April 4th, 2008
02:05 PM ET
6 years ago

Michigan Dems rule out new vote

Michigan voters participated in the states primary on January 15.
Michigan voters participated in the states primary on January 15.

(CNN) - Michigan Democrats will not to go to the polls again to choose a presidential nominee, even though the national party has refused to recognize the results of their vote in January, the party announced Friday.

"We have concluded that it is not practical to conduct such a primary or caucus," the state party's executive committee said in a written statement. But they added they will continue to work with the Democratic National Committee and elected officials to ensure that the state is represented at the party convention in Denver this August.

Michigan Democrats held their primary earlier than national party rules allowed. The Democratic Party responded by refusing to seat Michigan’s delegates at the convention.

Many Democratic candidates, including Sen. Barack Obama, removed their names from the Michigan ballot after the DNC’s decision, leaving Sen. Hillary Clinton as the only major contender in the state.

Clinton got 55 percent, while 40 percent of the state's voters opted for "uncommitted.”

Clinton said Friday the party had to find a way to avoid “disenfranchising” 600,000 Michigan voters. “Those votes have been cast…. So the Democratic party is going to have to come to grips with whether or not we want to be like the Republicans and disenfranchise people or whether we will stay true to the voting-rights record of this party.”


Filed under: Michigan
soundoff (358 Responses)
  1. Tim from Buffalo

    Obama was not opposed to a re-vote, he was opposed to a vote that excluded all of the democrats (and independants and republicans – it's an open primary) who voted in the republican primary because they knew the democratic primary would not count.

    The revote that was proposed would only allow the people who voted in the democratic primary and therefore couldn't possibly be an accurate revote of how Michigan would have looked if they hadn't moved their primary ay.

    April 4, 2008 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  2. Mark

    Florida and Michigan broke the rules. Neither HRC or Obama held a gun to their head and told them to break the DNC rules. Why is this an issue? Why do they get special treatment, the other 48 states did it right?

    The Dems don't deserve to win in November if they can't make rules and then abide by them. How can we be trusted to run the country when we can't even abide by our OWN rules?

    April 4, 2008 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  3. IAMWMD

    Clinton supporters can vote for McBush and prepare second great depression(soup lines, etc) after McBush send your tax dollars to Iraq or vote Obama and prosper. Now you make the call.

    Obama 08

    April 4, 2008 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  4. Uncle Sam

    MICHIGAN & FLORIDA FOR MCCAIN!!!

    April 4, 2008 03:10 pm at 3:10 pm |
  5. MediaJunkie, Arlington, VA

    Does anyone recall that there were other presidential candidates who agreed not to put their vote on the Michigan ballot or campaign in Florida? How can you possibly blame all of this on Obama? I know, I know, how dare he not want states that each candidate agreed would not have seats at the convention to be counted. There is no fair way to count those votes. Those states' voters have been disenfranchised and some will likely go with McCain as a result. But I believe the DNC has made this bed and I would have more respect for them if they'd lie in it. I also don't get the intense split between Obama and Clinton supporters. I will be voting Democrat no matter who gets the nomination despite the fact that I think McCain is going to win the presidency.

    April 4, 2008 03:10 pm at 3:10 pm |
  6. Anonymous, Somewhere, MI

    The Democratic party used public money and public voter registration to conduct its primaries. They have no banner of being a private organization in this issue, not when they're using my tax money to run their contests. That said, here's the adequate solution to this dispute:

    Don't seat our delegates, don't show up on our ballot. Your candidate can run as an independant.

    Next time you want to run a contest in this state to select delegates, go rent a bowling alley and sort out the legitimate voters themselves. If you don't want to honor the results that come from a contest conducted with public money and resources, you don't get to use either.

    April 4, 2008 03:10 pm at 3:10 pm |
  7. Michael

    I am getting sick and tired of Clinton supports saying Obama had anything to do with the MI and FL delegates not being recognized.

    First, Both states were warning that if they went ahead with these contests, the votes would not be recognized. So they knew well ahead of time this would be an issue.

    You follow the rules or suffer the consequences.

    Second, How come the people of these states did NOT ask the question to the political party members in their home states, "Why are are we holding primaries in direct violation of party rules?"

    I believe that if the people of MI and FL had objected, the primaries would never have been allow to take place, in violation of established rules.

    Third, ALL candidates AGREED to be bound by the decision of the DNC.

    Sen. Clinton, Sen Obama and Sen. Edwards all agreed. Once it became apparent the she was no longer the "Front -Runner" she chose try and change the rules.

    The bottom line is this, rules are rules, MI and Fl thought they could ignore the rules, and the people of those fine states are being punished for the state parties mistakes.

    For anyone to say Obama is to blame, you are all un-informed and ignorant to the facts.

    As far as spliting the vote in both states.

    I don't believe any of them should count, simply because we have no way of knowing how many people did NOT go out and vote because they knew the voting results were NOT going to count.
    Spliting the vote based on the current vote total doesn't work because in MI, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. there is no way of knowing if all the 40 uncommitted were for him or for Edwards, Also without all candidates on the ballot, there is no way to know if all that voted for Clinton are truly voting for her or they voted for the only name on the ballot.

    And lastly, you cannot count a contest, any contest, that was held in violation of established rules: period, bottom line, end of story.

    April 4, 2008 03:10 pm at 3:10 pm |
  8. john

    IF WERE A MI VOTER AND THEY BLOCK ME THEN I WOULD SIT HOME OR VOTE McCAIN

    April 4, 2008 03:10 pm at 3:10 pm |
  9. riad

    Hilary uis the true leader Obama needs to concede before his true stories with Rezko come out and then he will be forever shamed,
    ill Gov was mentioned yesterday now we are waiting for Obama to be next.

    April 4, 2008 03:11 pm at 3:11 pm |
  10. Reid

    Alex K,
    You are obviously a Republican in disguise. Arnold is pro choice and a democrat in all but name. McCain is NOTHING like Arnold and the conservative wing of your party already hates him. Good luck continuing "Operation Chaos".

    April 4, 2008 03:11 pm at 3:11 pm |
  11. Robin

    An entire state is disenfranchised and your proud and happy about this. This a glaring example of the juvenile behavior of Obama and his supporters. One among many reasons why I will not vote for this man.

    April 4, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  12. Chris

    Remember everyone that Barack Obama has people on the legislature. Thank you Obama for disenfranchising them through your people. It's another way you can skirt responsibility.

    April 4, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  13. WFK

    Michigan and Florida agreed to play by an agreed upon set of rules.
    Then Michigan and Florida violated those rules.
    Then Michigan and Florida expected the Democratic Party to reward their behavior.
    I tell them what I told my children growing up:
    When you agree to play by the rules, you had better stick to those rules.
    My children grew up nicely.
    Now it is time for Michigan and Florida to do likewise.
    Period.

    April 4, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  14. Ifeanyi Azubike Houston Texas

    I have a problem knowing where she stands on issues. I am getting old and all these position changes confuse me. I thought she said that those votes wont count and now she is saying that they have to count. I believe that the democrtiac party should plead with Obama to quit the race and save us from Hillary's desparation.

    April 4, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  15. Celia Ann in Michigan

    GOD!!! Follow the rules that ALL the candidates ageers to. Funny, no voters were being disenfranchised when they all signed it. It is very curious that suddenly months late the person in second place is concerned about voters.

    I have contacted every law maker I could in my state and asked that they just move on and not make more of a mess, we have enough people here in office who are bending and breaking rules and lying under oath!!! Enough!!!

    April 4, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  16. Frank, Dayton, Ohio

    The dictionary says a "demagogue" is "a person who appeals to the emotions of people om prder to arouse discontent and advance his or her own political purposes." That term exactly describes Hillary Clinton in relation to this issue.

    "Opportunist" is the other word that describes her. She is cementing my desire to not vote for her if she manages to "steal" the nomination from Obama.

    April 4, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  17. J.S.

    I just hope Democrats as a whole remember the old saying–"If it sounds too good to be true" We need to take long and closer looks at bi-racial Obama and Clinton before picking a nominee.

    April 4, 2008 03:12 pm at 3:12 pm |
  18. JackNC

    Did anyone hear the latest from Hillary? She said, she was invited by Taleban to talk, but she refused because she thought she would not look good in a burkha(veil). Can some one please tell her not to open her mouth. The distinction between fact and fiction in Clinton world has ceased to exist.

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
  19. dAnnE

    RH...you are right on. I see someone took an Intro to American Government course seriously. Maybe that should be a requirement to comment on this blog.

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
  20. Hillary Supporters...Democrats or Republicans???

    Hillary Flip Floppers,

    You are just as childish as the candidate you support with your threats of, "If Clinton doesn't get the nomination, I will vote McCain" and further proof that if Hillary becomes our next President that this type of behavior will become acceptable. It is not seen as loyalty so much as stupidity. Much like Hillary's "loyalty" to stick with her husband.

    If spite is what you base your vote on then please do change your political affiliation to the correct party. The Democratic Party needs to be rid of the likes you anyway...You're making us look bad!

    OBAMA '08!
    THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
  21. Go Obama!

    How would it be fair to give 55 % to Hillary?

    1. Obama didn't even campaign there as he promised DNC, and without campaigning how would people get to know how wonderful this new guy is? As we have seen in all other states where both campaigned, Obama always pulled up his percentage from initial prediction.

    2. A lot of people who liked both Obama, Hillary or Hillary, Edwards voted for Hillary, since only her name was there on the ballot. But, given all 3 names, a lof of the people from that 55% would have voted for Obama or Edwards. For those of you who say leaving the name on the ballot was optional, my answer to you is no! They all agreed with DNC to take off their names. The only difference is that some kept their words and played by the rules and some didn't .

    3. A lot of Obama supporters didn't even go to vote since they thought their votes won't count and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.

    Now, DNC shouldn't really reward the one who broke the rules for doing so and punish the ones who stuck to the rules for doing so, just because it's a convenient way to bring an end to the mess created by the Michigan democrats! The only plausible solution is 50:50 if revote can't take place.

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
  22. kathleen

    Thank you Michigan. Brings a little dignity to the Dem. Party.
    But since "the rules were all botched up", I think they should be
    seated 50-50- because you give Hillary an inch and she will take 10 miles. And , really how many more would have shown up specifically
    for Obama, my man.

    Fla. should bring dignity to the party by doing the same thing. And those that blame Obama are all wrong and you know it. Hillary, put
    you up to believing a lie.

    Obama 2008

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
  23. Jeff in WI

    ""or that of any other moderate Democrat or Independent""

    boy are you in for a surprise...

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
  24. Hispanics now for Obama

    Looks like the only ones holding Michigan back is Michigan!

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
  25. Caryle -

    Way to go MI .... 50/50 split for PLEDGED delegates .... No super delegates from either state should be seated.....
    Former Edwards supporter..... Will vote for the best candidate in Nov....
    Oregon has Yet to vote because "we played by the rules"

    April 4, 2008 03:13 pm at 3:13 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15