David Plouffe, you are SMART! (re: Michigan primary)

[Barack_America]

So, as you may have heard, Michigan's primary was today declared "unconstitutional" because independent parties were essentially treated unfairly. The judge called into question the results of the January 15 primary, but stopped short of calling for a new primary.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/26/politics/horserace/entry3971086.shtml
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/michigan_primary_law_what_the.php

Clinton's campaign, of course, immediately used this ruling to call for a new primary in the state.

"Michigan voters must not be disenfranchised and the Obama campaign must not continue to block Michigan’s efforts to hold a new vote," Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said in the statement. "Rather it should move quickly to announce its support for a party run primary."

Unfortunately, the Michigan legislature stands in recess for the next WEEK or so. Thus, any call for a new election cannot be handled quickly, considering it requires a vote.

But that doesn't mean that this entire issue cannot be resolved quickly. It just means that the solution would have to include something *other* than a new election. And today's ruling essentially defers that solution to the party itself.

To that effect, David Plouffe did quickly move to issue the following statement:

As we’ve said consistently, we think there should be a fair seating of the Michigan delegates. The Clinton campaign has stubbornly said they see no need to negotiate, but we believe that their Washington, my-way-or-the-highway approach is something voters are tired of.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBhNk

Now as you may have read, the Obama campaign has been advocating a 50-50 split of the Michigan delegates as representing a fair solution. They were just given a golden opportunity today when the results of the Jan. 15 primary were declared unconstitutional at a time when the Michigan legislature is unable to act on a new primary. And Plouffe has seized on this opportunity. Tonight's NBC/WSJ poll only strengthens his argument to seat the delegates 50-50...now.

David Plouffe, you are a smart man.

And to U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds, thank you.

[leftofcool]

1. why should Obama get 50% of delegates he didn't win?

[Adelante]

3. Nobody won them

The primary was illegitimate as it was conducted outside the party rules.

[babylonsister]

4. He wasn't even on the ballot! What do you think he should get? nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

55. Obama told his MI supporters to "vote uncommitted" and they did

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-ploy-for-uncommitted/

[Barack_America]

57. Direct quote please.

Of Obama telling his supporters to vote uncommitted. I want proof of those words coming directly out of his mouth.

I'll wait.

[rinsd]

59. Are you seriously suggesting John & Monica Conyers were acting independentlly?

This is the script of the John and Monica Conyers radio ad, which will be broadcast on Detroit-area stations. Monica Conyers is president pro-tem of the Detroit City Council.

MALE: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS CONFUSING. I WANT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BUT OBAMA'S NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT.

FEMALE: THERE IS NO ONE ON THAT BALLOT I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.

MALE: WELL, THESE FOLKS CAN HELP US. EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS, WE NEED YOUR HELP.

FEMALE: HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR OBAMA ON TUESDAY?

Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN'T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA'S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES. BUT YOU CAN VOTE UNCOMMITTED

Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED.

Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE.

MALE: THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS. I WILL JOIN YOU AND VOTE UNCOMMITTED ON TUESDAY.

FEMALE: ME TOO - AT LEAST MY VOTE WON'T BE WASTED

Councilwoman Conyers: THIS TRUTH IN POLITICS MESSAGE WAS PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MONICA CONYERS

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/09/voters_face_confusion_in_michi.html

[Barack_America]

60. Sure, why not?

Are you suggesting that John and Monica Conyers do not their own agendas aside from their support of Obama?

Please. You don't understand Michigan (particularly Detroit) politics very well, do you?

I guarantee you their motivation had more to do with getting people (particularly Detroiters) to the polls than it did to help Obama. And FYI, their ads were part of a push from supporters of BOTH Obama and Edwards to encourage "uncommitted" votes.

"Representative John Conyers Jr. and his wife, Monica Conyers, a Detroit city councilwoman, Democrats who support Mr. Obama, began running radio commercials on Wednesday telling people to vote uncommitted. Several groups, Michiganders for Obama, Michigan for Edwards and the newly formed Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, have been campaigning door-to-door, on the phone and at rallies, spreading the uncommitted message."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/john-conyers/

I do wonder, however, whether these radio ads were run before or after Granholm went on CNN and told everyone in Michigan to vote for Hillary?

"I hope that people vote for Hillary Clinton"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bC6guYeuflk&feature=related

[SharonRB]

5. The judge's ruling in effect voids the entire primary

as if it never happened. Wiped clean. Zilch, nada, zero. No delegates for anyone. If we don't have a redo, there's nothing to count, so a 50-50 split sounds pretty fair. It sounds like it's that or we don't get seated.

How'd that work for ya, Carl, Debbie and Jennifer?

[babylonsister]

18. Hi, Sharon. How do you feel about this, being from MI? What do

you think should happen?

:hi:

[SharonRB]

20. I think we should go back and have our original caucus

which included Internet voting, no-reason absentee voting or voting at a polling place. I just don't know logistically if they could carry it off this late.

If that doesn't happen, which it doesn't look like it will, I'd be okay with a 50-50 split, but I'd also understand if we weren't seated at all. We broke the rules and we should have to pay the consequences. I just don't like the fact that the voters will be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the higher-ups like Carl Levin, Debbie Dingell and the governor who wanted this travesty. I'm really pissed at the state party.

:hi:

[babylonsister]

26. Your idea would be expensive, wouldn't it, which is one reason

it might not fly? I did read about the firehouse primary today that Clinton suggested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x127989

is that the same thing?

Our party really needs to revise this primary season, and yes, some people need to be chastized for trying to do their own thing; the results in both states stink.

[SharonRB]

27. It would be expensive, but the party was going to pay for it the first time

and didn't have to, so they should still have the money they didn't spend before, one would think.

I'm not sure exactly what the firehouse primary would be, but I think it might be similar.

One thing this probably will accomplish is HUGH!!!! changes to the whole process. We need to do rotating regional primaries.

[PassingFair]

49. Ditto for me.....

A caucus is much less expensive than a primary,
and requires Dem registration....

Let's have one!

:hi:

[Barack_America]

7. There are now SEVERAL reasons.

1. According to the DNC, the election never *officially* happened.

2. Obama was not on the ballot, so there's no way of knowing how many votes he *unofficially* got.

3. The entire damn *unofficial* election has now just been declared unconstitutional.

4. The DNC now has solid proof (Gallup and NBC/WSJ polls) that this prolonged election is severely damaging the party, hence, a requirement to end this process quickly. Seating the Michigan delegates helps Obama achieve 2025. And the only think that can be done quickly is to simply divide the delegates somehow.

--There you have it.

[dansolo]

25. 2025 is without MI and FL

If the Michigan delegates are seated, that number increases.

[SharonRB]

28. Correct.

[Barack_America]

35. Yes, thank you very much.

I had forgotten about that, lol.

Math never was my strongsuit! ;)

[hogwyld]

46. Nor the Clintons n/t

[mckeown1128]

9. 50/50 matches the most recent MI poll...

where Obama and Clinton are tied.

[Barack_America]

13. Another excellent point!

Methinks this is going to happen.

Gonna be an interesting week.

:popcorn:

[Demeter]

23. I Wish I Had Your Optimism

Born, raised, and now living in Michigan, I think nothing will ever be resolved. Michigan will have no seat at the table, which won't be serving Impeachment, either.

The only pleasure I will get will be seeing Brewer, Dingell, Levin and Granholm staying home to repent their foolishness, and seeing their gal Hillary shown the door.

[SharonRB]

21. All the more reason to get this over with with a 50/50 split.

[VolcanoJen]

12. Because Americans don't stand for Soviet Politburo elections.

Maybe that's why.

[catgirl]

14. They were tie in the latest MI poll (nt)

[SKKY]

15. Why should HRC get 50% of the delegates when only her name was...

...on the ballot??

[JackORoses]

54. why should Hillary get 55% of delegates that don't exist?

[Barack_America]

58. Lol! I'd be willing to give her 100% of zero delegates!

Even 200%!

:rofl:

[polichick]

2. Well done!

[SunsetDreams]

6. absolutely well done

It was unconstitutional, so to me Obama would be doing them a favor by agreeing to 50-50.

[Barack_America]

10. That will be the campaign's argument, EXACTLY!

And they now have polls to back them up when they argue that the nomination process needs to be concluded quickly.

Half of those Michigan delegates will help A LOT to get Obama to 2025.

This is going to get interesting.

:popcorn:

[knixphan]

11. yep.

[Cha]

33. And if the early primary was "UnConstitutional" to

begin with then Obama was smart not to have his name on the ballot.

[40ozDonkey]

8. It'll end up 50/50 anyway.

If she's lucky.

[rocktivity]

Where does that leave the superdelegates?

I've advocated splitting the delegates and not seating the superdelegates--can their votes be split, too?

:shrug:
rocknation

[Barack_America]

19. That is a very interesting and important question.

And I'm sure it will be fought over bitterly.

At the very least, it seems that the DNC could force its own delegates to split be 50:50.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

31. I know that FL superdelegates don't count.

[quakerboy]

41. Wouldn't that be beautiful?

If we could find someway to seat delegates from Fl and Mn, that seems good. But I think the SD's from those states should remain in the cold, no matter what.

I see the options as: we don't seat the states, seat according to the original illegitimate vote, re vote(or caucus), or negotiate a compromise for the delegates, or come up with some creative other option. The Super Delegates in those states are the exemplars of the people who's job it was to solve this a long time before it became a problem. They did not do so, and whatever results will be in spite of them, not because of them. Therefore their influence should not be restored, no matter what other outcomes there are.

[rocktivity]

42. Since it's the voters who "create" the delegates, they should not suffer from the "sins"

of the Dems who moved up the primary dates--that's the superdelegates' job! That's why I favor the split-delegate/no superdelegate option: the punishment fits the crime. Now it looks like Howard Dean has no choice in the matter--well played, doctor!

:headbang:
rocknation

[quakerboy]

43. Can we just

Forget all this biznas and just Clone JFK and elect him again?

[rocktivity]

48. Not a bad idea

considering that the Rethugs would love to clone Reagan!

:rofl:
rocknation

[quakerboy]

56. That could prove to be an interesting race

JFK vs Reagan, 2012? I'm up for it.

[BeatleBoot]

16. 50% Did Not Vote For Him. But he wants 50% of the Vote?

Talk about audacity.

[Barack_America]

17. The election never happened.

It is null and void. That is the essence of this ruling, in case you missed it.

[SharonRB]

22. What part of HIS NAME WASN'T ON THE BALLOT

do you not understand?

[hogwyld]

47. They didn't vote for him

Because he wasn't on the ballot! All hail Comrade Clinton and the new politburo party!

[george_maniakes]

24. I say all those reponsible for this mess have to start raising funds for a new vote...

ya, they'll probably split around 50-50 anyways but still, all those responsible should clean this up.

[crankychatter]

29. couldn't game it so now they have to vote, awwww

it's so unfair

[InsultComicDog]

30. If it's not too personal

Are you originally from the Detroit area? (Based on your Tigers logo and interest in Michigan situation)

But you are in the Philly area now?

[Barack_America]

36. That is correct.

I'm in Philly, but will always be a Michigander at heart.

Go Tigers! (total bummer about Granderson, eh?)

[InsultComicDog]

38. I'm a Phillies fan but I did hear about that

Doesn't sound too bad, though, a few weeks probably. Plus the Tigers didn't trade their "spare" center fielder like they tried to do. So they have a reasonable fill-in.

[Cha]

32. Who knew the resolution may

turn out to be something as simple as this? Thanks, Kristi and David Plouffe.

[InsultComicDog]

34. Well it's probably more of an equitable solution than my suggestion

Of having the candidates shoot free throws.

[StevieM]

37. Obama used the Michigan results to spread a myth about Hillary being unelectable by claiming that

40% of the voters would rather vote for nobody then vote for Hillary. This was, of course, a lie. The uncommitted vote was a pro-Obama vote, that he actively encouraged. He then took advantage of the election results to advance his campaign.

If there were results in Michigan for him to refer to, then there were results period.

Obama says he wants "a fair seating" of the delegates, but that is nonsense. The people of Michigan don't care about a few people from their state going to some convention in Denver.

He also says he wants "a fair seating" of the delegates from Florida, which also means a 50/50 split. But that is garbage--the people of Florida did not vote 50/50.

We could have resolved this with new elections, but Obama fought them every step of the way.

Steve

[Barack_America]

39. I guess that Hillary will also have to stop claiming to have "won" Michigan.

No?

:shrug:

[Cha]

40. Big Bad Obama! hilary snipes her own

self in the feet..no one can hurt hilary as much as her own lies.

[Eric J in MN]

44. Michigan could have a party-run election without the legislature acting.

It would take money, though, which no one seems willing to pay.

[Barack_America]

52. That may not be true.

There is something in Michigan's constitution about "one election per party per year". That's why they needed a vote in the MI legislature in the first place (for the redo).

Although you could argue that the first one being declared unconstitutional *might* allow the Dems to get around this.

I'm not sure.

[Skip Intro]

45. But that's not how they voted. How they voted is important, isn't it?

I'm sure Obama would split the dels 50/50. Why wouldn't he?

Thing is, that is not what FL and MI said, in record numbers.

It would be an inslting parade.

And we can kiss FL and MI goodbye in Nov.

[PassingFair]

50. The vote was invalid!

Dems in Michigan will vote for the Democrat.

The meme that democrats in Michigan will NOT vote in the GE
is ABSURD.

[stillcool]

51. How they voted?

they couldn't vote. They couldn't even write in a candidate. If they did that their ballot would be spoiled. And, now the entire election has been declared 'unconstitutional'. And yet you still would like to blame all of this on the Obama Campaign. Why? 48 States followed the rules. 2 did not. Is there some reason why these 2 States should hold the entire process hostage? Is that the way rules work? If voters in these states choose to stay home in November that's their prerogative.

[Barack_America]

53. In MI and FL, the number of Republicans voting outnumbered the Dems...

That happened in virtually no other state.

So they may have voted in record numbers (although I doubt this for MI; their turnout was abysmal), but there were clearly many additional Dems who stayed home.

[Barack_America]

61. Michigan judge: You broke it, you bought it

Part of the same ruling this thread is about.

Michigan judge: You broke it, you bought it

by James Oliphant

In the post below, we highlighted why Wednesday's ruling by a Detroit federal judge was a setback for the Clinton campaign.

Here's another reason. In her opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds found little sympathy for the state of Michigan when it argued that it passed the statute last year to help voters in the state comply with the rules of the two major political parties.

More importantly, another provision of moved the date of the 2008 Michigan Presidential Primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to January 15, 2008. This is directly at odds with major parties' rules. The Democratic Rules state that no "primaries may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February." Because the Michigan Primary violated Democratic Party rules, the Democratic National Committee decided that no delegates chosen as a result of the Primary will be seated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The Primary also violated Republican National Commitee rules and, as a result, Michigan Republicans will be deprived of half of their convention delegates.

The Statute caused the Primary to be held in direct contravention of party rules, and both major political parties have suffered serious consequences as a result.

The judge's language here wasn't central to her ruling in the case, that the provision at issue was unconstitutional. But they are strong words from a federal judge (and an independent authority) regarding the state's behavior this primary season.

And perhaps it's language that could be used if a fight at the convention breaks out.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/michigan_judge_you_broke_it_yo.html