Michigan's Fake Primary Produced Fake Results
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 --
- 45 percent of Democratic voters cast their ballots as "not-Clinton" - 40% who voted the "Uncommitted" line and 5% who voted for one of the remaining candidates that were not viable.
- An additional 27,694 voters did not have their votes counted, most of these likely due to "write-in" votes -- anyone writing in Obama, Edwards or Richardson's name had their ballot ruled invalid and discarded.
- "Uncommitted" won more votes than Clinton did in major cities such as Grand Rapids, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and Ann Arbor. The "not Clinton" vote also won in Wayne (the state's most populous county), along with several other counties. If write-in votes had been counted, the results would likely have tipped against Clinton in several more cities and counties.
- Democratic turnout in Michigan was lower than every other state primary except Utah -- a state that gave Bush 70 percent of its vote in 2004.
- Recent analysis of the 2008 turnout in other states compared to Michigan's turnout -- indicates that more than 700,000 Michigan Democratic voters, who could have been expected to participate, stayed home rather than vote. They didn't participate because they understood there was no real Democratic election choice in Michigan.
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.
Loading comments…
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
Retrofitting the election rules to suit Hillary's candidacy goes to her honesty. Has this not been mentioned? If she can't be trusted to follow the rules of an election, what else can she not be trusted with? Her campaign should be attacking the rule makers on this matter, and not the rule followers (e.g., the Obama campaign).
Rules are evidently only for suckers. If Billary thinks she can flout the rules and then win by bribing superdelegates, well, she's probably right. Remember the Clinton creed: Cheaters win and winners cheat.
Yes, it's a shame, they need a revote. The people did not choose to have their primaries early. I know 1000's of people who didn't vote in their own states because Hillary was the "assumed" winner already. Then Kucinich gave his support ot Obama in Iowa & it started OB on his big roll. As I watch the "news" channel, it appears to me that they keep changing sides, incouraging this "dead heat".
Jennifer Granholm DID chose to have the primary early. She needs to be dragged from the Stae House and put in stocks in the public square so you can direct your anger where it belongs.
I'm sorry, did you just say Kucinich's endorsement started Obama on his big roll? I hope you know how ridiculous that soiunds. I think the wins in Iowa and South carolina had a lot more to do with it. Endorsements don't mean that much to begin with, and Kucinich's carries very little weight.,
FL and MI are only being fought for by HRC because she is desperate and will take anything she can get her hands on.
Supers should wait till june. Unless, of course, they are comming out for her.
Her using the MI votes in her "the way I count it" speach is proof of desperation. That is not a figher that is a bottom feeder.
What happened to MI and FL is certainly an embarrassment and a debacle. Democrats need to learn some lessons here and reform party procedure.
That being said, whatever is "unjust" about the FL and MI results was unjust when the DNC made their decision months ago on not seating those delegates, and ALL the major candidates agreed to it then. It is only now, when changing that decision can be utilized as a form of political gamesmanship to effect an outcome more favorable to one candidate than another, that one group tries to not only change the decision, but deride those that adhere to the decision.
What some seem to forget is that independent, undecided voters will ultimately make the difference on who wins the general election, and it is *exactly* this kind of gamesmanship that turns off those voters and makes them look at the candidates who engage in these tactics as untrustworthy.
No one doubts for a moment that, if the Clinton campaign's advisers (whoever they are this week) genuinely believed that seating the delegates of MI and FL would favor Obama instead of their candidate, they would be as zealous in their support of the original DNC ruling as they are now in favor of overturning it. The voters who will ultimately swing this election one way or another generally see right through this gamesmanship, and it does not enhance Senator Clinton's or their party's chances of victory in November, it diminishes it.
Unless you want money to even more completely overwhelm our election processes, you need to remain the integrity of the system we have now in which a few select caucuses and primaries have a special place on the calendar. Maybe in the future they need not remain Iowa and NH in perpetuity, but for now they're the ones with priority. There is nothing "unjust" about enforcing the rules that allow for this sort of system to be maintained. Michigan and Florida needed to be penalized for the rules to have any meaning whatsoever.
Does it suck for Michigan and Florida voters? Of course it does. But their gripe is with their elected representatives who made this decision to violate the rules for them. It's not with the party who made its rules clear well in advance. What's unjust is blaming the party for doing what it needed to to preserve the integrity of its process. The responsibility is with Michigan and Florida lawmakers. Hopefully they will pay for their selfishness and stupidity in their next primaries where they're on the ballots. I hope that the voters in Michigan and in Florida will make their votes in THOSE primaries really count.
Thank you, SpaghettiW
It's a reasonable assumption that the voting proportions of the 700k non-voters would have been similar to those that did vote. The writer's argument comes down to the final paragraph:
"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."
It's a counterfactual proposition. It can neither be proven or dis-proven. That renders the entire thesis to one of "blowing smoke up your ass".
Unless one assumes that those whose preferred candidate was not on the ballot would have been more likely to stay at home. After all, why would I vote if my candidate was not even on the ballot? Your reasonable assumption doesn't seem very reasonable.
Not true. At that early date Hillary had name recognition that the others would have also had IF they had campaigned. But since no one campaigned there Hillary's name recognition dominated. As far as I'm concerned Hillary and Jennifer Granholm tried to defraud the system and both of them should be arrested for attempted voter fraud.
The lack of logic and the distortions many of the Hillary Haters/ Barack supporters spew is beyond understanding. Even if you don't like it...The statement that more voters have come out to vote for Hillary Clinton in this primary season is an accurate and justifiable comment. It is just true. Even if you believe the MI votes should not be counted in any way...the statement is still indicative of how close the race is and therefore serves as a reality check to all of those people who pretend that B.O. is cleaning HRC's clock. Second, Hillary Clinton wants re-votes in both MI and FL. Those of you saying otherwise are lying. Finally...
The fact that you wish to spread mistruths of your own, negates your flawed premise. Obama supporters don't say that only they stayed home during MI and FL voting. Your last sentence 'they are against people voting' is patently absurd. I realize you wish to tote Hillary's water effectively, but I will caution you that you would be better off relying on truth. ANY candidate that wants to pander to voters after the fact, when they signed a PLEDGE to remove their name from the ballot is being dishonest. Is this truly what you want to support??? I had enough of liars over the past 7+ years of Bush/Cheney. I am ready for something different. My ethics are not for sale.
Keep your ethics - but perhaps see the semantic difference between not camplagning, and actually removing your name from the ballot. HRC was not the only Democratic candidate on the ballot.
I'd like to see a copy of the pledge where they promised to take their names off the ballot, because it just doesn't exist. The fact is, when Florida and Michigan were sanctioned, the two remedies that were written into the "rules" you Obama supporters think you know so much about were 1) the states could put forth a plan for a revote of 2) the Credentials Committee could vote to seat them at the convention. Hillary has said she supports a revote, and has urged her delegates to vote to seat the two delegations. So exactly which "rules" is she trying to break?
I really wish some of you guys would do a little research instead of just posting what you read on the Internet.
There are valid arguments against seating the two delegations. But they aren't supported by simply repeating untruths and blog rumors.
Did you even read the thoughts as you typed them out?
Counting them as they are now is not fair. For a fact, HRC started with more favor. Everyone in the country knows her. She has a popular president husband. That alone should not qualify her to win. Obama, even if he lost both states in a fair contest, would not have lost by nearly as much. Just being on the ballot in MI would have made a huge difference.
If there were a revote, HRC would have had an unfair spin, that is to say that only she was for counting MI and FL. That would have tainted the results and caused an unfair vote.
Your argument isn't nearly as smart as it sounds to you. If it were smart the super delegates would feel good about correcting it and they aren't. Hate Obama all you want, but the supers could easily justify your argument if they agreed with it.
Good luck, You need it.
Did you read the thoughts you were replying to after they were typed? The argument was for a revote - not to count the votes as they are. Although it's not HRC's fault that Obama took his name off the ballot, rather than just not campaigning like they had agreed, I think most would agree that a revote in MI would be most fair.
To clarify, though, are you saying that the only way to make the election fair to Obama is to completely ignore the voters in MI and FL?
Your argument isn't particularly smart, either. The Superdelegates aren't the issue with the revote - money is. It costs the states money to hold an election (primary or otherwise). If the states aren't willing to pony up, it wouldn't matter what the Superdelegates said or did.
Perhaps luck is needed all around.
Further, HRC only wants to count the states to help her make the case to the supers to overturn the votes in all of the states.
I totally agree with you, Mahavishnu.
Obama supporters are too afraid to have a recount.
Hillary has regained momentum---Obama supporters surely don't want a recount.
What recount? Nobody is saying that it wasn't a valid COUNTING of the votes. We are merely saying that the votes themselves were skewed, and thus counting them as they were cast is not valid!
A re-vote in MI is a pointless exercise. Whether Obama or Clinton wins, it would be by a fairly narrow margin and change the current delegate count difference by no more than a handful. It would not materially change the current situation. A re-vote makes no sense.
As a Michigan resident and democrat I feel like I got a swift kick in the rear when our stae legislators and Govenor decided to move up the primary for the exsposure that Iowa and New Hampsire have at this time. I did not have a full choice to pick from on the ballot so the best way I can say to have a part in this convention would either be split all delagates fifty fifty and seat them last or not seat them at all. As far as I am concerned there are no "Mulligans " in politics and shame on the Michigan Democratic Party for not resisting the move of the primary. It`s these types of moves that piss off voters and keeps them home, make sure you have your picture I.D. with you come Nov. because these Reich Wing chicken hawks will be all over the I.D. propaganda.
If only the those in the msm would report these things, voters would have a better understanding of what really happened. Thank you Ms. Riegle for clarifying this.
Those of you asking why Obama doesn't want a revote, it's Clinton who didn't want a re-vote because she wants to seat those delegates as is. The only way Hillary will go for a re-vote is if she could trick the system somehow, again. Obama's camp was all for a re-vote, fair and square.
"Obama, Edwards and Richardson complied with the rules, while Clinton did not keep her pledge." This excatly what we would get from HilLiar, she will say anything to steal the nomination but will not keep her pledges!
The pledge, even as clearly stated in this column, was not to campaign in the state. HRC did not campaign in the state. How did she break that pledge? There was no pledge to remove your name from the ballot. As has been pointed out before, B.O. and Edwards removed their names because they were trailing in the polls and it would not look good politically to lose- even if it didn't count.
There was a pledge in MI to take their names off of the ballot, and not campaign in the state. Florida was the pledge not to campaign in the state. Trying to twist the facts to fit your agenda is rather pathetic. Too many people know what the facts are now, this story has been around long enough. You simply appear foolish.
Actually, the pledge stated that the candidates not "campaign or participate" (read the actual language not what is stated in the article, which was paraphrased) in MI or FL. And furthermore Mrs. Clinton most definately campaigned in FL unless you call the stop she made there previous to their primary a pit stop. I also think that pledging not to participate would neccesarily mean one had to take their name off the ballot. FL and MI voters should be mad at their own Democratic leadership for this and no one else.
She was asked "very strongly" the leader of her party to remove her name from the ballot.
She choose not to. DNC is the parent and Billary is the child she should follow the rules like all the other good children
Thank you, Ms. R, for finally speaking the truth.
Maybe Hillary's next job can be with Fox News or Richard Mellon Sciafe or some other right-wing nut-job cesspool organization.
She's certainly qualified, from Day One! 35 years of experience, too!
There is no way that any of these outcomes could ever be more accurate than a revote. Obama took his name off the ballot and that was his mistake. Four other candidates left theirs on. There was campaigning to vote uncommitted if you were for Obama. However, Obama also fought against the recount.
The only possible explanation for this is that he wanted to suppress the vote. Usually a Republican activity. This supporting the rules is complete BS, just like the Reverend, when he could have had a recount if he wanted. There was third party money ready to do it.
He did not and thus support the DNC disenfranchising Michigan as well as Florida. He deserves none of their delegates for violating a Democratic Principle.
nt --
You didn't even read the piece, asshole!
Keep repeating those daily Clintonista talking points to yourself, tho -- it's something you have to do to reinforce the lies you've been fed, right?
Oh, and keep pounding away at the Rev. Wright thing, too -- it just helps remind everybody what a mean and petty person Hillary REALLY is. And how we need someone with those "talents" in the WH.
The MI and FL party leaders decided that revotes are out of the question due to cost -- but Hillary wants to keep stirring up the pot. More psychodrama, more division, more bitterness -- yeah, that's what we need -- not a resolution!
Why don't the Clintons just run as Republicans? They seem to have more in common with them.
Of course, I read the piece. Whatever the actions of the candidates, it is true they BOTH are trying to win. The DNC could have fixed this when it mattered. As hard as it is for some fanatics to understand, the point I make is principled not ideological.
The DNC disenfranchised 2.3M. No one else did. They could have had a revote. They did not. The penalty was created after the fact. NH moved theirs and it was counted.
Obama fought against this principle. He was OK changing to caucus because it supported his position. How do you explain that? How else can you explain what he did?
There was no rule that said you should take your name off the ballot. The only reason he did so was to delegitimize the election alone. No other explanation makes sense.
When he did not like the DNC position on other matters, he was not altruistic.
Get a grip with reality. I know that rationalizing against democratic principle is a challenge.
The more you challenge the Clintons who are more centrist Democrats the more any Obama Presidency will be short lived, just like Carters was.
Private citizens, Democrats, offered to pay for a re-vote. Obama's co-chairmen of his campaign in Michigan and members of the Michigan legislature blocked any attempts to have a redo in Michigan. His lawyers fought a redo in Florida. Just like he is afraid to debate Hillary because she always wins them, he didn't want those two states to re-vote because he thought he would lose......
This article is filled with lies. First, the candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan. But they were not required to take their names off the ballot. Each decided to stay on or take their names off the ballot according to their own calculations. Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden were polling poorly in Michigan and decided to take theirs off so as not to look weak. Hillary, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel left their names on. Hillary was polling very well in Michigan. I repeat, There was NO...NO requirement that candidates take their names off the ballot. This is a lie perpetuated by ......gues
It is hard to accept reality. And not knowing the facts and writing a column with distorted impressions based on lies is sick.
They agreed not 'to campaign OR participate'.
It states, "I, (name), Democratic candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina." It goes on to specifically say that "campaigning" will be as defined by "the rules and regulations" of the Democratic National Committee.
The only sentence of your post that any rational person can agree with is 'It is hard to accept reality'. You appear to be having a very tough time.
Thank you for clarifying this!
I live in Michigan and have become increasingly concerned that Mis Clinton's imagined rules are becoming news stories that have the tendency to become "facts" with her supporters.
I can tell you that when I did vote for "uncommitted" here I had to rush through a parking lot while avoiding sniper fire...I think...er
well, I will get back with you on this...
Funny!
Good one LOL
Nicely articulated. Well done and thanks.
When one wants to protect the rights of disenfranchised voters, that indeed means EVERY voter, including all the voters who stayed home because they were told their vote would not count. Of course both candidates are biased toward fighting extra hard for their supporters, but both Clinton and Obama supporters stayed home in Florida and Michigan because they were told it would not count - to have it count anyway is to admit those voters were lied to.
You are a liar. Please print the pledge. It did not say she would remove her name from the ballot. It said she would not campaign there.
If we are all in favor of a shorter primary season...
I think in four years California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina should all hold primaries on February 7th for both parties. Of course, any state that wanted to do so could join them.
If those states decided to do it, they could make it happen. They do represent about 54% of the US population and 256 Electoral votes now.
We could call it "All or Nothing Tuesday."
great. then we will alway get the candidate with the most money and highest name recognition. no unknown candidate will ever get the nomination ever again. now that's democracy.
Most of the so-called "facts" in this blog are not accurate--even down to who was really on the ballot. I voted in Michigan (and am familiar with the ballot!); I heard the Obaama supporters advertising on the media urging us to vote uncommitted. Believe it or not, those of us in Michigan actually have cable and knew who Obama was when we went out to vote. Obama thought he'd lose-that's why he took himself off the ballot. Michigan knew who Obama was and that's why most of the voters voted for Clinton. If Obama IS on the ballot next time I am given an opportunity to vote in Michigan I will save my gas $ and time and take a day off from politics to enjoy the beautiful Michigan Autumn.
And if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? It's unfortunate you feel that way, but if the general election vote in Michigan hinges on your vote, then I suppose Obama's in trouble. Otherwise, I think he'll be okay.
No! you girl HilLiar is the expert Liar here!
It states, "I, (name), Democratic candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina." It goes on to specifically say that "campaigning" will be as defined by "the rules and regulations" of the Democratic National Committee.
Dick Bouley, state chair for Bill Richardson called Clinton's decision "very disturbing. This is a person who claims to have leadership qualities and wants to lead the party -- and she pulls something like that, which could be very harmful to the New Hampshire primary."
Bouley said it's "double-talk and a game of semantics. How is this not participating?"
It's not participating in the same way that flying into Florida for fund-raisers to attract press coverage is not campaigning. The semantic games are making my head hurt. But it's not like we haven't had ample warning about the importance of semantics to the Clintons.
I judge threw out the results of the Michigan primary... why is there any question about considering a tainted and compeltely invalidated vote?? why.. because Senator Clinton wants to win no matter how underhanded and despicable the price... somehow God will redeem her later....
It is just sickening watching her campaign..
I am looking forward to the swearing in of President Obama!!!
Yes We Can!
Win at all costs. Seek and destroy. Go Hillary.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
