April 4th, 2008
02:05 PM ET
10 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. Anne

    I just don't understand how "complicated" it is to hold an election
    for God's sake!

    April 4, 2008 02:37 pm at 2:37 pm |
  2. christian

    Wow... there are some really dumb and pigheaded HRC "supporters" out there.. more than I thought. especially the ones that post the same comment several times but use different names. maybe try using different words too or it's just plain obvious (morons!).

    April 4, 2008 02:37 pm at 2:37 pm |
  3. we wanh hillary, not mccain...screw him.

    The DNC is stoopid, screw them.

    April 4, 2008 02:37 pm at 2:37 pm |
  4. Jim-Minnesota

    Why doesn't the Democratic Party just seat Hillary's delegates and then let the undecided delegates choose whom they want. I trust that the Michigan undecided delegates can make their own choices. The Super Delegates make their own choices don't they?

    April 4, 2008 02:37 pm at 2:37 pm |
  5. John H, MN

    The only one to blame here is Michigan. They knew the rules and they went against the rules and knew what would happen if they moved their primaries up, but they did it anyways. Plain and simple.

    April 4, 2008 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  6. sue

    Disregard which campaign would benefit more, how would you feel if you are voters in both Michigan and Florida and your voices could not be heard. Though rules were broken in January, there are many options to resolve this to avoid disenfranchising both states. Both the DNC and the Hillary Campaign have been actively persuing for a revote; however, the Obama Campaign has not be actively promoting this process. I understand that the Obama Campaign is afraid by allowing revotes in both states, his 1% lead over Hillary might be narrowed. However, the Democrat Party may face even more challenges in November if we do not count these votes or allow for a revote.

    April 4, 2008 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  7. b black


    April 4, 2008 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  8. Hillary Supporter

    That's ok. I probably won't vote for the first time in many years since the DNC is stealing away Senator Clinton's chances of winning this election.

    April 4, 2008 02:38 pm at 2:38 pm |
  9. we wanh hillary, not mccain...screw him.

    They're all racists against Hillary. We won't stand for it.

    -Pissed in Dearborn, MI


    April 4, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  10. rj

    By the way, I cannot believe people are that ignorant to blame others for not having the re-vote in Florida and Michigan. Where were their leaders in those states? I believe Hillary thought it would be over in Feb. therefore, it didn't matter that they did not follow the rules.

    April 4, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  11. David

    Why does the media keep letting Hillary get away with blaming MI and FL on Obama? In both cases it was the state party or legislature that decided - mostly on grounds of practicality: there was no good way to make a re-vote open and fair. In FL state law prohibited a mail-in vote. Hillary keeps saying that Obama wouldn't agree to a re-vote in MI even though she agreed to pay for it - but actually the stumbling block was that Obama wanted the re-vote open to everyone, not just those who had voted in the Democratic primary the first time, because many people either stayed home or voted in the GOP primary because they thought the Dem primary wouldn't matter.
    Seating delegations is a different issue than a re-vote, and I'm sure the Dems will figure out some way to seat them with the delegates split - if it still matters. It's the media that's whipping up frenzy about voters being disenfranchised. Where was all that media outrage when the Supreme Court disenfranchised the whole country?

    April 4, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  12. Voice that matters.

    Hilary doesn't believed in voters choice, don't be fooled again. She has said many times that pledge delegates that was allocated by voters should not stand by that vote. She said those pledge delegates are for grab, so now haven't said that who is disenfranshising Michigan voters.?

    How can you blame Obama who didn't have his name on the ballot because the DNC asked them to.
    Anyone who blame Obama for Michigan State party leader decision is not a true person. That person who blame Obama for someone else comment is political jerk.

    You failed to see the truth or recognize the truth. I believe in truth and call it the way it is.

    April 4, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  13. WML

    I think to leave one's name wouldn't have mattered. Voters still could have written in a name, if they wanted. Were they simply asked to take their names off or demanded with retribution? If the former, then Hillary did nothing wrong. Maybe she had a feeling in the long run, it would come to this and having votes racked up for her would help her in the end.

    I think it was a smart move by her and dumb by Barack. If he was so into playing by the rules, then why didn't he take his name off the ballot in Florida, where he didn't win, either.

    People, see this without emotion, and think what you would do if you were either candidate's shoes. Did Hillary truly do anything wrong in MI? FL? If Barack left his name on the ballot in FL, why not MI?

    Obviously, she wants them to count because she earned those votes and delegates. Obviously, he doesn't want them to count because he lost. It's that easy.

    Disenfranchisement is not an answer. The votes need to be awarded fairly.

    April 4, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  14. Cyp

    If Hillary"s nomination is stolen away from her by Obama's dirty tricks
    and the party's Obamites.

    Hillary should contest as an independent.

    She is likely to get the majority of her voters still vote for her.

    The other votes will be diveded between Democrats and the Republicans. She is very likely to be the First Independent Women President of USA.

    Sounds good to me.

    April 4, 2008 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  15. Reality

    Now we can move ON. 50/50 split... THE END!!!

    April 4, 2008 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  16. Jude

    I think it should be 50/50 but I'm okay with HC 55, BO 45 for 1/2 the delegates and the other 1/2 depends on the overall popular vote. I would agree to this just so we can move on. No one has a clear advantage in this scenario. HC picks up like 10 delegates but Obama has the popular votes right now so if it stands, no one benefits.

    April 4, 2008 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  17. Shame.

    Forget about the delegates, what about the people? It's good to know that every vote DOES NOT count!

    April 4, 2008 02:40 pm at 2:40 pm |
  18. No Obama Social state. ( Chicago voter)

    It's the Obama people in MI DNC that opposed the revote. They are people from Detroit. Other than people from Detroit. they all supports the revote. Shame on representatives from Detroit.

    April 4, 2008 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
  19. lucyna

    Those who broke the rules should be blame for the mess, not DNC or Obama. Hillary knew what she was doing by not removing her name in Michigan. She works like a snake hoping that nobody will catch her....like that story about Bosnia. Those who vote for her are like her. No wonder that she attracts those stupid people like herself.

    Obama 1000 times over!!!!.....Our next presidend of USA

    April 4, 2008 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
  20. Dan in CO

    ""If anyone should be blamed for this mess, it should be Iowa and NH""

    I agree 100%.

    I actually salute what MI and FL tried to do, but it is still unfair to count them as they were. I don't blame neither Barack Obama, who merely followed the rules as set (unlike Hillary) nor the States of Michigan and Florida (both of which had every right to schedule their primary whenver they liked). I blame the DNC for imposing a punishment that made the state contests have an unfair, uncountable result.

    Hopefully by 2012, the system will be revamped, and NH and IA will have to be tossed in the pot with every other state.

    April 4, 2008 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
  21. CNN post this! A Concerned Citizen!

    Clinton people what sore losers....get over over it! Follow the rules and do not try to change them in the middle of the election just to suit your needs.

    If the tables were turned and Barrack was the one making all the fuss, the Clinton people would laugh, but since the underdog is ahead and Queen Hillary is not happy then she complains left and right about the outcome.

    By the way Billaries, I'm an Independent and I would never swear allegiance to the Democratic or Republican party. What I am is a citizen of this great nation and Im thinking about what is best for this country, not what some party wants me to think is best for this country.

    April 4, 2008 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
  22. RH

    All of the squawking about 'disenfranchisement' is off-base. Americans have no right to directly influence the selection of a presidential nominee through voting. A primary election is one of the mechanisms used by national parties to help guide their decision as to who should represent them in the general election. In short, the primary process exists by virtue of party rules, not any right guaranteed to the electorate. The right to "have your voices heard" is fulfilled by the general election. No one has been disenfranchised – not yet, at least.

    April 4, 2008 02:41 pm at 2:41 pm |
  23. Don

    Let me quess, the people in Michigan who made this decision are Obama supporters....Michigan voters should start by voting these people out of office and also vote for McCain in 08, maybe that will get that idiots Dean's attention. I suspect Dean is hoping for a big job in Washington if he is successful in getting Obama elected. If not, send him back to Vermont and let him drive a snow plow.

    April 4, 2008 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  24. Joe

    Way to unify the party Obama. Your vote may not count in my favor, therefore I choose not to get behind a program that will allow your vote to count.

    If this is how you plan on how to unify the party and country, good luck!

    Voters in Michigan. If Obama is the nominee, I hope you remember this. He could have left his name on the ballot like Hillary. At least she believed in your vote enough to stay on the ballot.

    April 4, 2008 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  25. Ward

    It was fair last year when all parties agreed to the rules, why is ANYTHING not fair now? If there is blame it belongs on the Democratic Executive Committees of the 2 states involved. It has nothing to do with Hillary or Obama, they are both just positioning themselves to their advantage, as are their supporters. I live in Florida, I voted, but did not know I had been disenfranchised by my own party until a week before the election. Why should I even want to vote now, because my candidate is no longer in the race – If Michigan and Florida had waited until super Tuesday or later to vote, maybe he would be.
    And, just for your information, despite what you were told in Kindergarten – LIFE isn't fair, deal with it.

    April 4, 2008 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15