Michigan Dems Want to do What? They Can Do Better, and So Can the DNC
By D. Cupples on May 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM in Barack Obama, Democrats, Michigan
Michigan’s Democratic Party is proposing that Michigan’s delegates be split 69 to 59 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. According to the actual election results, Hillary would get 73 delegates. Jeralyn at TalkLeft sums up the results of the new proposal as follows:
"It not only gives Obama all of the uncommitted delegates, a number that includes those who voted for Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, it gives him some that voted for Hillary."
The actual results of Michigan’s primary are below:
# Votes
% Votes
Clinton 328,309
55%
Dodd 3,845
1%
Gravel 2,361
1%
kucinich 21,715
3.6%
Uncommitted 238,168
40%
594,398
Throwing a wrench into any proposal is the fact that Obama chose to take his name off Michigan’s ballot — though he was not required to do so.
Frankly, I wonder why Obama insisted on making that choice, given that four other
Democrats (including his main opponent, Hillary) chose to remain on Michigan’s ballot.
Back to Michigan’s proposed solution: giving Obama 59 delegates would be unfair not only to Hillary; it would be unfair also to those Michigan voters who had voted specifically for candidates other than Obama.
Here’s another possible solution: given that Michigan’s Democratic officials don’t mind being unfair to some voters, why not reduce that unfairness a bit by simply giving Obama the uncommitted votes?
That would still be generous to Obama, given that some of the people who voted "uncommitted" likely supported Edwards.
That and, once again, no one forced Obama to take his name off the ballot, which is what has really thrown a wrench into the counting of Michigan’s delegates at this point.
Making matters worse, the Obama campaign opposed a re-vote in Michigan, which could have cleared up this whole mess.
I can’t help wondering if an Obama campaign strategist had actually hoped to ultimately knock Michigan out of the Democrats’ nominee-selection process. Knocking out competition isn’t a foreign concept to Obama: in 1996, he knocked several fellow democratic candidates out of his race for a seat in the Illinois
legislature.
I know, defensive DNC officials and pundits who support Obama chant specious sound bites about how Michigan’s and Florida’s Democrats "broke the rules."
In March, Wayne Barrett posted a detailed explanation of what really happened in Michigan and Florida, the DNC’s odd handling of it, and why the DNC should have been more understanding. As a Floridian, I can attest to his accuracy re: Florida. About Michigan, I know very little.
The upshot of Barrett’s post: it was largely Republican legislators in Michigan and Florida who are at fault for changing the primary dates.
DNC rules did not require a 100% stripping of these states’ delegates: the automatic
punishment for states that moved primaries to before February 5 was that half of their delegates be stripped.
In addition, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee didn’t have to strip even half of the delegates if it found that MI’s and FL’s Democrats had made good faith efforts to stop the changing of the primary date.
That DNC Committee was supposed to conduct investigations to determine if Michigan’s and Florida’s Democratic leaders had made good faith efforts to stop the moving of their state’s primary election.
Reportedly, the Committee did not conduct such investigations.
Instead, led by operatives like Donna Brazile, the Committee simply decided to impose the harshest sanctions possible on Michigan and Florida — despite rules and circumstances that should have compelled the Committee to show leniency.
As Wayne Barrett also points out, the same DNC Committee refused to impose sanctions on Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina after those states moved their primary/caucus to a date that violated the DNC rules.
Adding insult to injury, DNC operatives have continued to falsely tell the public that their hands were tied when they chose to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida.
Fortunately, the DNC still has a chance to fix the Michigan and Florida messes — and to show that party leaders value us ordinary Dems. The Rules and Bylaws Committee plans to meet on May 31 to hear challenges regarding the Committee’s handling of those states.
I anticipate two likely consequences if the DNC fails to fix said messes: 1) the legitimacy of the party’s ultimate nominee will be questioned, and 2) there will be a whole new wave of Independents.
Why be a member of a party whose current leaders jumped at the chance to discount millions of members’ votes?
Even if the DNC fixes the mess, there’s one other thing it must do: house cleaning, including the removal of Donna Brazile and any other party official 1) who helped disenfranchise Michigan and Florida, or 2) who attempted to mislead the public regarding what really happened with those states.
The Democratic Party is supposed to do better than its leaders have done of late. And the fact is that we can vote for Democratic candidates without donating money to the DNC and without being a registered as Democrats (in all general elections and in some states’ primaries).
It couldn’t hurt to email DNC officials and let them know — in no uncertain terms — just how you feel about their unreasonable, knee-jerk disenfranchising of Michigan and Florida voters up to this point. Here’s the link to the email form: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other BN-Politics Posts:
* Florida Donors Demand Refunds from DNC
* Respected Magazine Misleads Readers About Florida’s Primary
* Dems Do Want Change — in DNC Leadership
Why would they give Obama votes cast for someone else? If someone voted for Hillary it’s because they WANT Hillary for President.
No wonder Obama is in favor of No Child Left Behind.
http://writingforthetimes.wordpress.com/
Hi Susan. Where did you hear that Obama is in favor of NCLB?
Because he is the Baby Jesus. Let’s get this right. He removes his name so he gets the votes of people who didn’t remove their names. Obviously they voted for somebody else because they wanted hhim. All righty then.
I honestly don’t know what Michigan’s party leaders are thinking.
If someone in Michigan commits a crime, everyone in the State should do time.
There’s rules to follow, and all that.
Republican rulebreaking means Democratic votes should not count, interesting precedent.
Mr.,
I think it’s pretty plain that some DNC leaders simply want Obama to win.
This is as screw up as a caucus. Vote in good faith and have your vote “given” to someone NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT!
Well the Netroot boyz have been pushing for a 50/50 split of the FL and Michigan votes — and that’s also stupid.
So the Primary vote in WA State was approx 50-50% and the caucus results were very lopsided — to snObama’s favor.
The DNC is being run by DUMB, DUMBER & DUMBEST!
Northwest,
I didn’t know that about Washington (primary v. Caucus). Good point.
I agree re: Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest.
That’s the kicker: How can they divide up the uncommitteds when Edwards wasn’t even on the ballot, too?
What a mess.
But the way the party is more interested in uniting behind Obama, I doubt it’ll even matter when the train wreck will occur.
21st century and we’re dealing with 19th and 20th century ways and means. For being “progressive” this election process isn’t.
CBS is reporting that CNN is reporting movie mogul Weinstein called Pelosi threatening to yank contributions unless the Congress funded primaries in Michigan and FLA.
Mike,
Well, the pocketbook does seem to be what speaks to many members of Congress. Surprise, surprise.
‘Shame that he didn’t make the threat two months ago.
Dean, Brazile, Kerry, and Kennedy deliberately made the rule to strip delegates from Florida and Michigan because they knew Obama had no chance to win either state. They knew Hillary would win it and get too far ahead of Obama in delegate count. This has all been planned from the very beginning. They want to take over the party and it looks like they are going to succeed.
I read a great article about who is funding Obama. If I find it, I will post it here.
well, i don’t know about the four you listed. but ickes was at the table supporting a hard line on michigan and florida, and mcauliffe did the same when he was dnc chair.
go ahead and give her the extra four delegates. it won’t matter.
Kathy,
It does look like some party “leaders” have been trying to tilt this election toward Obama for quite a while.
That’s why I (and likely millions of other Dems) are so upset with the party “leadership.”
It’s as though Ms. Brazile, et. al., woke up one morning and found themselves possessed by the GOP spirit.
I sent my letter to the DNC. What a bunch of bozos.
They are delusional, seriously. They honestly do believe that if Obama is named the nominee, we will all fall in line.
Somebody Senate Slap Pelosi will ya? She needs to wake up and smell the roses … the ones she will be able to enjoy more often when she loses her Speaker job to McCain’s administration.
Are there any studies on the affect of believing your own media bull?
Wife,
Thanks so much for sending the letter. It can’t hurt, and it certainly could help.
I hope that everyone will send an email or snail mail letter between now and May 31.
Email form:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
Snail Mail:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
SusanPC, if rules are rules, then the rule agreed to also was no campaigning in Florida and Michigan.
Obama broke the rules, knowingly and purposely and thus deserves to be punished in the same vien Florida and Michigan were Punished for breaking the rules!
Obma campaigned in two States seeking voter response to his campaigning of which these two states had a total of 370 delegates stripped by the DNC! Any punishement in this arena also deserves to be thrust upon Obama for breaking the rules!
Therefore, since Obama was campaigning against the rules the same number of delegates should be stripped from Obama, thus Obama’s de;egate total should be reduced by the same portion of votes the punished States were, 370 delegates and those delegates should be awarded to the candidates who followed the rules!
In a court of law, this would be the outcome, in a democratic society, this is the punishment, if you do the crime, you pay and Obama needs to pay for openly and knowingly breaking the rules!
Me.,
You certainly make a good point!
Isn’t what Michigan proposing ILLEGAL , Isn’t that call vote switching, vote tampering when you take my vote preference and give it to someone I didn’t vote for? Maybe even vote STEALING?…You cannot not take 1 vote the was voted for Hillary and give to Obama. I am sure its called vote STEALING
Warrior,
I don’t know how state or federal election laws affect primaries (as opposed to general elections).
In principle, however, you’re right: it’s vote theft.
Clinton would be a fool to accept such terms and I don’t think she’s a fool.
The DNC has turned this country into a Banana Republic.
Power corrupts, and abosolute power corrupts, absolutely.
By the way, he’s not campaigning in WV so he can say he lost because he didn’t campaign.
Uppity,
I suspect that Obama will unleash a bunch of false ads in WV just days before the primary. He certainly has the cash to do it.
It is obvious that Hillary should get the percentage of delegates for which she won and Obama should get the delegates that he won. And since he took his name off the ballot, he did NOT win a single delegate. Therefore, Hillary gets her share and no body else gets any. He is the won who is seeking to steal Michigan delegates. If that were the outcome, how quickly would a new primary be organized. If the DNC were really unbiased, this would be the ruling. Then Hillary could block a revote like Obama has done and lets see how the media would play that trick. They would be screaming for her head. I would like her to do this just to see Donna Brazille’s head explode along with Howard Dean’s.
ALibe,
You’re too funny (cranial explosions).
I voted in Michigan. I know for a fact that some Hillary supporters DID vote for Uncommitted, “just in case”. I read about them online first hand, and heard they did it. Those figures are in the exit polls.
Both our MDP leaders and the Republicans assured our state voters many times leading up to our primary that our votes certainly would count, and that they would do whatever possible to make sure our delegates were eventually seated.
Regardless of that since we couldn’t count on that coming true the Hillary supporter faction had a backup plan and made sure they secured a small portion of those Uncommitted votes to guarantee some seats at the convention one way or another. Every single Dem candidate we had whether they had removed their names on purpose (Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson) or the ones smart enough to leave their names on (Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich) received “votes” in the Uncommitted column precisely because of the abnormal situation. Including the ones that had just dropped out of the race, they still had their fans. According to exit polls Edwards would have received something like 12% himself and Obama only slightly higher than that. Then we have to factor in the additional normal votes cast for all four that remained on the ballot that did have a line to vote for. Kucinich received over 22,000 of those alone.
It comes down to what I called the “Edbama” faction at the time absolutely campaigned and spammed heavily for Uncommitted, including flyers illegally using the MI Dem Party official logo. But Obama lead the way to take his name off, then he and his minions blocked a revote, yet demanded a 50/50 split of delgates from not one legal vote for him in our state when his name wasn’t on the ballot by his own plotting, and now they want to give him all those Uncommitted spread out votes PLUS some of Hillary’s that she earned and deserves? Insane.
And what happened to the results of the 15 congressional district delegate conventions they recently held here where they stuck to the original vote & delegate counts and did the first stage allocating? They expect those being thrown out now too? Hillary again got some of those Uncommitted delegates, Obama did not get all of them. As far as I’m concerned he deserves zero delegates from Michigan. He broke the “rulz” in FL, he deserves zero delegates from there if the DNC were to actually follow any rules at all.
Well well, by 2012 I guess nobody needs to campaign in any state at all, just stamp your foot and demand some delegates. I think we should also run about a dozen women for Prez. Why the hell not, who needs a resume, experience, vetting, or any accomplishments to speak of, as has been proved with Obama? Thanks Obama! You’ve opened the door wide up to anyone can now run!
Shez,
I’m glad to hear some inside stuff about Michigan. As a Floridian, I’m more familiar with my state’s situation than yours. But we are in the same boat.
My brother-in-law lives in Michigan and works for Ford. He told me that he knows a lot of people who don’t vote, but who say that if Obama is the nominee they are going to register and vote for McCain. Nothing will mobilize them more than a deal like this in which their votes for Edwards (and Clinton) are given to Obama.
On another note, I was in Indiana for the primary and I attended a training session for Gary poll watchers supporting HRC. (These are the bravest people on Earth BTW). At the beginning of the meeting, one of the poll watchers led us in prayer. Halfway through what was a spiritually lifting experience, she started to say things that startled me. She thanked God for giving us the opportunity to exercise free choice, to be free from manipulation, to be free from intimidation, to demand not to be taken for granted. These men and women, primarily AAs, are angry. They are angry that Obama has been manipulating them – “hood-winked” and “bamboozled” – they’re angry that Obama takes them for granted – note the all white back drop of supporters at Obama’s NC victory speech – and they are angry that the AA community is pressuring them and intimidating them to vote for a candidate on the basis of the color of his skin. Just thought I would pass that along.
Suskin
And I thank you for passing it along.
What did Hillary say about Michigan in 2007?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg
That it’s “Not going to count for anything.”
Ned,
I just watched the YouTube. It seems that Hillary is admitting what — at the time — seemed obvious: that the DNC will refuse to count Michigan.
That said, what point are you making?
Ned,
I forgot to layout the context of your YouTube: she was defending her decision to stay on Michigan’s ballot.
I thought I heard there was an upcoming vote in Michigan for something soon, and that it would be very easy to add the Democratic primary votes to that. Did anyone else hear that?
I meant Democratic primary re-vote.