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. Adam, LV, NV

    Oh and for the record, there were no "RULES" about names off the ballot and not campaining. There was not a DNC ruling on that. THe agreeement was between the candidates and the VOTER LOBBIES in Iowa and NH...

    You Obama-nuts need to get your facts straight. The only DNC ruling was that the delegates would not be seated. At no time did the DNC itself say that they could not do anything in those states. All of these so called "rules" you all spout off about was just an agreement between the candidates and the states of Iowa and NH. It was the state leaders that made this "pledge" not the DNC...

    April 4, 2008 02:32 pm at 2:32 pm |
  2. Hillary 08

    Ok so don't count the popular vote there just count the delegates Let
    them decide

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  3. Joe

    Recent polls in Michigan show a dead heat between Obama and Clinton. Why not just split the delegates? Makes sense to me. Or just don't count them at all. Why was Hillary not complaining at the time the decision was made? (Because she thought there was no chance she could lose so it didn't matter).

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  4. Ross in MD

    I think the Michigan and Florida delegations should be split along the same lines as the national vote. That way no candidate is unduly advantaged or disadvantaged and both states can participate fully.

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  5. anonymous

    MI knew their vote would not count when they moved the date ... then, all of sudden peopled needed the #'s so they want to change the rules in the middle of the game. Please grow up! How elementary. Be willing accept the results of your choices. Finally, this matter is closed.

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  6. Michigan vote

    Well at least HILLARY had the good judgment of foresight!
    She had her name on the ballot "just in case."

    As I recall, all those who wanted to vote for Obama were told to
    vote for "UNCOMMITTED" , so all those votes are VOTES FOR HIM!

    Now they can split up the votes EXACTLY as the voters intended, giving ALL THE UNCOMMITTED to Obama, and Hillary keeps her own.

    THAT IS the ONLY FAIR WAY TO DO THIS.
    It would definitely reflect the voter's choices.

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  7. Jerry in Boston

    Why do Obama supprters insist on claiming "rules are rules"?

    Are any of you seriously going to claim that if the roles were reversed you wouldn't be singing an entirely different tune?

    If Clinton were ahead and the disputed states were, for example, Illinois and Georgia (big states won handily by Obama), are you going to tell me you wouldn't be screaming for revotes?

    Of course you would, so less of the sanctimonious lectures about consequences and rules please. BOTH camps are taking partisan positions. The only legitimate question is:

    What, objectively, is the RIGHT thing to do?

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  8. Kelvin

    Why must she conceed, is Obama fans scared that other things will pop there ugly head. We know very little about Obama, but I am sure the republicaans have a lot on him, to swift boat him. Have you not learned a lesson from Kerry. Make sure you understand where and what he stands for. I will rather leave the democratic party than vote Obama, so Obama fans stop asking for Hillary to give up the race.

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  9. dave, michigan

    Yes, Hillary Clinton was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the state's primary ballot this January. She should thus get all the states delegates at the party's nominating convention this summer. Or at least 55% of them with Obama getting ZERO. It was his decision not to run in Michigan. That did nothing but prove his contempt for the voters.

    April 4, 2008 02:33 pm at 2:33 pm |
  10. MP

    Listen people. It was not Obama's choice to be taken off the ballot in MI. Just as all the other canidates did, he signed a form as did Hillary promising they would not participate in the MI primary in any way. Hillary broke the rules after she realized everyone took their name off. They have the signed letter form Clinton all over the news.

    April 4, 2008 02:34 pm at 2:34 pm |
  11. Brad

    Good. Now maybe Florida will detach itself from the rest of the country and float away and we can be completely rid of people that break the rules and then cry about it.

    April 4, 2008 02:34 pm at 2:34 pm |
  12. Dan in CO

    To their credit, many Clinton supporters also think that MI and FL shoudln't count...mostly because [1] they accept that the states did break the rules and [2] even their candidate agreed to it at the time.

    April 4, 2008 02:34 pm at 2:34 pm |
  13. Obamagirl, los angeles

    now let's drop it!!! They broke the rules and now they pay!!!
    I think after the 10 contest are over, mich. and florida should be split evenly, thus it has no impact on the delegate counts yet the delegates are seated.

    April 4, 2008 02:34 pm at 2:34 pm |
  14. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Thanks to Michigan, this subject is no longer open for discussion.

    April 4, 2008 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  15. Peter Damoah-Afari

    Why couldn't Michigan and Florida wait for the specified time table of DNC? You know, most people did not know much about Obama when the race began, so the "cohorts' of Hillary were rushing to have early voting in Michigan and Florida so that Hillary could win. That was why they did not want to wait till Super Tuesday. It is nice that they have come out clean now to tell us that they will not vote again. DNC is going to find a good solution, and both the candidates will have delegates from both states. And this is a good news to Obama.

    Obama all the way!!

    April 4, 2008 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  16. Time to Re-Register!

    It's absolutely ridiculous to think that it is EVER a good or proper thing to NOT count votes!

    Those "in the know" are well aware that Obama used legal tactics to insure that votes in MI and FLA DID NOT COUNT!

    April 4, 2008 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  17. Isaac

    Great, all the Obama people can cheer about how Michigan's votes won't be counted now. I am still wondering how Obama really thinks he wins in November without these two states and with serious possible weaknesses in PA and OH.

    April 4, 2008 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  18. Ki-Jana Carter

    Good. Time for Billary to get out and start that bridge club for old ladies with Geraldine. Leave the politics to the big boys.

    April 4, 2008 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  19. Wendy

    Does anyone else find it interesting that MI and FL, e.g., the DNC and Obama camp, want to wait until AUGUST to seat the votes....when they know perfectly well the race will be decided by June??? It's obvious that Obama will refuse ANY reasonable offer they put on the table until he's the only person left in the democratic party for the nomination. Then he'll suddenly want them seated immediately....because it would be an "injustice" to prevent MI and FL from voting. Hmmm, how convenient is that? That way they can get Obama nominated, and give him the votes of MI and FL....neither of which he won..., and leave Hillary out of the entire thing. And this is from the "democratic" party??? Someone must certainly be high on something if they think this makes any sense at all.

    It's Obama's own fault if he left his name off the ballot in MI....goes to show you just how much of a rookie he actually is. WHy should Hillary be punished for his idiotic mistake?? He was smart enough to leave it on in FL, right???

    April 4, 2008 02:35 pm at 2:35 pm |
  20. Tammy - KCMO

    It's scary to read these comments and see how many ignorant people actually have the right to vote.
    Obama didn't do anything to take away the rights of people to vote in FL or MI. Your own legislature did that and if you don't like it complain to them. You voted them in afterall.
    Both states knew what would happen if they didn't follow DNC rules. They made the decision to ignore those rules and do it anyway. The votes should be done as a 50/50 split if you are going to give them any right to have a say in the process at all. They were fully aware of what would happen if they went ahead and still chose to move their election up.
    NEITHER candidate has a right to more than 50% since party rules weren't followed. Clinton was fine with the decisions made by the DNC until she got behind. I'm sure she would still be fine with their rules if she was ahead.

    April 4, 2008 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  21. Derrick In Houston, TX

    You can always tell a HRC supporter because they throw around the disenfranchise. Lets bury this issue. No one is getting delegates. It would have been stupid to revote and unfair if they would have split it 50/50. No one knows if HillBill would have won if Edwards or Obama campaigned there. PLUS what bout the people who didnt vote because they knew their votes wouldnt count?

    This was the right decision. She broke the rules and now shs getting nothing out the deal.

    April 4, 2008 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  22. Ellen, MT

    How dare that Barack, actually believing that the DNC really meant what they said, when they told him the Michigan votes would not count. It is ALL his fault even though he did not vote for the elected officials in MIchigan, he did not break the rules, he did not sign the pledge and then break his word.

    Sorry folks, you can't blame this one on Barack. He did the honorable thing. Hillary, like a snake, kept her name on the ballot and declared herself the winner. I'm laughing because she thinks she is smarter than the American people, and God. She is neither.

    Having said all that, thanks Michigan for coming to your senses. Now if Florida, State of the Bush 2000 Crime Scene, would only come to theirs, we can move on.

    April 4, 2008 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  23. Rick

    Thank you OBAMA for not willing do a redo primary

    April 4, 2008 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  24. rj

    I agree with Michigan not holding a new vote. Should have followed the rules in the first place. Where were their state leaders during that decision time?

    Hillary should have removed her nameon the ballot. By leaving her name on ,I believe, reflects not supporting the DNC back then and just wanting people to believe she won those states. Another "Clintons can do what they want" statement.

    April 4, 2008 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  25. fred

    Hillary should run as an independant!!! The dems are screwing this contest up bad!!

    Obama is an idiot just like George W. Bush!!!

    April 4, 2008 02:37 pm at 2:37 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15