Having lost the national elected delegate race, Hillary Clinton now wants to count the popular vote from Michigan in her campaign's efforts to change the rules of the nomination race. It's a fraudulent argument as the Michigan primary ballot did not offer Democrats real candidate choices.
Here is what actually happened. The four top tier Democratic candidates -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Clinton -- all pledged to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) they would not campaign in Michigan, after the DNC ruled that Michigan's delegates would not be seated at the national convention because Michigan changed its primary date from February 26 to January 15.
Obama, Edwards and Richardson kept their pledge and removed their names from the ballot. At the last minute, Clinton left her name on the ballot, with the full knowledge that the results would not count. Obama, Edwards and Richardson complied with the rules, while Clinton did not keep her pledge.
Although there was no other viable candidate's name on the primary ballot, only 55 percent voted for Clinton. Instead --
Michigan primary history had previously established a precedent for the 2008 situation. During the contested presidential primary of 1980, the DNC ruled that Michigan delegates would not be seated at the convention because the state was holding an open primary not recognized at that time by party rules. President Jimmy Carter and his challenger, Senator Edward Kennedy both kept their names off the ballot -- they honored the rules.
Clinton did not follow the precedent set by Carter and Kennedy. Instead, the Clinton campaign tried to claim Michigan delegates that were not earned competitively. When that gambit failed, Clinton began counting the popular vote in Michigan as part of her national total.
The facts associated with the Michigan Democratic primary make it clear that Michigan voters were disenfranchised by the election. As a result, the primary vote cannot be considered an honest and valid measurement of the support for any Democratic candidate in Michigan.
Perhaps a fitting postscript can be found in a recent Michigan poll by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA. In that highly respected poll, Obama led McCain 43-41 percent, while McCain led Clinton 46-37 percent. Obama was running a full 11 percentage points better than Clinton in Michigan -- when matched against McCain.
If Michigan had not moved up its original primary date of February 26, a vigorous and fair democratic primary election campaign in Michigan could have taken place. Then the real voice of Michigan Democratic voters would have been heard. Anll the current evidence indicates that the voters' choice would have been Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama chose not to be on the ballot in Michigan, can't you supporters live with his choice?
what a bunch of whiners
Please read the article again. Every candidate signed an Agreement, according to the Rules of the DNC - including Clinton, She's the only one who broke the rules, and dishonored the Agreement. Now she wants to change the rules to support her obsession with winning the nomination. Why does she get to violate the rules? Could it be that she is convinced that she is somehow entitled? Hmmm . . .
Please read my first response to you, dannyS . . . it's down about 15 posts or so.
Respectfully, Honour
Why do they call themselves the DEMOCRATIC PARTY? And then they have un-democratic caucuses like Wyoming, 60,000 registered DEMS, 8,900 voted, and in two States where the taxpayers pay for a real election, where 2,500,000 people vote they don't count your vote. Wyoming gets 12 delegates for the 8,900 votes cast, 1 delegate for 750 votes, In PA, they get 188 delegates, 1 for every 12,500 votes, does this seem DEMOCRATIC? Is that Don Riegle still alive? haved heard much from him since the "Keating Five" days
This is not only "old news" but it is "fake news." There is no way in Hell that I would ever give up my vote. For Michigan voters to say now that they didn't vote because they thought it wouldn't count does not wash. A voter votes. It is our only voice. I would not vote for anyone other than my candidate whether I thought it would count or not. It is my one say-so and by God I am going to take it. The truth is that all votes should count whether the DNC thinks so or not. I'm sick of these specious arguments that are put out there only because the writer wants Obama to win. I want Americans to win and Americans only win if their votes count. For those who don't vote, they relinquish their rights at their own peril.
"I would not vote for anyone other than my candidate whether I thought it would count or not."
But apparently your candidate was on the ballot because she broke the rules--my candidate was not, so I did not bother to vote.
My stated needed to be punished for breaking the rules, just as your candidate does.
Suprshrink if you really want Democracy and America to win then you would not be supporting going against what your candidate already pledged to do which was follow the DNC rules in Michigan and Florida .
Do you honestly feel its fair to those who would have voted for Obama if he were on the ballot and those votes counted ? Fact is you like Hillary really don't care about whats fair you only care about winning !
Get over it Hillary made a pledge not to have those votes counted and going back on her word is a blatent display of the kind of character your candidate possesses which is poor character with no sense of fair play only a win at all cost even lying and treachery if needed to do so.
When a certain group, section or in our case, STATE, is singled out during an election, and provided with a different set of names or fewer names to choose from during a primary, due to incompetence or problems I suspect involve the ethics & standards of those who were entrusted to protect our rights during the primary, then the overall results are unquestionably skewed and unfair.
This was an unethical back door way to assist Mrs Clinton with a state that would have put her last..
This is all well and good for you, but what of anyone who wrote in a vote for obama or edwards? by rule, those votes were discarded. That's a fact, but does that make it "fake news?"
....There is one point that the press never mentions about the Michigan & Florida primaries. The pledge that the candidates all signed stated that " they would NOT RECOGNIZE any results from primaries held by states that are in viloation of DNC rules. Key word here is RECOGNIZE......Hillary signed this pledge.....signed it, as in CONTRACT ". If she can not be trusted to honor her SIGNATURE on a contract, how can she ever be trusted to honor her WORD. She is an attorney, she knows all about SIGNED contracts. The media needs to point out this issue as she goes around the nation violating her signed pledge to NOT RECOGNIZE any results.
Since the point of the article is that Clinton did not really win, why does Obama refuse to allow a re-vote with his name on the ballot?
Obama had nothing to do with it. : http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2151
A federal court ruling was another setback to the do-over. The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU.
Judge Nancy Edmunds ruled that the section of the primary law that allowed only the Democratic and Republican parties access to the list of voters from the Jan. 15 primary was unconstitutional.
The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three minor parties. Michigan does not have voter registration by party, which is why the list is so significant as an organizing tool.
The Michigan Democratic Party contends it needs the Jan. 15 voter list to conduct a party-run primary or caucus, because of DNC rules that prohibit someone who's voted in a Republican primary or caucus earlier in the year from participating later in a Democratic contest.
Many Michigan Democrats crossed over on Jan. 15, in part because top-tier candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards were not on the ballot.
Great point. Obama's Michigan co-campaign chairmen, state legislatures Buzz Thomas and Tupac Hunter, both black, blocked attempts to have a re-vote in Michigan. Edwards and Obama both took their names off the ballot as a political move to honor both NH and Iowa, and possibly pander to the Iowa and NH voters (who have a great stake in being first in the Country), and as you recall Obama won in Iowa and Edwards came in #2; so maybe their pandering paid off, Sen Obama was supposed to win a landslide victory in NH..........which didn't happen, but maybe his pandering had some value in NH. Anyone who was following the primaries knew there was a tremendous effort made by the Obama campaign to have people who wanted to vote for him or Edwards to vote uncommitted. From the results(40%), it looks like their campaign reached msny of the people (I live in Oregon and I knew about the efforts to have people vote uncommitted. So what is your explantion of these facts. If they wanted to have a re-vote, the cost was covered by private persons, but Hillary had won and the Obama campaign would rather disenfranchise the Michigan voters than risk losing a re-vote to Hillary, which would count.
Fellow Michiganians:
What is your problem now? During the primary election everyone disappeared from the ballot except Ms. Clinton, uncommitted, and Dennis Kucinich. Poor Dennis. No one grants him reality anymore but then they never did.
At the time of the election I understood that an "uncommitted" vote was no vote at all so since I knew that Ms. Clinton would get her votes I decided that I would vote for Dennis. It would, I knew, be the only time I would get to vote for him . As it stands Dennis got 4% of the primary vote, Ms. Clinton got her share and those who chose NOT to vote ie. uncommitted got ziltch. The moral of the story is vote before they take that vote away. Don't feel bad because they coerced you not to vote it was your choice.
I wonder if you, like Dennis but know he isn't a viable candidate. I have many friends and I myself like him for his programs and his courage.......voted against the war AND tried to bring impeachment papers for a vote in the house.
Anyway, the other politicians wouldn't want his beautiful wife to out shine theirs.
You know...........another Jackie type in the WH.
patmancando-
Now's is Obama's fault that Michigan and Florida's bogus votes don't count. Well you are mistaken he had nothing to do with the Republicans in FL changing the dates. And yes maybe you should vote uncommited if your choice isn't on the ballot. I guess that's his fault too. As per the article the people who wrote in their choice on the ballots were invalidated.
It Is his fault that there wasn't a re vote. His state campaign managers made sure it didn't get through the Michigan legislature. It is his fault that there was no re-vote in Florida, where his lawyers nixed every suggestion to have a redo.
He was afraid because Hillary had won both of these primaries, and he didn't want to risk her winning in a re-vote; no it was better to disenfranchise those 2 million voters who voted in their state run primaries. Without Michigan and Florida votes being counted it gave him a false lead and a false momentum which skewed all the subsequent races. But Michigan and Florida remain the elephant in the room, and many of us out here will not consider Obama's nomination legitimate...that is if he wins under these circumstances. That is why so many Clinton supporters say they will not support Obama. At least, they are not saying they will riot in the streets like obaminations threaten if he doesn't get the nomination.
Obama REMOVED his name from the ballot, another poor decision from Obama, like Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko and the WEATHERMEN TERRORISTS. In Obama's book he said he picks his friends very carefully, he knew the deal on all these people.
Shameless Pro-Obama propaganda. You can not prove that 700,000 people stayed home because they "knew their vote would not count." There was considerable speculation in all national news media before both the Florida and Michigan primaries that the DNC would eventually relent and count the votes and seat the delegates. Primaries in general usually garner small voter turnout. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name at his own peril. He was not forced by the DNC to do so, just as Clinton was not. You say that no other "viable" candidate chose to remain on the ballot, but you fail to mention that Kucinich (I notice you strategically make a point of not naming him--are you trying not to offend him or his supporters?) chose not to withdraw his name, and at the time, he was still being taken seriously. I'm sure his supporters appreciate your characterization of him here. NOTE TO KUCINICH SUPPORTERS: SIGN HILLARY'S PETITION AT hillaryclinton.com TO COUNT THE VOTES AND SEAT THE DELEGATES! The Democratic Party is supposed to be "democratic," but the Obama wing is advocating taking the right to vote away from Michiganders and Floridians. Right out of the Rove Playbook . . .
Too lazy to get off their asses and make a statement and I should feel sorry for them....NO WAY. Obama CHOOSE to take his name off the ballot knowing full well that he would lose, he did however have his supporters campaign for people to go to the polls and vote undecided. The undecideds did not win HILLARY WON, and the voices of those who showed up to vote should be heard. This is just another whiny Obama supporter---oh poor us. Time for Obama to resign!
Where's the evidence that Obama had his supporters encourage people to vote undecided?
Twinkerbell
they only had a few choices
pick Clinton valid
pick uncommitted valid
write in a name- so it could be invalid
stay home because you knew it wouldn't count.
What would be interesting to know is how many jpeople voted in the Michigan primary and what percentage was that of the democrats and how does that percentage compare with the other states. In every state there was a larger percentage voting than ever in primaries but not every one voted. The percentage that voted was less than in a general election. So the only way to really compare things is not by numbers but by percentages. Isn't it interesting that so many people did vote even though their votes were not supposed to count. I wonder why. In most elections the percentage of registered voters who actually votes is lower than I would like to see. I amy be wrong but it is ony about 60 to 70 percent. In most of the primaries the turnout that I seem to recall has been around a third and that was considered a record. Strange isn't it so few people care about their right to cast a ballot.
Anybody who stays home on election day has no one but themselves to blame, and no shoulder to cry on. The very least you can do is show up and write in your candidate. And don't bother with the BS about "well, we weren't supposed to write in a candidate because they would have had to file paperwork prior to January 5." You mean to tell me that you will keep from letting your voice be heard because of some rule? Please.
The thing is that both primaries had local issues and local candidates on the ballot. People would want to vote for both the issues and the candidates........even if they thought their vote for the nominee for president didn't count. This S++t about people not voting is just that and sounds like the whining Obaminations do whenever their candidate is criticised. How does it feel to support a candidate who has to disenfranchise millions of voters to win and then whine, "the rules are the rules". I heard one of Obama's supporters say on TV one day last week that the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated when they can no longer impact the race. That sounds like disenfranchisement to me..........not being able to have a voice in the selection of the nominee. Why do you think they have been trying to force Hillary out of the race since late February? Because all of them know that disenfranchising Florida and Michigan will be bad news and will have repercussions in the GE. If she drops out it solves all their problems, they think, but will it?
Apparently you missed the part where they threw away write-ins.
It's sad that so many people were so stupid, write-ins were not allowed and this was well publicized, I guess reading and writing skills are on the decline
But when writing in a candidate who's not on the ballot invalidates your vote, like it did in Michigan, as you would know if you'd read the post.......
You're very wrong top equate this primary election in Michigan with all elections. The one was a fraud. Why participate in such dishonesty? A few people tried a grass-roots revolt but that still doesn't prove this election was fair. I suggest that you read the article as it seems you haven't. It's quite a compelling analyis.
What this piece fails to mention were all of the Dems who voted in the GOP primary because there was a choice to be made that counted. There easily could have been thousands who voted this way and this was a big reason the Obama camp would not have accepted any redo vote because Dems who voted in the GOP primary wouldn't have been allowed to revote. What also isn't mentioned but should be are the main people who attempted to move up the primary and caused this mess for everyone: Sen Carl Levin, Debbie Dingell [Cong. John Dingell's wife, and Ron Gettlefinger, the head of the UAW. There could have also been a few others responsible who should have known better because they were forewarned that MI would lose their delegates if they moved their primary up.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
"a big reason the Obama camp would not have accepted any redo vote because Dems who voted in the GOP primary wouldn't have been allowed to revote"
This is so ridiculous, it's funny. The Obama campaign did not want a re-vote because they feared Obama would lose, and with it he would lose his phony lead in the delegate and popular vote count. Give me a break!
The others responsible for this mess here in Michigan are Debbie Dingall (Chief Lobbyist for General Motors and wife of Congressman John Dingall) Governor Jennifer Granholm, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick ( Her son Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who is a supporter of Hillary Clinton and he is presently been charged with eight felonies including having an affair with his chief of staff, go to www.freep.com to read more on the scandal that has been on the front pages of the local dailys), Senator Debbie Stabenow (Her husband was caught in a prostitution sting), Joel Ferguson.. These idiots who I have mentioned are all supporters of Hillary Clinton, they told her to keep her name on the ballot. They even contacted Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and they said they were going to abide by Democratic Party rules and to take their name off the ballot. Hillary Clinton is a lier when she say she won Michigan! That FOOL name was the only candidate on the Michigan democratic ballot. Some democrats voted in the republican primary and some people stayed at home. But there was a effort lead by Congressman John Conyers to vote uncommitted...
So how is Hillary going to count the votes at the UN when she needs to respond to Rush Limberger claiming she doesn't have the testicular fortitude to invade Somolia?
Maybe she can take the Obama method and choose the biggest two groups that vote against you and discount them so you get an affirmative action bonus?
She will count them the same way she counts everything: One for you, one for me. One for you, two for me. One for you, three for me....
I am so mad at Howard Dean, I could scream.
So what if the primary election time was moved up!?
There are 3 other states that moved up their election times -- yet they got counted.
What kind of thing is that to do---ask a candidate not to post their name on a ballot?!!
Invalid contract!!
Since this is such a mess---we must rely on the superdelegates----especially since the race is neck and neck.
I think the superdelegates will choose the experience of Hillary over the Freshman that comes with a Pandora's box full of Black issues.
Just for the record: Barack Obama has 4 years more experience as a Senator than Clinton - and I, for one, do not buy into that line she keeps trying to foist on us that she had any governmental experience as First Lady, other than dinner hostess and background noise.
In terms of time served in any real governing agency, she is the "freshman."
By the way, Obama has worked for 20+ years to help people, in community organizing in devastated neighborhoods, and in State and U.S. Senates, fighting for improved healthcare for children, ethics reform, food programs, civil rights, kids in trouble, earned income-tax credit, right to recorded interrogations, better jobs, and fair and equitable government - and against war!
Hillary"s experience was learned from the old patriarchal politics of past generations (witness her old-world dirty campaign tactics), and the bulk of her accomplishments has been to avoid the law in numerous scandals, lawsuits, investigations, shady money deals, shadier associations, subpoenas to the Supreme Court, and two disbarments - to say nothing of countless documented lies. If this is what counts as "experience" for you, you can have her.
America needs a leader with some real integrity - someone who tells the truth and who can help this country regain its moral and political standing in the world. These are Barack Obama's only issues.
Please watch your near-racist rhetoric - Obama is half white, remember?
Posted May 1, 2008 | 06:27 PM (EST)