A Last Minute Hurdle Erected In Michigan?

The proposed primaru re-vote legislation in Michigan prevents those who've voted in the Republican primary from voting in the re-vote.

Fair enough, right?

But about 32% of the those who vote in the GOP primary, according to the exit polls, were Democrats or independents.

It's a fair bet that many of them were Obama supporters, as he was not on the original Michigan ballot.

This could be a dealbreaker for the Obama campaign in Michigan.

Michigan Democrats have said that they won't move the bill the forward unless the Obama campaign gives its assent.

I'm told the Obama campaign is reviewing this part of the legislation....

Comments

I admit it: this is a tough one. And I'll toss it on the DNC--I haven't complained much about the handling, mostly blaming it on the states, but this is a point where a much more proactive stance on what would and would not count would have helped.

Sigh. If only TX and OH could have defeated Clinton, this would mostly be about arranging furniture.

Posted by Deborah | March 17, 2008 4:40 PM

The Kos "Vote Mitt" strategy comes back to haunt us, eh?

Posted by Chris O. | March 17, 2008 4:40 PM

As an Obama supporter I'd be wary of opening up a re-vote to voters who participated in the GOP primary. The Obama supporters that would net (whether they were Kossacks voting Mitt or Obama-inclined Independents) would likely be canceled out or overwhelmed by mischief-making Limbaugh listeners. Keep it closed to those who participated in the GOP primary.

Posted by 45rpm | March 17, 2008 4:50 PM

How out of line is that with crossover turnout in other states? As I recall, usually the percentage of independents has been between 20 and 30%. That doesn't seem that far out of line.

And given the rise of the Limbaugh effect if I were Obama I'd want those voters excluded anyway.

And again, under any circumstancnes, Obama's not going to lose Michigan by more than 20, which means a net of 20-25 delegates for Clinton. My best-case-for Clinton scenario gives here another 30 through the remaining non-Florida states. That would drop Obama's lead to about 115. And again, this is all the best case scenario; I think the balance of probabilities is that Michigan is closer to a tie.

Chris O: the exit polling showed that indies and Democrats voted for McCain, just as they did everywhere else.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 17, 2008 4:54 PM

Every now and then you have to step back and evaluate how we got to this point.

6 months ago Hillary agreed that Florida and Michigan should not be seated. Caucuses were just part of the Democratic process. The voter's were supposed to pick our candidate. All states mattered.

Today, Hillary has done a great job at changing all of this b/c we're all discussing if Florida and Michigan should be seated... we're all discussing if caucuses are fair at all b/c of Obama's w/l ratio... and almost half of all voters now actually think that party elitists don't have to remain faithful to the voter's will. On top of that, apparently there are only 9 out of 50 states that matter.

For someone who is relatively new to politics, I totally understand the Republican feelings for the Clintons now. To see how much the most influencial Democratic couple can manipulate the Democratic process makes me hesitant to proudly claim myself as a Democrat anymore.

Luckily, there's hope and his name is Barack.

Posted by Blake | March 17, 2008 5:03 PM

What Blake said. Except I'm not new to politics, I defended the Clintons all thru the long, long 90s and I'm still disgusted at the levels to which they are now sinking. Enough is enough!

I hope the superdelegates are listening to Speaker Pelosi. We can re-do Michigan, whatever, but Hillary's not gonna catch up. She's just not. This needs to be over.

Posted by Ruth | March 17, 2008 5:08 PM

I shudder to imagine what people in other parts of the world must think when they pick up their morning paper and learn that here in the United States we are actually having a serious conversation about whether to count the votes in an election when the candidates and the voters were told that the results would be meaningless.

How do we tell the children?

Posted by global yokel | March 17, 2008 5:15 PM

Guilty as charged...

I voted for McCain here in MI. I would not have voted in the GOP race, had there been an actual race on the Dem side. And I would NOT have voted for Hillary...

So I am one of those Indie voters that Obama would lose if the primary is closed...

Posted by K Dub | March 17, 2008 5:24 PM

Ack.....

If I'm someone in Michigan who voted in the Republican primary because I had been told (including by the candidates!) that my vote in the Democratic primary didn't matter, I think I'd be unhappy if I were prevented from voting in a newly scheduled primary. I was not informed of my options when making my decision.

In that light, let anyone who wants vote in the Democratic primary.

That said....if I'm Obama, I think I don't push this to the edge. The difference in delegates won't mean much it's in the interest of the party to have a vote.

Full disclosure...I am an Obama supporter.

Posted by Tony | March 17, 2008 5:28 PM

Isn't a compromise possible here? You can vote in the Dem primary if, but only if you are a registered Dem or an independent -- regardless of whether you voted in the Repub primary. If you are a Republican who voted in the Repub primary, you are done.

Posted by RaymondA | March 17, 2008 5:31 PM

This problem was created by Michigan's and Florida's politicians. The responsibility for this should fall on their heads, not the DNC and not the candidates'. Of course the candidates can't say that; Hillary has to perpetuate the idea that "There's still a chance if they re-vote or seat the delegates!" and Obama can't go telling voters to blame the people they voted into office, who happen to be superdelegates, whose delegates Obama needs.

One fair criticism that conservatives make of us progressives is that we draw a line in the sand, tell people not to cross it, and when they do, we say "Well, OK... but don't do it again!" This is another instance of that.

Posted by socctty | March 17, 2008 5:31 PM

Nicholas - I think this is beyond delegate math now. Hillary's managed to convince a lot of people that the nomination is about "the whole picture", which I assume she wants to mean "I won the big states." But if she gets that elusive quality of momentum - or even a claim to it - she'll be a bit more convincing to the party elites.

Of course, the whole picture includes delegates won, and independent support, and whatnot, but if she walks away with big wins in Michigan and Florida and Pennsylvania, people will start buying into her argument. I'm not saying that I support it, just that I think that's what she'll push.

Posted by socctty | March 17, 2008 5:43 PM

Only those voters whose votes really count should be allowed to participate in the re-vote.

Consequently, blacks, young people, independents, and white Democrats earning more than 50,000 a year should be excluded. None of these people really represent the voters that Democrats need to win a general election.

Posted by wj | March 17, 2008 5:49 PM

The crux of the issue is that Hillary cannot win the nomination outright; the delegate math precludes that possibility. So that leaves us to wonder how the Democratic Party could possibly survive if the superdelegates handed it to HRC in spite of Obama's lead. If that happened, the shit would hit the fan, to put it mildly. I have challenged Hillarites to respond with a realistic scenario, but none of them have come up with anything. They are hanging onto the fantasy.

Posted by eagleye | March 17, 2008 6:01 PM

Not that easy--you're no longer required to register in Michigan, and very few people are registered as R or D. Those exit polls are all from self-IDed I or D voters.

Posted by dt | March 17, 2008 6:03 PM

To ensure that Dems can vote, but minimizing the possibility of the Limbaugh effect pulling in too many Republicans, they should shut the the primary to Republicans. Let Dems and Independents vote (because, judging from the polls and demographics of every other state, many if not most Indy's would have, in all likelihood, voted Dem).

The Republicans cant vote for our nominee, and we enfranchise the voters we need (Dems and Indys) in the fall!

I should do this for a living =)

Posted by Kim | March 17, 2008 6:07 PM

If Michigan is pretending for the purposes of a revote that the Democratic primary never actually happened, I don't see why it shouldn't also pretend the Republican primary never happened, strictly for the purposes of the revote. That said, I'd be fine with the compromise of opening it to all Democrats and independents period, regardless of participation in the first primary, and keeping registered Republicans out.

Posted by jbryan | March 17, 2008 6:14 PM

For those working the delegate math, Florida just announced it isn't revoting, according to Ben Smith's blog. But what to do with those delegates isn't clear.

Posted by Deborah | March 17, 2008 6:14 PM

Hillary can't overcome the delegate math. She can't sell "the big picture idea" either.

This next couple weeks will be about ending all the Primary ambiguity concerning MI and FL, vetting Obama on Wright etc. and then the Party will get down to letting everyone know that it's not going to change it's process to let Hillary destroy the Party - Obama is ahead in delegates - he will be ahead with delegates on June 10th and the supers aren't going to change the will of the people as determined by the pledged delegate count. That's how the Party's nomination process works. Period. Dean and Pelosi are going to start to make that very clear to everyone - even Hillary's supporters.

Let her start a third party is she wants to run - but she's not going to be allowed to destroy the Democratic Party to get a shot at the WH.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 17, 2008 6:31 PM

To me this is a deal breaker for the Michigan re-vote.
Once again, the best option to seating the Michigan delegates in a fair and honest way is to simply split the vote 50/50 between the campaigns

Posted by doc1400 | March 17, 2008 6:31 PM

C. B. Todd, et al -

Do you guys think that the Dem. overlords will end things after Pennsylvania by naming Obama in a watershed of superdelegates? That'd be sort of anti-climactic, I think. It wouldn't wash in the public. The line would be, "But Hillary just won a fairly large swing state...!"

I would imagine that they'd wait for May 6th, and hand it over to Obama after NC and IN finish, as those are likely his. Otherwise, he'll go on to lose WV and KY a week later, and then he'll have OR on May 20th for them to try and fall in his direction again.

Posted by socctty | March 17, 2008 6:52 PM

Here's a novel idea. STICK TO THE RULES. It takes all the complexity out of this mess. Will a revote in MI set presidence for a revote in FL? Both of them broke the same rule. If I were the Obama camp I would say..HELLLLL NAW

Posted by Wayne | March 17, 2008 7:13 PM

The clintons are banking on the uncertainty and the hope that they can get 2 more elections in order to get more popular votes and take this thing to the convention. Obama wants this thing over. The DNC needs to halt all the revotes: cut the delegates in half, aportion the delegates 50/50 and strip the Superdelegates of their vote. This solves the problem: The DNC said that the votes wouldn't matter, so they won't. The FL and MI party activists get to go to the convention. But the leadership failed their constituencies. It was the Fl and MI politico's who failed the test politically. They, not democratic voters should bear the sanctions for not stopping their states from moving the primaries.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 17, 2008 7:29 PM

socctty - First things first. The overlords are going to send a message loud and clear to Hillary and to Hillary's supporters - you want to be the Democratic Party Nominee - you play by the Party rules. This is not about popular vote this is about delegates. We will not allow any shennanigans. That is the only metric that matters. It is the ONLY way the will of the people is measured by the Party.

Second, they will make clear that Superdelegates have never overridden the will of the people. Ever. (Mondale had more delegates than Hart when the supers added their votes etc.) And they will not now. That is why it is so important to finish vetting Obama now. To show that there is nothing that could be seen as so scandelous that he should not be allowed to be the nominee. (The only legitimate reason for supers to over ride the delegates.)

Then, expect the supers to begin to break so that by April 22nd - he is at least tied with PA. After May 6th or May 20th another group. But everyone will know what's happening before PA.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 17, 2008 7:42 PM

I agree with Ellen Hamm. I'm a registered Republican from Michigan, but I would have voted for Obama. Apathetically, I just stayed home and didn't vote for anyone. It seems the democratic process was put aside because "someone" wanted to force a different issue rather than let the people of our state exercise their rights. I became disenfranchised when I was not allowed to vote, as I had hoped, for the best candidate. My bitterness lies with Debbie Dingell, Carl Levin, and Jennifer Granholm. These elected officials, whom I have not respected from the beginning, continue to run our state into a deeper hole. I don't trust their judgment, and I abhor their politics. If their support for Clinton reflects the poor judgment we have seen in Michigan over time, I'd vote for anyone but Clinton. There is no fair way to seat the delegates at this point. Our Michigan elected officials screwed it up, and I support the DNC rules even if we aren't "counted." Clinton and all her elected supporters stink of arrogance -- no one is above the rules! If that is the case, what kind of example does that set for children, law breakers, traffic speeders..... Elected officials need to start setting a good example. I'm sick of the scandals and the mockery of our country. Everybody, start taking personal responsibility for your actions, whether positive or NEGATIVE! If you screwed it up, admit it, say you're sorry, and try to be a better person, who thinks of others as well as yourselves. Heaven help us all!

Posted by jr | March 17, 2008 7:58 PM

I agree with Ellen Hamm. I'm a registered Republican from Michigan, but I would have voted for Obama. Apathetically, I just stayed home and didn't vote for anyone. It seems the democratic process was put aside because "someone" wanted to force a different issue rather than let the people of our state exercise their rights. I became disenfranchised when I was not allowed to vote, as I had hoped, for the best candidate. My bitterness lies with Debbie Dingell, Carl Levin, and Jennifer Granholm. These elected officials, whom I have not respected from the beginning, continue to run our state into a deeper hole. I don't trust their judgment, and I abhor their politics. If their support for Clinton reflects the poor judgment we have seen in Michigan over time, I'd vote for anyone but Clinton. There is no fair way to seat the delegates at this point. Our Michigan elected officials screwed it up, and I support the DNC rules even if we aren't "counted." Clinton and all her elected supporters stink of arrogance -- no one is above the rules! If that is the case, what kind of example does that set for children, law breakers, traffic speeders..... Elected officials need to start setting a good example. I'm sick of the scandals and the mockery of our country. Everybody, start taking personal responsibility for your actions, whether positive or NEGATIVE! If you screwed it up, admit it, say you're sorry, and try to be a better person, who thinks of others as well as yourselves. Heaven help us all!

Posted by jr | March 17, 2008 7:58 PM

I agree with Ellen Hamm. I'm a registered Republican from Michigan, but I would have voted for Obama. Apathetically, I just stayed home and didn't vote for anyone. It seems the democratic process was put aside because "someone" wanted to force a different issue rather than let the people of our state exercise their rights. I became disenfranchised when I was not allowed to vote, as I had hoped, for the best candidate. My bitterness lies with Debbie Dingell, Carl Levin, and Jennifer Granholm. These elected officials, whom I have not respected from the beginning, continue to run our state into a deeper hole. I don't trust their judgment, and I abhor their politics. If their support for Clinton reflects the poor judgment we have seen in Michigan over time, I'd vote for anyone but Clinton. There is no fair way to seat the delegates at this point. Our Michigan elected officials screwed it up, and I support the DNC rules even if we aren't "counted." Clinton and all her elected supporters stink of arrogance -- no one is above the rules! If that is the case, what kind of example does that set for children, law breakers, traffic speeders..... Elected officials need to start setting a good example. I'm sick of the scandals and the mockery of our country. Everybody, start taking personal responsibility for your actions, whether positive or NEGATIVE! If you screwed it up, admit it, say you're sorry, and try to be a better person, who thinks of others as well as yourselves. Heaven help us all!

Posted by jr | March 17, 2008 7:58 PM

C. B. Todd - I agree with your sentiments, but I don't think the overlords will send a loud and clear message about the rules, as they haven't done so yet!

Everyone is amusing the Clinton camp about the idea of a re-vote, and Obama sort of has to go along with the idea of it, because "disenfranchisement" strikes such a chord with Floridian Democrats. It doesn't hurt him to go along with it, because he knows she can't catch him; really, the idea of a re-vote is just enough to get her to collect cash to fund this charade she calls a campaign. A re-vote for the states really does her no good, unless she wins both by a double-digit margin, and even then, she'd only have a claim to "momentum".

I guess this development with Florida is a good thing, in that it starts putting to rest this re-vote idea. Unfortunately, the idea of a seating the FL (and maybe MI) delegates will die because of logistics and finances, and not because they broke the rules.

Posted by socctty | March 17, 2008 8:49 PM

Evidently MI has a similar problem to FL--the Republican controlled leg isn't cooperating. So maybe time to just 50-50 everyone and move on.

Posted by Deborah | March 17, 2008 8:50 PM

LOL - I love listening to how much Obamaites can whine whenever they perceive any challenge to his 'inevitable' candidacy. 63% of democrats want HRC to stay in the race; that number comes from after the OH & TX races.

While everyone in here is busy complaining about the DNC's primary process -- but who were all apparently too busy to notice it happening in FL with HB537 and too self-involved to participate in the rule-making process by picking up a phone and calling Howard Dean's office -- Hillary supporters are busy talking to voters and making a case that you can't win a general election without OH, PA, and FL, and that the vast majority of the states Obama has won are going to be red in November. In case you haven't noticed, her lead in PA is growing substantially. She has an amazing ground operation and the ability to pull of a 15-20 point victory there. Her national numbers are up too, the latest Rasmussen has her now ahead of Barack.

Forget delegate counts, when that happens PA will be the nail in Obama's coffin. Superdelegates aren't going to care what you think; they have gerrymandered themselves into positions they could hold for life if they wanted to. They are not going to face any serious primary challenges because of a vote for a presidential candidate at the convention.

Barack Obama has enjoyed the most biased press-coverage of any politician in recent memory. He has been anointed the crown prince of 'hope,' a messiah, been awarded the candidacy by a national press corps that can neither a) appropriately gauge public opinion or b) actually do the kind of journalism that restricts itself to the objective reporting of facts. (cf. recent Pew study)

Barack Obama has enjoyed the best political month in history and can STILL not sell his candidacy to working class Americans. If he could not close the deal in Ohio, he never will be able to.

So please, I implore you to waste your days typing up vindictive, self-righteous, libelous, and somewhat psychotic blogs. The voters that matter don't read them and don't write them; they're too busy WORKING after all.

Isolate yourselves in your Obama-crazed echo-chamber, the more it resonates the emptier it sounds.

Posted by Kevin | March 17, 2008 8:58 PM

A few comments on the above.

First, in Michigan we have open primaries, so people don't generally register for parties like they do in states with closed primaries. That's why it's not as simple as saying "Democrats and Indepents can vote"---nobody really knows who they are.

And a lot of loyal Democrats, myself included, voted in the Republican primary because our candidates and our party was telling us our vote in the Democratic primary would not be counted. Many of us (myself not included) voted for the candidate they thought would be worst for the Republican party, so there was no disloyalty intended, just a desire to have a meaningful vote.

As far as changing the rules, the rules have always been that any process with an early primary could not be used to select delegates. The DNC has said all along if we held another primary it would be acceptable, so this isn't a matter of changing the rules at all.

The bottom line is that, at least for me, if the Democratic party doesn't find a fix for this they will not have my vote in November, and they will not have my contributions throughout the election year. I have talked to a few Democrats who feel the same, and many more who will still vote Democratic but not contribute. If this doesn't get resolved, there's a real chance it could cost Democrats Michigan and Florida, and it would be hard to win the election without either of us.

I'm very much hoping that a new election happens.

You can find out more about our primary debacle at http://WhoStoleMiVote.org/

Posted by Scott Gifford | March 17, 2008 9:05 PM

Kevin -

Every last one of your "points" has been thoroughly rebutted. But I'll try on a few myself, in case you haven't come across them.

Hillary supporters are busy talking to voters and making a case that you can't win a general election without OH, PA, and FL What makes you think that Obama won't compete just as well as Hillary in those states in November? Primary results do not indicate how well a candidate will do in November, especially when you win/lose by 10 points.

and that the vast majority of the states Obama has won are going to be red in November One, we know that Wyoming or Utah isn't going to go blue, but it can do two things to states like those: it can force Republicans to play defense there, or, if they don't, create inroads there for future elections, and two, in will help elect Senators and House seats and governors. This isn't just a presidential election, and all those things Hillary likes to harp on - like the details of her health care plan - won't have a chance unless the president has a cooperative Congress (and governors to appoint congressmen if something happens to them).

As far as the supposed upcoming 15-20 pt victory (gee, has Obama ever erased a poll margin like that before? I think so...), how many states has Obama won by that margin?

And who has the second-best political month in history? Oh, right... Hillary does. The same month as Obama.

The logic behind "Obama can't sell his story to working class voters" is just as dumb as assuming that Hillary couldn't get black voters in November. Both are Democratic constituencies, and Hillary constantly banging the drum on the "working class" vote, and ignoring her problems (self-made problems, at that) with black voters is just plain dumb, and frankly, seems to suggest that black voters are more easily manipulated than "working class" voters - i.e., white voters. So keep banging that drum.

Posted by socctty | March 17, 2008 9:12 PM

This is absolutely outrageous. Tons of us who supported Obama voted in the republican primary for Romney in opposition to McCain and his policies. I hope the Obama people say NO to this nonsense.

Posted by Jerry | March 17, 2008 9:37 PM

This is absolutely outrageous. Tons of us who supported Obama voted in the republican primary for Romney in opposition to McCain and his policies. I hope the Obama people say NO to this nonsense.

Posted by Jerry | March 17, 2008 9:37 PM

I think we'll see hurdle after hurdle erected by the DNC, but I think Barack Obama is up to the challenge. Senator Obama threatens to drag the Democratic Party, kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Some dems don’t like it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 17, 2008 10:05 PM

Hillary supporters are busy talking to voters and making a case that you can't win a general election without OH, PA, and FL, and that the vast majority of the states Obama has won are going to be red in November.

Look, can the Hillary camp just put forth a platform at the convention that declares all states which vote more than +5 Republican in November don't count in the Democratic primary?

It's simpler than the winner of Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arizona, Texas and Arkansas (making up more than a third of her primary victories) declaring that Obama's victories are meaningless - especially when a Democrat has to win every race in a Democratic primary.

Either petition to remove the states or shut up.

(Incidentally, if you hold Clinton to her own standards, that states which either have gone red or which are likely to go red are illegitimate, that takes more than two million votes, a couple hundred delegates and five states out of her total, making her unlikely to win anything. Ever.)

Posted by Starscream | March 17, 2008 10:08 PM

Well, after perusing the schizophrenia
of the above comments, I'd like to congratulate
you Dems on having your ducks in row. You have demonstrated a singularity of thought and purpose
and have shown through admirable organization
that you will be a formidable adversary in November....of 2012.

Posted by interferon | March 17, 2008 11:36 PM

The Clintons are not racist...why, every four
years they wander over to the peanut gallery
and give their black friends some free cotton
candy and marzipan.

Posted by interferon | March 17, 2008 11:51 PM

I live in Michigan and my husband and I voted for Romney in the January primary to keep him alive. We are Democrats and support Hillary. It really upsets us that we can't vote in the "re-do".

Posted by DownriverDem | March 18, 2008 8:55 AM

I think Hillary is in it in part for the VP spot (or Prez. if she catches a big break). Obama might not want her on the ticket, but if she leads in the popular vote and he leads in delagates then the Supers may force a joint ticket. Would she want the VP spot? Yes. If Obama wins without her, she could try again in 8 years, but then his VP would be the frontrunner. If Obama loses then in 4 years she is the frontrunner, or if Obama wins with her as VP, then she is the frontrunner in 8 years. If you are Hillary, assuming you can't get the nomination, you either want to force yourself on to the ticket, or make sure he does not win.

Posted by David Gentile | March 18, 2008 11:56 PM