Michigan Dems Say No Do-Over Primary

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/AP

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 4, 2008

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Michigan Democrats are not going to hold a do-over presidential primary.

The state party's executive committee made it official Friday, saying ''it is not practical'' to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention this August in Denver.

Michigan and Florida were stripped of their convention delegates for moving up their primaries before Feb. 5 in defiance of party rules. Florida Democrats already had decided against holding a second primary election.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Jan. 15 Michigan primary. Rival Sen. Barack Obama had pulled his name from the ballot.

Michigan Democrats hope the campaigns can agree on a way to split Michigan's delegates so they can be seated at the convention. The Obama campaign has called for splitting Michigan's 128 pledged delegates 50-50, regardless of Clinton's Jan. 15 win. The Clinton campaign so far has rejected that idea....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html

[DemocratInSoCal]

1. This Country Is A Fucking Joke!!

I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but come on.

The election system in this country is a JOKE.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE PEOPLE'S VOTES COUNT?

Between that and the FRAUD which is widespread, I don't even see what the point is participating in this so-called joke of a "democracy."

[DJ13]

2. WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE PEOPLE'S VOTES COUNT?

Following the rules of the party would be a good start.

[Deep13]

5. So if party officials fail to follow debate rules,...

...do voters lose the right to freedom of speech.

Fire the officials. Don't punish the voters.

[kenfrequed]

23. Which would be great...

Save for the fact you could only vote for red hilary, blue hilary, <blank>, or no endorsement. There really is no equitable way to have this state processed.

[BearSquirrel2]

30. This is a nominating process ...

I think you should save your vitriol and remember that this is a nominating process, not an election. There is no legal right to vote in a primary. The state parties could decide via rock/paper/scissors. What matters is that the party rules are followed. Florida and Michigan broke party rules so they lost their say in the nominee.

The vote for president has not been rescinded. There will still be an election in Florida and Michigan.

I'm very sorry that FL/MI have decided against their first sanctioned Democratic Party nominating process involving voters for the 2008. Hopefully, Pennsylvania and Indiana will make the point moot, the supers will flips and then the Florida delegate selections can be legitimized and seated. Again, the Michigan primary is something completely different. It's not just about the Presidential candidate appointment.

[MichiganVote]

21. The voters did follow the so called "rules".

[gear_head]

35. the people's vote did count

the same, cannot be said
about the delegates

[movonne]

3. For their vote too count .... they must play by the rules....how about

that for a reason...

[Deep13]

7. They? Who is they.

You all are deliberately confusing the issue. The voters cannot be held accountable for official misconduct.

[asthmaticeog]

10. It's not that simple.

If those delegates are seated as is, then there are NO REPERCUSSIONS for violating the party's rules for primary elections, and the next primaries are bound to be a colossal clusterfuck, since the precedent will have been set this year that there's no punishment for disregarding the scheduling rules. And remember, primaries and caucuses are PARTY elections; if the party can't set or enforce rules, then there are no rules. The state parties of Michigan and Florida are to blame for this, and it's the state parties of Michigan and Florida who should have to answer for screwing their states' voters, not the DNC. If a kid in school breaks an established rule, it's absurd to blame the school for putting the little shit in detention.

[mbperrin]

15. It's collective punishment to punish a group for the actions

of their leaders. This would be a war crime in an occupied country, but I guess it's OK here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Other states broke the rules, too, but were given a waiver. Now please explain the fairness of that. Or the morality.

I belong to the party of inclusion. I thought there was another "iron rule" party already. But rules are important, not people. So fuck 'em.

Right?

And if anybody needs me to include the sarcasm tag, have your IQ checked immediately.

[asthmaticeog]

19. What iron rule party do you mean?

Surely not the GOP! :rofl:

[totodeinhere]

9. You should ask the Clinton campaign that.

They are saying that even pledged delegates elected in primaries and caucuses can vote for someone else. If that's not discounting the people's votes, I don't know what is.

And you know, that is one of the worst things about the Clinton campaign. They know no shame. If they think it will help their campaign, then they take one position, but if taking the opposite position helps, then they will reverse course and take the opposite position instead. How could we ever want someone as hypocritical as that to become president? It's ridiculous.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. What does it take?

We could start with candidate's names on the ballot.

[bain_sidhe]

26. We did

All the candidates names were slated to be on the ballot. Some of the candidates took their name off, at the last minute, because they decided that Iowa voters were more important than Michigan. I say, let them live with the consequences of their decision.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. "because they decided that Iowa voters were more importan

than Michigan".

Oh c'mon.

[JeanGrey]

32. Er, they took their names off because the DNC said there

would be no race in that state. It had NOTHING to do with Iowa. Nice try though.

[MichiganVote]

20. Yup.

[sharesunited]

4. They thought going earlier would make them more influential.

The lesson learned is that going LATER would have.

[eagertolearn]

6. Hillary Clintons win in Michigan...?

How do you win a competition with no competitors? I think a division of these delegates is the only way to go without a new election.

[Deep13]

8. How is that different than simply excluding the whole state? nt

[eagertolearn]

12. It's not any different but if they won't redo the election

what else can be done? It's all a big mess but how can we get everyone to move on without loosing voters? If the states would just fess up to their mistake instead of letting the canidates blame it on each other or the voters blame it on the DNC they might be able to move on.

[Deep13]

14. maybe. nt

[davhill]

11. The Republicans had the same problem

They solved it in a very straight forward manner with no recriminations or talk of do-overs. Why can't we just cut the MI and FL delegates' votes in half like they did?

[eagertolearn]

13. Didn't they have all their candidates on the ballot?

That was a difference known by both parties way before the primary's that the Republicans would lose half their delegates if they moved up but that the democrats would lose all of theirs. I believe each party made up their own rules. So if the Dems. were not going to count at all why be on the ballot? This was the problem. So the republicans haven't had a problem at all. Thats why I vote for my response above. We need to move on.

[DWilliamsamh]

17. And don't forget the FACT

that ALL the campaigns agreed to the Penalty, and to withdraw from the ballots. The fact is the reason Hillary was even on the ballot in MI, is because she went back on a written agreement that SHE signed. It was when they say she didn't withdraw from the MI ballot that Obama and other's left their names on the FL ballot.

So ending up with a situation where Hillary benefits from her own duplicity is not acceptable, and neither is there being no penalty fore State Parties breaking the DNC rules with no penalty. That latter bit would lead to chaos and a series of "Super" days very early in the process. This would effectively eliminate any chance that a long shot candidacy could gain any ground at all before the nominee was chosen. And the choice would likely be final before the end of February.

[bain_sidhe]

27. NOT fact

that ALL the campaigns agreed to the Penalty, and to withdraw from the ballots.

1) The penalty in the rules was to lose at least 1/2 the delegates. Dean unilaterally increased that to all the delegates.

2) the "four state pledge" was not an official part of the primary rules. it was a separate pledge promulgated by Iowa and New Hampshire, with Nevada and South Carolina jumping on board after they got picked as "early states".

3) the "pledge" said NOTHING about not being on the ballot. It only asked candidates to pledge not to campaign in states that broke the rules.

4) the primary rules ALSO said nothing about candidates being on the ballot. All the primary rules did was set the calendar for the four "early states" and provided minimum penalties for any state that violated that calendar--that it would lose at least half its delegates.

5) New Hampshire also violated the calendar (they were supposed to go after Nevada, not before), but lost none of their delegates, and all of the candidates campaigned there heavily.

**edit: inserted missing word**

[DWilliamsamh]

36. Fact:

You are mixing the "primary rules" with the separate agreement the candidates (including HRC) SIGNED.

The Rules were the frame work that the state committees where to work withing. The Pledge was an agreement defining how all the candidates would behave once the states in question where found BY THE DNC, to be in violation of the rules. All the candidates signed that pledge.

New Hampshire did NOT violate the rules because: The DNC approved their date (the DNC btw INCLUDES REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL THE STATES - SO IT WASN'T SOME CONSPIRACY OF OBAMA AND DEAN)

Oh and here is where you can see the pledge:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5015204#5015339 OR

http://www.docstrangelove.com/2008/03/13/hillary-clinton-and-the-pledge/



Fact: that pledge agreed not to participate in the primaries that had been ruled invalid. What could having your name on the ballot be but participating? By the time the pledge was signed, it was too late to remove names in Florida, but Michigan is another story. And immediately after losing SC, HRC went "fund raising" in FL while simultaneously accusing the Obama campaign of "ignoring the voters of FL." Sounds an awful lot like campaigning to me. People interested in honor in integrity don't parse things like this, they do the right thing. THAT is where Hilliary first showed her true colors.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. why can't we?

Because Billary won't agree to that solution. One that Obama has already endorsed.

[1620rock]

22. Another fake election, only now the Dems are in on the fix too.

[BearSquirrel2]

31. 50% acceptable for Florida ...

I think halving the delegates would be acceptable for Florida. For Michigan, since most of the front runner weren't on the ballot, I think that you would have to allocate delegates based on national vote percentages.

[RBInMaine]

24. CHILL OUT !! As the article says, their existing delegates CAN (and WILL) be seated (in a FAIR way)

MI BROKE THE RULES !! PLAIN AND SIMPLE. However, they can still seat the existing delegates in a FAIR way. And don't worry, they'll agree on how to do it before the convention. FL and MI will have representation at the convention. Just chill out.

[DemocratInSoCal]

25. A Fair Way To Whom?

Obama does not mind at all if they get seated 50/50.

That's like a team leading a game 5-4 in the 9th inning, and they decide to add a point to each team's score.

I realize the state FUCKED UP, but is that the Democratic voters' fault? Should their input be completely disregarded?

We have BILLIONS to LOSE a war 1,000's of miles away, but we can't have a simple primary in 2 of the more populous states in the country?

[leaningprog]

28. being fair to both sides

One thing Hillary was certain of at the onset of the primary was
that she was sitting on 170 superdelegates before the first vote
was cast in America. CNN showed this plainly from the get go.
She was also sure that everyone knew her and her husband in
America and that she had brand name and coattails from Bill.
There is nothing wrong with any of this at all.

States were jockeying because they wanted to be visible
and key before she ran the field after super Tuesday.
It was a great advantage for her to have this huge inertia
while Edwards rallied his base and Obama hurried around
introducing himself to people and stumping. Again there
is nothing wrong with this but it was a tremendous advantage
for her and it was not the result of her being casual or
undisciplined for many years leading up to this primary.

Once the primary started it became obvious that when Obama
campaigned in a state he made huge inroads into the voter
proportions. It was his main strength and it unlike Hillary's
was not preprimed and ready to go, it had to be built on the
trail with organization and hard work.

Florida and Michigan are snapshots taken before the race began
and they favor an inertia that Hillary had as a gift going in
and that did not allow for a real Obama effort to sell himself
to counter.

I understand the voters feelings and I know that the party is
going to seat their delegates at the convention. I know they
are upset, but it should be with their state party leadership
who gambled their rights to count against their desire to
be visible and part of the fanfare for a Hillary blowout on
Super Tuesday night. The video of the Democrats dealing with
the Florida legislature during the decision make this very
clear that they were not duped by the Republicans but saw it
as very attractive at the time and all for it. They were just
certain that they would get a free pass on the rules violation
after the Hillary blowout and all would be well.

It is unfair to demand or prod Hillary into stopping her campaign
until the convention is over. It is also unfair to rework a failed
state party strategy that failed to use a demographic snapshot
from two states that does not reflect the efforts of competing
candidates at all, but rather shows Hillary's advantage from
before the election began.

This is a lesson to every Democrat, if your state risks your
vote for a strategy play for what they feel is an inevitable
candidate, everyone has to rise up and nick it in the bud.
We have to get back to having the voters control 100% of the
delegates, and we have to stop thinking rules are only for
supporters of candidates who are not "inevitable".

[JeanGrey]

33. This is much more of a lesson to HILLARY. NO ONE is

annointed. That fact should not be forgotten.

[DeepModem Mom]

34. Thanks for your post, leaningprog -- welcome to DU!