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. ClintonsickWomanCanwaidseeherdropfromtheRace

    This only reason she left her name on the ballot when obama and Edwards pull their name out to abide by the rules is so she can do what she is doing now if things did not go her way. That is what you are seeing now happen, hillary saying I can not win with out Michigan and Florida you need to change the rules my name was in the ballot I won the states. My anwer to her is you did not win any thing you evil lady you are just evil and monster plain and simple.

    April 4, 2008 02:47 pm at 2:47 pm |
  2. Lady in MN

    Dont see anything about the Obama Iraq minister saying that he will keep troops in Iraq until 2010. Can't figure out why FOX destroys your poxy news network in the ratings consistently.

    April 4, 2008 02:47 pm at 2:47 pm |
  3. Eric-PA

    Now if Obama gets the nomination, he will be considered an illegitimate nominee, especially since he had a hand in preventing a revote. Shameful. His tactics remind me of Bush's tactics. How do you sleep at night, Obama?

    April 4, 2008 02:47 pm at 2:47 pm |
  4. christian

    I know this:

    Obama or one of his surrogates SERIOUSLY needs to come out with a memo or have a press confrerence re: the Florida and Michigan "re-votes." He is getting absolutely panned on political message boards. HRC supporters are making him out to be the one who is solely responsible somehow. This is clearly not the case but that won't stop people from spreading mis-information. People tend to not care that HRC supported this supposed "disenfranchisement" up until the point that she started losing. Something should have been said a while ago but, instead, they have been keeping quiet and i think that is the WRONG THING TO DO. You've got to kill this rumor SOONER rather than LATER because, unfortunately, a lot of people are just not that smart and will eat up whatever ignorance is spewed on the internet or radiowaves or on the television. Soundbyte politics bytes...BIG TIME.

    April 4, 2008 02:48 pm at 2:48 pm |
  5. MP

    How can you let MI have a re-vote when most of the independents voted republican because they were told their vote would not count? They cannot vote in the democratic primary even if there is a re vote.

    April 4, 2008 02:49 pm at 2:49 pm |
  6. Philadelphian trapped in Texas

    Fine. Now, for the sake of peace ...
    (1)seat Michigan's 128 pledged delegates, and discard only their 28 superdelegates.
    (2)Award the pledged delegates in the proportion they voted for Hillary (55%), so give her 70.
    (3) Give Obama the remaining 45%. That's 58 delegates. Why? Only 40% voted "Uncommitted", and yeah, some of those favored John Edwards, too, and neither Dodd not Kucinich had enough to matter. But this way, Hillary gets something of an edge, and who knows if she would even have finished on top had Obama been on the ballot.
    (4) Hillary gets a slight edge but it doesn't put her over the top.
    (5) Obama gets to appear magnanimous.
    (6)It's win-win for the party.

    April 4, 2008 02:49 pm at 2:49 pm |
  7. vp

    I am no way a Hillary supporter. I like the way Obama conduct his camplaign. I have not much reason to like him either apart from he is pretty straight forward and articulative. Here people as "Why wouldn't thwy give up?" I think thats NOT what leaders are a comfortable with or self proclimed leaders are pretended to do.

    If you start to give up, you never end up as a leader. quiting is not for leaders. At the same time exagerating and lying is also not great qualities at all.

    April 4, 2008 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  8. Jenn

    California Independent wrote: "Aaaaw Jenn…… such a struggle to decide who to vote for…. oh, the hand wringing, oh the angst of it all……. get a grip, it's politics. "

    Thanks for the laugh, you made my Friday! And helped illustrate why I think Hillary supporters have become increasingly illogical. I have never been angst ridden about my decision, nor is there any angst implied in my post. I based my decision on facts, and the facts are that Hillary selfishly went against her chosen party and she lost my vote in part because of that. If that makes you upset, then be upset with her actions, not with the fact that I actually investigated them.

    And I wholeheartedly agree with the poster who indicated that a lot of MI voters likely didn't bother voting because they were told thier vote wouldn't matter. Basing any delegate decisions on a false election with one candidate on the ballot is hardly ethical.

    April 4, 2008 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  9. Ivan Schiff

    There goes Obama's chance to beat McCain in November if he's the nominee. Michigan a Blue state will not support Obama, because Obama was against a re-vote.

    April 4, 2008 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  10. shame on DNC

    shame on Democratic National Committee who don't know how to handle this in the begining and cannot foresee the problem. They failed as the leaders of this party. We will vote for the republic this year.

    April 4, 2008 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  11. Fred

    In light of Mark Penn's recent trip to Colombia, perhaps the Clinton camp may want to rethink "fighting for the rights of the voters in Michigan" since the outcome most likely wouldn't be good for Mrs. Clinton given these new developments. Let's see how quiet Tea Clinton becomes on this issue in the coming days.

    April 4, 2008 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  12. Kevin, Louisville, Ky

    Who says Edward could not have won in Michigan or Florida if he had campaigned there.....

    FAIR IS FAIR ...well done MICH!!

    April 4, 2008 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  13. Jen DFW

    that is sad...the democrats are giving this should be easy WIN to McCain.

    Obama can't beat McCain without Clinton and she has half of the DEM party. Just like she can't do it without Obama. So they should stop fighting and play together.

    Wonder why Obama was in Memphis today? HMMMMM seems funny

    April 4, 2008 02:51 pm at 2:51 pm |
  14. Kshama

    I only know this for whatever reason, at least Hillary Clinton was for a re-vote in Florida and Michgan. The chances were that she may no have done as well were there a re-vote in Michigan. The point is at least she was willing to do a re-vote. No where did I hear Senator Obama say in his own words he would be for a re-vote. He and his campaign just gave some lame excuse that they would follow DNC rules. The Democratic party is crazy. Did they think the American people and especially not seating Michgan and Florida at their convention, much less deciding their nominee, whoever it was, would no hurt them in general election campaign? What's the matter, was Obama scared Clinton may actually be close in pledged delegate count and popular vote if Florida and Michigan were counted?

    April 4, 2008 02:51 pm at 2:51 pm |
  15. SPQR753

    In the Huffington Post (HARDLY a Hillary supporter) there is a very INTERESTING article by Wayne Barrett about how the GOP might have rigged the Florida and Michigan elections.

    For example, while both RNC and DNC had the SAME RULES punishing States who would move their elections ahead of time: an automatic 50% loss of delegates, the RNC followed such rule while DNC decided to GO ALL THE WAY and PUNISHED both States by depriving them of ALL delegates.

    As it happens (!!!) BOB WEXLER (Obama's CHAIR for FLORIDA) pushed for the vote to be moved ahead in that State and Democrat Rep. COLEMAN YOUNG II, BERT JOHNSON and ALDO VAGNOZZI pushed for the MICHIGAN election to be moved ahead (ISN'T THAT FUNNY???

    That EACH ONE of these 4 gentlemen is an OBAMA supporter, IS JUST A COINCIDENCE (!!!) OR, WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS FIRE ??????

    April 4, 2008 02:52 pm at 2:52 pm |
  16. Kristin

    Michigan and Florida,
    Blame your state's government for your "disenfranchisement". Obama followed the rules. Hillary discarded Michigan and Florida primaries, but learned later due to her flawed campaign strateg that she needed these states.

    Voters in Michigan and Florida knew that their votes wouldn't count, so how many voters didn't go to the polls in the first place? If Michigan and Florida votes count as they stand now, there will be many Florida and Michigan voters that didn't go to the polls who will be disenfranchised.

    Follow the rules.

    April 4, 2008 02:52 pm at 2:52 pm |
  17. Debbie

    Michigan and Florida's votes not counting...I thought we the United States...over 1 million votes won't count....Dean lacks the back bone to resolve this....

    ...Obama lacks the spine to leave church of 20 yrs. of "Audacity of Hate"

    ...Hillary if you don't win the nominee that some are trying to steal from you....looks like I'll be voting Republican (I do have back bone) for the first time in 27 yrs....

    ...DNC and Howard Dean...you must thing people in Michagan and Florida are very stupid, because you are disenfranchising them during the primaries...then having the audacity to expect them to vote for your candidate in the regular election.....

    ....I don't think so....

    April 4, 2008 02:52 pm at 2:52 pm |
  18. Bill

    If the Democrats had any sense, they would dump Howard Dean. He enforces primary rules by threatening to dis-enfranchise voters from Michigan and Florida at the convention. Never in a million years did he think it would actually happen. Well it did, and so, rules are rules, and as a result lots of people won't have a vote. This is the same party that railed about Florida voter dis-enfranchisement in the 2000 election.

    This stupidity is topped by the "super-delegates" rules. Super-delegates, a bunch of politicians who are supposed to step in and correct things when they think the voters will do something stupid. Why in the world do Democrats have such rules??

    April 4, 2008 02:52 pm at 2:52 pm |
  19. Chris from San Antonio


    April 4, 2008 02:52 pm at 2:52 pm |
  20. Collin

    Were the voters who did not vote after Kerry got the nomination disenfranchised? What about with Gore in 2000?

    Reality is a good portion of the primaries and caucuses are rubber stamps, those people are never met to really decide who the candidate is. Just like with McCain for the Republicans...none of the "down state" folks got to vote for Romney.

    April 4, 2008 02:53 pm at 2:53 pm |
  21. Eric-PA

    Mike, you don't know what you're talking about. Do a google search. Obama blocked the vote in Michigan, not Hillary.

    April 4, 2008 02:53 pm at 2:53 pm |
  22. Sharon

    Guess Obama's lawyers and lobbyists got their way.....he will never be looked at as a legitimate nominee if FL & MI don't count......

    April 4, 2008 02:53 pm at 2:53 pm |
  23. Todd California

    All Hillary base vote for Mccain if Mich and Florida don't count! Obama didn't want a new vote or work out a compermise. If this would have been two states that were his to win he would have been fighting for them. For the first time I will vote for Republican. God help us for another 4 years.

    April 4, 2008 02:53 pm at 2:53 pm |
  24. Johnny

    "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.”

    This from the woman who encouraged delegates to ignore the popular vote...

    April 4, 2008 02:54 pm at 2:54 pm |
  25. Chipster

    Sen. Clinton did not campaign in MI. That was the agreement so don't blame her for other people's bad decisions. There was no reason for any of them to remove their names from the ballot. It was grand-standing and bad judgment for them to do that. People who didn't vote made that choice as well. The voters in MI & FL had no say in the decision to move the primaries up so punish those who made that bad decision but don't punish the voters. The only fair result is one that counts the votes that were cast. Otherwise, why not just make up phony, meaningless numbers?

    It's absolutely hypocritical to complain about those states that moved up their primaries, yet ask Sen. Clinton to simply dismiss voters in the remaining states that followed the schedule.

    April 4, 2008 02:54 pm at 2:54 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15