The DNC does a big "mea culpa" and removes the penalty. Hillary gets the delegates according to her vote total. The uncommitted and other candidates' delegates remain "uncommitted" and vote how they want when they get to the convention in Denver.

For others angered by Obama's audacity in proposing a 50/50 "give me the votes I didn't win" plan, check out Corrente, RiverDaughter, Angalchel. Read their commenters too.

NOTE BTD - Comments closed.

< PA Poll: Clinton By 16; WV Poll: Clinton By 28 | Thursday Open Thread >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    obama has not shame or conscience (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    in my opinion. we need no more of this in the wh.

    I am really fed up with Obama now (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    and have tried to tell myself that I could get over the past crap and could vote for him in fall . . . but he just keeps providing more reasons not to do so.  An undemocratic so-called Democrat?  No thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Bipartisanship? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
    With who? not with Dems.  

    [ Parent ]
    This is my major concern (none / 0) (#35)
    by vigkat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    And why I am unable to fully grasp the "change" element of Obama's hope and change platform. What I am seeing varies only slightly, in insignificant ways, from what we have been seeing and railing against for quite a long time.  Where is the change?

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by tek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    Maybe this was his strategy all along and why he removed his name in MI.

    Are you going to post the TalkLeft letter for people to sign and send to the DNC?

    I am stunned.... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    he took his name off the ballot and now he is using that as an excuse to steal votes that no one ever intended to be for him. he could have stopped all that with a revote but he doesn't want that for the same reason be pulled his name from the ballot.

    I really hope the SDs are watching.

    Check the quote (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    Here is the quote about the 50-50 idea:

    Obama has advocated a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates if a do-over can't be negotiated.
    State Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan, said the primary idea is worth considering.

    "If we can have a fair, open and inclusive election, that is always something you have to consider," Thomas said Thursday. "I have to see details before openly endorsing something. But I'm pleased folks are still talking, and we're all on the same page of trying to resolve this."



    [ Parent ]
    He's refusing to negotiate (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    He said he would go along with whatever the DNC decided.  The DNC decided the proposed plan was acceptable.  Obama said no.

    [ Parent ]
    I would like to see (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    a better discussion of Obama's alleged foot dragging on this....I have seen reports that he has not endorsed the current plan, but that is about it.

    The link above to Obama's "refus[al] to support a re-vote" is to an NPR article from March 14, 2008.  That was almost a week ago.....

    [ Parent ]

    the fact that he isn't endorsing a (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    perfectly decent revote plan means his foot dragging is not alleged.

    [ Parent ]
    Please cite the DNC saying that any plan... (none / 0) (#160)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    ... is acceptable.  I haven't seen that reported anywhere.

    [ Parent ]
    Time factor (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Fredster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    coming into play isn't it?  When does the MI lege adjourn for the holiday?  B.O. is stonewalling.

    If B.O. gets the nomination this way count me out as supporting him or the Dem. party in the G.E.  And with all the Wright mess and such, look for the Dems to lose the G.E.

    Sad.


    [ Parent ]

    Obama is blocking the re-vote. (none / 0) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    What is your point? Clinton favors a revote.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's position (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    is not simply a plain 50-50 split....There is more to his position than that....

    [ Parent ]
    Right, his position is two-step: block the (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    revote, then go 50-50.
    There's no meaningful difference.

    [ Parent ]
    But he is blocking a re-vote (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    that the DNC has approved (even though he said that he would do what the DNC approved), and his 50-50 split nullifes the actual vote of the MI Democrats.  It would be more honest to simply disallow the vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Please cite a credible report... (none / 0) (#185)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:08:05 PM EST
    ... of the DNC approving any re-vote procedure in Michigan.  I haven't seen one, and would like to read it.

    Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    Never mind... (none / 0) (#196)
    by tbetz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    ... I found it.

    Like I said on the Big Orange, Bill Burton should SHFPH.

    [ Parent ]

    his handlers apparently wish to win the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    nomination more than they care about the general election...Very very selfish....If they put their party first they would have gone for the revote...

    Sound of one hand clapping (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    The problem is that any solution other than a revote is disenfranchising. I'm positive that at least one person in the state of Michigan didn't vote that day because they were told their vote wouldn't count - that's taking the vote away from someone.

    Heck, people who waiting too long in line Ohio in 2004 were considered disenfranchised by people on this site just for being inconvenienced.

    Many people (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    fail to vote in primaries every cycle because they feel their votes won't count. That is no reason to disenfranchise the ones who cared enough to make their voices heard.

    It sure isn't any reason to take the votes that were cast and give them to someone else.

    [ Parent ]

    this is why we cannot take seriously (none / 0) (#214)
    by sancho on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    the caucus wins. same problem. people cannot vote b/c of life-conflicts.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought his first consistent (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:20:26 PM EST
    position before his second consistent opinion was that he would support what the DNC decided.  Now that the DNC has approved the MI revote..not so much.

    Consistency (none / 0) (#12)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    is lacking all around here.  I think he should encourage a revote under ammended rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by leis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    she believes every vote should count. Not just the ones for her.

    The New Democracy at work? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by dianem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    This is an entirely new form of Democracy. Delegates can "participate" in the process of electing a candidate without ever being voted on by the people. Why bother having elections at all - it's so messy and wasteful. Why not just annoint the chosen candidate and assign delegates based on ...well, nothing.

    Audacity is a good word for Obama.

    not surprising (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by joyce1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    If HE had won in Michigan, don't you think he would want the votes to count now? Of course! He is nothing but a hypocrite and I hate the way he thumbs his nose at Hillary. This guy is arrogant, like the pResident presently in office. Sad

    Being a Cynic (none / 0) (#39)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    If Obama had won in Michigan under the same circumstances, would Hillary the "let every vote count person" do anything different than what Obama is doing?  Somehow I doubt it.
    If Al Gore hadn't been so passive in 2000 he might have won.  Obama is showing the necessary ability to push for his self-interest in an election.  This is a test-what if November 2008 ends up like 2000?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he is showing Bush-level (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    initiative. He LOST MI and FL, so he is acting like Bush in trying to stop those votes being counted.

    [ Parent ]
    And yet he complains that (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    HILLARY will "do anything to win."

    The fact is that what Obama is willing to do is (1) grab votes from people who didn't vote for him; and (2) render the results of the MI completely meaningless. A 50%-50% split means that the votes of MI Democrats will not affect the spread between the candidates' delegate count, and therefore, as a practical matter, will not "count."  

    In short, Obama's position is even more undemocratic than disallowing the MI primary vote altogether.

    So much for the "new politics."

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is showing (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:22:45 PM EST
    that he can't handle an election without clearing the field - and make no mistake: what he wants is for Hillary to get out of the way - even if that means denying millions of people their say.

    Obama is for Obama.  Period.

    [ Parent ]

    Key difference (none / 0) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    Gore's interests in 2000 were aligned with voters' interests. Here, Obama's interests are not aligned with voters' interests.

    The right answer in both cases is not to fight for self interest but to fight for voters' interests. Both Gore and Obama are disappointing in this regard.

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    it actually is in Obama's interest to fight for MI and FL voters to be enfranchised -- if he thinks far enough ahead to November.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's see how MSNBC spins this for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    because on one hand, you've got an approved method for revoting that is paid for (and Obama is welcome to throw money into that pot) and ensures that every vote counts, while on the other hand you've got just ignoring the state all together, which-let's be honest-is what the 50/50 split does.

    He said he wanted transparency--well, a blind man could see through this ploy.  There has to come a point in all of this where someone says that the only reason Obama doesn't want revotes is because he knows he will lose.  If Obama cannot win in MI and FL, then why on earth would he get the nomination?

    I feel like we're all playing political Jenga here, and someone-anyone-just needs to pull that one piece out and the whole thing comes crashing down.  The question is: who on TV (who will be heard) is willing to do that?

    MSLSD will probably be like Stephanie Miller (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    today where she said that any way you try to count the votes in MI and FL would be unfair to Obama, unless you split them 50/50. And by the way, yes she said Hillary will do anything to win.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's how Ed Shultz spun it (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    I paraphrase..Sure a re-vote would be fine with me!  Hillary will lose it! First Lady records show she talked about NAFTA!  

    Then I turned it off - I have my limits.

    [ Parent ]

    If I posted what I really think of Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#219)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    it would get me banned here.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC spin (none / 0) (#205)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:36:37 PM EST
    Simple: They won't mention it.  This one stinks out loud, so they'll have to choose between telling one heck of a lie or avoid the "inconvenient" parts altogether.

    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]
    It should be obvious (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
     that no proper, fair or legal grounds exist for any solution other than accepting the status quo that is not ratified by all "stakeholders."

      Clearly, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are stakeholders. A compromise will either be reached or it won't. The voters -- and not just in Michigan and Florida although they would have valid  claim to bigger stake-- are fairly considered stakeholders as well but in our system they have no direct voice and can only exert their wills through representatives and those representatives have competing and perhaps conflicting loyalties so they may not accurately reflect the "will of the people" even to the extent it can be imperfectly ascertained.

      So the people to whom power has been delegated will decide but they must decide knowing that they simply cannot impose a solution that each campaign will not back. The only other outcome is paralysis and default to the existing, previously enacted rules. If we don't want that then we have to understand each campaign is going to continue to press for proposals tilted in its favor to preserve bargaining position so that the compromise if reached is marginally more favorable to it. Does anyone ever do anything differently?

       There are numerous possible solutions but none of them can provide total fairness in any objective sense of the word. Some important interest[s] is going to have to give way to some other important interest[s] to some extent. We all should know that.

      The incessant assertions that one particular proposal is so overwhelmingly more correct than some other is just not tenable.

      Argue for and fight for whatever you prefer, but to do so honestly requires explaining why it is better. That requires acknowledging the interests opposed to it and making the cases the interests in favor of it should be accorded greater weight. It is not accomplished by duplicitous arguments that countervailing interest do not exist or are illegitimate.

       

    This is all just obfuscation (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by badger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    There are only a few simple principles for a free, fair election.

    1. Voters have an unimpeded opportunity to vote

    No literacy tests, poll tax, police intimidation, etc. No one is alleging any of that took place.

    2. Votes get counted and count towards the outcome of the election.

    (I'd add a 3rd requirement - secret ballot - but even caucuses meet the first two requirements at least, and secrecy isn't an issue in the case of FL and MI either).

    Either count the votes from January, or let those people who didn't freely choose to vote in the GOP primary participate in a revote.

    There is no "pop-psychology" or "because" corallary to either of those - it doesn't make any difference why voters chose to vote in the GOP primary in MI or stay home in FL. It comes down to freely able to vote and having their votes recognized, period.

    Anything else is pure bull-sophistry.

    [ Parent ]

    How is urging a re-vote duplicitous? n/t (none / 0) (#100)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    when it is being done (none / 0) (#117)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    out of the belief it favors the candidate one supports but one is posing as having other reasons.

    [ Parent ]
    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    I don't care who a re-vote benefits. I would support a re-vote no matter what. If Hillary loses a re-vote, or does worse than she did in the first vote, so be it.

    The issue is not which candidate is benefitted most -- the issue is the will of the voters.  In 2000, I believed that a recount would show that Gore won Florida.  But there was always the risk that it would not. I wanted the recount anyway, because if Gore didn't actually win Florida, at least it would show that the rightful president had been installed in office.

    [ Parent ]

    It may not be the issue to YOU (none / 0) (#126)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM EST
     but it is the issue that matters and the motivation for which plan the campaigns and their supporters try to portray as the "only fair one."

     

    [ Parent ]

    There is only one fair plan (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by cloudy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    regardless of which candidate you support. That is, allow the voters to have their say.  This isn't about candidates, this is about voters.  When our votes don't matter, when the system can be gamed to pick and choose which votes count when, we leave behind the basic principles of a democracy.  It is frustrating to me that the Democrats can do this to themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    the only thing that matters is that (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:55:23 PM EST
    americans have the right to vote and anyone and i repeat ANYONE who tries to deny it has no business running for the white house. now you can shwirl and twirl but you can't deny that fact. though i think you will.

    [ Parent ]
    I haven't seen any comment on this (none / 0) (#165)
    by plf1953 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    Why is it up to either (or any) campaign to decide or weigh in on a re-vote plan in the first place?  Is it in the DNC rules?

    Why is it just not up to the MI and FL Dem parties and the DNC?

    Why do the candidates have more standing on this matter than the voters themselves?

    After all, the candidates only become the nominee with the acquiescence of the voters.  

    They have no "right" to anything.

    Neither do they have the "right" to preclude or obstruct an otherwise valid re-vote plan that meets the national party's needs and falls within its rules.

    Providing the candidates this "right," IMO is merely a means by which the DNC has avoided taking responsibility for any of this.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know if it's a "rule" (none / 0) (#168)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    But the DNC and the Michigan Leg would not consider a plan unless both campaigns agreed.

    [ Parent ]
    i agree! it isn't up to obama or clinton. (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    it is the people's decison. we don't care what pelosi or dean thinks. you deny our votes, then expect to have a major loss in november.

    [ Parent ]
    I wasn't on the MI ballot either (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Can I please have 50% of the delegates, DNC?

    Sincerely,
    Warren

    If the DNC doesn't punish FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Neal on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    for moving their primary's up, we'll be voting in July in 2011. Seat the delegates at the convention, but don't let them vote until the 2nd ballot. Lord knows it will take at least two.

    It won't take two... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    ... unless you make the threshold for nomination 50% of all the delegates, including MI and FL. Someone's going to have 50% of all the votes that are cast, since only the Edwards delegates don't belong to anyone, and they're still going to vote for somebody.

    And if you do make it 50% of all the delegates, it's more or less guaranteed no one can win, so the first vote would be meaningless.

    [ Parent ]

    bull, then do it to the rest of the states (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    that violated the so called scared position on the schedule. all the ra tatata about rules all the while deny franchisement to voters disgusts me.

    [ Parent ]
    If the tables were turned (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Skex on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    Hillary would be doing the same thing and you know it.

    Someone told me at one point on this board that this is a big prize of course they are going to fight for it.

    This is just negotiation. And it still isn't Obama's fault that blame resides fully on the MI legislature and no where else.

    A revote just isn't feasable it also isn't fair to all the people who voted in states that followed the rules. Why should Florida get an extra say and greater importance in the race now since they didn't want to play nice and decided to try to game the system.

    Some sort of compromise will be reached personally I'd favor splitting the delegates 55 to 40 but cutting them in half to stop them from having a disproportionate say in the process.

    I'd favor a similar compromise in Florida.

    But it's a negotiation and a good negotiator never gives favorable terms to the person across the table on the first round of haggling.  50/50 is just a starting point.

    they're not, she's not, he looses (none / 0) (#89)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    I don't know if Hillary would do that or not. I'd like to think not. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Like I have given to Obama on many occasions. What I do know is Obama stands for disenfranchising the voters of this country. I can't support him.

    [ Parent ]
    If Clinton tried something like this (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    the 50/50 split, she would be excoriated by the press and drummed out of the election.

    This is the only thing we need to know: Obama is against revoting in FL and MI because he knows he will lose these states and the nomination; ergo, he should not "win" the party nomination by other means.

    [ Parent ]

    She hasn't been excoriated (none / 0) (#153)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    by the press for changing her position on MI and FL after the voting took place. I see very little on that. In fact, she is being portrayed as heroic for her efforts to "count every vote". I agree with a re-vote, but am honest that Clinton did not support these delegates being seated until she fell behind and needed them.

    [ Parent ]
    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    If she didn't want the votes counted before - she was wrong. She wants them counted now (yes, it's political - so what, this isn't a tea party).  In this case, what is politically expedient for her is actually good for voters, so I say again, who cares?

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense. It's stalling (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    and hardly the start of negotiations, after weeks of this debate.  Obama knows the legislature heads home now for the holiday weekend, so he is balking at new points and dragging out old ones -- and the MI press and public are not fooled.  Go read the press there.

    [ Parent ]
    Getting an "extra" say? (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Nobody's getting an "extra" say. That would amount to having their votes count twice towards delegates. But their votes haven't counted for delegates even once.

    There is not much time to waste. Obama is playing out the clock on this one. P^%!ing and moaning about the Michigan Democratic Party is useless and counterproductive at this point. Dean needs to take the lead in making sure their delegates are seated or the retribution from Michigan Democratic voters is going to be disastrous in November. Same with Florida, as Jeralyn has mentioned repeatedly (25% pledging not to vote in November if delegates aren't seated).

    This is the perfect example of "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." Democrats are going to end up looking pretty ugly come November.

    [ Parent ]

    no, we don't know it. please stop with this (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    business as usual stuff. obama is taking a bone headed position that all of us will have to pay for and i for one don't appreciate it.

    [ Parent ]
    bottom line (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    from this is if you think the voters of MI and FL should be heard, then Obama doesn't want your vote. That's my opinion only of course, but that what he is saying to me. And when he says Hillary is being "completely disingenuous" about wanting the voters in MI and FL to be counted in some way, then he not only doesn't want my vote, but he is showing he doesn't want me to like him either. I'm happy to oblige him on both counts.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tomangell on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    While you say that to adopt Obama's 50/50 plan would "be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama" your position seems to assume that everyone who voted for Clinton on the incomplete ballot would still have done so had the other candidates' names appeared next to hers.

    I don't think we can be so sure.

    Tom, I think that's not the case (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    for the reasons here -- check out the ads that blasted the radio and what MI voters were told -- if you want Obama (in particular) or Edwards, vote uncommitted.

    On at least one county website , they posted:

    There is an "uncommitted" selection on the ballot. By voting "uncommitted" you are indicating that you have chosen to vote in a particular party's primary, however you do not wish to vote for one of the listed candidates.

    Rep. Conyers and his wife's radio ads (the actual script) in Michigan:

     

      MALE: The presidential election is confusing. I want to vote for Barack Obama, but Obama's name is not on the ballot.

        FEMALE: There is no one on that ballot I want to be president.

        MALE: Well, these folks can help us. Excuse me, Congressman Conyers and Councilwoman Conyers, we need your help.

        FEMALE: How can we vote for Obama on Tuesday?

        REP. CONYERS: You can't. You cannot even write in Obama's name. If you do, your vote will not count because Obama's campaign chose not to place his name on the Michigan ballot so as not to violate national Democratic Party rules. But you can vote "uncommitted."

        COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS: If at least 15 percent of the people vote "uncommitted," the state Democratic Party must send that percentage of delegates to the national convention uncommitted.

        REP. CONYERS: My wife and I are voting "uncommitted." We will work with the Democratic Party to make sure that uncommitted delegates go to that convention truly uncommitted so that Obama can compete for their vote.

        MALE: Thank you, Congressman Conyers and Councilwoman Conyers. I will join you and vote "uncommitted" on Tuesday.

        FEMALE: Me too. At least my vote won't be wasted.

        COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS: This truth-in-politics message was paid for my Friends of Monica Conyers.



    [ Parent ]
    good point, but (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    50/50 is clearly a horrible vote stealing solution. At least with the current vote, it's actually how people voted. I agree that it has flaws. So a revote is the best solution there.

    FL on the other hand has a much more fair solution: let the current votes count. Of course that's not quite fair either, it's pretty much the best option. A revote would be ok there too though.

    flip flop Obama (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM EST
    one day he says he will go with the DCCC,
    next he wants what he wants.

    The more Hillary is out there, the more she's getting traction, and good democrats are coming home. Thank Goodness.

    She is the agent for hope and change. Think the
    Clinton years, and yes its the economy !

    How anybody can claim that (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    seating the MI delegates in accordance with the January vote is fair is absolutely beyond me. The DNC rules were the votes weren't going to count and the candidates agreed not to campaign. Obama and every other democratic candidate took his name off the ballot. How can seating delegates from that kind of vote come remotely close to any approximation of fairness?

    Geez.

    McCain

    Obama's surrogates campaigned in MI, (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    and told them to vote uncommitted.
    Giving Obama the uncommitted votes is quite fair actually, because it gives him more than he actually earned.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not what Jeralyn's saying (none / 0) (#182)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    and frankly not even Ed Rendell, Clinton super supporter, is wililng to argue that it's fair to seat MI delegates as voted.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Try again (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:19:10 PM EST
    Given the numerous recent discussions on this site about the MI primary, I'll just assume that you typed in haste when you said that "every other democratic candidate took his name off the ballot." As I'm sure you're aware, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich also appeared on the MI ballot. As Jeralyn likes to remind us, the preview button is our friend.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh my (none / 0) (#180)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/ys24q4

    Gravel and Dodd. The article says Kucinich pulled his name.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    Odd, Kucinich (none / 0) (#198)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    was on NPR just the other day saying he didn't remove his name.  He thought it was less than intelligent to suggest and did not support it.  I guess I would want to see an actual ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#223)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    Seeing as Kucinich pulled almost 22,000 votes in Michigan, I'd have to say the article was wrong. :)

    CNN Election Results

    [ Parent ]

    got it (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    will start looking yesterday

    If the DNC goes for this... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    bird-brained idea (as I said on another site), not only will I march to their HQ (I'm near DC), I will take a second or third job to send to the RNC.

    This is the last straw.  I. Will. Not. Vote. For. This. Man. Ever.

    This sucks (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by rafaelh on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    And I support Obama but I think this was the wrong decision, it was dumb decision. They had to make sure Clinton's supporters had nothing to claim his victory was not fair.

    I think that Clinton is playing politics by now claiming those votes after approving of the DNC's penalties but who cares, she also has a point. Obama would have done better in Michigan anyway so the whole point in not having the elections is to avoid a string of victories for Hillary, and that is just counterproductive. He can win the whole thing in the ballots, there's no need for all this 50-50 crap. C'mon, 50-50 is the same as 0-0, it's insulting.    

    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Jaman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    This is obviously a Clinton place.  But are you people going to be OK when she is defeated?  The reason she is doing so poorly is because she turned into a Hawk as soon as she was elected to the Senate.  She did not expect a primary challenge.  Another judgment call.  Michigan and Florida are not going to revote and it is not because of Obama.  I just hope you all will do what is right for the country after all this venom.  Peace out.

    Re: Whatever (none / 0) (#207)
    by Chimster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    It usually helps to have facts behind you when you make a point. This may be more Hillary focused, but TL doesn't trash Obama unless there's facts to back it up.

    [ Parent ]
    Gotta love those folks (3.50 / 2) (#146)
    by xspowr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    who claim to "abide by the rules" when they clearly have no idea what the rules are. And the hostility is truly a gem. Is this the "unity" schtick I've been hearing about? If you don't agree with us, you can just get the hell out of the party? Another glowing missive from Camp Obama.

    He made a choice to abide by the rules (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:46:06 PM EST
    Spin it how you like.

    Why anyone should think themselves entitled to count unsanctioned results is literally incredible.

    If Clinton gets the nod by virtue of the superdelegates or some other reasonable process, then I'm voting for her.

    This election is bigger than the candidates, and if you can't see that  I'd suggest you pull your head out of your bs meter and look around.

    by saying (none / 0) (#188)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    Obama is abiding by rules, you are implying others are not.  Who, please, is not abiding by rules?

    [ Parent ]
    No, I am not implying that (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    Why on earth do you say that if O is following the rules then C must not be. If I thought that C wasn't then I'd say so. She's playing politics right now and losing.

    What infuriates here is that the point that matters most to me, how to stop the republican rot in DC, is being lost in internecine party squabbling. Dems seem content to tear each other to shreds even if it means throwing the election to McCain. It would have been preferable for MI and FL to get their act together, but they gambled, the DNC took a hard line, and here we are. You can't count unsanctioned elections and have an iota's credibility.

    You need to be reminded that we've just had almost 8 years of the worst president in history. A man who has squandered lives, prestige, money, the future for the benefit of his oil buddies. I'm ready for the dems to lead, even though I left the party years ago. Are you?

    [ Parent ]

    no excuse (none / 0) (#2)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    for his slimy political position on this. It's politics at it's worst, vote stealing. Of course all pols do some slimy things, and I don't pretend any candidate is above some slimy things, but vote stealing is close to the lowest you can go.

    To me this is a major test of character and judgement. I can let it slide if there is a quick turn around with this crazy idea, and we see some support for the revote right away.

    50/50 is not stealing (none / 0) (#14)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    It's simply a wash, equivalent to not seating the delegates at all.  Are you suggesting that not seating the delegates would be stealing the election?

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MarkL on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    (bears repeating--it IS stealing)

    [ Parent ]
    Well, good luck with that one (none / 0) (#24)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:31:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    If you take votes away from one candidate and give them to another that is stealing the election.


    [ Parent ]
    Not seating the delegation (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    is not taking away votes from one candidate and giving them to another.  To quote Clinton supporters Jon Corzine and Ed Rendell:
    there is nothing fair or democratic about seating delegates elected in states that were not honestly contested or where all of the candidates were not even on the ballot.
     
    People, when your own candidate's prominent supporters reject your arguments, you are not doing very well.

    [ Parent ]
    They are making the case (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    For a revote.

    Obama is blocking a revote.


    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    I support a revote.  

    But it doesn't follow that not seating the delegation based on the January vote is stealing the election.  

    On the contrary, seating the delegation based on the January vote would be stealing the election -- as even clear-headed Clinton supporters recognize.

    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    Stealing is in the eye of the beholder at this point.  And everyone is dug in and they believe in their heart of hearts that they are right.

    Revote is the only pathway to reconciliation.


    [ Parent ]

    I doubt this is a wash (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by 0 politico on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    to the people who bothered to vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Anything other than... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    ...choosing the nominee based on fair elections in all 50 states produces a tainted nominee. And a tainted nominee who actively worked to prevent states from being represented because he thought he would lose there is certainly going to look like he stole the race.

    [ Parent ]
    50/50 is not a wash (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    To spread the delegates on a 50/50 allocation takes the delegates that HRC won from her and to Obama.  That's called stealing delegates.  HRC is for a re-vote if Obama does not agree to the prior vote as fair.  There is no reason not to seat the delegates as they voted in January because Obama took his name from the ballot and now uses that reason to nullify the vote. Obama is like a car dealer, all talk, but when one looks under the hood there is an empty space where the motor ought to be.

    [ Parent ]
    It is stealing (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by litigatormom on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    because even though it is a "wash" in terms of affecting the spread in pledged delegates, it gets Obama closer to the "number" needed to win the nomination than he would otherwise be. Hillary won 55% of the votes, but would in effect be "giving" those votes to Obama. In addition, all of the votes for "uncommitted," as well as to other candidates who remained on the ballot, would be given to Obama, even though a significant number of uncommitted votes would likely have gone to Edwards.

    It would be much fairer to give Hillary 55% of the delegates, and let both candidates scramble for the votes that went to "uncommitted." Obama might end up with every single one.  Or not. Plus, Obama could go after the delegates pledged to candidates who have since withdrawn.

    Since I don't expect Obama to agree to that proposal, a re-vote is the only fair alternative. 50-50 will never fly.

    [ Parent ]

    nope (none / 0) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    but saying 50% of MI voters voted for someone they didn't his stealing. I agree when you count it up in the end, it has the same effect as not counting them. But just the same, counting some for Obama when he clearly didn't get and would never get 50% is unsavory.

    [ Parent ]
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#84)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
      IF  I need 101 out of 200 votes and potential votes are contested, it is to my advantage to split 50/50 if I aleady have 96 and my opponent only has 94. If the votes are counted 50/50, I win.

      If they are not counted no one wins and we go to a 2nd ballot where other votes might switch and I lose.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's not a "wash" -- we went (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    through that in earlier threads.  When one candidate is closer to the total needed, xxx votes will mean more of a talking point than to the other candidate.

    It only would be a "wash" if what a candidate needed is the most votes.  But that's not how it works, and I thought we put that myth behind us here, too.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    The number of delegates needed will increase if the MI delegation are seated.  50/50 would bring Obama no closer to the nomination, relative to not seating the delegation at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Wrong. Read up. Whateve the total (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    needed, whether 2025 or 2205 or in between if only one of these two states is seated -- the same number of delegates for each candidate means a higher proportional reward for the candidate who is closer.

    Draw it out on paper. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    "Proportional reward" is meaningless (none / 0) (#221)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
    The candidate with fewer delegate gets a higher "proportional reward" relative to  delegates already earned.  The candidate with more delegates gets a higher "proportional reward" relative to delegates needed.  Who cares?

    The absolute number of delegates needed by each candidates and the number of delegates available to compete for remains exactly the same.  

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's position (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    on a re-vote according to the link above is:

    Clinton has said she wants to count the 55 delegates she won in the Jan. 15 Michigan primary or have a second election; Obama has advocated a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates if a do-over can't be negotiated.

    State Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan, said the primary idea is worth considering.
    "If we can have a fair, open and inclusive election, that is always something you have to consider," Thomas said Thursday. "I have to see details before openly endorsing something. But I'm pleased folks are still talking, and we're all on the same page of trying to resolve this."

    The 50-50 idea is not a quote, and I am sure Obama would accept such a resolution.  However, he has not rejected a re-vote either.

     

    That's old news MKS (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    More recently, it has become clear that Obama is blocking the revote.

    [ Parent ]
    The 50-50 (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:34:30 PM EST
    proposal is if a do-over is not negotiated.....

    It is analogous to Hillary's position that she have the delegates seated as is if there is no re-vote...Yet, we do not hear the argument that Hillary is opposed to a re-vote and demanding her delegates be seated as is....

    [ Parent ]

    The difference is (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by AF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    That Hillary is actively pursuing a revote, while Obama is blocking it.  What you are saying was plausible last week, but it is no longer true.

    [ Parent ]
    stop, he hasn't endorsed the revote (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    knowing the deadline is today. See our other posts, and don't chatter by continuing to repeat the same inaccurate point.

    [ Parent ]
    OT (none / 0) (#17)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    John Edwards will be on Jay Leno tonight.
    Maybe FL-MI will be mentioned?


    if he endorses Obama (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM EST