home

Why Did Obama Withdraw From the Michigan Primary?

As I wrote below, no candidate was required to withdraw from the Michigan or Florida primaries as part of the Four State Pledge (pdf).

John Edwards and Barack Obama were on the ballot in Florida, but withdrew from the Michigan race. Why?

Bill Schneider at CNN had a very plausible explanation:

CNN's Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider suggested the Democrats who withdrew may have calculated that it was simply in their best political interest to do so.

"If there's no campaign, the candidate most likely to win Michigan is Hillary Clinton," Schneider said. "Her Democratic rivals don't want a Clinton victory in Michigan to count. They want Iowa and New Hampshire, where they have a better chance of stopping Clinton, to count more."

More...

Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel, along with Hillary, elected to remain on the Michigan ballot. Biden, along with Obama and Edwards, chose to withdraw their names. Dennis Kucinich thought he filed the paperwork to withdraw but missed the deadline and was on the ballot.

Clinton's campaign said the New York senator will remain on the ballot. Chris Dodd also plans to stay on the ballot. "We're honoring the pledge and we won't campaign or spend money in states that aren't in compliance with the DNC calendar," Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said.

It was widely disseminated in Michigan, including by some official county websites , that if the voter didn't want to vote for those on the ballot, they should vote "uncommitted."

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. John Conyers pushed the "vote uncommitted" meme:

"The way the system is currently set up is inherently unfair," Michigan Rep. John Conyers told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "We are not going to just sit back and take this. I strongly encourage everyone in Michigan to go the polls. If your candidate’s name is not on the ballot, vote 'uncommitted.'"

Conyers and his wife even ran radio ads urging people to vote uncommitted. Here's the script:

Here is the radio script airing on radio stations 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.

In 2004, about 150,000 Democrats voted in the Michigan caucuses. This year, Michigan held a primary instead of caucuses and 600,000 Democrats voted. Hillary won all but two counties, Washtenaw and Emmett, where "uncommitted" won. The uncommitted total was 238,168. Hillary's total was 328,309.

It was Obama's choice to remove himself from the Michigan ballot. Did he do it for strategic reasons because Hillary was leading by large margins in the polls (Here's one from October 5 to 7, right before the drop out deadline, showing Hillary 42%, Obama 26%)? If so, why should there be a revote?

I think the DNC should remove the penalty from Michigan and Florida and seat the delegates. In Michigan's case, Hillary should get the delegates according to her vote total. The other delegates should remain "uncommitted" and vote how they want when they get to the convention.

< Revisiting the Four State Pledge on MI/FL Promises | Obama 's Inadvertent Political Successes >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Two additional thoughts. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:23:27 PM EST
    on Michigan.

    First off, the pledge calls for the signers to "not participate" in states that violate the DNC's requirements.  You can arguably make the case that allowing your name on the ballot when it's possible to take it off (or never put it on) is "participating" in the election.  That wouldn't apply in Florida where, if I understand correctly, you cannot withdraw from the primary without also withdrawing from the general election.

    Also, I've heard it suggested that removing one's name from the Michigan ballot was a way of increasing your support in Iowa by stressing your dedication to the principal of Iowa: First Today, First Tomorrow, First Forever!

    You could plausibly argue it (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:27:09 PM EST
    but it was billed AT THE TIME as "an addiitonal commitment" by Obama and Edwards, so your argument would not be very convincing.

    As for wooing Iowa, that was a secondary motivation, the primary one was to deny a win, even on paper, to Clinton.

    You spent too much time at other web sites to not know this by now Larry. If you had been reading this site, you would have known this long ago.

    It was a shrewed move by Obama by the way. I do not blame him one bit. The villains of this piece are Howard Dean and Donna Brazile.

    [ Parent ]

    Has anyone ever asked Iowa Dems (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:31:48 PM EST
    if the self-sacrifice by Obama and Edwards in removing their names from the MI ballot makes an iota of difference to Iowa Dem. voters?  I doubt it did or does.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think the original pledge mattered (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    The dropping the names from the ballots was really about denying Hillary a straw poll victory and having her fly to Lansing the night of the primary etc.

    [ Parent ]
    I can see the part about making her (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    go to East Lansing.  That's horrific.  But otherwise.  But I've never understood how Obama managed to win Iowa so maybe that's it.  Did anyone actually campaign in IA on the premise HRC and Dodd were bad for staying on the ballot in MI and disrespecting IA?

    [ Parent ]
    Um (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:24:07 PM EST
    I wrote that at the time at THIS VERY SITE J. Bill Schneider has got nothing on me.

    you mean (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:44:41 PM EST
    other than a cnn gig...

    [ Parent ]
    Is that a good thing? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:58:20 PM EST
    I'd say no!

    [ Parent ]
    getting more smart voices on tv (none / 0) (#66)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:59 PM EST
    would be a good thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I learn so much (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    from this site. Thanks for all that you do.

    [ Parent ]
    This is priceless: (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:27:50 PM EST
    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."

    Those pesky "rules" again.  But, the rules didn't require Obama or anyone else to take their names off the ballot in MI.  

    oculus (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:21 PM EST
    Perhaps it would have been more accurate for Conyers to say that Obama removed his name from the ballot so that he could claim to be complying with DNC rules...

    [ Parent ]
    I guess I'm behind the times (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
    but to me, the name John Conyers meant a good guy on the side of civil rights issues, women's issues, etc.

    I had heard about this "uncommitted" campaign of his, but I had not known that he lied -- lied -- in a "truth-in-politics" ad.

    I am revising my opinions of many in this election.  (But I'll always love and admire John Lewis.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    I am fairly certain (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    the Florida rules did not allow any of the candidates to remove their names from the ballot.  I will see if I can find a reference.  

    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    This was reported at this very site.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:35:46 PM EST
    Talkleft is probably where I read the information.  But since I went to all the trouble of googling it, here is a link to the Florida Democratic Party's site with an explanation too.

    [ Parent ]
    I have yet to find that in (none / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    the Florida Electoral Law.  What I did find tells me that if Mr. Obama and Mr Edwards had wanted to be excluded they should had informed the Florida Democratic Committee of their wishes so that when the Committee submitted their list of Candidates they would not have been included.  Chapter 103 Section 103.101 of Title IX

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#70)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM EST
    the FL DNC had until November 12, 2007 to forward the list of primary candidates for the FL ballots

    Obama removed his MI name on Oct 9, 2007 - he had 4 weeks to get off of the FL ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually the law allows till Dec 31 (none / 0) (#76)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:04:38 PM EST
    and also provides for other changes to be requested if made in writing and forwarded to Tallahassee

    [ Parent ]
    And can someone please find me the part (none / 0) (#82)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:06:37 PM EST
    that says that if your not in the primary you can not appear in the GE ballot.  That would negate the parties the right to Draft a Candidate at convention time.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#91)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:11:45 PM EST
    The part I read was withdrawing your name after certication of the ballots, requires that you forfeit the GE ballot also

    [ Parent ]
    where is that part? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:12:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here's a (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:38:38 PM EST
    pdf Florida 2008 Federal Handbook

    on page 5

    October 31, 2007
    Each political party, other than a minor political party, shall submit to the Secretary of State a list of its presidential candidates to be placed on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot or candidates entitled to have delegates' names appear.

    November 12, 2007
    A candidate's name shall be printed on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot unless the candidate submits to the Department of State an affidavit stating that he or she is not now, and does not presently intend to become, a candidate for President at the upcoming nominating convention



    [ Parent ]
    certification.  He could had still had notified the FDC to not include him without having to sign that affidavit.  BTW that is not the law but the organizational rules.  Here in Fl when the Law is passed then the Dept affected in this case the State Dept. then proceed to write up the process in which the law will be implemented.  I would argue if push came to shove and we had to go to court that the State Dept. took to much liberty in requiring such affidavit since that provision is not in the law as passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor.

    [ Parent ]
    All I'm (none / 0) (#156)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:51:15 PM EST
    saying is that when Obama removed his name from MI on Oct 12, he could have had the FDC not forward his name to the SOS without future penalty.

    I also realize that FL was not a done deal on Oct 12 because of a lawsuit... so Obama gambled on FL winning the lawsuit and kept his name on the ballot

    [ Parent ]

    Or he thought that since Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:54:57 PM EST
    didn't  go along in MI he was going to do it.  Still if I remember well he had till Oct 31 really and I don't think that anyone thought that the FDC was going to win that Lawsuit it was more show knowing our courts here precedent tells us they don't like intervening in internal party processes.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually I think that as someone else (none / 0) (#161)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:58:29 PM EST
    commented here the MI thing was a gambit to see if they could shame Clinton into withdrawing and she didn't bite.  My impression is that when he saw that he didn't want to have the same think happen in Fl probably thinking a Low turnout would benefit him.  Didn't happen though.

    [ Parent ]
    yes you are right (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:37 PM EST
    I deleted my comment suggesting otherwise since it was wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    Obama didn't run in MI to make sure MI "didn't count"?

    Maybe finally we'll have heard the last of that "didn't count" riff over at the Atlantic. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:31:18 PM EST
    Actually what we need are revotes.

    Something Obama desperately wants to avoid.

    [ Parent ]

    Florida is a natural (none / 0) (#62)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:56:55 PM EST
    for Clinton. But couldn't the case be made that Obama would do well in Michigan? Large African-American population, large Iraqi Chaldean population and of course the younguns at Ann Arbor and East Lansing.

    Clinton should do well there too given the similarities to Ohio. It was an open primary. Is there any way to prevent those who already voted in the Republican contest from re-voting?

    The suggestion for a vote by mail primary is so froth with danger that it is simply an invitation for fraud.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed -- Obama would do well (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:16:38 PM EST
    and also that a mail-in ballot, especially in a state so large with no experience in it and especially with so little time to prepare for it . . . invites fraud.

    Maybe people don't know about Detroit alone, for example.  Chicago overshadowed it in popular lore, but Detroit had just as much or more of a crime ring problem in Prohibition -- heck, Canada is just across the river -- and with its legacy since.  Not a model of clean government.

    [ Parent ]

    The point you make about open primaries (none / 0) (#137)
    by hairspray on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:18:27 PM EST
    and the possibility of a Republican voting again in the Democratic primary is a good one.  Is that possible?  Would that be a reason to disallow a revote?  A lot of mischief could be done now that the GOP has a nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    I can imagine Obama's compromise: (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    Schedule re-votes in MI and FL, on condition that Hillary drop out of the race first.

    Heh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:33:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, BTD, a re-vote must reflect the (none / 0) (#97)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:13:43 PM EST
    will of the people, you know.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:15:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I have an idea (none / 0) (#106)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:26:19 PM EST
    Lets take all of the votes, split them down the middle and assign one half to each candidate.  Then delegates can be allocated based on these votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the deal. Obama already (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    has pre-pd., non-refundable tickets for his overseas trip.  Now you want him to stay here and campaign?

    Why Did Obama Withdraw From the Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:20:31 PM EST
    Primary?  Simple question.

    Because he knew he would lose. Simple answer.

    Would an ad stating this (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    constitute HRC doing "anything" to win?  

    [ Parent ]
    Prolly.....you know how she's a monster and all. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:30:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, who did it first? (none / 0) (#117)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:50:24 PM EST
    If Obama thought that all the candidates were going to remove their name, then he might have made a rookie mistake and follow the pack by leading the pack. But all the pack did not follow. There was no need to remove his name otherwise. Michigan stands and so does Florida. They voted already. And since 4 times the amount of Democrats in Michigan voted this time over 2004, I think you have a pretty good group that voted. If you had 100, then do overs. But over 600,000, pretty good sample. They wanted their vote early and so it should stand.

    [ Parent ]
    I read that Obama did it first and convinced the (none / 0) (#121)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:53:30 PM EST
    Edwards' campaign to do the same.

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I heard. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:16:44 PM EST
    I heard that Obama thought they could shame Hillary into taking her name off the MI ballot too, but she didn't bite.


    [ Parent ]
    Also Was Pandering To The Voters In Iowa And NH (none / 0) (#178)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:24:37 AM EST
    hoping that by doing so he would win both states and then sail right through the nomination like Kerry did in 04.

    Strategy worked in Iowa where voters penalized Clinton for not removing her name but failed in NH.

    [ Parent ]

    has anyone found out yet (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:47:55 PM EST
    exactly what Obama's solution is?

    Because Clinton, by my count, has submitted two now.  Obama is going to have to come up with an answer.  Are we thinking that Brazile gave it-seat FL at 50% and tough about MI?

    I think that CNN pushing for the revote and pointing out that Obama took his name off the MI ballot for political reasons is good for Clinton.

    It's all about message, and Clinton has had folks out all weekend talking about revoting and telling them how it will be paid for.

    Obama's folks have been all over the place.  Looks very amateurish of him.  He is supposed to be a leader, yet he's saying via Kerry, "I'll do whatever the DNC decides."


    I'm reminded of 2000 and of Gore (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    doing the heavy lifting of coming up with solutions, of trying to find a way through, and of getting into a corner.

    I admire Clinton for being the problem-solver, I like the positioning of that -- but I'm not sure that she should keep being the fixer with more and more offers while Obama, per usual, "stays above the fray."

    I would like to see him get a bit frayed by this and get into it and show us he's a problem-solver, too.  Clinton can stand pat now and wait and see, while repeating that she has tried, tried to make the man see reason. . . .:-)

    [ Parent ]

    Wasn't REP. CONYERS lying when he said (none / 0) (#1)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:22:57 PM EST
     
    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."
     
    Because having your name on the ballot would not have violated the National Democratic Party Rules.

    Write-in votes weren't allowed (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:23:53 PM EST
    the choice was uncommitted or one of the candidates on the ballot. That's why Obama and Edwards supporters were told to vote uncommitted.

    [ Parent ]
    The more important point (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    is that Obama backers organized a strong effort to get voters out to VOTE uncommitted.

    It was not a spontaneous occurrence despite all the protestations to the contrary.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    Clinton backers in MI did the same thing to get folks to vote Clinton.

    The fact is everybody violated the SPIRIT of the pledges n Michigan and Florida.

    [ Parent ]

    So, Kos didn't get that e-mail? (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:51:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But that wasn't the question. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. The question is DNC rules -- (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:19:56 PM EST
    did they require that Obama remove himself from the ballot.  

    [ Parent ]
    If Conyer's work isn't campaigning... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:30:58 PM EST
    what is?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama said he was not a part of (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    Conyers' efforts.

    [ Parent ]
    That settles it then. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:01:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:05:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Breaking the rules (none / 0) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:46:32 PM EST
    Obama's campaign chose not to place his name on the Michigan ballot so as not to violate national Democratic Party rules.

    They were running an ad that proclaimed Obama did not violate a rule?  So everyone else must have.  sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong. It was not a DNC rule (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    from the evidence we see here.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. He did. (nt) (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:18:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#205)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    Conyers was wrong - it did not violate the rules.  The only thing the candidates promised to do was not campaign in the state.  They could keep their name on the ballot and they could even fundraise.

    [ Parent ]
    *Sigh* (none / 0) (#8)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    "John Edwards and Barack Obama were on the ballot in Florida, but withdrew from the Michigan race. Why?"

    Looks like you conveniently forgot to mention, Florida law prohibits anyone from taking their name off the ballot once it has been put on.

    They could have stayed on the MI Ballot (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:07 PM EST
    Why didn't they?

    [ Parent ]
    Her point is different (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    Since you are going to be on the FL ballot why did you need to be taken off the MI ballot? What was the urgency? And the urgency is described by Schneider, but was described by me here in January, to deny Clinton even a straw poll victory.

    [ Parent ]
    You neglect to mention (none / 0) (#42)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    that when Obama withdrew his name from the MI ballot, there was still 4 weeks before the FL deadline for Party officials to send ballots names for certification.  

    Obama had 4 weeks to tell the FL DNC Party officials not to send his name for ballot certification.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:04:53 PM EST
    Obama would have had to withdraw from the race for that.

    Not possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Only if he withdrew his name (none / 0) (#87)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:07:54 PM EST
    after certification

    [ Parent ]
    Where in the Florida Electoral Law does it say (none / 0) (#88)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:08:39 PM EST
    that BTD.  Cause I have not found it yet.  and I have been looking

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent analysis (none / 0) (#10)
    by fafnir on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:28:05 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more with your recommendation.

    What is the Obama view now (none / 0) (#16)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:30:33 PM EST
    I seem to read several versions - and not sure if he really is for splitting the delegates for both states - and leave it at that!

    But that Hillary is for re-votes.

    I am on Hillary's side - in a democracy you cannot tell millions of people - you cannot vote because your state political party did something wrong.

    Punish the state parties - let the voters vote.

    I think Obama wants the kind of caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:03:18 PM EST
    where people can register at the last minute and you have to show up on time and be there for hours.  That way, women with jobs and children and elderly people with either not be able to go or will be intimidated by the "enthusiastic" Obama supporters who will herd them over to his area of the room before they know what is happening.


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary wants revotes in the worst way (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    Because the pledged delegates are not enough, she needs to feed her big states narrative with big wins in FL, MI and PA.

    But she needs to NOT seem to desperate lest she get forced into Iowa style caucuses. The momentum for mail in primaries is strong and very good for Clinton. And Dean is for them.

    This is all swinging Clinton's way on the revote issue.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Question. . . (none / 0) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    Do mail in primaries benefit one candidate over the other?

    [ Parent ]
    My own specualtive view (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:38:28 PM EST
    is that it favors Clinton because her constituency is more likely to have trouble getting to the polls and may be less energized, he has a movement after all.

    Mailing a letter is less difficult and less likely to be interrupted by life's necessities when you can do it anytime over the course of a few weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    mail in votes (none / 0) (#48)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:47:34 PM EST
    work very well, in oregon. higher turnout is better for everyone- better for the concept of democracy. if anyone cares about that concept, anyway...

    [ Parent ]
    the studies I've seen (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by tree on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:59:35 PM EST
    on VBM in Oregon also indicate that mail-in doesn't give an preference to one or another demographic group. If you are no longer at your registered address, there are procedures in place to allow you to pick it up. And you can mail it in, or drop it off anytime before the deadline.

    [ Parent ]
    Mail In (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:00:25 PM EST
    I know very few people that go to the polls in my neighborhood in CA.  No lines, no crowds, no traffic.  They mail your ballot or you go pick it up.  Mail it back or drop it off.

    Florida is concerned because of the process.  In CA you make the request online or in person.  The reason is to get a current signature for comparison. You have to have heavy resources to verify and count paper ballots.  I would think there would be an abundance of willing volunteers.  They just need to do it.

    [ Parent ]

    Here in Florida we have early votes,, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:02:44 PM EST
    and other ways of voting a well planned and executed mail in primary should be no problem.

    [ Parent ]
    1,000,000 absentee ballots in CA Dem. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:03:06 PM EST
    primary.  No problem.  

    [ Parent ]
    I really doubt HRC's "low information," (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    high-school educated, old female voters will have that much trouble.  Really.

    [ Parent ]
    Caucus vote primary (none / 0) (#162)
    by NYMARJ on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:59:48 PM EST
    Listening to Gov Rendell argue in favor of new primaries for Fla and Michigan instead of caucuses on Meet the Press today - his argument was older voters, shift workers, etc.  Why doesn't anybody ever bring up military votes in this instance - wouldn't that be a strong claim to make? You would think that the greater number of people who vote in primaries vs caucuses would make the total case for primaries - but obviously not.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree -- I think it's HUGE to claim (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:22:14 AM EST
    the high ground for the military to vote.  I think it's militarytracy here who has posted on this and awakened others of us.  Now tell Clinton!

    [ Parent ]
    As I recall (none / 0) (#183)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:07:02 AM EST
    the Florida Dem Chair issued a statement with three absolutely requirements for any do-over, one of which is that our soldiers overseas must be able to participate.

    [ Parent ]
    One of the Floridians here mentioned that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:40:24 PM EST
    many presumably registered FL voters leave FL in the warmer months for Ohio et al.  Not sure they will receive their mail-in ballots.

    [ Parent ]
    That is what I want to now, also (none / 0) (#44)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:45:33 PM EST
    do ballots get mailed to everyone who is registered or only those who voted the first time around since it is a "revote?"

    [ Parent ]
    A mail-in is much, much easier... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:50:04 PM EST
    ... than a several-hour-long caucus for the senior citizens who make up a big chunk of Hillary's base in Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is the one that will have problems (none / 0) (#41)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    because if he is against the re-votes in Florida -- I see an ad right away -

    remember 2000 when Bush did not want the votes counted - now Obama does not want the voters in Florida to even vote.

    That just not be a smart move in my opinion

    [ Parent ]

    As well it should... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:46:50 PM EST
    ... a mail-in revote is democratic. I'm not really sure Obama deserves even that, since his withdrawl from Michigan was a strategic pander to Iowa, and one from which he has already benefitted massively - had he lost Iowa to Hillary, the whole race would have been over months ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems to me HRC is looking good (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:34:01 PM EST
    either way:  (1) seat the delegates from MI and FL, (2) or re-vote in MI and FL and "we'll" kick in $13 mil.  

    [ Parent ]
    Splitting the votes is more wrong IMO (none / 0) (#29)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    Telling a half million people you are taking their votes and giving them to the other candidate is horrible.

    [ Parent ]
    Splitting the delegates (none / 0) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    makes no sense, if what you mean is giving 50% of the delegates to Clinton, and 50% to Obama.  That's completely arbitrary, doesn't "count the votes," and most importantly, doesn't cut Obama's pledged delegate lead.

    The DNC could have done what the GOP did -- seat 50% of the states' total alloted delegates, allocated according to the popular vote totals. It has never been clear to me why that didn't happen.

    [ Parent ]

    It happened because Dean and Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    are stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not quite accurate. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:43:50 PM EST
    It is more that the entire rules committee are stupid - they came up with the idea of losing 100% of the delegates - there is no leeway in the rules for the committee to make a determination about a lesser percentage.

    The penalty that should have been included, in my opinion, would have been to have the state super delegates who chose to move their primary or caucus lose their voting rights at the convention.  That probably would have been the kind of threat that might have worked and not been so dammaging to the voters had it been tested and meted out.

    I think Dean's sticking to principle here offers long-term protection to the party's right to determine our nomination process.

    The last thing I want is for some GOP state's legislature to decide to hold the Dem primary election for 2012 in 2009 if you see what I mean.

    Plus all the other states adhered to the rules and so just being into honoring agreements amongst numerous parties - I do think that people who deviate at the last minute should be held accountable.  That's why I would target the states' super delegates rather than the voters' delegates.

    But I agree that the idea that the Democratic Party would not recognize the voters' delegates from any state is incredibly stupid.  I think the re-vote is the only way to reconcile the situation.

    [ Parent ]

    here is the problem I have with Dean (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    He should have meted out the penalty at the outset.  Instead of telling Florida, "I-I-say, y'all better not hold this primary early or I'm'a gonna make y'all sorry!" (I'm assuming he talks like Foghorn Leghorn here) he should have said, "If you hold the primary early, this is what the punishment will be," and either halved the delegates, stripped them completely, or done whatever else the rules allowed.  By leaving it open, he has created a huge mess.  And his sly smile and shrug, saying, "They can revote or let the credentials committee decide" is not leadership.

    Actually, I think Dean represents the greater problem with the party.  Stop being so wishy washy and make a freakin' decision.  How can we follow if you're not going to lead?

    [ Parent ]

    I am not sure what you are (none / 0) (#129)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:08:34 PM EST
    referring to because it was the rules committee that voted to strip the states of their delegates last summer.  Dean isn't on the rules committee - Brazile is though.  Both states had fair warning about what was going to happen.  Basically what we have here are two states that decided to play chicken with the DNC - which is comprised of representatives from every state and territory in the country.  Everyone agreed way back in the summer of 2005 to the schedule and the rules - including FL and MI - it wasn't until this past summer that they decided they were going to go off the ranch.

    Blaming Dean for this situation is over simplifying a fairly complex problem which involves all of the states and territories and agreements that they made about the nomination process.  There are hundereds of people involved in this deal making decisions on behalf of millions of others who are all over this country.  My Dad worked on a lot of presidential campaigns and the stories he tells about all of the personalities and the negotiating over the stupidest stuff...  well basically I guess what I am saying is that the DNC has always had this problem of being too democratic for its own good.

    [ Parent ]

    but since the rules said 50% (none / 0) (#132)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:13:31 PM EST
    why was the 100% strip allowed doesn't the head of the DNC have anything to say about those kinds of abuses.

    [ Parent ]
    Our rules said 100% (none / 0) (#155)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:49:44 PM EST
    The RNC's rules said something less - I think it was 90%.  The RNC defaulted to something lower as a move to undercut the Dem position - natch - but the problem is with the rule - there aren't any exceptions that I could find when I read them.  And before you lament that there are no exceptions - the minefield that could result from giving the rules committee that much power is something to consider.

    Pretty much every worst case scenario has come into play in this situation.  Most people thought that the nomination would be settled on Super Tuesday so that while FL and MI were embarassing and frustrating they would have been seated without much objection or fanfare to give the nod to the nominee.  But it didn't work out like that.  We had a real race and as we get farther and farther into this we have more and more of a race making FL and MI more and more important...

    This I know - FL and MI will be seated.  People who believed they wouldn't be when this whole thing started were fooling themselves or didn't understand the process well enough to understand that they would never be left out in the end.  What no one knew was that this would be a neck and neck race to the finish.  Now every state counts.  Now they have to deal with FL and MI for real rather than just symbolicly putting them at the kids table until it is time for dessert.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so (none / 0) (#158)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:55:56 PM EST
    The Dem rules do say 50%, and there is an exception if the DNC finds you did your best to follow the rules in good faith.

    [ Parent ]
    I never found that clause. (none / 0) (#165)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:03:37 PM EST
    But who was acting in good faith?  Nelson and Wasserman-Schultz as well as Levin and Granholm were quite self righteous about their states' primary changes when this all first started.  No one was claiming that the GOP did it at the time - Michigan can't but FL is now.  They were all arguing that they were super important states who should determine the nominee regardless of any previous agreements or how they affected any of the other states.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#175)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:18:26 AM EST
    I never said they were acting in good faith.

    What the clause basically says is that you can avoid the penalty if the DNC finds you did your best to avoid the problem.  So that would apply to the situation where the Republican legislature forces it down your throats, or whatever.  But either way the penalty certainly should not have been more than half the delegates.

    The root of the problem is that NH should have been penalized one-half of its delegates, but was not, when it decided to jump ahead of NV in the order and go before the earliest allowable date under the DNC rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Or Obama supporters with (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:41:30 PM EST
    terrific power to see into the future?

    [ Parent ]
    Nah, just garden variety political savvy (none / 0) (#59)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:51:30 PM EST
    would let you predict which candidates these sanctions favored.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, as BTD has repeatedly (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    reminded us, he could see exactly how this would all play out.  But who else did?  

    [ Parent ]
    NO ONE (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:12:26 PM EST
    is my equal.

    [ Parent ]
    Ooops (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:13:08 PM EST
    My narcissistic and grandiose syndrome kicked in there for a second. Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    Dean and Brazille did (none / 0) (#107)
    by ineedalife on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    They just hoped Obama would wrap it up before it became an issue. Then he could generously agree to sit the delegates like he promised when he was non-campaigning in FL.

    [ Parent ]
    In the non-press conference (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:33:25 PM EST
    with the press in violation of the pledge he had signed the day before.

    Btw, I don't see how BTD sees Clinton as breaking the rules about campaigning.  She followed them.  Obama did not.

    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't agree more... (none / 0) (#56)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:50:42 PM EST
    what the heck was Dean and the DNC thinking..."oh let's just tick off the 4th largest state in the nation and tell them that their delegates won't be seated!"

    Man was 2000 so far back that the darn Dems have forgotten about Florida and how important it is?  Geez!

    [ Parent ]

    Florida's impact (none / 0) (#152)
    by Arabiflora on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:48:24 PM EST
    vis the ability to conduct an open and honest election remains... suspect. That fact is important, but the value of Florida voters as they might be useful in putting a Democrat in the WH... not so much.

    [ Parent ]
    splitting the delegates (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:50:57 PM EST
    is what Tom Daschle - which really equals Obama, since that is who Daschle is supporting - has suggested.  Splitting them 50-50 is as meaningless as not counting them at all - it's a total wash for both candidates from a pledged delegate standpoint and leaves the popular vote just sort of hanging out there - would they suggest that the popular vote also be re-allocated and split 50-50?  Or does Clinton get to add the popular vote totals to her side of the tally, and Obama has to walk away with only the Florida votes?

    [ Parent ]
    the 50 - 50 split (none / 0) (#78)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    pushes Obama closer to the magic number

    [ Parent ]
    BO stalling for a caucus? (none / 0) (#210)
    by 1950democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    I've seen speculation that Obama wants to stall until it will be too late to print ballots for a primary or a mail-in, so the only possibility will be a caucus. I'm glad Hillary is making a big push right now to show that she did want a revote, so that she can't be made to look so bad by rejecting Obama's eventual caucus proposition.

    Glad it seems Dean and others are supporting the mail-in idea though. Mail-ins are even more inclusive than a traditional primary, and less easy to sabotage (poll hours and locations, long lines, not enough ballots, "you're not on the list", etc).

    It will be decided by the Supers anyway, and I feel like a good fight in a revote will be good info for them. This will show Hillary doing honest campaigning -- going to voters for votes -- vs Obama's gaming the system.

    [ Parent ]

    "Splitting the delegates" (none / 0) (#39)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:42:03 PM EST
    Whoever in the Obama campaign came up with that proposal ought to be fired. That's the most ludicrous sounding answer to this gigantic mess that I've heard. It fails to take into account the wishes of the Florida and Michigan voters, and insults them on top of it by pretending that they ought to be satisfied by it.

    I'm having a hard time figuring out where the campaigns are on this. My sense is that Clinton would either like to seat the delegates as is, or else have revotes that are very similar to primaries. What's Obama's position?