 |
 Op-Ed: Clinton in Detroit pushing for a primary do-over. An update added
1 more article on this subject:
Hillary Clinton is in Detroit attempting to salvage a Democratic primary do-over. She is appearing at a union hall in an attempt to push for legislation to allow an early June primary. Why did Gov. Granholm change the primary anyway?
Why do the Democrats even have this problem is a question that needs to be answered first.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed the legislation that officially moved Michigan's primary to Jan.15
She full well knew the ruling and the consequences of that move. The leading Democratic candidates had all pledged that they would ignore Michigan and Florida. The party rule is that there is not to be any primaries before Feb. 5. Granholm knew that the states who violated the ruling would lose the delegates that they would win from the vote.
Knowing all this what was her reason to disregard her parties ruling?
Granholm said the early primary will: "lead to greater emphasis on issues that matter to all Americans."
It also brought more attention to Michigan which she obviously wanted.
Democratic Sen. Carl Levin had wanted the date set at Jan.8 and there were others that wanted the date set at Jan. 22. Jan. 15 was a compromise date for Levin.
The mess that the Democrats are now in is due in large part to Levin and Granholm being determined to break the party rules.
Clinton's campaign sent out emails to her supporters asking them to attend the event in Detroit and to bring friends to the meeting in Detroit this morning at 10:15 a.m.
Those legislators that support Obama say another primary is not a workable solution for the dilemma that Michigan is now in due to their governor going against her party rules. The dilemma is what can be done with the 156 delegates from Michigan in the national convention in August.
The proposal cannot go anywhere unless Obama approves it.
Obama or his Michigan supporters have not given any indication that they will support it.
According to State Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, a do-over primary will create many more problems. There were Democrats that voted Republican or uncommitted who would not be eligible to vote a second time around.
"This won't work," Gillard said. "People were told the Jan. 15 primary didn't matter. Now they're being told if they voted in it, they can't vote in one that does matter."
Face the fact Gov. Granholm you screwed up royally this time. You brought attention to Michigan as you wanted. Now you can take the heat and the Democratic party can suffer because of your decision.
An UPDATE as reported by WWJ Newsradio 950 "At a campaign event at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees' Council 25 offices, Clinton said snubbing Michigan and Florida voters would hurt the Democratic party in November."
State lawmakers told WWJ Lansing Bureau Chief Tim Skubick that the votes weren't there. Plus there are too many unanswered questions about a do-over.
-
Quite the bang-up mess, Picasso. Unbelievable!
-
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Quite the bang-up mess, Picasso. Unbelievable!
The woman ticks me off no end.
She really screwed up this time. Now she and Clinton, who Granholm supports, wants a re-do at the cost to somebody of millions of dollars.
She knew the rules and she made the choice to break them. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
The woman ticks me off no end.
She really screwed up this time. Now she and Clinton, who Granholm supports, wants a re-do at the cost to somebody of millions of dollars.
She knew the rules and she made the choice to break them.
Yeah...it's going to cost you the taxpayers the money in the long run. -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Yeah...it's going to cost you the taxpayers the money in the long run.
If the bill is not passed by tomorrow when the Legislature will begin a two-week break it will be dead.
Why should the tax payers or anyone have to pay for a decision that Granholm made full well knowing what she was doing.
If you can't follow the rules then face the consequences. -
The taxpayers shouldn't have to carry this when they had no part in it.
-
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
The taxpayers shouldn't have to carry this when they had no part in it.
No they didn't have a part in it and I am sure many like myself were against her signing to break the rules.
Who knows how many would have voted differently if the primary would have been held when it should have been. -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Yeah...it's going to cost you the taxpayers the money in the long run.
I have not looked into the matter so this is only a guess but I believe that the party, and not the taxpayers, will have to foot the bill. I hope if someone knows for sure that they will post the information. -
Great article! It is a shame that the local party officials, and in Michigan's case the governor, made this decision and made such a mess of things.
I know that in Florida, where they made a similar mess the Democrats tried to switch the primary back to the original date but in this case the Republican governor and legislature would not let them. That was simply outright sabotage and in that case the Republicans bear a large part of the blame.
Still, no excuses for either state party since they knew the rules and broke them. The best thing is to simply divide the delegates right down the middle.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
No they didn't have a part in it and I am sure many like myself were against her signing to break the rules.
Who knows how many would have voted differently if the primary would have been held when it should have been.
Great piece Picasso and Florida has already decided not to hold a primary, the questioning stemming from the very same issue of the state moving it forward even though they were told of the penalties.
From CNN on March 8, 2008:
A source close to the discussions told CNN that the state party agreed not to spend any taxpayer dollars on a revote, which in Michigan could cost $10 million or more.
Discussions in Michigan were to continue Friday, the source said, and included the state's senior Democrat in the Senate, Sen. Carl Levin.
Another contest in Florida could cost as much as $20 million, said Sterling Ivey, spokesman for the Florida Department of State. He said Florida would need at least 90 days from the time a decision is made to set up any new election.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says Florida and Michigan cannot be given passes for violating rules that were clear to them, and the DNC would not pay the bill for their errors.
Discussions have also been had about private financing. -
If you can't follow the rules then face the consequences. a very reasonable position. -
@ lensman67
I have not looked into the matter so this is only a guess but I believe that the party, and not the taxpayers, will have to foot the bill. I hope if someone knows for sure that they will post the information.
This is what Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean had to say about the parties having to pay their own costs.
"We can't afford to do that. That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race," he said. The DNC offered to pay for an alternative contest in Florida last summer but was turned down, officials at the party say.
From everything that I have read they were looking for private funding.
But there are just too many problems associated with holding another vote that it will most likely not be approved. -
Thank you Lensman, Susan and Bob for your comments.
It is a subject that I have definite opinions about. Michigan is in such bad financial condition that the tax payers should never be asked to finance this mess made by Granholm.
Besides Obama would have to approve it. Why should he since Granholm supports Clinton.
Many of the Democrats that voted uncommitted were in favor of Obama and they would not be eligible to vote again.
Granholm your mistake not anyone else's and you knew the consequences.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Thank you Lensman, Susan and Bob for your comments.
It is a subject that I have definite opinions about. Michigan is in such bad financial condition that the tax payers should never be asked to finance this mess made by Granholm.
Besides Obama would have to approve it. Why should he since Granholm supports Clinton.
Many of the Democrats that voted uncommitted were in favor of Obama and they would not be eligible to vote again.
Granholm your mistake not anyone else's and you knew the consequences.
From what I understand, one of Obama's main concerns (rightly so) is that a general rule of a do over would state that those that voted last time, didn't get to vote in the do over.
The problem then becomes, because Obama's name was NOT on the ballot, some that wanted to vote FOR Obama originally, ended up voting for the "uncommitted" option or for a Republican, and those people (Obama supporters that did either of those things) would not be able to now vote for Obama.
Obama followed the rule as stated by the DNC and that would be completely unfair to him.
Picasso, since you are there and it is local so you are hearing more, please correct me if I am wrong in what I have heard. -
Cynthia, great post. My question is if they let these two states re-do their primaries to let the delegates be seated at the convention in August, what does that tell everyone? Just toss out the rules, do whatever you want, and when you get punished whine as much as you can until Mommy or Daddy gives in and lets you off the hook. What an incredible bunch of babies.
And is anyone else getting tired of those CJers who try to completely hijack a post, twist things around and somehow blame those big, bad Republicans for everything? How juvenile is that? The Democrats in Florida changed the date of their primary, knowing full well what the consequences would be, and now it is the Republican Party that is to blame? Ya right.
-
Picasso, I am trying to look it up and will post it in the comments when I find it..but you may already know the answer.
Wasn't the original DNC rule the same as the GOP rules, in which if Michigan moved up their primary, they would lose HALF the delegates?
Wasn't it Howard Dean that changed that rule and decided to make the penalty the loss of ALL the delegates instead when he tried to strongarm Michigan to prevent them from breaking the rules?
-
@ Sue D.
From what I understand, one of Obama's main concerns (rightly so) is that a general rule of a do over would state that those that voted last time, didn't get to vote in the do over.
The problem then becomes, because Obama's name was NOT on the ballot, some that wanted to vote FOR Obama originally, ended up voting for the "uncommitted" option or for a Republican, and those people (Obama supporters that did either of those things) would not be able to now vote for Obama.
Obama followed the rule as stated by the DNC and that would be completely unfair to him.
Picasso, since you are there and it is local so you are hearing more, please correct me if I am wrong in what I have heard.
Obama did follow the rules. Some black churches in Detroit were telling their congregations to vote uncommitted if they would have voted for Obama. Some voted Republican. All of these voters who would have voted for Obama would not be able to vote again.
Obama should refuse to approve a re-vote and rightly so. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
The woman ticks me off no end.
She really screwed up this time. Now she and Clinton, who Granholm supports, wants a re-do at the cost to somebody of millions of dollars.
She knew the rules and she made the choice to break them. I agree she messed it up for Michigan. They both should be made to pay for the re-elections. -
Found it.
Rule 20(c)(1) of the DNC Rules on Selection of Delegates (27 page PDF file)at the time the date changes were enacted by Michigan and Florida stated: (On page #24 of the PDF)
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
So, isn't Dean ultimately responsible for this mess by changing the rules during the campaign season? -
@ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
Cynthia, great post. My question is if they let these two states re-do their primaries to let the delegates be seated at the convention in August, what does that tell everyone? Just toss out the rules, do whatever you want, and when you get punished whine as much as you can until Mommy or Daddy gives in and lets you off the hook. What an incredible bunch of babies.
quote]
Exactly so Carolyn. They knew the rules and they had agreed to them. So there should not be another primary let the rules stick and let it be a lesson to those who broke the rules.
If the rules can be broken then no one will follow them anymore. -
@ Carolyn E. Price (gohomelaker)
Cynthia, great post. My question is if they let these two states re-do their primaries to let the delegates be seated at the convention in August, what does that tell everyone? Just toss out the rules, do whatever you want, and when you get punished whine as much as you can until Mommy or Daddy gives in and lets you off the hook. What an incredible bunch of babies.
And is anyone else getting tired of those CJers who try to completely hijack a post, twist things around and somehow blame those big, bad Republicans for everything? How juvenile is that? The Democrats in Florida changed the date of their primary, knowing full well what the consequences would be, and now it is the Republican Party that is to blame? Ya right.
I think that it should be fairly obvious to everyone that any comment I make, no matter how innocuous, will be twisted by you as a cause for a personal attack.
My comment was a simple statement of the case. The Florida Democratic party did something stupid and the Republican governor and legislator would not let them undo it. Simple politics and no doubt the Democrats would have done the same thing given the chance.
But that's not the problem, is it? It is clear for all to see that your personal animosity is eating you up inside and you are desperately looking for any excuse you can find to attack me.
I feel sorry for you. -
From my understanding, and I can't find it the Republicans have different rules then what the Democrats do.
The Republicans stripped half of the delegates but that was not the Democratic rules.
Democratic leaders voted back in December to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.
Although some panel did sympathize with Michigan they said they must inforce the rules.
"While we may not like the rules, if we don't respect the rules, then we are going to have chaos," said committee member Yvonne Gates of Nevada. -
@ lensman67
I think that it should be fairly obvious to everyone that any comment I make, no matter how innocuous, will be twisted by you as a cause for a personal attack.
My comment was a simple statement of the case. The Florida Democratic party did something stupid and the Republican governor and legislator would not let them undo it. Simple politics and no doubt the Democrats would have done the same thing given the chance.
But that's not the problem, is it? It is clear for all to see that your personal animosity is eating you up inside and you are desperately looking for any excuse you can find to attack me.
I feel sorry for you.
I will agree with you Lensman there was nothing wrong with your comment. You also were not trying to "hijack" this post.
BTW I sent Lensman the link to this post and asked him to comment. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
From my understanding, and I can't find it the Republicans have different rules then what the Democrats do.
The Republicans stripped half of the delegates but that was not the Democratic rules.
Democratic leaders voted back in December to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.
Although some panel did sympathize with Michigan they said they must inforce the rules.
The Democratic rules for the Democrats were exactly the same as the GOP rules (see comment 18 for DNC rule PDF file)... Dean changed the rule and made the punishment harsher. (stripping all delegates instead of just half)
So, isn't it ultimately Dean's fault now?
Just curious on your take regarding his changing the rules midstream, which could be reasonably be seen as causing this whole mess. -
Great coverage Picasso. Thank you.
-
@ Sue D.
The Democratic rules for the Democrats were exactly the same as the GOP rules (see comment 18 for DNC rule PDF file)... Dean changed the rule and made the punishment harsher. (stripping all delegates instead of just half)
So, isn't it ultimately Dean's fault now?
Just curious on your take regarding his changing the rules midstream, which could be reasonably be seen as causing this whole mess.
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
It would depend on when Dean changed that ruling and if Granholm was aware of it.
I can't see that Dean would want to harm the Democratic party but those who broke the rules should be responsible. -
@ Helena Handbasket
Great coverage Picasso. Thank you.
Thanks Helena. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
It would depend on when Dean changed that ruling and if Granholm was aware of it.
I can't see that Dean would want to harm the Democratic party but those who broke the rules should be responsible.
Those rules were in effect at the time the date changes were enacted by Michigan and Florida.
Then Florida and Michigan decided they were willing to accept only half the delegates to push the primaries forward.
AFTER Michigan and Florida moved the dates up, Dean tried to force them to change their minds by changing the rules and stripping all the delegates instead of just half from them.
If you read the PDF, those rules were adopted by the Democratic National Committee on August 19, 2006.
This brings me back to your statement:
I can't see that Dean would want to harm the Democratic party but those who broke the rules should be responsible.
Technically Florida and Michigan broke the rules and were prepared to accept the stated DNC punishment of losing half their delegates.
Didn't Dean break those stated DNC rules by changing the rules to strip them all?
I see a lot of people willing to blame Michigan and Florida, but if Michigan and Florida were prepared to accept the punishment according to the rules and then Dean changed them.... how is that fair?
Back in October of 2007, Mi. voters highly criticized him and warned him he was going to damage the party.
I think the main point here is Dean might not have wanted to harm the party but by changing the penalty from what was stated, he was attempting to force the states to do as he wished...a bluff, if you will, and the states didn't blink and now it is a big mess. -
I can partially see your point Susan.
AFTER Michigan and Florida moved the dates up, Dean tried to force them to change their minds by changing the rules and stripping all the delegates instead of just half from them.
So they did know what he was saying and made the choice to change anyway.
It has caused a huge mess. It would be very unfair to all those who voted thinking that this vote would be the only vote.
Those who have already voted whose vote would have gone to Obama could not vote again.
IMO Granholm has made many mistakes. I still cannot figure out why she was voted back in for a second term when she didn't do that good the first time around. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I can partially see your point Susan.
So they did know what he was saying and made the choice to change anyway.
It has caused a huge mess. It would be very unfair to all those who voted thinking that this vote would be the only vote.
Those who have already voted whose vote would have gone to Obama could not vote again.
IMO Granholm has made many mistakes. I still cannot figure out why she was voted back in for a second term when she didn't do that good the first time around.
I will agree that many mistakes were made, all around and it is the citizens of Michigan that are suffering.
I see four options left now that the news is reporting Michigan won't have a do over...tell me if you think of any more options.
1. The DNC can go back to the original rules and seat half the delegates, which was the original penalty, but which will be seen as Dean backing down.
2. The DNC can stick to their guns and strip all the delegates, which would disenfranchise all the Michigan voters.
3. The DNC can waive the penalty and seat the delegates, to which, again, many would consider Dean to be "backing down"
4. Do as lensman suggested above, split the delegates in half and be done with it...but again that would mean Dean would have to back down a bit and even with half the delegates from Michigan and Florida, divided evenly, it would not give either Democratic candidate enough delegates to win the nomination without the superdelegates.
Do you see any other options? -
OK Susan I need to step back and look at this a little more objectively as I am sure what I think of Granholm cannot be in doubt.
Senator Clinton said that states like Michigan and Florida "don’t count for anything." while she was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire and now all of a sudden they do count and to who? Clinton and Granholm.
I say and it will never happen give the delegates to Obama he followed the rules and did what he was supposed to do.
Any of the options that you list are workable and Dean may need to back down.
The problem that I see with that is the rules will not be taken seriously after this. If you break the agreed upon rules and still get your way what good are rules.
Granholm was determined to have HER way and to heck with her party.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
OK Susan I need to step back and look at this a little more objectively as I am sure what I think of Granholm cannot be in doubt.
Senator Clinton said that states like Michigan and Florida "don’t count for anything." while she was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire and now all of a sudden they do count and to who? Clinton and Granholm.
I say and it will never happen give the delegates to Obama he followed the rules and did what he was supposed to do.
Any of the options that you list are workable and Dean may need to back down.
The problem that I see with that is the rules will not be taken seriously after this. If you break the agreed upon rules and still get your way what good are rules.
Granholm was determined to have HER way and to heck with her party.
I agree but I also maintain that Dean did the same thing as Granholm.
Granholm, Clinton and others broke the rules and were prepared to take the punishment of losing half the delegates, Dean then broke the DNC stated rules by changing them after the primary dates had been voted on.... so in my opinion, Granholm, Clinton AND Dean have done an extreme injustice to the Michigan Democratic voters.
See I am not disagreeing with your assessment about Granholm at all...... but the timelines, in my mind, makes all of them just as responsible for the trouble.
All because they wanted to play games of chicken with each other.
Like, "mine is bigger than yours." -
Regardless the decision will probably be Dean's what to do now.
I don't understand why Granholm would even want to lose half of the delegates by breaking her parties rules.
If both Granholm and Dean were playing chicken and neither did back down it has placed the Democrats in a real bad position.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Regardless the decision will probably be Dean's what to do now.
I don't understand why Granholm would even want to lose half of the delegates by breaking her parties rules.
If both Granholm and Dean were playing chicken and neither did back down it has placed the Democrats in a real bad position.
That Granholm point is a great one and when I was writing about this last year, it seems the activists in Michigan believed that the Democratic candidate would be chosen early and it wasn't going to be a tight race (mistake), so they wanted their opinion to matter in choosing the eventual nominee.
I documented tons of blogs, media sources and every day Michigan and Florida voters that didn't think it was fair that places like Iowa and New Hampshire were first in the primaries and held that much sway because, in their words, they didn't "represent the mainstream Democrats".
Not that Granholm was right, but that might explain her reasoning.
I don't think if anyone knew that Obama and Clinton would still be battling it out this far into the campaign season that Michigan OR Florida would have made that call.
They wanted to be more relevant in the choosing of the candidate and ended up risking having any relevance at all.
If both Granholm and Dean were playing chicken and neither did back down it has placed the Democrats in a real bad position.
I wholeheartedly agree. -
According to The New York Times in Aug of 2007 The Democratic and Republican national committees have indicated they will sanction Michigan for holding an early primary. The D.N.C. has said it will take away all the state’s national convention delegates, while the R.N.C. may refuse to seat half of them.
By moving the primaries up Michigan Republicans and Democrats broke the party rules.
We spent, what was it, $10, 12 million to be relevant...and we became irrelevant," Rep. Martin Griffin, D-Jackson, says.
Granholm goofed and has made a big mess for the Democrats. The focus should not be on Michigan and what is going to happen now as to the delegates but on the two candidates. -
I was going to add this but had a couple of phone calls.
I documented tons of blogs, media sources and every day Michigan and Florida voters that didn't think it was fair that places like Iowa and New Hampshire were first in the primaries and held that much sway because, in their words, they didn't "represent the mainstream Democrats".
What an individual sees as "fair" should not be a reason to break the rules. What each one that has commented here would see as "fair" could possibly all be different. My belief is that rules need to be followed. If you don't like a ruling try to change it. If you can't then accept it and abide by it.
Since I have headed several groups what can tick me off the most is when I make a decision and someone behind my back changes a decision that I have already made and they know what my decision is. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
I was going to add this but had a couple of phone calls.
What an individual sees as "fair" should not be a reason to break the rules. What each one that has commented here would see as "fair" could possibly all be different. My belief is that rules need to be followed. If you don't like a ruling try to change it. If you can't then accept it and abide by it.
Since I have headed several groups what can tick me off the most is when I make a decision and someone behind my back changes a decision that I have already made and they know what my decision is.
I agree and that is why there was a whole section in the DNC rules about penalties if the rules were broken. Violation of timing.
So it was addressed and right or wrong, the state was willing to accept those penalties, losing half their delegates... that could have been the end of it...wrong, but still the end.
The fact that it got this far, is the fault of all parties involved, in my opinion.
Michigan and Florida for moving it up... Dean and DNC for changing the penalty to try to force Michigan and Florida to back down and all of them for not looking at the big picture.
If pundits, in the news, bloggers and CJ's, all foresaw this whole mess blowing up, because we all wrote about it last year...how on earth did the party leaders, on the state level and the DNC leaders, not foresee it? -
@ Sue D.
I agree and that is why there was a whole section in the DNC rules about penalties if the rules were broken. Violation of timing.
So it was addressed and right or wrong, the state was willing to accept those penalties, losing half their delegates... that could have been the end of it...wrong, but still the end.
The fact that it got this far, is the fault of all parties involved, in my opinion.
Michigan and Florida for moving it up... Dean and DNC for changing the penalty to try to force Michigan and Florida to back down and all of them for not looking at the big picture.
If pundits, in the news, bloggers and CJ's, all foresaw this whole mess blowing up, because we all wrote about it last year...how on earth did the party leaders, on the state level and the DNC leaders, not foresee it?
It would seem that they were all so hell-bent on getting their own way that they lost all focus to what was the most important issue. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
It would seem that they were all so hell-bent on getting their own way that they lost all focus to what was the most important issue.
AMEN. Now, no matter what they do, someone loses. As far as I am concerned, as long as it is not the voters themselves, fine by me. -
-
@ Sue D.
I see the state Senate adjourned today and the reports are saying that means the do over plan is dead.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/POLITICS01/803200465/1022/POLITICS
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/NEWS15/80320052
Thank-you Susan for this latest up-date.
Hillary's last ditch effort for a state that "don’t count for anything." and then suddenly does count when it could benefit her didn't pay off. -
Yes...thanks for the updates, Susan. I'm glad the do-over plan is dead...
-
Thank-you Susan for this latest up-date.
Hillary's last ditch effort for a state that
"don’t count for anything."
and then suddenly does count when it could benefit her didn't pay off.
My pleasure. It flashed on the top of my screen in updates so I thought i would add it here since you are covering it so nicely.
I agree, although the DNC might very well decide to either count the votes as they stand now, even though Obama wasn't even on the ballot and many will feel disenfrachised, or divide the delegates 50/50 which already has Hillary supporters howling in pre-emptive outrage.
If they do neither and refuse to seat any of the delegates, sticking to the DNC guns, so to speak, there are going to be and already are some very very angry Michigan voters.
I cannot see any perfect solution. -
@ Sue D.
My pleasure. It flashed on the top of my screen in updates so I thought i would add it here since you are covering it so nicely.
I agree, although the DNC might very well decide to either count the votes as they stand now, even though Obama wasn't even on the ballot and many will feel disenfrachised, or divide the delegates 50/50 which already has Hillary supporters howling in pre-emptive outrage.
If they do neither and refuse to seat any of the delegates, sticking to the DNC guns, so to speak, there are going to be and already are some very very angry Michigan voters.
I cannot see any perfect solution.
It is impossible for a perfect solution.
Obama was not on the ballot as he was following party rules.
Clinton had her name on the ballot but because of the way things were done she certainly should not be counted as the Democratic winner in Michigan.
It will be interesting to see what will be done now.
Take a bow Gov. Granholm you certainly have gotten Michigan noticed. I hope it makes you happy. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
It is impossible for a perfect solution.
Obama was not on the ballot as he was following party rules.
Clinton had her name on the ballot but because of the way things were done she certainly should not be counted as the Democratic winner in Michigan.
It will be interesting to see what will be done now.
Take a bow Gov. Granholm you certainly have gotten Michigan noticed. I hope it makes you happy.
Ok, off topic yet sort of on topic, for a second.
Being you are in Michigan, what is your take on his reelection chances? -
@ Sue D.
Ok, off topic yet sort of on topic, for a second.
Being you are in Michigan, what is your take on his reelection chances?
Not sure if I know what you mean.
But if you mean Obama if there was a second election I am not sure. I am not sure how many voted uncommitted which would probably be those who were for Obama There were those who also voted Republican that would have given Obama their vote if he would have broken party rules and had his name on the ballot.
Michigan is a Democratic state largely because of the unions and a couple of other reasons. But which one would have taken the most votes it is hard to tell. -
If Michigan is going to be allowed to seat their delegates the best solution could be what Lensman said and now others are saying.
-
I meant Grnaholm, I am sorry. Had lunch on the mind and forget to specify...my bad!
-
@ Sue D.
I meant Grnaholm, I am sorry. Had lunch on the mind and forget to specify...my bad!
What threw me is Granholm is a woman not a man.
She is our first female governor.
She could not run again. There was an amendment in 1992 to Michigan's constitution that limited the governor to two four-year terms.
If she could run again I am not sure she would be re-elected as many that were once supportive of her are not any more. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
What threw me is Granholm is a woman not a man.
She is our first female governor.
She could not run again. There was an amendment in 1992 to Michigan's constitution that limited the governor to two four-year terms.
If she could run again I am not sure she would be re-elected as many that were once supportive of her are not any more.
Again, that was my bad. i don't think properly when hungry huh? HEH
Good on not being able to stand for reelection though. Thanks! Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Email
Print
Share
