FUCK IT. Revote 'em. If she really wants those primaries to count, let's do 'em right.

Let's have both candidates compete and campaign in both states. If she really thinks disenfranchisement is more important than her own meaningless popular vote totals, then let's run those primaries when everybody knows they count and can hear both candidates speak to their own states' concerns. There's no way Obama comes out of those new fair primaries with his name on both ballots with a worse delegate split than from the primaries that didn't count.

So, Senator Clinton, put your money where your mouth is. Advocate a revote in Florida and Michigan if you truly care about disenfranchisement and not your own meaningless popular vote totals. My guess is we'll hear plenty of excuses from you why we just can't do this, though.

Money can be spent on more useful things, like defeating McSame.

“We will go and make the case for a revote,” said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama’s campaign has resisted a new contest, saying that Michigan Democrats are divided, that a revote would not make much difference in the overall delegate count and that the Clinton camp was trying to change the rules to suit itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19delegates.html?fta=y

Lie #1: The Obama campaign "blocked a revote in Michigan"

In fact, the Clinton campaign opposed plans for the caucuses that were Michigan's back-up plan all along if it lost its game of chicken with the DNC (although state party officials were always dubious about how they could manage the logistics if it came down to such a revote).

Serious talk of revotes only began immediately after Senator Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4, as her only path to victory in the primaries:

March 6, 2008: BREAKING: MI Caucus Likely, Says DNC Rules Committee Member

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

"They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."

Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.

But caucuses don't tend to be advantageous to Senator Clinton. At this point she was still adamant there would be no re-do in Florida, and no caucuses in Michigan:

March 7, 2008: Clinton Says ‘No’ to a Caucus Do-Over

Hillary Clinton says the Democratic Party is stuck in a very tough spot as party leaders debate whether—and how—to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan at the nominating convention this August. And Clinton's latest comments, in an interview with U.S. News yesterday, won't make resolving the fuss any easier.

Many Democrats want a revote in both states, since the Democratic National Committee disqualified all their delegates because the states' primaries were held too early in violation of party rules. Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified—but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."

While Clinton nixed caucuses, the Obama campaign – and many local officials - rejected the idea proposed by Clinton surrogate Gov. Jennifer Granholm for "firehouse primaries." "Firehouse primaries" are more complicated than caucuses, and state party officials feared they would be too expensive and logistically difficult for the state party to manage on its own within such a short time frame:

March 7, 2008: State Democratic chairman: Obama opposes Michigan ‘do-over’ plan

"This would be a much bigger operation than anything we've done in the past," Brewer said. "Because of the stakes I could foresee a couple million people showing up to vote. We'd have to rent as many as 1,000 sites and we'd have to hire and train staff. We couldn't do it with volunteers."

Next came the idea of a mail-in ballot – for Michigan at least, since Clinton surrogates rejected it for Florida:

March 9, 2008: Party leaders weighing Michigan, Florida mail-in re-vote

(CNN) – Democratic leaders in Michigan and Florida suggested Sunday they might be moving toward a solution that would allow them to send voting delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention this summer....

On CNN’s Late Edition, Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — surrogates for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively — did not rule out the prospect. "We can't change (party) rules in the middle of this process," McCaskill told anchor Wolf Blitzer, but added that if party leaders "come up with a fair way to redo this, whatever they decide, the Obama campaign will respect" the new process.

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Clinton supporter, weighed in against the idea. "I would resist a re-vote for a couple of major reasons," she said on Fox News Sunday. "Number one, the re-vote that's being talked about right now would be a mail-in ballot. And we have never conducted a mail-in ballot in Florida. And in an election that is this important, an experiment like that is — now is not the time to test that."

Clinton surrogates Gov. Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania offered to raise funding for the revotes, which some Obama supporters have objected to as potentially prejudicial for the outcome. That seems a non-issue to me, since the Obama camp was expected to raise the other half of the money.

What ended up derailing the Michigan revote was that either a firehouse primary or a mail-in primary would have meant excluding Democrats and independents who had asked for GOP ballots in the Jan. 15 primary:

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 in the Democratic one.

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 in a do-over election, voters would have to sign a statement saying they hadn't voted in the GOP primary.

That could hurt Obama more, since his supporters were more likely than Clinton's to have crossed over to vote in the GOP primary. Obama has had more success than Clinton attracting the votes of independents and Republicans in states where they could vote in Democratic contests....

Seventeen Democratic state House members said Tuesday they have concerns about holding another election, including disenfranchising Democrats who voted in the Republican primary.

"These people that chose to vote in that Republican primary in January did so after being told by the DNC that the Democratic primary did not count. They weren't told that if they participated in a Republican primary they wouldn't be eligible to participate in a redo that was going to happen in June," said state Rep. Matt Gillard, an Obama supporter.

Michigan has open primaries, in which voters can cross over and vote in whichever party's primary they wish. Aside from the software and logistical problems involved with carrying out the revote within the time required was the problem with the proposed revote legislation itself (PDF). It excluded voters who had decided not to vote in the primary they were told was invalid and that didn't have the majority of the candidates on the ballot. Anyone who hadn't wanted to vote for Clinton and who wanted to vote for Obama back on Jan. 15 didn't have a chance to at that time. Those voters were the ones with the most incentive to cross over and vote in the GOP primary instead. And those are precisely the people who would have been excluded by the proposed revote legislation.

Acknowledging the difficulties with the proposed Michigan revote plan, and its inherent unfairness, only 2 of 17 state senators agreed to support it, effectively finishing it off.

Then, as if that weren't enough, a March 26 federal ruling blocked access to the voter lists the state Democratic Party needed to manage who could and could not participate in the revote:

DETROIT -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said the ruling may have ended any chances of a new Democratic election to resolve the ongoing dispute over the state's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. The state party, he said, needs the list to ensure that no one who voted in the Republican primary in January votes in any new Democratic contest, as required under the national party's rules.

"If the Michigan Democratic Party cannot get the lists, then our friends at the ACLU may have driven the final nail in the coffin of any re-vote in Michigan," Brewer said.

So the truth is that Hillary Clinton blocked Michigan's plan for caucuses because she doesn't do well in caucuses, and Barack Obama resisted legislation for the Michigan revote that would have targeted his supporters for disenfranchisement. But in the end what blocked a revote was the logistical and legal difficulties of holding a new vote that would be accepted by all parties as legitimate.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/31/133713/743/784/487370

To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

Date: March 19, 2008

RE: Obama's Re-Vote Pledge: Just Words

On February 8, 2008, Barack Obama stood in the aisle of his airplane and told reporters that he would be "fine" with a new primary in Michigan if it could be done in a way that gave him and Senator Clinton time to make their respective cases and the DNC signed off. Since then, such a plan has garnered broad support from top Michigan lawmakers and the DNC has given its blessing.

So Barack Obama is on board, right? Guess again. It turns out that his comments about being fine with a re-vote if the above conditions were met were just words. As yesterday's headline in the Detroit Free-Press made clear, Senator Obama is the lone standout: "Michigan do-over depends on Obama's backing, Senate leaders say."

The Clinton campaign believes the right to vote is a bedrock principle of our country and that empowering the people of Michigan and Florida to make their voices heard must be a priority for any candidate running for the Democratic nomination. As such, we must either honor the original vote or hold a state-run primary that doesn't leave the taxpayers footing the bill.

So why is the Obama campaign refusing to give the people of Michigan the chance to exercise their fundamental right to vote? Let's take a quick look at what the Obama campaign is arguing and explore why those arguments are wrong:

False Excuse #1: Barack Obama Wasn't on the Ballot. The Obama campaign argues that their candidate wasn't on the January ballot because the Michigan primary wasn't sanctioned by the DNC and they were trying to comply with the early state pledge. Let's remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote. Keep in mind that nearly twice as many people voted in Michigan and Florida than voted in the four early states combined.

Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it. Senator Obama signed the pledge and kept it in Michigan. But in so doing, Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. That was his right but it was also his decision. As a result, he denied Michigan the opportunity to vote for a slate of candidates. There aren't many second chances in life but Senator Obama has one now and should ask the people of Michigan for their vote. Why is he refusing to do so?

False Excuse #2: Obama Voters Participated in GOP Primary. The Obama camp will argue that their supporters voted in the GOP primary because Barack Obama wasn't on the Democratic ballot. They argue that the legislation's effort to comply with the DNC rules is unfair since the bill would prohibit people who voted in the 2008 GOP primary in Michigan from voting a second time in the Democratic contest. On its face, you might think the Obama campaign is making a sound case. But two points render their argument inoperable:

First, the Obama campaign has repeatedly said that it would comply with DNC rules and DNC Rule 2.E prohibits cross-over voting. The draft legislation does not permit anyone who voted in Michigan's Republican primary in January to now vote in the Democratic primary. Senator Obama has said that this is a key reason why he cannot support the legislation but that provision must be in the bill in order to comply with the DNC rules. So while Senator Obama's campaign says he will follow the rules, he wants one of them to be ignored.

Second, the Obama campaign's allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent. So the Obama camp can't reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn't vote in the Democratic contest.

False Excuse #3: Clinton Supporters Have Said They'd Raise Money For a Primary and They Back Clinton. The Obama campaign will argue that Clinton supporters have said they'd help raise money to finance the primary and that's not fair. Last time we checked, the Obama campaign wasn't hurting for donors. More to the point, Democrats are blessed this cycle with an energized grassroots. We believe that appealing to everyday people to finance this primary exemplifies what this election is about: giving a voice to the voiceless.

False Excuse #4: Michigan Law Requires First-time Absentee Voters Must Vote In Person Before They Can Vote Absentee -- Just Like in Illinois. The Obama camp will argue that they are at a disadvantage because a lot of their supporters are college students who vote absentee. But Michigan law says that a person voting absentee must cast a vote in person before they are eligible to vote absentee which will result in the exclusion of many Obama supporters, of whom many are first time voters. The Obama campaign should be familiar with that sort of system since it's the rule in Illinois and we didn't hear too much complaining in the run-up to February 5 primary there. More to the point, this rule will be in place in Michigan for the general election. So will the Obama campaign use this excuse to justify writing off Michigan in the general if Barack Obama is the nominee? We hope not.

The bottom line is that Michigan has all the problems and promise that we talk about in this country. Competing in Michigan sends a signal that Democrats care and understand the people there deserve the chance to make their voices heard and need someone in the White House who will hear their voices.

If Barack Obama doesn't want to help make that happen, Hillary Clinton is ready to do so. We call on the Obama campaign to let the people of Michigan vote.

Thanks for playing.

You lose.

The no propaganda site? The unbiased site that is the Democratic equivalent of FOX?...RW talking points and all.

Not some press release from the Clinton OR Obama campaigns. But NEWS, with quotes and sources.

Odd that NEWS is something you have a hard time recognizing.

You might look at my post above, it cites many NEWS articles from NEWS papers.

Yeah, I trust them for REAL news, sure, whatever you say, nothing to see here, move along...move along. Interestingly enough, IOWA, NH and SC all held their primaries in violation of the DNC rules as well, which IMO should negate the delegates from those states, which coincidentally, makes the math look a little different don't you think ?? (For the record, the RULES are posted on the DNC web site, I will not link to them as everyone can find them on their own).

ha!

Stop blaming Obama.

So *guess who* would probably have won.

If we're going to have a revote it needs to be paid for equally by
both campaigns, or by the DNC -- NO PRIVATE ELECTIONS!

Obama rejected the idea of a re-vote that was paid for and ran by the Clinton camp... no politician would agree to that and she knew it all along.

Clinton needs money badly. I suggest you donate now.

members of the Florida Democratic Party stated they did not want a revote. There was even a lawsuit threatened if a revote was allowed. The Clinton's would not except a Caucus. Voting by mail was not possible because there are no signatures on record. Dickering over the cost of another election and who would pay for it was also a fly in the ointment. Having a candidates supporters, private citizens paying for the re-do was also of questionable legality. The Obama Campaign objected to a Michigan re-vote that did not include all those voters who voted in the beauty contest election. Nice spin though.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/31/133713/743/784/487370

Your spin and obfuscations are tiresome and not very well thought out.

re-votes is not true. Clearly, the Clinton campaign wasn't all that interested in it either, at least the possible options.

The idea that either campaign single handled killed any re-votes or caucuses in either state is erroneous.

The logistical nightmare, legal issues, and costs made it nearly impossible to get all parties to agree to everything necessary to make it happen in either state.

Neither Clinton nor Obama are specifically to blame for this mess.

Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying.

Rebublican primary instead, because he wasn't on the ballot. So they wouldn't be allowed to vote in a dem primary second time around.

It is the only fair way to resolve this issue

The taxpayers of Michigan and Florida already paid for the first election. They shouldn't have to pay for a re-vote.

Yeah, let's just reward breaking the rules.

And certainly nobody created near enough backlash to stop these morons either.

Do politicians in FL work in a vacuum? Or did the majority of FL not care enough to at least pick up the phone and tell these people to stop mucking around with this?

...but I can't blame the voters in FL and MI more than the power-grabbers who wanted the spotlight.

WHen you elect morons, you suffer the consequences of their actions.

Haven't we learned that the hard way these past 7.5 years?

Hey I didn't even vote for Bush, why do my taxes need to go to fight a war I wanted no part of? Why should I be punished?

The rules were broken. Unfortunately there is no way to only punish the officials who tried to pull this stunt. I assume they will get theirs the next time they are up for re-election.

who refuse to become involved in the affairs of government is to live under the government of unwise men. Plato


Centurys-old wisdom says we can blame the voters in FL and MI.

You let 3 other states that broke the rules determine the outcome to date (and one of them, SC, was then further used to race bait the party into a flame war). You either play by ALL the rules, or NONE of them. The rules are, by definition an all or nothing thing, i.e. you can't pick which ones you are going to follow and which ones you are not (except if you are George Bush and impeachment is taken OFF the table by the HERO :sarcasm: Pelosi).

If you'd kept reading, you would have found the section explaining that any state who moved it's primary/caucus to a date earlier than allowed by the DNC rules, must have their primary/caucus dates approved by the DNC Rules Committee. Florida and Michigan asked to have their primaries approved along with the others and were denied. This was accomplished very early in the process. Early enough for the Dem Parties of both states to change their dates. Early enough for the Dem Parties of both states to understand the consequences if they failed.

The other states didn't break the rules. They followed the rules. Forty-eight states submitted their delegate selection plans for approval and had zero problems.

Oh, and if you actually read ALL the rules carefully, you'll see that the minimum penalty for failing to comply with the delegate selection rules is loss of half of the state's delegates. In these two cases, FL & MI, the rules committee decided that their flagrant disregard for the rules and belligerent attitudes should cost them all of their delegates.

There have been fact-based discussions all over DU about the primary process and how FL and MI created their own problems. It doesn't take much searching to find them. I'd suggest you start with madfloridian's journal if you really want the skinny. She has been chronicling this since it all began last fall.

Somehow, I have a feeling you won't bother.

Hillary can't claim any delegates in Michigan if hers was the only name on the ballot. That's absurd.

The re-votes would have to occur on or before June 10th. While not technically impossible, it would be extremely implausible from a logistical point of view for re-votes to occur by then. I wish we would have had a real contest here, but the time to push for re-votes was last year after the ruling came down. Waiting until after they exhausted every possible way of getting the invalid contests counted to start asking for another try is just opportunistic blather.

My guess is that neither really does, though. Obama wants to keep his cash for the general, and Clinton doesn't want to loan herself another 11 mill for the sake of the voter.

THAT sounds fair.

:eyes:

uggh

just sayin.

It was stupid for the DNC to say people's votes wouldn't count. The average voter (millions of people) have zero control over when a primary is held. The only thing we can do is vote. Personally, I'm sick and tired of VT, NH, and IA going first every year for decades and having a de facto disproportionate role in picking candidates. Last I heard there are 50 states, not 3 super states and 47 lessor states.

There ought to be a random round-robin rotation each election cycle as to the order of the primaries.

Posted by someone that lives in a big square, fly-over, state.

The re vote should be scheduled for Nov 4th. In fact, all the other 48 states should get a re vote on that date too. Plus all the caucuses will be turned into open primaries. That's fair.

That's the ONLY fair way. Or is somebody actually going to attempt to convince me that a fair, verifiable election result can come out of FLORIDA??

Seriously.... Caucus in both states. Let's have them on a Sunday afternoon. If you're a churchgoer, and your church just happens to be the same place you vote, what could be easier? Sunday would minimize the number of people who would be working and would miss the caucus. (Sadly, there's no way you could ever hold a caucus where nobody had to work, even if you had it on Christmas))

No Diebolding. No hanging chads. Just a bunch of enthusiastic Democratic citizens turning out for their candidate. What the Hell could be more American?

How about voting, on a secret ballot.

No having to be in a particular place at a particular time. No peer pressure. That would be more American.

with independent counting and verification, then fine.

But that's not the way elections are done in Florida, is it?

And that's not even getting into the "ethnic cleansing" of the voter rolls done by Jeb & Cruella back in 2000, which have yet to be undone, as far as I know.

As far as I'm concerned, they broke the rules, and they did so deliberately with the intention of gaming the primary for Hillary. There's no fucking way in Hell that any re-do, if allowed at all, is going to be done on DIEBOLD machines or any other easy to steal process.

And you can't ensure that a caucus isn't rigged. the existence of voting machines isn't automatic proof of election fraud. I have no reason to believe that caucuses are more honest.

Secret ballots/ On-line voting available.

Hillary would win BOTH those states again, even with the MSM in the tank for the O-man and his campaign awash in latte money. BRING IT ON!

You might need some sort of exorcism.

get to set new rules in place after the game is OVER..

Seat ALL their delegates as NON-VOTING delegates..Strip them of their supers for this go-round..

Let the supers have a delicious buffet and free valet parking & front row seats, but nothing else..

NO popular vote (as if it EVER counted before :eyes: )

THEY KNEW THE RULES AND CHOSE TO BREAK THEM..

Let the state voters deal with their party bosses this November when they vote "for real"..

Obama would LOVE to have voters in those states vote for HIM, but in truth, he does not NEED them ..

The number was 2025 for the WHOLE race, and now that it's over, it should STILL be 2025..not some new bullshit number the LOSER wants put into place :grr:

If the rules committee yields on this, it will be game over in 2010. The primary will become a free for all and the DNC will have lost all credibility.

Hillary already tried to get a revote...FL and WI states both refused...too expensive! If I remember correctly...I can count on you to correct me if I'm wrong...Obama didn't want a revote...it was Hillary who tried to put her money where her mouth is. Again, it was Obama who was afraid he'd lose.

Lie #1: The Obama campaign "blocked a revote in Michigan"

In fact, the Clinton campaign opposed plans for the caucuses that were Michigan's back-up plan all along if it lost its game of chicken with the DNC (although state party officials were always dubious about how they could manage the logistics if it came down to such a revote).

Serious talk of revotes only began immediately after Senator Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4, as her only path to victory in the primaries:

March 6, 2008: BREAKING: MI Caucus Likely, Says DNC Rules Committee Member

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

"They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."

Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.

But caucuses don't tend to be advantageous to Senator Clinton. At this point she was still adamant there would be no re-do in Florida, and no caucuses in Michigan:

March 7, 2008: Clinton Says ‘No’ to a Caucus Do-Over

Hillary Clinton says the Democratic Party is stuck in a very tough spot as party leaders debate whether—and how—to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan at the nominating convention this August. And Clinton's latest comments, in an interview with U.S. News yesterday, won't make resolving the fuss any easier.

Many Democrats want a revote in both states, since the Democratic National Committee disqualified all their delegates because the states' primaries were held too early in violation of party rules. Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified—but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."

While Clinton nixed caucuses, the Obama campaign – and many local officials - rejected the idea proposed by Clinton surrogate Gov. Jennifer Granholm for "firehouse primaries." "Firehouse primaries" are more complicated than caucuses, and state party officials feared they would be too expensive and logistically difficult for the state party to manage on its own within such a short time frame:

March 7, 2008: State Democratic chairman: Obama opposes Michigan ‘do-over’ plan

"This would be a much bigger operation than anything we've done in the past," Brewer said. "Because of the stakes I could foresee a couple million people showing up to vote. We'd have to rent as many as 1,000 sites and we'd have to hire and train staff. We couldn't do it with volunteers."

Next came the idea of a mail-in ballot – for Michigan at least, since Clinton surrogates rejected it for Florida:

March 9, 2008: Party leaders weighing Michigan, Florida mail-in re-vote

(CNN) – Democratic leaders in Michigan and Florida suggested Sunday they might be moving toward a solution that would allow them to send voting delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention this summer....

On CNN’s Late Edition, Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — surrogates for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively — did not rule out the prospect. "We can't change (party) rules in the middle of this process," McCaskill told anchor Wolf Blitzer, but added that if party leaders "come up with a fair way to redo this, whatever they decide, the Obama campaign will respect" the new process.

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Clinton supporter, weighed in against the idea. "I would resist a re-vote for a couple of major reasons," she said on Fox News Sunday. "Number one, the re-vote that's being talked about right now would be a mail-in ballot. And we have never conducted a mail-in ballot in Florida. And in an election that is this important, an experiment like that is — now is not the time to test that."

Clinton surrogates Gov. Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania offered to raise funding for the revotes, which some Obama supporters have objected to as potentially prejudicial for the outcome. That seems a non-issue to me, since the Obama camp was expected to raise the other half of the money.

What ended up derailing the Michigan revote was that either a firehouse primary or a mail-in primary would have meant excluding Democrats and independents who had asked for GOP ballots in the Jan. 15 primary:

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 in the Democratic one.

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 in a do-over election, voters would have to sign a statement saying they hadn't voted in the GOP primary.

That could hurt Obama more, since his supporters were more likely than Clinton's to have crossed over to vote in the GOP primary. Obama has had more success than Clinton attracting the votes of independents and Republicans in states where they could vote in Democratic contests....

Seventeen Democratic state House members said Tuesday they have concerns about holding another election, including disenfranchising Democrats who voted in the Republican primary.

"These people that chose to vote in that Republican primary in January did so after being told by the DNC that the Democratic primary did not count. They weren't told that if they participated in a Republican primary they wouldn't be eligible to participate in a redo that was going to happen in June," said state Rep. Matt Gillard, an Obama supporter.

Michigan has open primaries, in which voters can cross over and vote in whichever party's primary they wish. Aside from the software and logistical problems involved with carrying out the revote within the time required was the problem with the proposed revote legislation itself (PDF). It excluded voters who had decided not to vote in the primary they were told was invalid and that didn't have the majority of the candidates on the ballot. Anyone who hadn't wanted to vote for Clinton and who wanted to vote for Obama back on Jan. 15 didn't have a chance to at that time. Those voters were the ones with the most incentive to cross over and vote in the GOP primary instead. And those are precisely the people who would have been excluded by the proposed revote legislation.

Acknowledging the difficulties with the proposed Michigan revote plan, and its inherent unfairness, only 2 of 17 state senators agreed to support it, effectively finishing it off.

Then, as if that weren't enough, a March 26 federal ruling blocked access to the voter lists the state Democratic Party needed to manage who could and could not participate in the revote:

DETROIT -- A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.

Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said the ruling may have ended any chances of a new Democratic election to resolve the ongoing dispute over the state's delegation to the Democratic National Convention. The state party, he said, needs the list to ensure that no one who voted in the Republican primary in January votes in any new Democratic contest, as required under the national party's rules.

"If the Michigan Democratic Party cannot get the lists, then our friends at the ACLU may have driven the final nail in the coffin of any re-vote in Michigan," Brewer said.

So the truth is that Hillary Clinton blocked Michigan's plan for caucuses because she doesn't do well in caucuses, and Barack Obama resisted legislation for the Michigan revote that would have targeted his supporters for disenfranchisement. But in the end what blocked a revote was the logistical and legal difficulties of holding a new vote that would be accepted by all parties as legitimate.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/31/133713/743/784/...

and yes, they are UNDEMOCRATIC as hell and useless in the overall picture of electability and viability.

By your logic, Obama or surrogates blocked primary re-votes because they tend to not turn out as well for his campaign, therefore one can surmise he was afraid of getting his ass handed to him again and not being able to lean on the DNC to bail him out.

Both candidates want what is in THEIR best interest, it is a contest, one that is being run by people with agendas on ALL sides, so in short, IT'S POLITICS !!

The largest problem I see with the Obama camp is the demonizing of Bill Clinton (you do realize he left office with a 70%+ approval rating and Dems do not constitute 70% of the populace right?) which by definition tells the independents and republicans that loved the CLinton years that what the Dems are going to run is anti-thema to that prosperity (great plan btw :sarcasm: ) which I think will bite the Dems on the ass come GE time. Also, the praise (even faint) of Reagan made me want to hurl coupled with the denigration of Clinton is how the Dems lost the last two elections (winning formula = Clinton , Dems formula = anything but Clinton, and people wonder why the Dems keep losing) and IMO, doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is by definition insane.

Thanks for admitting that she didn't want to seat the delegates for MI

As SoonerPride keeps pointing out. As the DNC has allowed 3 other states to break the rules and continue to not be penalized, they should seat the delegates (which seats all MI for Clinton as no one else reached the 15% threshold to have delegates seated and were not forced to remove their name from the ballot) OR remove the delegates from NH, Iowa and SC who also broke the rules.

Prove that NH, IA and Sc broke rules.

This ought to be fun

Those states got permission to move their primary dates ahead and MI and FL didn't. But those three states have somehow "broken the rules."

I tell you, logic and fact are sorely lacking in these discussions these days. And Hillary Clinton keeps counting on it to prop up her campaign.

I know why the republicans cut education funds.....so the ignorant masses ar easier to manipulate, but JFC this crap scares me.

People can't be THIS DUMB, can they?

Sadly, it appears they are.

It's a waste of time and money. How about a campaign in Fl and MI to elect dems that know how to follow rules?

...voting fairly is not the way of the Chicago machine.

...machine politics.

NGU.

Told that the Dem primary didn't count, many Dems crossed over to vote in the Republican primary.

Then, when they tried to float a re-vote, those Dems would be disenfranshised from voing for the Dem nominee of their choice (Clinton Or Obama) so it was wholly unsuitable as an option.

Thank you!!!!

:hi:

we count the votes, she gets her delegates, and we're done.

and actually get done?


no thanks.

sorry, i want to win in november.... not deciding who won after we bent the rules(altho it would still be Obama).