Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Ellen Forney Commissioned to A... | Reading Tonight »

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Michigan Do-Over Idea

posted by on March 19 at 9:54 AM


RSS icon Comments


Ron Paul!

Posted by Ziggity | March 19, 2008 9:59 AM

Now that Florida and Michigan do-overs are dead, the DNC just needs to figure out a fair way to seat those delegates. Halve the values and apportion them equally, whatever (for one thing, if we want to win those states in the general, we can't have the voters there feeling disenfranchised). It's clearer each day that Clinton can't win. It's time for her to do the classy thing.

Posted by Gabriel | March 19, 2008 10:01 AM

And it sure would be nice if Gore stepped in and endorsed Obama.

Posted by Gabriel | March 19, 2008 10:05 AM

Don't most calculations show Clinton likely losing at this point even if MI and FL do get seated?

Posted by tsm | March 19, 2008 10:12 AM

There's no good way to seat the delegates that will reflect the will of the voters in those states, because we don't know the will of the voters in those states.

The Republicans got it right on the states the went early - halve their delegates, but still have a viable election. DNC's decision in this case only disenfrnanchises two important states...if either goes Republican in the Presidential race, Howard Dean should be fired.

Posted by bohica | March 19, 2008 10:12 AM

Another blow to michigan; Pryor commits to OSU.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 19, 2008 10:14 AM

Yes -- denying millions of folks voting rights is wrong, wrong, wrong.

So, fix it!

They should seat the FL delegates based on the election that we already had.
Both O and C were on the ballot; they both obeeyed their agreement to not campaign (except for some national TV cable ads by Obama, and I think one dinner by Clinton with 2 hrs. left in polling places in the panhandle); the candidates never agreed to not try to seat the delegates; and most of all THE PEOPLE never agreed to anything and never did anything to justify losing voting rights. Usually you have to murder someone, denounce your citizenship etc. to lose voting rights. whoever the idiot DNC or legislators were who did something allegedly wrong, it wasn't the voters, and we simply cannot stand by and see this denial of voting rights while claiming to be progressive, or for change, or for unity, or for a new politics.

Obama's denying them rights is just evidence he's like all the other politicians and this will be used against him, if nominee, and against the Democrats, for years and years to come.

Plus Obama agreeing would like all presidential and shit.

On MI: Obama took his own name off the ballot. But anyway, we need to do something. The half a vote solution smacks of that 3/5 a man thing in the original USA constitution. That's really disgusting for the 18th C. and even more disgusting for this century.

So ... either hold a revote and spend the money, well worth it in the long run, otherwise we are abetting DENIAL OF VOTING RIGHTS. OR if you want a shitty, sloppy compromise, then take the average of percentages in neighboring states or the top ten populous states or the ten most similar states demographically or something, woks can work it out, and do it that way.

But "one delegate, one vote, unless you're from Michigan then you are half a person" is not the rallying cry I want to see in my party.

If the republicans were engaged in this DENIAL OF VOTING RIGHTS we'd be making fun of them and their 18th century ineuqality-lovin' ways for the next fifity years.

It's about equality. Voting rights. Remember?

Stuff we were proud to be in favor of back in the 60s and 70s?

Why flip flop now back to 18th c. inequality ideas, except to favor one candidate over the other?

Posted by unPC | March 19, 2008 10:14 AM

@4 is correct so why not seat FL and look all presidential and make this huge stinking mess go away?

Posted by unPC | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Gore can't endorse Obama until he gets the nomination. He was Clinton's VP; it would look like a stab in the back if he outright endorsed Bill's wife's opponent right now. But, by not outright endorsing Hillary, he's pretty much giving the impression that he's for Obama.

Posted by JC | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM

if the voters of those states should be mad at anybody, they should be mad at their state-level representatives that knowingly scheduled the vote against the rules. the primary season is madness, and it needs to have some order. if a state thought it could just bully the DNC around, they're mistaken. If they got away with it, then next time we'd have primaries a year and a half out. Which is bunk.

Split them 50-50. Do whatever.

What really needs to happen is the supers need to step up and end this fiasco, and pronto. They have the capacity to put this to bed, they just need to do the right thing and push obama over the tipping point because by all measures, he is the winner. He has the popular vote. He has the pledged delegate vote. He has won the most states. He has the most grassroots support.

Let's turn our sights to the general. It's time.

Posted by some dude | March 19, 2008 10:17 AM

unpc, obama isn't denying the voters of those states their say. their state leadership did. and they did so knowing full well what the consequences were. and it wasn't like the schedule was done in secret. the voters knew that their representatives were putting the legitimacy of their vote at risk. this was done months ahead of time.

i'm all for fair votes. but the votes that were held weren't really fair. if anything they should do a revote, but there are legitimate reasons why they couldn't. that's what happens when a state goes all renegade and makes up their own rules. it sucks for those people, but it isn't the candidates fault. it was a pissing contest between the DNC and state-level leadership. the voters suffered, but that is a party issue, not a candidate issue.

Posted by some dude | March 19, 2008 10:21 AM

and just to clarify, i'm all for doing a national primary or maybe a 4 week primary where week 1 is all states in the eastern time zone, 1 week CST, one 1 week Mountain, and 1 week pacific.

Get rid of all these arcane rules and processes that are a barrier to the electorate participating. There shouldn't be super delegates. There shouldn't be pledged delegates. It should be done by popular vote.

Same goes for the electoral college.

Posted by some dude | March 19, 2008 10:23 AM

not to mention they had weeks after the decision was made, and even more weeks after the action non-official vote to make arrangements for another primary. they didn't get on the ball until it was too late, yet another mistake on their part.

i really hope it doesn't come down to FL and MI; it's a mess.

Posted by infrequent | March 19, 2008 10:24 AM

I dont have much symapthy on this. They knowingly broke the rules, and disenfranchised themselves. It was unfair to the DNC, and to every one of us voters in other states that they made that choice. Now they are paying the price, and they knew the price well in advance. Yeah we could halve the delegates, thats one option, but a do over is bullshit.

Hillary needs to back the fuck out, and endorse McCain already, you know shes going to.

Posted by ZwBush | March 19, 2008 10:25 AM

Give up Hillary!! All is lost!! Ages from now you will be remembered at the racist chick who tried to prevent the election of President Barak Obama!!

Remember: Every day we do not have a nominee is a good day for John McCain.

Posted by Andrew | March 19, 2008 10:27 AM

Thank goodness. This state's a fucked up mess in almost every respect. You had the Hillary cabal (Governor Beauty Mark, Senators Stabenow and Levin) trying their darndest to skew it for Hillary. And THEN they freakin' change the date. They gambled and THEY LOST. And now they're trying to blame Obama? Look in the freakin' mirror.

We don't deserve to have our votes counted. The foaming-at-the-mouth Hillary supporters are busy breathing fire about how Obama's doing this or that to keep votes from counting. That's total and complete horse shit, and they know it. If anyone's to blame, it's our incredibly inept state party leadership--the one that's almost 100% behind Hillary.

Jesus Christ.

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-Matt) | March 19, 2008 10:28 AM

Any person has as much "right" to choose a party nominee as the party gives them. For all the hysteria 7 spews, the voters simply don't have a "right" to have their vote counted in this contest. Each party can choose their own candidate under whatever rules they establish -- the Party of Cthulhu can appoint Cthulhu as the party nominee without taking any input from "voters" who might claim they belong to the Party. There is no right granted to the people that guarantee they can meddle in Party of Cthulhu affairs.

Posted by this bs again | March 19, 2008 10:32 AM

I think @17 makes a good point. Right to vote in the general is not the same as right to vote in the primary. For example, I prefer to think of myself as an independent, but in order to vote for Obama in Maryland, I had to change my affiliation(though I've pretty much always voted Democrat since I turned 18, so no skin off my nose). Does that mean most states "disenfranchise" independents (who tend to go for Obama)? I guess you could look at it that way, but really it's just that they have certain rules about who gets to vote and when they get to do it, and you have to abide by them if you want to play in their sandbox. If you want to talk about rotating the order of which states go first or something like that, I'd be all for it, but the time to do that is before the primary, not in the middle of it.

Posted by Beguine | March 19, 2008 10:56 AM

I for one welcome our new Zero-Delegate state of Michigan!

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 19, 2008 11:01 AM

This is going to come back to bite Obama in the ass. It makes him look like a traditional pol. It gives the undecided supes cover to support HRC.

Hey Obama fans: if the party rules must be enforced, does that mean you also support the party rules that say supes get to vote however the fuck they like? Just curious.

Posted by Big Sven | March 19, 2008 11:03 AM

@15 yeah, just like McCain's comments yesterday. what a gooooood day. you may call it good, but i call it ammo. like the soon to be legalized uzi ammo (sweet).

also, never trust ANYBODY with two capital letters in their last name - let alone TWO Cs. just don't do it.

unPC, you got some fast little fingers. too bad they're not accurately wired to your cerebro, bro. or do you mean what you write?

Posted by cochise | March 19, 2008 11:04 AM

Michigan Matt @ 16

The foaming-at-the-mouth Hillary supporters are busy breathing fire about how Obama's doing this or that to keep votes from counting. That's total and complete horse shit, and they know it.

Grow up.

Posted by Big Sven | March 19, 2008 11:07 AM

Sven, I'm pretty sure that everyone, regardless of supporting Obama or Clinton, understands that the superdelegates can vote as they please. What's your point?

Posted by Gabriel | March 19, 2008 11:10 AM

Oh, Sven. Really, honey. Try not to take these things so seriously.

First off, I don't give a whoop-dee-doo who the super delegates go for. I know some Obama fans are all about Obama getting them all, but the super delegates (or whatever you Hillary people are calling them these days) can do what they want. That's pretty much established. Now, what happens AFTER they do whatever they want is something they have to deal with.

We're at the point we are here in Michigan with our delegates not being counted BECAUSE OF THE HILLARY SUPPORTERS' FUCKED UP GAMBLE. They lost, and the voters of Michigan are the ones who suffer. End of story. Is there any easy way out of this that's great for either candidate? No, there isn't. Obama, however, is not a dummy. Remember how you were talking about how he couldn't give the same as Hillary. I guess we know that's wrong. Your justification that "Hillary is tough but Obama's weak" doesn't look to be so true after all. But to put this completely and entirely at Obama's feet is utter and complete horse shit, as I said. You don't live here. You haven't seen what's gone on. Our primary was a mess b/c of the machinations of our state party leadership--almost all for Hillary. And we don't have the $$ to be doing another one.

All the best,
MM (stbBoM)

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-Matt) | March 19, 2008 11:20 AM
This is going to come back to bite Obama in the ass. It makes him look like a traditional pol. It gives the undecided supes cover to support HRC.

There's an extraordinary audacity in bashing Obama for saying this makes Obama look bad while supporting a candidate who was completely, entirely happy with disenfranchising MI and FL until they suddenly looked like they might be needed for victory.

And yes, of course superdelegates are permitted to vote however they like; keep knocking away at that strawman. But if you're up in arms over FL and MI's votes getting ignored by the party leadership, it would make you look pretty twofaced to not be disturbed when the votes of dozens of other states are effectively thrown away as well.

Posted by tsm | March 19, 2008 11:20 AM

The appearance, however ill conceived, that Florida and Michigan are being "disenfranchised" isn't doing Obama any favors in the general election, that's for sure.

But then, how does the stink of illegitimacy, being given the nomination by a combination of highly dubious delegates from the unfair Michigan and Florida contests, plus the authoritarian intervention of the super delegates, help Hillary? Obama might make it up to those two states, but Hillary will have an asterisk following her nomination around throughout the election, and it will hurt her in ever single state.

And then there's the new electoral math. This isn't 2000, and it isn't 2004. Maybe Hillary can't win without Florida, but Obama can.

Posted by elenchos | March 19, 2008 11:20 AM

Seating delegates in either of these states is like trying to reassemble an egg after it's been scrambled. The Clinton campaign broke the party rules and should gain no advantage from doing so.

On the other hand, Obama shouldn't look petty, and the sooner this issue is handled the better. The two campaigns should sit down and negotiate. Figure that Clinton's camp will argue for seating delegates per the election results. Obama's camp will argue for seating delegates 50/50. Split the difference, give Clinton a moderate boost from these states but not a decisive one, and move on.

Posted by Cascadian | March 19, 2008 11:21 AM

make that first sentence

"There's an extraordinary audacity in saying this makes Obama look bad"

I wish we could edit comments.

Posted by tsm | March 19, 2008 11:21 AM



blaming obama for not doing something is like blaiming kerry for the police's conduct of their handling of the Don't Taze Me Bro. it's the school's responsibility for training and keeping the campus cops in check, not kerrys!

like DUH!

the governers of FL and MI that decided it was in their state's best interest to move the primary (just or unjust). impeach the governers for doing that? sure. have obama do impeaching? it's not his trabajo, bro.

ps telling people to grow up makes you sound old. real old.

Posted by cochise. | March 19, 2008 11:29 AM

I should add that it only makes sense to seat MI and FL delegates if it makes no difference in the final result. If those delegates did make a difference, that would effectively disenfranchise the party voters in the other 48 states, which followed the rules and had elections that selected delegates according to a pre-arranged, more-or-less fair process. Why should the victor of those 48 states lose to the (presumed but far from certain) victor of two states? It doesn't make sense.

What this comes down to is that the Clinton campaign refuses to acknowledge that it has no chance to win even a plurality of pledged delegates, and they're willing to put their own interests above those of millions of people who call themselves Democrats. That's just the sort of inside politics that turns people away from getting involved.

Posted by Cascadian | March 19, 2008 11:31 AM


i've never understood how you can seat delegates 50/50. how do you find an equal amount of delegates at this stage that say they are for Obama if he wasn't on the ballot? and when they get there, they can vote as they please!

Posted by cochise. | March 19, 2008 11:37 AM

Some people need a hug.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | March 19, 2008 11:38 AM

it's not his trabajo, bro.

Fuckin eh. Eloquently put cochise.

Posted by some dude | March 19, 2008 11:42 AM

It's extremely unlikely that Clinton would win any FL/MI revotes by the huge margins necessary to substantially reduce the pledged delegate gap. She would still need superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates. Victories in FL and MI would give her a stronger argument, since she would be closer (or ahead) in popular votes. So to think FL or MI revotes would make a difference, you have to argue that the proper role of superdelegates is to overrule pledged delegates. But if that's your position, nobody's going to buy your arguments about disenfranchisement and the sanctity of the electoral process.

Posted by CG | March 19, 2008 11:45 AM

some dude:

"unpc, obama isn't denying the voters of those states their say."
WRONG. He's doing nothing to have a revote or count their votes, he looks like a jerk for denying votting rights, as one running for president he is to be expected to have a osition on this issue of voting rights in his own party.

"their state leadership did."
And that was wrong, and their voters aren't owned by their state leadership. State leadership always denies voting rights as in Alabama in the the years 1875-1965 or thereabouts.

"and they did so knowing full well what the consequences were."
They don't own the voters and the voters shouoldn't be penalized.

"and it wasn't like the schedule was done in secret. the voters knew that their representatives were putting the legitimacy of their vote at risk."
But what were they supposed to do? Come at them with pitchforks?

"this was done months ahead of time.

i'm all for fair votes."
No clearly you're not.

"but the votes that were held weren't really fair."
No the FL vote was fair both on the ballot and no agreement by either candidate not to seat the delegates.

"if anything they should do a revote,"
if you agree with me going forward, why focus on the divisive shit? Problem is , OBAMA isn't supprting any revote while right here on Slog I quoted the entire HRC campaign lettter to the OBama campaign saying a revote would be okay.

" but there are legitimate reasons why they couldn't."
Hey there are always problems but a revote is better than DENYING VOTING RIGHTS TOTALLY.

" that's what happens when a state goes all renegade"
stop anthropomorpohzing"the state" here. What are you a "statist"????? The PEOPLE have a right to vote and their leaders don't own them like they are fucking slaves, their leaders dont' have the right to take their votes away through "breaking the rules" and when the rules allow for that the rules are TAKING AWAY THE RIGHT TO VOTE OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DID NOTHING WRONG.

"and makes up their own rules." No actually they are now trying to figure what to do with the agreement of the DNC and OBama and I'm saying get on baord OBama and the DNC.

" it sucks for those people"
but you don't really give a shit as you spend all your time attacking the pro voting rights position, only throwing in a ridiculous statement that a re-vopte would be ok while ignoring that it is OBAMA AND DEAN WHO ARE DENYING VOTING RIGHTS

" but it isn't the candidates fault."

NOT MY FAULT VOTING RIGHTS ARE DENIED, says OBama, the candidate who is for unity and change.

What bulls hit you spout.

" it was a pissing contest between the DNC and state-level leadership."

Yup, let all their piss fall on millions of voters, fuck 'em, who needs stinkin' RIGHTS TO VOTE ANYWAY??

"the voters suffered,"

but who really gives a flying fuck about voting rights? The current denial fo voting rights help my favorite candidate, so fuck all the rest of you !!

"but that is a party issue, not a candidate issue."

Rah, rah what a great slogan. We Democrats will produly bear this rallying cry for years to come, showing that Obama and the Democratic Party officials DON'T CARE ABOUT OTHER PEOPLES' VOTING RIGHTS AND CAN'T CLEAN UP A MESS so please go ahead and elect a Democrat to run the whole country!!

Sorry for all the caps and stuff but this is real shit. This isn't about who said what paraising someone while insufficiently noting the role of someone else. This is real voting rights and Obama and many of his supporters seem just fine with denying millions of people their voting rights and that totally sucks, some dude, because I know in your heart you really don't believe in those 18th century views that some people count, and others don't, you don't really believe in losing voting rights through no fault of your own, and you're just saying all this crap because you're for Obama, and that's like dude totally contrary to everything he says he stands for.

How can he give this masterful speach about past wrongs on race then say "well, shit, it's not my affair if millions of Florida or Michigan voters don't get to vote?"

What he said was do unto others and I am my brothers' keeper.

As we should be.

So amigo arriba, who said it's not his trabajo bro, tu estas muy equivocado porque al contrario lo que dijo El Sen. Obama fue exactamente el opuesto.

Lo que dijo. Pero no lo que esta poniendo en marcha en la actualidad.

Aparentemente solo quiere hablar, no queire actuar para apoyoar unidad, derechos humanos, derechos para voter, igualdad.

Seriously denial of other folks voting rights -- not our business, bro?

That's the philosophy of Bull Connor. It's not the audacity of hope. What's all this talk about confronting our past which includes slavery and no voting rights if today in reality he doesn't give a shit about lack of voting rights and his supporters says "not our business, tough shit for those losers"?

Posted by unPC | March 19, 2008 12:01 PM

unPC. I recognize your anger at having votes count, especially after the insanity of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, just to name a few instances. Not to mention the systematic disenfranchisement of entire segments of our population throughout our history.

That said, some of us don't necessarily view this primary system as a sacred vote. Important? Yep. But I'm pretty sure this isn't a nationally-sponsored, constitutionally-given right. We have the right to vote for those who represent us in government. But the primary voting is run by the national parties and often paid for by the state parties themselves. And, if I recall correctly, primaries are a 20th-century invention.

MM (stbBoM)

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-Matt) | March 19, 2008 12:17 PM

Time to just get out a stamp that says "LOSER" and stamp the foreheads of the Governors and State Legislators of Florida and Michigan with it.

Using indelible ink, of course.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 19, 2008 1:08 PM

i understand your passion, unPC.

Aparentemente solo quiere hablar, no queire actuar para apoyoar unidad, derechos humanos, derechos para voter, igualdad.

and no, i don't only care about talking. i do care about true unity and the rights of the people, equality, all that.

i can see that you're worked up over it and i completely understand where you're coming from. the right to vote is sacrosanct in that a transparent and fair process is the ultimate distinction between us and places like "the people's" republic of china, or saudi arabia, or whatever.

but if you really want to get into what i'm talking about in specifics and put aside the passionate defense of voting as a general concept, i'm all for that.

but take a breath first, amigo, and lets work through it rationally.

a few corrections, to begin. I don't believe that the voters of the state of michigan (where I was born) or florida are slaves.

i'm not into feudalism. not a fan.

but i'm also not a fan of how the leadership in those states, leadership elected by the people of those states to represent the people of those states in the matters of the state of those states, handled this situation.

to compare this to FL in 2000 is invalid, because the issue in FL had to do with the tally of the general election vote--real disenfranchisement--and not a battle of wills between leadership within a single political party.

If the leadership of FL and MI--which represent the people in the vein of representative democracy--simply held their election within the reasonable and previously stated guidelines of when and how elections in the party primary were to be held--as in standards and rules that are there to preserve the validity and fairness of the process--then this wouldn't have happened.

The leadership didn't do that.

So my position on this is that above all I believe in there being a consistent and just method by which people cast their votes. But I also believe that you have to follow those rules or face a consequence.

I appreciate that you give me enough credit to suggest that my previous post was really just me being blinded by my obama loyalty, and that i really don't believe in disenfranchising voters.

because you're right, i don't believe in disenfranchising voters.

but i also believe in following the rules even if they aren't perfect.

for example. I really fucking hate super delegates. i hate the whole concept. super delegates are a poor man's electoral college. and i REALLY hate the electoral college.

i've commented several times that I believe that the super delegates have an ETHICAL obligation to follow the will of the popular vote.

but i have never argued that they should be abolished, mid election, or that somehow their votes should be cast in a way contrary to what the rules and regulations said prior to the election season kicking off.

we need to have rules and regulations and work within them or work to change them, but not in the middle of a contest.

the reason I say this is because while it is tempting in to take the short term view that the FL an MI situation is weakening the process--that people are being left out--I actually think that this is a drop in the bucket compared to what the electoral process for party primaries would be if the DNC was exposed as having no teeth when it comes to exerting authority over the states.

what i mean is, the very system that we're fucking MIRED in right now is fucked from the start.

all these posts about how nice it is that Wyoming matters this time. or that even WASHINGTON matters? Where is the fairness in that?

So if MI and FL get their way, and can hold votes--that count--in violation of rules and regulations, then next year what is to stop other states from deciding to do things their own way, too?

I don't like that IA and NH get to be first every year. Because it makes their votes count more.

But I don't like the idea that every state will all of a sudden be racing to make their votes more important by working the calendar. Which is, by the way, exactly what FL and MI tried to do.

Seriously denial of other folks voting rights -- not our business, bro?

it is our business. but it isn't up to the candidates to tell us how the election should be run. that's a conflict of interest and a totally backwards point of view.

the rules and regulations are to define the bounds by which campaigns are governed. the party leadership, in the primary, decides what this is.

in the general election, the federal government decides. that's their job. that's why they're there.

Now personally, given the fiasco of this primary, and the fiasco of the past two general elections when a president was on the ballot, I will be pretty disappointed if president obama doesn't do something to spur serious voting reform both within the party and at the federal level.

te amo.

Posted by some dude | March 19, 2008 2:09 PM

unPC, Sven, jonnie, that other guy...

mi democrático amigos. i may be the only one up in here. still it's worth pointing out that statistics is cool tool. it's used to find extraterrestrial bodies. it's used to figure out how many fish are in the seas. it's what i got a D at in college (pass!).

it's also used to find out how many people would be disenfranchised by the governors of FL and MI if the current delegates would be seated.

1.7 million Floridians voted
590,000 Michiganders voted

one statistical study has shown that:

1.15 million Floridians stayed home because they thought their vote wouldn't count.


715,000 Michiganders stayed home because they thought their vote wouldn't count.

if this is even remotely true, then promoting a seating of current delegates to avoid disenfranchisement is disingenuous. and ugly.

Posted by cochise. | March 19, 2008 3:23 PM

other dude, por favor!

that is what I was getting at when i said that the votes "weren't really fair anyway".

If i knew ahead of time that the vote wouldn't count--particularly in michigan where only 1 person was on the ballot--then many people who would have voted wouldn't have bothered.

so you can't take the results of those elections and say they're really representative of the people.

in which case a re-vote is the only way to fix it, but the party leadership in each state didn't make it happen (for different reasons--in FL it had to due with cost and the fact that a mail-in ballot isn't really legal there (but don't roast me on the details, i haven't followed the ins and outs of the whole process that closely)).

Posted by some dude | March 19, 2008 3:45 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).