No Re-Vote In Michigan A Blow To Clinton

Obama out lawyers Clinton. Wins Michigan.

I think Hillary Clinton is a lying, warmongering person with a world view that is incredibly narrow who is unqualified to be President.

Nonetheless, there should be fair primary reruns in MI and FL or the Dems are much more likely to lose in Nov. FL voted blue in 2000, although those votes were counted red. MI voted for Kerry by 3.5% in 2004 and according to recent polls McCain is ahead of both Clinton and Obama by 3 points there.

Only a small percentage of voter defections in either state makes it nearly certain both will be red states, and the Dems must win at least one to win in Nov. A 2% defection of Dem voters in MI to McCain from the 2004 results makes that state red. FL leans red and MI leans blue, but screwing the electorates of both states over obscure Party rules punishes the electorates for the errors of the Party establishments statewide and nationally. It virtually guarantees voter defection from the Dems in November.

Obama and Hillary should agree to fair reruns of the MI and FL primaries or we are much more likely to see the lying, barbaric warmongerer John McCain elected President.

Partisans simply say (based on nothing) the Dems will win MI in November and would lose FL anyway. But those arguments are put forward as talking points and not based on facts. Screwing the voters of both states means, most likely, neither Obama nor Clinton win either state.

1) Michigan legislators do represent the will of the people in MI. So according to state legislators, the people in MI, like those in FL, do not want a revote. Trying to force a revote on people who don't want one is not exactly the definition of voter enfranchisement.

2) There was a caucus proposal in MI and FL, because caucuses would be most cost-efficient, and the Clinton camp was staunchly against it in both states, rejecting it outright. So the Obama camp could claim that the Clinton camp is the one that stopped the revote process by rejecting the caucus proposals outright.

3) If the Clinton camp is so concerned about the "will of the voters," in MI and in the rest of the country, then they should take the position of the Obama camp that superdelegates should go with the will of the people. Still waiting for them to do that.

Without the revote...there will always be BIG FAT QUESTION looming in everyones mind...Did he really win it? It's not not like those votes just "go away" because they are not legally counted. We all know they are there. We have one president that got the TOP JOB this way....now we may get TWO. How proud. It might be different but there is a way to "by the rules" let these people be counted. It was there politicians that screwed them out the vote...they shouldn't be punished or "SUPPRESSED" from voting in their own countries elections.

Yes, of course they should revote. But, without that, a very generous offer, because at this point he might actually win there.

50-50 is the same as not counting them at all

Splitting the votes in unacceptable. A revote is the ONLY democratic thing to do.

ObamaHagel 2008

Please read below and tell us how this overt attempt by Clinton to overturn REAL, ACTUAL VOTES jives with all of these bullsh*t cries of her sudden concern about disenfranchised votes in Michigan and Florida. [hint: it's a rhetorical question. You can't reconcile the 2 positions. It's too bad mouths only have 2 sides to speak out of, otherwise Hillary could be much more productive].


CLINTON ASKS OBAMA PLEDGED DELEGATES IN NORTH DAKOTA TO SWITCH

Political Radar | ELOISE HARPER and SUNLEN MILLER | April 5, 2008 04:31 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton made a blunt appeal to North Dakota delegates to switch their support to her, despite the fact that Sen. Barack Obama handily defeated her in the state's caucus in February.

October 11, 2007
Flashback: Does Michigan Matter to Clinton?

Hillary Clinton, during which she was asked about the Michigan primary:

"I personally did not think it made any difference, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You knowit's clear, in this election they're having, it is not going to count for anything."

http://www.youtube.com/user/MDRUDGE

I freaking love it, first she would have nothing to do with finding a solution to the mess that Michigan and Florida got themselves into; then refused to follow the rules and left her name on the ballots when the rest of the candidates agreed to take theirs off; then she howled like hell for a re-vote, and when those states turned it down now she's pleading that the results have already been tallied from the first vote and should be awarded to her when it was clearly an uneven vote.

Split the delegates 50/50, there, the states have a say and everyone can shut up.

Clinton should be happy getting pledged delegates split 50/50 and allowing the Florida and Michigan supers to do whatever they want. And no adds to the popular vote totals either way. That way, she stands to get some superdelegates from those states. In reality, if the DNC had any balls at all, they'd cut off any further conversation about it. They told the state Democratic conventions what would happen if they rescheduled the primaries, the primaries got rescheduled anyway, and the DNC did what they said they'd do. End of story. If the DNC wimps out (again), what's going to happen next time when North Carolina or some other state moves their primary up? Wimp out again?

I remember Barack Obama talking to Charlie Rose in November '02 about the Iraq war vote, saying, "I think we should have stuck to our guns and took our political licks if that's what it came to, rather than do what Democrats frequently do, which is to cave and then whine about it later. Which makes us look not only weak, but also petty." So Hillary and the DNC caved and now they're all whining about it - which makes them look not only weak but also petty.

the best solution is to have both fla/michigan to have their delegates split.

revotes is impossible due to cost and you have no idea how many new registrations or what to just say yea lets just vote based on democratic registrys

the two states state congressmen fubar the situation and the dnc should just come out and say.. the delegates will be setted 50/50

just imagine how fair can it be to have them setted as is... edwards couldve got a large percent of votes

Hillary had about 50% in MI anyhow with Obama NOT on the ticket. She should be leaping at the chance to agree with Obama's camp on this, and then everyone's happy.

Except Florida, of course.

Pardon me, but...I do remember with absolute certainty hearing Hillary Clinton saying that the "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," So do you think she would be better off with 50% of the delgation or zero?

The Agreement she SIGNED said...

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina

August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.

Now she wants to debate the definition of participate (kind of like what the definition of is, is).

What Webster's Dictionary defines Particpate as is:

Main Entry: par�tic�i�pate
Pronunciation: pär-ˈti-s�"-ˌpāt, p�"r-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): par�tic�i�pat�ed; par�tic�i�pat�ing
Etymology: Latin participatus, past participle of participare, from particip-, particeps participant, from part-, pars part + capere to take " more at heave
Date: 1531
transitive verb
archaic : partake
intransitive verb
1: to possess some of the attributes of a person, thing, or quality
2 a: to take part b: to have a part or share in something

I would draw your attention to both 2 a) and 2 b), to have a part or share in something. So by her having her name appear on a ballot in the Michigan Primary she actually be forfeit of any Michigan delegates that cast a vote for her!

And I'm pretty sure you don't live in Florida as I do, so let me enlighten you. Florida's Board of Clemency rule to allow ex-felons to register to vote is now in effect, thereby allowing for 500,000 people to now register to vote that could not vote in the January Primary (little known reason why the Primary was moved to Jan 29 and not Feb 5) to vote in any future contests.

The headline should read.....Democrats Lose Michigan in the Fall.

Obama ensures that.

Way to go!