Misunderstandings about MI Delegates

[pathansen]

There seem to be some major misunderstandings here.

Clinton supporters were unhappy because they feel that there was TRIPLE PUNISHMENT here for Hillary voters: (1) Only half the delegates count; (2) Obama gets all of the uncommitted delegates; (3) Obama also gets awarded 4 of Clinton’s delegates.

Also, Hillary supporters don’t understand why they seem to be blamed for and punished for this. IT WAS NOT THEIR DECISION OR IDEA TO VOTE EARLY. They understand it was the Michigan legislature (controlled by GOP) with Howard Dean’s approval who made this decision. Now why would they do that?

There are also many other unanswered questions here such as the following:

1. Why on earth would anyone, including Hillary supporters, agree to vote early if they knew this would disenfranchise them? Hillary DID agree not to campaign in MI or Fl but not to disenfranchise the voters.

2. If they were warned ahead of time that votes wouldn’t count, why was there even a primary election?

3. Why would Obama take his name off of the ballot if this was not a requirement? And
it wasn’t just Hillary but Kucinich, Dodd and other candidates also kept their name on the ballet.

4. Why should Obama get all of the uncommitted delegates? Who knows who should get them? And, in addition to that, why should he also get awarded 4 more of Clinton’s delegates?

5. Why don’t they just hold another primary election? And why has Obama objected to this?

So, it sounds suspicious to many Clinton supporters that MI GOP controlled legislature or maybe even some Obama supporters may have been behind MI not getting its full delegates. This is why they are upset.

[ossman]

1. Nobody from MI is upset. Just you guys from everywhere else. OUR proposal was accepted yesterday.

Buh-Bye

[MichiganVote]

12. It was a Levin proposal.

[featherman]

17. Exactly... MI submitted a delegate selection plan and it was accepted as ALL

state delegate selection plans must be by the DNC.

The January event was not an authorized delegate selection plan and so the results were null and void. What the MI Dems presented yesterday was an entirely new plan unassociated with the January event. Many seem to miss this point.

[LiberalAndProud]

2. Nobody even tried to blame the MI breach on the GOP

yesterday. There was far more sympathy for Florida, who could make that case.

[MichiganVote]

11. The Michigan GOP did plenty, believe it.

[Diamonique]

3. I'm from Michigan, and I'm not the least bit upset

The state made the best solution they could out of a fucked up situation.

ETA: It wasn't the RBC that decided on MI yesterday. They simply voted to accept the proposal that was submitted by the state party. Michigan put forth a proposal and the RBC accepted it.

Fine with me.

[ossman]

4. Me either. I havent met 1 person who is. If anything, I meet Obama supporters who sat home.

[BeatleBoot]

6. Hi, I'm BeatleBoot, glad to meet you.

Now you've met one person - albeit over the net.

And I have plenty of pissed off friends who are Dems.

[shraby]

5. What part of "not participate" do you not

understand? By leaving your name on a ballot, you ARE participating in an election. Hillary left her name on, therefore she was participating even though she agreed not to.

[avenger64]

7. It was rigged from the start ...

... MI and FL are far more populous and important in the GE than South Carolina, where McCain is going to win by 10 points (I live here, I know). But fifty percent of the democratic voters here are black, and so Obama was sure to win.

So, you take an insignificant Republican southern state, and make it more important than 2 key swing states that Clinton wins, then seat half their delegates. Dean is the new Scalia. What a scam.

[tledford]

8. You are an idiot. nt

[avenger64]

10. Yeah, nice rational addressing of the points ...

... an idiot is one without answers.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. ...the moon in the sky like a big pizza pie....

...that's amore.

[Mass]

19. When SC date was chosen, Obama was not a candidate and Hillary Clinton was the favorite in SC.

[MichiganVote]

9. Well, here are your answers.......

1. Why on earth would anyone, including Hillary supporters, agree to vote early if they knew this would disenfranchise them? Hillary DID agree not to campaign in MI or Fl but not to disenfranchise the voters.

The primary date was selected on the basis of when the GOP primary was to be held. This is not unusual in Michigan. Voters who chose to vote selected among various other items on the ballot other than candidates for the primary vote. Voters in Michigan were informed of whose names were on the ballot, that write in's were not permissible, that the delegates would not be seated. Voters in favor of Obama were persuaded by outside people or organizations to either vote uncommitted or vote for McCain as opposed to Clinton. This was widely reported in the news and on this board. Some voters upon interview reported that they chose to vote for Clinton as a means of voting for the first serious female candidate.

2. If they were warned ahead of time that votes wouldn’t count, why was there even a primary election?

Depends on who you ask. According to the state of Michigan a primary was held. According to the DNC, a primary was not held. According to the DLC a flawed primary was held.

3. Why would Obama take his name off of the ballot if this was not a requirement? And
it wasn’t just Hillary but Kucinich, Dodd and other candidates also kept their name on the ballet.

It has been widely speculated that Obama and Edwards and Biden removed their names from the ballot for a variety of reasons. Chief among them the desire not to antagonize Dem. leadership in the states of Iowa and NH. An attempt was made by Mi. Dem. leadership to legislate his name and the others back on the ballot but it got no traction in the state. Obama and the others could have signed on for write in status but chose not to do so.

4. Why should Obama get all of the uncommitted delegates? Who knows who should get them? And, in addition to that, why should he also get awarded 4 more of Clinton’s delegates?

The division of delegates as proposed by Levin specified the expected proportion according to the votes that were recorded, the votes that were not counted/per absentee status, the % of uncommitted and the fact that Obama is the only candidate other than Clinton standing. For a complete review of the % proportion see Levin's comments. It goes w/o saying that Clinton could not have the uncommitted votes as she was on the ballot and those who wanted to vote for her could do so. There is an automatic reduction of 50% per the rules. The Rules Committee essentially acknowledged that they overreached with their original ruling to censure all delegates and they reversed that ruling.

5. Why don’t they just hold another primary election? And why has Obama objected to this?

Another primary date was sought by Mi. Dem. leadership. The Mi. legislature rejected the start of such a measure. Candidates do not determine when a primary is held.

[stillcool]

13. Biden, Richardson, Edwards, Obama and

Kucinich requested their names be removed from the ballot. Why would you participate in an election where you could not campaign, and where any votes cast to select the Democratic nominee would not be valid? Those names were removed from the ballot in October. That is why Hillary stated that she knew Michigan would not count. The State of Michigan can have other things on the ballot, that have nothing to do with the "Democratic Primary". The Michigan State Democratic Party declared their election to be invalid. The Michigan State Democratic Party crafted the proposal that was accepted by the Democratic National Committee. The Uncommitted Delegates were not given to Obama.

[pathansen]

18. Why would there be an election if none of the votes were going to count?

See Secretary of State results and you will see that 4 democrats remained on ballot.
Maybe Obama and Edwards did not want MI delegates to count. Wonder why?
Also why would they leave their names on FL ballot but remove them on MI ballot?

[Mass]

20. Because MI and FL decided to have their election then, whether or not the parties agreed.

Also, Florida prevented people to remove their names from the ballot.

[stillcool]

21. Oh my goodness....

Isn't this getting kind of old? Here are some articles dating back to August of 2007. Perhaps these will provide some clarity for you. As far as the Florida ballot is concerned, I think that had something to do with Florida law. Why have an election at all? I don't know. Were there other things on the ballot aside from the Democratic Presidential choice?

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15.
"We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.
Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the
Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.
The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.
Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates
National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."
The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's
historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot. The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates
By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.
The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.
The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[dems_rightnow]

14. The reality is....

... nobody HAD any Michigan delegates. Nothing was taken from Clinton.

No, the reality is they AWARDED Clinton 69 delegates, and only awarded Obama 59.

[Honeycombe8]

15. You obviously didn't watch the proceedings. You are incorrect in your assumptions.

You say you and other Hillary supporters were unhappy because:
(1) Only half the delegates count;

THIS IS INCORRECT. 100% OF THE DELEGATES COUNT, but each has 1/2 vote. There is a big difference. This was a WIN by Clinton. She would have had FEWER delegates if only half the delegates counted.

(2) Obama gets all of the uncommitted delegates;

THERE ARE ONLY TWO CANDIDATES. THE CLINTON CAMP HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MOST OF THE UNCOMMITTED VOTES WERE FOR OBAMA. THE MICHIGAN STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DID WHAT INVESTIGATING IT COULD AND DETERMINED THAT MOST OF THOSE UNCOMMITTED VOTES WERE FOR OBAMA. Additionally, common sense tells you that most of the uncommitted votes were for Obama. Those were the two candidates who were getting almost all the votes at the time.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE WERE 30,000 WRITE-IN VOTES THAT MICHIGAN THREW AWAY. THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY NOT FOR CLINTON, THE ONLY CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT. Do you think those 30,000 should be ignored/disenfranchised?

Also, the Dem. Committee determined that THE EVENT THAT WAS HELD IN JAN. IN MICHIGAN WAS NOT A LEGAL PRIMARY. The Committee did not have to recognize any of the votes at all. It was a Clinton win that they backtracked on the blocking of Michigan.

Finally, it wasn't a REAL PRIMARY. No campaigning was done. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. Yes, he took his name off the ballot, as did the other candidates except Clinton. MICHIGAN'S LAWS LET CANDIDATES DO THAT; it was legal and proper.

Since no campaigning could be done in MI, it was a foregone conclusion that Clinton would win, since she was the most famous woman in the country. It was more like a name recognition vote, or a straw poll. Lesser known candidates RELY HEAVILY on campaigning in order to get votes.

The committee recognized all of the above. If you read the above statements objectively, you will see how unfair it would have been to give Clinton her 55% that she got for an illegal "primary" that was really a straw poll.

(3) Obama also gets awarded 4 of Clinton’s delegates.

Those 4 delegates were never Clinton's. The State of Michigan did not, in fact, conduct a legal primary. No campaigning was done there. There was only one candidate on the ballot. And the Dem. National Party had informed MI beforehand that it would be considered illegal, and it would not count. Clinton never had those 4 delegates.

The compromise adopted was the one proposed BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ITSELF (the state's Dem. Party). The state's Dem. Party, as well as the rules committee thought this was the best way to resolve the matter, the fairest way.

CONSIDER THAT THE COMMITTEE CAME CLOSE TO SPLITTING THE DELEGATES 50-50. Obama had the votes for that to happen, according to Donna Brazile. However, Obama opted to go along with the State of Michigan's proposal for 69-59 split, for the sake of unity, and also to ensure that even more members of the committee would approve the plan.


Finally, don't forget that MI broke the rules. As the committee members said, there must be punishment. Otherwise, there would be chaos in the party. The rules required a 50% reduction, so the committee applied that (all delegates with a 50% vote, giving Clinton more delegates).

Don't you think it's possible that Hillary's supporters are seeing things through the prism of partiality, while all these other people who sat around a table and hashed this out over hours and hours, perhaps got it right? Consider that the people who hashed this out included supporters of both camps.

As the committee said, their purpose was not to pacify either campaign. Their purpose is to enforce the rules. But they wanted to be fair, also, to all concerned.

It was a good decision, a just decision. Most of the Hillary Clinton supporters agreed to it, as well.

Nothing is perfect. Michigan screwed up. They did their best to fix Michigan's screwup.

[pingzing58]

16. Right. Obama is as sneaky as any Repug. How do you think he got to where he is being who he is!

[yourguide]

22. Kucinich tried to take his name off the ballor

and missed the deadline.

[barack the house]

23. Kucinich couldn't afford the charge to remove his name....

Some went to the voting booth not knowing where Obama's name was and voted 2nd choice Hillary. Others being told it was just a beauty contest stayed at home, which is probably why Hillary pushed it would count for nothing at the time. I mean it is very illogical that in the home of motown Obama has zero votes.

[IsItJustMe]

24. Regardless of their suspicions, that does not change the fact that the Michigan vote was a beauty

contest and no honest intent of the voters can be derived from the result. PERIOD.

The Democratic National Committee just took a bad situation and did what they could do with it. The only reason that the committee could seat Michigan to begin with is due to the fact that Obama has already won this.

The committee would not be able to have seated this state if the result would have changed the dynamic of the race.

[BlooInBloo]

26. The MI state party is satisfied. Clinton is the only one who isn't.

[barack the house]

27. Obama just went with the DNC decision. ...

The rules state moving elections up require a punishment Dean just carried them out, it was contested so the punishment was lessened but still carried out.. Michigan is too broke for a re-do. Question really is why didn't Michigan voters act sooner to move the race back down. The schedule is their so candidates can get to more states as the race proceeds.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. Sen. Obama made a VERY, VERY big concession for the sake of party unity by allowing Clinton

something they would not at all be entitled to - if Sen. Obama was to insist on the principle and strict enforcement of the rules.

However, for the sake of party unity and for the sake of making sure Michigan had representation at the national convention and for the sake of not causing problems that could possibly be raised during the general election -- Sen. Obama allowed the Clinton camp this big give-away.

And remember Sen. Obama supported the plan of the Michigan delegation even though it benefited Sen. Clinton far more than it benefited him. If you have a problem with it - take it up with Michigan delegation. It was their plan - certainly not Sen. Obama's.

Just say thank you, Sen. Obama. And we can all forget about.