DNC Gives Blessing To Michigan Re-vote

[housewolf]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/democratic_national_committee_2.php

Democratic National Committee Gives Blessing To Michigan Re-vote
By Greg Sargent - March 19, 2008, 10:14AM

The DNC, whose role in the fight over the Michigan revote has been largely a behind-the-scenes one, goes public this morning with its blessing for the current revote plan:

We have recently been asked whether the legislation as proposed by Michigan would fit within the framework of the National Party’s Delegate Selection Rules. Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules if, it were, passed by the state legislature and used by the Michigan State Democratic Party as the basis of drafting a formal Delegate Selection Plan. If a formal Delegate Selection Plan is received we will convene a meeting of the RBC to consider such a Plan.

The DNC's statement would seem to put pressure on the Obama camp to get behind the plan.

What's unclear as of yet is whether DNC chair Howard Dean did anything behind the scenes to push the Obama camp to get behind the revote, something that top Hillary donors were demanding that Dean do.

Either way, if there isn't any agreement before the Michigan state legislature goes on recess later this week, the revote won't happen.

The DNC's formal blessing for the plan has also provoked a blistering attack from the Clinton camp on Obama, with the Hillary campaign pointing out that Obama had previously said he'd be fine with a revote if both campaigns had time to weigh in on it and the DNC signed off, which it has now done.

[tekisui]

1. Let's hurry up and do it.

[LSparkle]

2. "Top Hillary donors demanding that Dean do ... "

Smells ... Still, if Dean and the national DNC have approved this, Obama should
get on board with it. (He and Dean ought to have a sit-down if Dean needs to
assure Obama he wasn't unduly influenced by HRC's donors.)

[redqueen]

8. Agreed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. A do over makes sense

Michigan is too much of a battle field State that Democrats can't afford to lose in November to take any chances on pissing some people there off by leaving them out of the decision making process now.

All along the argument has been that we can't undercut the DNC just to make Michigan and Florida happy. Well the DNC is on board, it's time for both candidates to get on board also.

[shimmergal]

5. Yes!

Feeling like your vote doesn't count is toxic to the whole electoral process.

[spotbird]

6. What is the relationship between a do over

and capturing Michigan in November? It would make me less likely to support the Democrats, there have been no polls released that show it will help win the state. It's just spin for Hillary, nonsense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I've seen more coverage of Florida than Michigan

But it seems pretty clear that many people in Florida are angry that they now have no voice in who becomes the Democratic nominee. Pissed off voters tend to not be as enthusiastic supporters as content ones.

[spotbird]

13. If there were polls to prove it

they would be posted every 15 minutes here.

An unfair election to benefit Clinton may please her supporters, but it isn't going to ingratiate her to the folks who are screwed as a result.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Stay in denial if you want

There are not always polls ready made for every occaision unless you pay for them yourself. If you had a poll showing that Democrats in Michigan did NOT want a re-vote so that they can have a say in who our candidate is, I am sure you would be posting it every 15 minutes. But now that the DNC has given this their green light it is going to be hung around Obama's neck if his campaign's refusal is the only reason why this does not happen. The Michigan legislature will have to vote on this plan also and they are accountable to Michigan's voters. If they are willing to back it, and the DNC is willing to back it, and Clinton who won the lion's share of potential delegates if the delegate selection wins on appeal is willing to back it, Obama is the only obstacle. It will look petty, it will look self serving, and it will alienate some Michigan voters, especially if Obama becomes our nominee. He is already losing a lot of Clinton's supporters to McCain as our nominee if polls are to be believed. This would just be another nail in Democratic chances to hold Michigan if Obama blocks voter enfranchisement now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Agree. And tactics be damned - I don't care WHOSE campaign

benefits. If Hillary wins, she wins fair and square. If Obama wins, it will be after campaigning there.

The one thing that is NOT acceptable would be to validate the previous flawed contest.

[2rth2pwr]

4. Re-Vote, now that people know about crazy Uncle Wright

they can make an informed decision.

[Texas Hill Country]

7. Hillary is not a dumb politician.

[angie_love]

10. Obama should do the revote, i think he can win there. Lets just get this over with.

[housewolf]

15. I think so too

I can't see Obama refusing.

[Skwmom]

11. Nothing like disenfranchising voters. Oh that's right the Clintons only

want voters to have rights if it's to their benefit. Hmmmm....know who does this remind me of...


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/democratic_national_committee_2.php

The burden on voters here is one of complete disqualification—they cannot participate in the Democratic primary in June if they voted in the January Republican primary. Their claim of a violation of their rights would rest on the fact that that the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game." These voters' choice was entirely reasonable in the circumstances: there was no valid Democratic primary available to them at the time, and they could not know that, when their choice was made, that they were disqualifying themselves from participating in a re-run Democratic primary this year that they could know would be held.

Moreover, the state will have difficulty justifying this disenfranchisement by reference to any legitimate state interest. Michigan cannot argue that it wants to limit the June primary to those who are genuinely Democrats, because it has always run fully open primaries. Voters, in other words, have a state-conferred right to vote in the Democratic party no matter what their affiliation. The primaries in January were fully open; and the decision to close them in June will not easily stand constitutional scrutiny. In any challenge, Michigan will be criticized for proposing a re-run without, in effect, restoring to voters the original choice they had—whether to participate in a meaningful Democratic primary.

[Adams Wulff]

16. The devil is truly in the details

This is one of the reasons why Obama has been less than enthusiastic about supporting the re-vote in MI.

[GoldieAZ49]

12. Finally, that will put one issue to rest

[ORDem]

17. Hillary is a tempest in a teapot. Obama is not against a re-vote and has absolutely everything

to gain from one. It's the uncertainty about whether or not there will be a re-vote that benefits Hillary. Once the re-vote is in place (and the MI legislature has to sell the cost to MI voters, keep in mind), then her pop. vote and delegate counts she won against Uncommitted go "poof" and the gap between her and Obama is then huge until at least June. She knows there will be no re-vote so she's just milking a stance that she thinks shows she's fair.

Does anyone here believe that Obama will not do better in MI (with an energized electorate and only two candidates on the ballot) than Uncommitted? Seriously? (Rendell doesn't count).

:dem:

[phrigndumass]

19. If the revote proposal is fair, I believe Senator Obama will accept it

But doesn't it require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to pass the funding? If that's the case, they should work fast before the recess. I vote for a revote!