Party-Run Do-Over May Now Be Dead In Michigan

They have nobody to blame but themselves. They CHOSE to marginalize themselves. Period.

People
Well it wasn’t Obama who stoped the revote. He wanted to include those who may have voted in the republican primary because the Dem primary was to be a non-counter. Clinton as we remember wanted to exclude them.
Now as we see the courts have ruled that information is not for public consumption hence ther Clinton Campaign can’t exclude them, so we are still at and impass.
How is that Obam’s Fault?

Excluding non-dem voters is long-standing DNC rule, not Clinton’s rule. By the way, what is Obama afraid of if only dem voters are allowed to re-vote?
Just read Detroit local news papers. you will know that everyone thinks it is Obama’s fault.
He is fatally flawed anyway. If he is dem nominee, no hope for dem in WH.

People,
Not hardly! Weather a State has an open primary. Michigan is one, is up to the state Democratic Party. Not the DNC!

Obama has always said he would adhere to whatever the DNC propose that was fair.. stop blaming Obama campaign, it is MI and FL fault from the begin.

caucus is unfair,
Primary Texas: Clinton win by 4% but lost 10% in caucus.
Washington: Clinton lost by about 30% in caucus but only 5% in primary.
There is no caucus in GE, far fewer people particpate in caucus, why using caucus as a way to determine who is the strongest candidate?

You know, I think it is time to take any authority whatsoever out of the hands of both The Republican and Democratic National Committees. It’s too late for this election. But States rights be damned. If we as a nation are ever to have fair and balanced electoral process then we must set the rules at the federal level and impose them on the states. The State and the party committees can no longer be relied upon to produce a fair election. Too many hat tricks and scams. It would be in the nations best interest to abolish party management and set new uniform rules.

Caucuses are cool.
They are a traditional American form of choosing leaders.
Caucuses are easier to run. Just line up for head count. No crazy voting machines or anything.

@tomdavie:
What you are saying would be true if Senator Clinton hasn’t already been claiming Michigan as a victory, even though the election was worse than a banana republic (at least there, the other candidates have their name on the ballot!)
She has gotten plenty of political mileage out of this however, but the gas is running out. Do you really believe that Senator Clinton would be trying so hard to seat Michigan delegates if she was in Senator Obama’s shoes?

Tom, this is not Obama’s fault. He does want them seated. If Hillary wasn’t behind she wouldn’t care about those votes. She only cares now that it benefits her.

Caucuses are a joke.
Caucuses are characterized by intimidation, misrepresentation of actual voter preference, and disenfranchisement of voters.
Conversely, a private ballot cast in a primary is done so without crowd pressure, shows individual voter intention, and allows for increased voter participation.

So the Obama campaign didn’t give the legislature the go ahead for a re-vote, and now their votes won’t count. And Obama preaches about the voice of the people, let the people decide, and now he goes back on his word. And everyone calls Clinton a hypocrite!!! Are you kidding me?!? Come on people, it’s really Obama that’s destroying the party. This newcomer shows up with little experience and a call for “change” and everyone flocks to him. It’ll be a sad day when Obama becomes the nominee. I’m not going to vote for McCain because I don’t support his views, but surely am not going to support Obama when nobody knows anything about him!
If Obama gets the nomination, then I didn’t leave the Party, the Party left ME.
Hillary ’08

I’ve always admired Hillary Clinton, through the scandals and all she kept her poise; but she needs to consider the image she portrays lately. I’m seeing a new Hillary, one not so admirable.

Regarding failure to seat delegates from all states:
Not only will the DNC actions result in lost votes, legal challenges will impugn the legitimacy of the Democratic presidential nominee whoever that may be.
Those same legal challenges will be present and unresolved through the November election and result in the Democratic candidate being seen by voters as less than credible and not deserving of support.

I seems as if the leadership of the DNC don’t understand that it was they who hurt the party, and still is hurting the party.
Hillary ’08

I will support caucus when the general is conducted through caucuses, not one day sooner.

I do believe the caucus is an unfair system. And, I’m not saying that just because I’m a Clinton supporter. What is so hard about letting people just simply vote in a primary?
Hillary ’08

Jayhawk-I’m with you brother!
MIguy-I prefer to let the voters of MI have their say before writing them off. Regard to conceding to Obama stay tuned. All us Hillary supporters will be right here whether Hillary or Obama wins. If Obama then no change in our posture.

@Jonath & Jayhawk:
I’ve never been in a caucus, so don’t really know the allure. From what I have heard, however, is that those who attend feel the ‘spirit of democracy’ in that they can more than cast their ballot – they can make a statement. So, I guess it would be like the difference between having ABC just poll us on this issue and show yes/no votes and ABC having a blog where we get to say why we vote our view. Caucuses, for better and worse, bring out the passionate supporters of candidates who ultimately are the most likely to vote in the general election. So, I won’t tell Iowa and the others how to do their business. Texas seems crazy to me, but that’s their business. I like our primaries in Michigan.

@GS:
I would’ve thought it hard for Senators Obama and Clinton to ‘kiss and make up’ at this point, but Reagan and Bush did it in 1980 even though it was clear they didn’t like each other.

@DCVoter:
Good to see your informed posts as always. The point is that no politician is completely clean and Senator Obama and Clinton are both politicians.
As for the historical footnotes, they are interesting but before the era of superdelegates. One would expect that no matter the outcome of this nomination, the process will be reevaluated.

MIguy:
We had caucus in my state, and I did not feel comfortable with the process and feel that it did not provide accurate representation.
The atmosphere was one of belittlement and intimidation with little or no opportunity for input from any group other than the majority in attendance.
Basically, the outcome of the caucus was decided before the doors ever opened.
What other states do politically is their business, and I respect their sovereignty and yours.
But, I must maintain the position that caucus is an outdated tool that does not promote the democratic process in candidate selection.

MIguy – I realize they were before supers but the balloting at the convention is no different. Every delegate counts (super or not). I read an article recently that reports several senior dems have asked Pelosi to retract her position and asked her to stop interfering in the process. LOL

Jajhawk–I’D like to know where you are getting your information??? Because I have not seen or read any where– that the DNC wants or has asked “HILLARY” to drop out.It would be nice if she did.Not a Clinton fan

Purposes of the superdelegate creation per history of the DNC is specifically related to the landslide defeat of McGovern and incumbent Carter:
1. To increase the sense of order and avert a crisis at the Convention.
2. To get party officials more involved with the eventual nominee.
3. To nominate a candidate who can win.
4. To check against a plurality, factional candidate who does not reflect the prevailing sentiment of the electorate.
In summary, the cure lead by McGovern to have voters elect party delegates was worse than the division in 1968. This is why superdelegates were created. Based on their purposes above, I think the premise of superdelegates voting based on their judgment is sound.

@DCVoter:
I’m no supporter of Pelosi, and as I’ve noted before I believe the superdelegates should vote their judgment. Where we disagree is that I believe they should do it sooner rather than later because the party hurts its chances in the general election the longer they wait (something like 9 out of the last 10 elections).
As for the polls, I’m amused because there have been dueling interpretations of the recent polls which I find comical and irrelevant. For example, you neglect Senator Clinton’s very high negative numbers. If Clinton/Obama supporters switch to McCain, then they really weren’t Democrats anyway. Or at least they weren’t voting on the issues.

The poll in question was a national one if I recall correctly. As such it is including a sample generally excluded from the Democratic primaries/caucuses and worrisome for the national election not the nominating process. To my knowledge, Senator Clinton’s favorable ratings are much higher among Democrats and this is borne out in the current process.
I won’t argue against Obama being liberal, but Clinton can’t argue she is a moderate when she and Obama agree on most every issue. Some would say her view on healthcare is more liberal than Obama.
I am not saying that SDs endorse in the beginning of the campaign. And, as you said, they should exercise their own judgment. But, I don’t believe the endorsements matter that much (and at least Mark Penn doesn’t think so either). And sure, if the ‘political meteor’ hits either candidate then change votes at the convention. At this point, there are not enough SDs to let either candidate win and don’t you think they would split them? Clinton will win PA and all the talk of frontrunners and stealing the election stops. Each of the remaining elections becomes hugely important and they will decide the nominee. How could anyone cry foul?

@James RR:
No disrespect, but please read some of the earlier posts above. Technically, primaries are not in the constitution but your point is well taken. Thanks for your concern about us in Michigan, but we’re okay – really. This really is not a big issue here.

The negatives I assumed you were referring to were based on Clinton vs. Obama and Clinton vs. McCain. I agree, the numbers we will see for the remaining races will likely make the race tighter and I think they will not only prove neither is a frontrunner and neither can be accused of stealing the nomination but they will also prove that the socalled high negatives (which I dont agree with as being valid) are irrelevant to voting preferences.
As for the “negatives”, historically they have little to do with electability. Kerry had low negatives but couldnt beat Bush. Clinton, even with socalled high negatives, remains competitive with Obama and McCain. It is not likely her negatives will go up much if at all either.
Just another polling note that I found amusing… 22% of dems want Clinton out and 22% of dems want Obama out. I guess we should assume there is no overlap and that 56% of dems want it to continue.

The Commander Guy,
Again, I agree caucus would be better than nothing, but there are problems with caucuses. A lot of working class people are excluded, if its run on a Saturday, because they have to work.
========================================
Q: Which presidential candidate has not lifted a finger to ensure that Michigan and Florida voters are heard in this election?
A: Obama, he knows he would lose in a re-vote!
=======================================

The funny thing is that even if there were a party for independents, my guess is that most would take the George Washington approach and avoid political parties.

LOL MIguy
History shows most names are used in some way so a new name is not easy. We cant copy the canadians and use New Democratic Party.
If we used New American Party we would get accused of NAPping all the time.
We cant use the BiPartisan Party without alarming right wingers who think it justifies what they believe as sinful (the bi part). LOL

I’m surprised how few of you people really get it. What these two states did wasn’t a bad thing. Michigan and Florida moving up their primaries isn’t the problem here. The problem is a system that promotes the vast monority of voters in a few small states be permitted to choose presidential candidates and leaving the rest of us without a voice. Michigan and Florida should be applauded for trying to allow their citizens a chance to participate in the process.
The DNC has disenfranchised voters. This PA Democrat will be going to the polls in April but if something hasn’t changed as far as these two states there will be no vote for Obama or Clinton. If we choose a nominee and the voters of these two states are left out in the cold then there will be no vote for a Dem candidate then either and the DNC will have no-one to blame for their November loss but themselves.

double LOL -
What we need is a name with universal appeal. Kissing babies is a political staple but nowadays we’d be branded as child molesters.
Strength party? We’d be accused of supporting legalization of steroids (and weed by insinuation).
Starfleet? Too futuristic and fruity.
I think that the clear reason that there is no viable 3rd party is that no one can think up a name for one.

LOL Miguy, you might be right… I am partial to Bablyon 5 era myself… so a take off from that would be something like the Alliance Party.

hahahaha! Can’t trust the Centrists after all!

Superdelegates need a MIND and a VOICE of their own.
They should not vote with the people.
Who needs a bunch of MINDLESS and VOICELESS superdelegates.
There is nothing SUPER about being MINDLESS and VOICELESS.
FREEDOM TO VOTE is a RIGHT for everyone, including superdelegates.

Which presidential candidate has not lifted a finger to ensure that voters in Michigan and Florida are not disenfranchised? I’ll give you a clue, his name rhymes with llama.

MIguy: i like your posts. one can tell you apply some rational thinking to your posts. many others on this comment board seem to not truly apply logic or rational thinking when it comes to posting.
senator obama and senator clinton are not to blame for the fiasco of FL and MI. i am so sick and tired of all the blame being thrown at the candidates, particularly at senator obama for a re-vote not being cast. the truth is, each candidate will do what is best for THEIR campaign. if hillary thinks a re-vote will benefit her, then DUH!! of course she will want a re-vote. if a revote may hurt barack, then DUH!! of course he wouldn’t be pushing for a re-vote. c’mon people, THINK! use your brains! stop being so silly and angry at the candidates and stop holding them responsible.
since each candidate will only move in a direction that benefits them, then the only honest route to take would be for the government officials and the courts of the FL and MI to negotiate with the DNC directly. we cannot leave the final decision making up to senator clinton or senator obama because they will ONLY chose a path that is beneficial for them. and the DNC cannot place the decision making in the candidates hands either. it won’t work.
so everyone needs to stop with the foolish threats of what they will and will not do when the general election comes around. all this anger and talk of “disenfranchisement” is getting to be annoying. the only people who should be truly feeling the brunt of rage and anger of the people are NOT senator clinton and NOT senator obama, it should be governor charlie crist of FL and governor jennifer granholm of MI. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED IT AL UP!!
if the people of MI and FL truly want their voices heard, then fight to the dickens to get these two knuckle heads (crist and granholm) thrown out of office!!

“if hillary thinks a re-vote will benefit her, then DUH!! of course she will want a re-vote. if a revote may hurt barack, then DUH!! of course he wouldn’t be pushing for a re-vote. c’mon people, THINK! use your brains! stop being so silly and angry at the candidates and stop holding them responsible.”
________________________________________
This is exactly the mentality that befuddles me. This issue isn’t about what is right for Hillary and it isn’t about what is right for Obama. It’a about what is right for voters. Neither of them should take a stand because of how it affects them. They should stand up for the premise that every vote should count. I bet they applied that argument to the 2000 fiasco in Florida. Now we, as voters, should expect less?
I do hold them responsible because they should be in front of the cameras every single day screaming for the right of voters no matter how it applies to their campaign. The longer they fail to do so is the farther I get away from voting for either of them in the general election………….. and just to note; I have never voted for a Republican candidate for President but that could all change very soon.

People forget that there are existing laws in each state governing elections and nominations of public officials. These laws not only cover cost and procedures, they guard against the circumvention of said rules, no matter what the public sentiment or perceived slight. This is the essence of a fair election. All parties, in simplest terms, know the ground rules ahead of time. In addition, each political party have their own rules and bylaws. Now, to that end:
Did the DNC unfairly exclude FLA and MI from the nominating process? They simply upheld their own agreed upon established party rules. Did the two states knowingly ignore party rules? Absolutely. These facts cannot be repudiated.
Having said that, even if the DNC wants to exercise its own escape clause for a revote (as is their right under their own bylaws), it is still ultimately under the jurisdiction of state law. This is why a mail-in revote in FLA is unlawful, and why the courts rightfully upheld MI Procedural Law in this decision.
The Obama Campaign is not blocking revotes. They are simply asking that the existing rules of the DNC and the laws of the states be upheld. The Clinton camp had legitimate remedies to hold revotes under the DNC bylaws, but ultimately they were done in by the very codicils they agreed upon when they started this race.
Now that it has been firmly established there will be no revotes in either state, The bylaws and procedures of the DNC come to the fore. The rules firmly establish that total delegates determine the party nominee. Not total votes, not states won, not size of states. They also stipulate that the so called Super Delegates have the authority to act independently and are unencumbered by their state’s voting results, despite protestations of the Obama camp. In addition, the Clinton camp is correct in asserting that even pledged delegates can act independently of the vote. It is, however, highly unlikely this fact is relevant since each side chooses the delegate they are awarded, and it is highly unlikely even one delegate designated by their own party would defect to the other side. To even discuss this probability is a waste of time.
Now to reality:
The Democratic Party runs a proportional nominating process, having many of the characteristic of European Parliamentary elections. In other words, delegates are awarded based on the percentage of the primary vote or caucus each candidate attains in each contest. In addition, it also allows the states to choose which method will determine said proportions. These “ground rules”, if you will, determine how many delegates are distributed to each candidate. These rules have not only been established for a long time, but were ratified by the DNC and were agreed upon by each candidate prior to the contest. This means each candidate knows whether a state is running a caucus or a primary, knows how delegates are awarded, and knows the schedule of all contest and the entire nominating process well in advance.
Taking all of this into account, the indisputable fact is this nomination will be determined by the Super Delegates, since the race so far has been so tight that neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates at the end of the process to reach the amount needed to seal the nomination. As I have stated earlier, these Super Delegates have freedom to choose at their own discretions.
Neither the Clinton or Obama supporters can dispute these facts.
Now, the unfortunate reality for the Clinton campaign is that it is almost impossible for their candidate to get the necessary pledged delegates in the remaining 10 contests to catch Barack Obama. As Nancy Pelosi correctly stated and I reiterated above, it is delegates that nominate, not states or popular vote. Pelosi, as well as many Super Delegates have clearly stated that they would not usurp the will of the people represented by the pledged delegate count, as this would cause great harm to the Democratic Party.
The inevitable conclusion is, and must be, that despite protestations and groundless “interpretations” otherwise, the race for the Democratic nomination is over. The undisputed winner will be Barack Obama, and no amount of spin or conjecture can change that.
It is what it is.

Ah………….So it’s really the Democrats who don’t COUNT ALL THE VOTES.
And all these years and decades of the Democrats and their pals in our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press have ALWAYS IMPLIED that only the GOP did this. Which had always been a LIE. A LIE that was repeated over and over and over again until folks thought it to be true.
This is how propaganda works.

@RightToBeCounted:
i feel for you people in FL and MI, i really do, but NO WAY do i support a re-vote of any kind in your states. 48 other states followed the rules and your states CHOSE to BREAK the rules!! my state followed the rules. it is your silly governors that did that to you. next time follow the dag gone rules!
your governors tried gambling by playing poker with the DNC. the DNC let ALL parties know with CLEAR TERMS: IF YOU JUMP AHEAD OF YOUR PRIMARY DATE ALREADY SET UP FOR YOU THEN YOUR DELEGATES WILL BE STRIPPED! c’mon, what part of that did MI and FL not understand??
now the DNC called your bluff and your gambling did not work. i’m sorry for you all. i really am, the governors of your states played with their own people. they shut you out, but rules were laid out to be followed. and this is the consequences. next time- PLAY BY THE RULES!!

TOM
Barack Obama Is electable in fact he will be the next President of United States.

Obama is not to blame for this. If was the politicians of fl and mi not the people. For those of you who say you won’t vote for Obama if he wins the nom., that is crazy. Are you that against a black man being president that you would suffer another 4 years of Bush? I am saddened but this, if it is that much hatred for Obama then our country does have a long way to go. Now that is not what you call patrotic!

The news media has continuously aired a few seconds of Rev Wright’s sermon and has distorted his character and damaged Obama’s candidacy; it appears intentionally because it is still being played and discussed distortedly by your staff.
The American people deserve to judge for themselves the true character of Rev Wright. Why has your staff not played the entire sermon so the American people can truly judge this man correctly? The news media has also neglected to say this is one sermon of hundreds that occurred many years ago. I do not agree with Rev Wright’s position, but we must hear this sermon in its entirety. The news media can not elect our candidate. It appears that is what you are trying to do. We all should be on an equal playing field in American.
Concerned American.

I would be extremely upset that my vote didn’t count because a handful of representatives from both of these states got in a ####### match with Howard Dean. A fine example of the types of “brilliant leaders” the dems always manage to vote for.

WE HAVE 50 STATES—NOT 48!
Obama was on the Florida ticket. He ran national ads there, so he did campaign.
The DNC should count Florida’s votes.
The DNC should allow Michigan to re-vote!

LET THE VOTES STAND!!! There have been too many rigged elections in America while Bubba Bush was running.