WHY is Obama Blocking a REVOTE in michigan?

[Mezzo]

it's the easiest, and best solution. I wonder why he would abandon the dems in Michigan like that. Running down the clock? Read the article...

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

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. WHy did Hillary Supporters "Strike" from Kos and Surge Here?

did their mothers kick them out of their basements?

[elixir]

16. Oops, I think you have your facts mixed up. Kos kicked HRC supporters out..

Why do you care, you have the Destiny Dude, right?

Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....
Relax, sit back, he's going to win in November....

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. the shrill Clinton supporters whined and went on "strike"

so sorry freepers will have to continue living in their mothers basements.

[elixir]

53. And Obama's diaperpatrol are posting fear and loathing while their candidate backpeddles.

sorry to disappoint you.

[Lilith Velkor]

61. !

"diaperpatrol" :spray:

[Mezzo]

47. perhaps you could start a thread on the matter. This is about dems in Michigan

but then again, you already knew that.

[Saturday]

2. He doesn't want Hillary to get more delegates, he will do anything to win. nt

[flpoljunkie]

39. NYT Op-ed: Rules Count

March 19, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

Rules Count
By CARRIE GIDDINS

Washington

In life, in love and in politics, when you break the rules there are inevitable and often deserved consequences.

Last year, the Democratic National Committee tried to work with the Florida Democratic Party after the Florida Legislature selected a date for the state’s primary that conflicted with the committee’s nominating calendar. Those efforts were met with silence and stonewalling from Florida’s party leaders despite the penalties. The same thing essentially happened in Michigan.

Now the Michigan Democratic Party is trying to convince the committee that they should have the opportunity to recast their primary votes, while Florida has thrown its hands in the air and is blaming the committee for the self-inflicted situation it finds itself in — having no convention delegates. Well, all I have to say is, grow up.

Holding an early primary in Michigan would “give five million Michigan citizens a chance to cast their votes,” said Jennifer Granholm, the state’s Democratic governor. “A primary held in late February, after the nominations have been decided by earlier contests, would be an exercise in futility.”

Of course, the lesson for Florida and Michigan, at least this year, is that every state matters and continues to matter as we move into April. Florida and Michigan must face the consequences of their decisions.

That said, because millions of people from Florida and Michigan should not be punished for the short-sighted acts of their state’s Democratic Party leaders, the states’ delegates should be welcome at the national convention in Denver. But the delegates “won” in those noncompliant elections in January should be split 50-50 between the two remaining candidates.

There is no such thing as a do-over. Do-overs are what you get when the end results don’t matter. Do-overs are what children do on a playground. Adults accept their mistakes, learn from them and move on.

Carrie Giddins is the former communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party and a political
communications consultant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19giddins.html?ref=opinion

[rurallib]

3. from what I understand

many, many Obama voters crossed over on election night to vote republiKlan, since there was only one name on the ballot. Now those who did that will be locked out of voting again, so there may as well be one name on the ballot again.

[Orrex]

11. That is the correct answer

Clinton's staff knows this and knows that, in the (increasingly unlikely) event of a revote, she would benefit hugely from it.

[helderheid]

44. Thanks - I hadn't heard that.

[Mezzo]

48. so he wants to preserve the repig vote.

revote is a revote. June 3rd. Why is he abandoning the People.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

54. Are the January Republican voters excluded?

I haven't seen details on the proposed rules. Do you have a link?

I came close to voting Repub in the primary, just to mess with it. At the last minute, I couldn't put a check mark next to "Republican", so I voted with a Democratic absentee ballot. My vote was for "uncommitted", meaning "Edwards".

[LisaM]

63. There were three names on the ballot, plus uncommitted.

It was very well advertised that you were supposed to vote uncommitted if your candidate was not on the ballot. My family were all Edwards' supporters, and they did this. Now, they all want to vote for Hillary.

The three names were Clinton, Kucinich, and Dodd.

Kucinich actually campaigned there - I know, St. Dennis!

[Abacus]

4. "The Obama camp has not taken a position on the proposal."

from your own article: "The Obama camp has not taken a position on the proposal."

He and his campaign have said many times that they will follow the DNC's lead. I'm surprised that people are still falling for this bs; I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this tactic from the Clinton camp.

[Texas Hill Country]

7. BS. Of course they oppose it.

[Abacus]

9. Link? Evidence?

Thanks.

[ihelpu2see]

12. Great point, another Hilbot spreading manure nt

[indimuse]

13. WRONG!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3233737&mesg_id=3233737



Source: Reuters



DETROIT (Reuters) - Michigan Democratic Party leaders on Tuesday said a proposal to re-run the state's contested presidential primary in June, which could potentially benefit the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, was stalled and unlikely to be approved before a deadline this week.

Opposition from lawmakers backing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's campaign seemed certain to scuttle any proposal to hold a June 3 "do-over" Democratic primary in the Midwestern state.

"There are definitely not enough votes now to support the proposal," said Callie Collins, a spokeswoman for state Sen. Tupac Hunter, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan.

Democratic primaries held in Michigan and Florida in January were invalidated by the national party because both states disobeyed party directives and held their balloting earlier to have a greater say in the selection of candidates.

Reuters

[EFerrari]

31. "seem certain to scuttle" is conjecture about the future, not a fact.

[peace13]

5. Don't use the word abandon

it brings up too many mental health issues. MI and FL voters knew that their votes would not count. Which laws do you change in an election. Maybe come November a candidate will decide that s/he needs one more month to campaign to get the word out! Do you change election day? I feel sorry for the people in MI who did not get up offf of their *utts and call their Representatives before the election date was set. Those people are at fault here. Speaking as a person who stands on corners, calls and writes letters when my rights are being stolen. Peace, Kim

[Mezzo]

65. I'll stand by the word ABANDON. thanks

[davidpdx]

6. This is nothing more then Ickes running his mouth

Is there any proof that Obama is sabotaging a re-vote effort?

No, I'm not talking about blogs, MSM.

[durrrty libby]

8. It's obvious that he Hates America just like his pig of a pastor

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[taught_me_patience]

33. Is this sarcastic?

[flpoljunkie]

10. Why does Hillary Clinton only want to count the votes where it would benefit her?

March 19, 2008
Clinton Tries to Keep Plan for Two Revotes Alive
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hopes of ending the primaries with game-changing victories from new contests in Florida and Michigan grew dim on Tuesday as Florida officially scuttled plans for a new vote and Michigan lawmakers appeared far from a deal.

In a sign of how badly she thinks she needs the Michigan delegates to catch the Democratic front-runner, Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a last-minute schedule change and planned to fly to Detroit on Wednesday to plead with Michigan lawmakers to approve a new primary election in June to replace the January contest that awarded no delegates.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Tommy Vietor, said the difficulties with a new election outweighed the advantages.

“We understand that when it comes to counting votes, the Clinton campaign favors whatever they think will benefit them,” Mr. Vietor said. “But on a day when Michigan legislators themselves have indicated that there isn’t enough legislative support for a revote, and when Senator Clinton’s own Michigan co-chair said that a revote ‘wouldn’t make much difference,’ it doesn’t make any sense for them to point fingers at our campaign.”

Political analysts said Mrs. Clinton had far more to lose from the deadlock than Mr. Obama, which explains why she has pressed harder for revotes. Mrs. Clinton trails in elected delegates and the popular vote. With 10 contests remaining, she will find it virtually impossible to close the gaps without new elections in Florida and Michigan.

Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat who supports Mr. Obama, said the Obama campaign supported a new election to resolve the impasse — in theory. But it would be expensive and possibly illegal.

“While a redo would be an excellent way to solve it, there’s a little problem of about $12 million,” Mr. Conyers said. “I also question the legality of someone raising private money to conduct a public election.”

In Lansing, lawmakers looked at a proposal by Michigan party leaders for a privately financed revote on June 3 that the state would run. A new election requires a two-thirds vote of both houses in the Legislature. As of Tuesday night, the votes did not seem to total enough to pass the measure. Some party officials voiced guarded hope that a deal could be reached before the week ends, when lawmakers start a two-week recess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19delegates.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205924563-1uKpK+v8Gg7N6htSkCt3SQ

[susankh4]

23. If we count them all

we shouldn't have to worry about this.

Right?

[bluestateguy]

14. I'm curious as to how he could "block" a re-vote there

He does not have the power to do that, especially with a pro-Hillary governor and more Hillary allies in the legislature.

[slinkerwink]

15. clinton's michigan co-chair said revote wouldn't happen

[flpoljunkie]

18. He also said a revote "wouldn't make much difference."

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Tommy Vietor, said the difficulties with a new election outweighed the advantages.

“We understand that when it comes to counting votes, the Clinton campaign favors whatever they think will benefit them,” Mr. Vietor said. “But on a day when Michigan legislators themselves have indicated that there isn’t enough legislative support for a revote, and when Senator Clinton’s own Michigan co-chair said that a revote ‘wouldn’t make much difference,’ it doesn’t make any sense for them to point fingers at our campaign.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19delegates.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205924563-1uKpK+v8Gg7N6htSkCt3SQ

[LisaM]

64. Both candidates favor the outcome that benefits her (or him)

I think we all realize this.

I am for Hillary now, but I was a propenent of finding a way to count Michigan and Florida from the first, back when Edwards was in the race and I was supporting him. I don't think it's right to disenfranchise two very important states.

[DWilliamsamh]

17. Or you could stop regurgitating the OPINIONS of the Clinton Campaign's Harold Ikes

And try reporting a fact or two.....

From the AP:

One of the sticking points holding up a possible do-over election in Michigan is a rule that would ban anyone who voted in the Republican presidential primary from voting again.

That ban would apply even to Democrats or independents who asked for a GOP ballot because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate left on the Jan. 15 Democratic ballot.

To cast a ballot, voters would have to sign a statement that they hadn't voted in the GOP primary.

The effect of blocking those voters could be greatest on Sen. Barack Obama, since his supporters were more likely than Clinton's to have crossed over to vote in the GOP primary. The national party had punished Michigan for holding a primary before Feb. 5, stripping it of all its delegates. Clinton's name was on the ballot, but Obama and several other Democratic candidates took their names off to avoid angering other early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble



Why doesn't the Clinton campaign want ALL Democrats to vote when there is more than one candidate to chose from?

[Skarbrowe]

21. Why would true Democrats go vote for a GOP candidate just

because their candidate was being punished and not on the ballot? I mean why go vote GOP?? Weird. I wouldn't vote for a Republican ever!

[DWilliamsamh]

38. Maybe because voting in a primary is not the same thing as voting for President?

Why would "true" republicans vote in the Democratic primary? To cause mischief? It certainly isn't because they have any intention of voting for the Democrat in November. Just a thought. Especially since there is no effect on your ability to cast a vote for either a Democrat or a Republican in the actual election.

Short answer (I know to late): Because a vote in a Primary is NOT a vote for president.

[Skarbrowe]

42. So your saying the Dems voted for the Repubs to create mischief?

I'm not being snarky. I know it's a primary, but a very important primary and I just can't understand why a die hard Democrat would vote for a Republican. I thought the Dems were told if they were going to vote, to vote uncommitted or something if they didn't want to vote for Hillary. Just confusing, that's all.

edited to add, that if all the Obama and Edwards supporters had actually voted uncommitted, they could have buried Hillary in Michigan and things might have been a lot clearer. By some of them voting Republican and now saying, well we won't be able to re-vote for Obama now...whoa..logic, where art thou?

edited AGAIN because I put Florida instead of Michigan...sorry

[DWilliamsamh]

55. A couple things...

1) There is no logic to your implication that Democrats are less likely to try to screw up the Republicans than vice versa.

2) "they were told?" Since when do Democrats "do what they are told" em masse?

3) Why NOT vote in the Republican Primary - since the democratic primary was, by agreement of ALL the candidates, not going to count as far as sending pledged delegates to the National Convention in August? Saying that "you aren't really a democrat because you voted in the republican primary (it doesn't matter that ours wasn't supposed to count), therefore you can't vote in THIS primary is ludicrous. Saying that is the same as saying "because a voter didn't bother to go vote (based on the fact that the Democratic primary wasn't going to designate delegates that would be seated) in the pointless primary, they shouldn't be allowed to vote in the "do-over."

And BTW - regardless of any do over, due to the fact that delegates are awarded proportionately, the second chance primary wouldn't yield a significant net gain for Sen. Clinton, who trails by more than 150 pledged delegates now. If the gap in pledged delegates was close enough for it to make a difference, the time and expense of having a re-vote would make sense.

[Skarbrowe]

60. I agree that a re-vote in either or both states probably wouldn't

boost Hillary all that much. And I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think Democrats would never vote for a Republican candidate for nefarious reasons. It's so easy for people to talk past each other on message boards. They can be saying the same things and simply because of a slight different wording it sounds like they are completely opposite in their statements. But, you have to admit that if one of the reasons Obama's campaign might not want a revote in Michigan, if true, is because a lot of his supporters voted for a Republican without having the foresight to see that their might be a re-vote, like MI and FL didn't have the foresight or will to make their state party leadership stop the primary move-up date...well....there's a lot of woulda, coulda, shoulda, ha! And Obama supporters are lucky that it all worked out in their favor. That's politics! I'm willing to accept it and have FL and MI not be counted in any way. Just forget the two states exist. That's the best punishment. Again, I'm not being snarky. Since the residents of those states didn't fight their state goverments on this primary move-up they deserve to be punished totally and not do any fancy 50/50 delegate thing. They were told the delegates would not be seated and they shouldn't be. Good lesson to be learned, just rotten timing. :)

[Mezzo]

66. Or you could stop substituting your judgement for mine

Obama fell for a sucker bet Saying to a swing state, "your vote will not count but we'll let SC slip by" while in Florida, the primary was set by the repig statehouse.

But this is about Michigan. He is not willing to allow a revote, because he only likes caucuses. Now the clock runs out.

I guess it's Hillary's fault your guy took his name off of the ballot.

[DWilliamsamh]

67. You have yet to supply any EVIDENCE

For your assertion beyond the speculation of a Clinton campaign staffer. While I on the other hand have supplied a source for evidence that it is the Michigan Legislature that is in doubt about the re-vote - and trying to keep people OUT of the process (whatever it may end up looking like) to boot. Your judgment is based on Clinton campaign spin, and mine is based on reporting of the actual machinations of the State law makers. I wonder which is more reliable?


Hmmmmmm......:popcorn:

And what pray tell does South Carolina have to do with it? Oh and FL certainly isn't the result of some nefarious plan on Obama's part. As a matter of fact, as another poster in this thread pointed out, in the case of both Michigan and FL Obama has said he will follow the lead of the DNC, which is more than I can say for the Clinton campaign.

[democrattotheend]

19. I read yesterday that it was the state legislature

They did not have 2/3 of the vote to approve it in the state legislature. Last I heard from the Obama campaign, they were reviewing the proposal...they may have had some concerns about not allowing people who voted in the GOP primary to vote (since many Obama supporters voted in the GOP primary because he was not on the ballot). I had not heard that they were rejecting the proposal or that they were the ones standing in the way...is there any new statement from Obama's campaign on Michigan? Last I heard it did not have the votes in the legislature.

[democrat_patriot]

20. Maybe because Michigan broke the F-in rules.

They had the chance to vote later, instead they CHOSE to break the rules knowing full well that their votes wouldn't count.

Obama(or Clinton) have no reason whatsoever to help MI or FL.

Clinton is because she put her name on the ballot. If she didn't she wouldn't help them either.

[olkaz]

22. Right, a privately funded, completely rushed vote just screams democracy.

Either they do it right or they don't do it. Period.

[cooolandrew]

24. How can he they pay for it and they are broke it costs millions sounds like spin

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. Didn't the Democratic Party make a rule?

[UALRBSofL]

26. The MSM is reporting the Obama Camp is blocking both FL/MI from having a re-vote

So the OP brings up a good question. Maybe Obama will explain it before the GE.

[zulchzulu]

35. Well, if the MSM is saying Obama is blocking the vote, THEY ARE LYING

The link that the OP pointed out says the Obama campaign IS NOT blocking the vote.

But, hey if you can lie like George Bush does, then I guess we're supposed to believe you.

:puke:

[rodeodance]

37. This Will hurt the Dems in the GE if these states are NOT allowed to be counted.

[redqueen]

50. Which M$M? Where did you hear or read this?

I've only seen this claim made by Clinton's campaign.

[EFerrari]

27. He's not. Read the article. n/t

[pdxmom]

28. I think a better question is why did Ickes vote to strip Michigan and

Florida of its delegates and now that he is with the Clinton campaign, wants to slam Obama for following the rules that HE agreed with. What a freakin' hypocrite!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080216/D8URLU1O0.html

[redqueen]

51. Couldn't be that he's TRYING to cause problems with Dean and the DNC...

nooooooo... never!

[zulchzulu]

29. Why does Michigan hate THE RULES?

As for the link, the Obama campaign is not blocking the revote. Of course, expecting the truth froma Hillbot is impossible in most cases.

Note: there are Hillary Clinton supporters and then there are Hillbots.

Besides, what's wrong with just FOLLOWING THE RULES?

:shrug:

[rodeodance]

34. To bad BO knocks down MI voters--not a good thing.

[progressoid]

40. Too bad MI leaders knocked down MI voters a long time ago when they broke with the party rules.

[flpoljunkie]

41. Rules Count. See my post #39.

[Orsino]

36. You mean, why is the state legislature blocking itself?

How, exactly, do you believe Obama is doing this?

[Pathwalker]

43. Here's what the Lansing State Journal says:

Apparently, it's the part that won't let Republicans who voted in the Republican Primary vote that is at issue:
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/ELECTIONS01/803190338

"One of the sticking points holding up a possible do-over election in Michigan is a rule that would ban anyone who voted in the Republican presidential primary from voting again.

That ban would apply even to Democrats or independents who asked for a GOP ballot because Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only major candidate left on the Jan. 15 Democratic ballot.

To cast a ballot, voters would have to sign a statement that they hadn't voted in the GOP primary.


The effect of blocking those voters could be greatest on Sen. Barack Obama, since his supporters were more likely than Clinton's to have crossed over to vote in the GOP primary. The national party had punished Michigan for holding a primary before Feb. 5, stripping it of all its delegates. Clinton's name was on the ballot, but Obama and several other Democratic candidates took their names off to avoid angering other early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire."

More at link...

[high density]

45. It's about the Democrats that voted on the GOP ballot

But good try at trying to make it look like he's blocking it for Republican votes, even though what you cut and pasted doesn't match your intro line.

[Pathwalker]

46. I wasn't trying to do anything you suggest - I just

pasted the first four paragraphs - as allowed by DU RULES. And personally, I don't see WHY Republicans should be allowed to vote in a Democratic Primary - especially if they already voted in the Republican one! Why should their votes count, but ours won't? BTW, it's the REPUBLICANS in this state who are killing this re-vote - and I seriously doubt THEY are in league with Obama, even if you do.

[high density]

52. I don't care about the Republicans, but you wrote:

"Apparently, it's the part that won't let Republicans who voted in the Republican Primary vote that is at issue:"

..when in fact it's not just the Republicans, it's also the Democrats and Independents who voted for whatever reason on a GOP ballot that would be excluded. Perhaps these people would have voted differently if the Democratic ballot was valid.

[Pathwalker]

57. Well, according to the RULES, by voting in the Republican

primary, they officially declared themselves Republicans, so now they're Republicans. Mitt Romney won the Republican primary here, so why would they now want someone else? In this state, once you declare a party choice - you've made your choice. So, if they want to be Democrats or Independents again, then they simply must change their registration. But, since they already voted - they don't get a SECOND vote. Tell it to the Republicans - they're the ones blocking this.

[LordJFT]

49. why is Hillary changing the rule in the eleventh hour to benefit her politically?

She said in January that "Michigan doesn't count for anything"

[Arkansas Granny]

56. Please explain to me how either candidate has any influence over whether or not

any revote happens in Michigan or Florida. They may offer suggestions, solutions or opinions, but in the end they don't make the decision.

[Pathwalker]

59. The Michigan Democratic Party has said they won't schedule

a re-vote unless both candidates support it. And the Republican Party in this State is actively, and vocally blocking it, as well.

[ORDem]

58. BS. Welcome to ignore... n/t

:dem:

[Bonobo]

62. How is he blocking it? Can you be specific? I really doubt it.