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
Great post!
every time this issue gets drudged up again, i get a little more irritated. since when has my vote as a kentucky democrat counted in a primary? not in my adulthood, i'll say that much. the argument that primaries shouldn't disenfranchise voters is specious..
Thanks for the great post. As a Michigander, I voted uncommitted due to the fact that all three major contenders were not on or supposed to be on the ballot. The only people to blame for this is the democratic party of Michigan. The only true way to solve this and let the delegates be seated is to split them 50/50 and be done with it.
Northernmom,
It was your governor, Jennifer Granholm, and the leaders of the Michigan legislature and the state Democratic Party who disenfranchised you when they arrogantly and foolishly went ahead and scheduled an illegal primary despite clear warnings from the DNC that the results wouldn't count because the vote was scheduled outside the approved calendar. The rules were clear, they intentionally broke them, and now you, the voters, pay the consequences. They thought they could bully, bluster, and blackmail the DNC into backing down. They lost that gamble. If you don't like the results, don't blame the DNC which was only applying a clear rule in an even-handed way. Other states complied. Blame Gov Granholm, your state legislators, and state party officials for their arrogance and reckless stupidity in gambling away your right to vote.
Yes, and the governor, the legislature, and the State Democratic party proposed a re-vote, but Obama wouldn't agree to it. Why not? Because there was a provision that people who had voted in the Republican primary couldn't vote this time. What's he afraid of? He needs Michigan, he needs Florida, he needs Ohio, he needs Pennsylvania, or at least some combination of these states. If Obama wants to unify the party and get the nomination, he needs to rise above the fray and either accept the decisions of the voters in these two states, or propose a solution that doesn't ignore over 2 million voters in two important swing states with lots of electoral votes.
There are plenty of legal reasons to not re-vote - like not having the time to make sure that the rolls were correct and that people would receive notice of the revote in time, or tampering thanks to the amount of private money going into funding it. No way in hell would any smart person accept a revote under those conditions.
Considering Clinton barely had a majority running against herself, I don't think anyone was scared of her. It's quite apparent she has pretty pathetic support there. Hillary, is the one who opposed the only viable revote plan, b/c it didn't allow her to cheat and disenfranchise voters. Please tell you're really not this dim.
thank you for laying the blame where it belongs. I would go further to state outright that there were plenty of MI electorate who gave tactic or outright approval for Gov. Granholm to try to bully MI to the front of the line. They must also bear a great deal of the blame.
And the fact should not go unnoted (again) that the Democratic leadership of MI agreed to abide by the DNC rules well in advance of the primary season... and it turned out they lied. Everyone else (except FL) showed integrity and agreed to play by the rules that they had agreed upon. Nobody like a bully.
If you want changes to the way the DNC chooses its candidate, work within the system to affect those changes. Otherwise, the rest of us are going to view your tactics exactly as they should be seen.
Come to the convention with a mandated 50-50 split and play with the rest of us, or come to the convention with no voice whatsoever. You already made your bed. If you don't accept the accommodat
They are not FAKE results. You may say that the results do not adequately represent the true intentions of elgible primary voters at the time of polling, and I'd agree with you. But they are not fake by any means. The distinction is not an academic one. They are state-certified, official results of balloting and can be used by the Dem Party if the credentials committee decides to accept them. I doubt they will, but they could in any case.
Since the word "fake" doesn't appear in your article, but only in the headline, I can assume that some HuffPo editor committed this crime against your effort. It'd be nice if someone changed it.
They are fake based on the way that Hillary and her supporters have been speaking. I have heard dozens of Hillary supporters actually come out point blank and say that we need to count both the delegates and the popular vote, exactly as voted, without any concern about the fact that the votes are NOT representa
Exactly. The mantra of Hillary and supporters is "We'll use whatever rules work today in order to win". One day it's the popular vote, the next day it's delegate totals, the next it's big states, then super delegates. All that matters is that the divine right of Clintons be upheld no matter what the cost to party and country. I once admired and defended the Clintons, but no longer.
Are the votes in MI or FL any less FAKE than the misrepresentation of caucus voters? Why do pledged delegates from caucus states represent fewer voters, by a factor of ten or more in some cases, and yet have the same power as a pledged delegate from a primary state??? This whole primary system is convoluted and needs to be replaced.
I'm sick and tired of people telling those of us who actually went to the polls and voted in Michigan that our votes shouldn't count. This election was conducted according to Michigan State Law. It was the only opportunity we had. Go ahead, disenfranchise those of us who actually VOTED. See how it plays when John McCain (who won the Michigan Republican primary in 2000 vs. George Bush) campaigns in Michigan and tells the voters how the Democrats don't care about them. Kerry only won Michigan by less than 5%.
There needs to be a solution, maybe not perfect, but that honors the fact that in America, every vote counts. The simplest solution is to give Hillary her 55%, Obama the Uncommitted 45%, and be done with it.
I doubt that 10% would make much of a difference in the delegate count anyway...
Since that was a combination of your state's leadership, and the DNC who told you that your vote will not count, and that we are simply stating facts.....
Add the 700,000 voters that didn't go to the polls to Obama's popular vote numbers and maybe we'd have a deal.
Nah, I wouldn't agree with just that... there needs to be more.
Add a proportionate amount of voters from the caucus states as there are registered democrat voters to make them competitive with primary voter turn outs:
In the Maine caucus, Obama won 59% to 40% but gained only 683 state delegates (total vote counts aren't released) more than Clinton out of the 5,572 total delegates.
In Ohio, Clinton won 54% to 44% but gained a hefty 228,781 more votes out of the 2,186,831 votes cast.
In the 'official popular vote count' Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington's popular votes aren't counted because they don't release the numbers. Even if they did, they would merely be in the thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. All (except for Nevada) were won overwhelmingly by Obama.
So are there still Hillary supporters that want to argue the popular vote? Maybe they'd like to argue what's fair?
I think you have a legitimate grievance -- with your state party. THEY are the ones the moved the primary date up in violation of DNC rules. Otherwise, how is it FAIR if only Hillary Clinton's name was on the ballot? Now she wants all the votes she got to count, and because Obama took his name off the ballot (like they BOTH agreed to), he gets none???!!! That's pure and utter BULLSHIT!
"Go ahead, disenfranchise those of us who actually VOTED"... WHAT ABOUT THE 700,000 WHO DIDN'T VOTE BECAUSE THEY (UNLIKE YOU) UNDERSTOOD THE RULES!!!!!!!!
You selfish BRAT! 55-45 my A**!!! Would you be singing the same tune if the tables were turned and it was Barack who left his name on the ballot? Would you be saying "the simplest solution" is to give HIM the majority of the vote "and be done with it"??? I doubt it!
Beautifully done. Thanks Lori. Throughout this primary season, Hillary and her supporters have used every trick, including Republican tricks to steal this election. But, they have been thwarted at every turn, most of the time by just ordinary Americans who care very much about their democracy. Thank you for writing such an honest piece.
There is no rule that candidates were required to remove their names from the ballot. It's just not true.
A fake 48 state strategy gets you fake results. i.e., it makes an unelectable candidate appear falsley electable.
It's that simple. Obama can not win a general. heck, he can't even win a legitimate senataorial race or primary.
EinChicago:
What do you mean "he can't even win a legitimate senataorial [sic] race or primary?
Obama will crush McCain in the general. Hillary has nearly 50% negatives amongst all voters.
Hillary had a strategy that only got her up to Super Tuesday. Had she been succcessful all remaining states would have been "disenfranchised". So explain to me how leaving out two states is worse than that...
48% of voters will not vote for Clinton under any circumstan
PLEASE!!! Your argument is ridiculous. Your candidate has chosen to present the case that only the few states that she has won or expect to win are"important" states and that any state that her opponent has won are not important. So spare us the sactimonious crap about disenfranchising voters. If she has her way the only states that would count would be the 13 that she has won. How many voters would be disenfranchised if she manages to steal the nomination from the candidate who has won more delegates? She agreed to these rules and then pandered to the voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire by touting that agreement in order to get votes and since she fell behind has been pandering this nonsense in both MI and FL by offer ing the solution of speical elections bought and paid for by her donors and superdelegate supporters. What a crock!
There are rules, WTB and there are agreements. If you break a rule, you suffer the consequences. If you break an agreement, you lose your credibility. Mrs. Clinton lost her credibility by not honoring the brokered agreement. Does that make her a good president? Hardly.
Interesting. I've also read that Mr. Obama made an appearance in Florida and spent about $1 million in advertising on cable channels that covered Florida. Did he break the agreement / rules? Did he lose his credibility by not honoring the brokered agreement? Would that make him a good President?
But there was an agreement that the results of the Michigan primary wouldn't be valid, and Mrs. Clinton was party to that agreement.
when the decision was made to strip MI and FL of their delegates everyone agreed to it. But, everyone ALSO agreed to 2 other rules
1. revotes could be done without breaking and rule
2. these states could appeal to the convention rules committe to have their delegates seated.
why do you always forget these other two rules that all parties agreed to?
Since the DNC asked them all to remove their names, and they ALL agreed to do so, I would consider that of primary importance.
the DNC never asked anone to remove their names. I that was the case why were all their names on the ballot in FL? The pledge applied to BOTH Mi and FL
This is the statement from Clinton's representative re: the pledge:
9/1/2007
Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge
The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
http://www
This is the pledge:
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
Hillary does not keep her word plain and simple. You vote for her if you think you can trust her, I don't.
She is the WORST!!! God, I LOATHE Hillary Clinton!
Thanks for that WTB. Come on Hillary fans. How about a response?
so I read the pledge. Now, where does it say anything about removing your name from a ballot? And, if you think it does, why were ALL their names on the ballot in FL?
Ok, so why did the honorable Mr Obama keep his name on the FL ballot??? Shouldn't he had been consistent and removed it from there as well? The reality is that all the candidates did campaign in both MI and FL thru surrogates and other means. This mess is destined for the Supreme Court and you all know how that will turn out! Hahaha!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
