« Headline Writers At The Major Networks Slow To Get Obama's Message | Home | Hillary: I'm Glad Obama Gave That Speech »
Report: Michigan Re-Vote In Trouble
A day after Florida Dems nixed a revote in the state, local news in Detroit is reporting that Michigan's revote is in big trouble, too.
Apparently, Michigan state Senate Dems met behind closed doors today and emerged saying that there are not enough votes to approve a revote, and legislative approval is necessary to making it happen.
Separately, Ben Smith spoke to Obama Michigan co-chair Tupac Hunter, who said that there's "overwhelming" reluctance to approving the revote.
The rub here is that the window is closing rapidly -- if something isn't agreed upon soon, there simply won't be any time for a revote to get the approval it needs. And it won't happen.
Advertisement
EXCELLENT NEWS!!
No do overs!!
Let the credentials conmittee decide at the convention.
March 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will knock out one my 7 scenarios on how the Dem nonination process will end:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/7-scenarios-on-how-the-democra.php
Now if only Gravel would concede then I could knock out scenario #7...
March 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
More bad news for Hillary
March 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 18, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is so pathetic from obama camp ! they are clearly trying to sabotage the whole plan by voting against the revote plan! i think it's really unfortunate!
March 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If nothing else, as alternate solutions are accepted, we hurry along to the end of this long primary season.
March 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is not being reported here is that the votes needed but not forthcoming are on the GOP side. The GOP controls the Michigan Senate, and they have made it clear they have no interest in going along with the proposal.
March 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they have no interest in getting this over because it is to the Republican's advantage that this race go on as long as possible.
But it's funny how you hear no discussion about the role of the Republicans in this. It's all Obama's fault (for some) or Clinton's fault (for others) or Howard Dean's fault (for Clinton).
March 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Michigan revote is a waste of time and money. $30 million for a net delegate swing of maybe 5-8? Can someone explain to me how that is worthwhile?
Hell. Just give Hillary the 8 delegates. It won't make any difference.
March 18, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a waste of money. Have you guys noticed what is going on with the economy lately. I'm sure they will come to an equitable solution.
March 18, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Florida, Michigan, and Texas kinda told Clinton to go away. Well, she does have the big states, but Texas no more.
Yes, GOP hands are all over Florida and Michigan. A retrospective may show that this was their plan from the beginning, to disrupt anyway, anyplace and anytime.
On Texas? Well Texas is Texas, no thanks to Clinton & Co.
Pelosi's recent remarks may now have legs!!!!
March 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
hyperRevue,
It's cute that your remain fixed that superdelegates vote entirely the way of pledged delegates. The whole bit about them using their own judgment was just hog-wash--not really a rule.
I'm sure you are aware, of course, that there is a (outside, but still) chance that Sen. Clinton could win the popular vote, and have some moral authority to at least make a strong case for the nomination based on winning the will of 'the people'--and not just the will of the pledged delegates.
But of course, the will of the people is only important if it is placed upon pledged delegates, and not the voters in Michigan or Florida.
March 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
ummm, I made no mention of super delegates and how they should or should not vote. We're talking about a new primary and thus pledged delegates and neither candidate would have been likely to come out of Michigan with more than a handful net gain of pledged delegates.
I must say, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
March 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There actually is no realistic chance that Hillary can overcome Obama's lead in the popular vote. And besides, relying on a popular vote argument "disenfranchises" (to use a Clintonian term appropriately, for a change) all the participants in all the caucus states, the results from which are not reflected in any of the popular vote totals.
The rules of the contest were known for some time before it began. Obama prepared for it and won it (just like he will win the contest against McCain). Hillary did not and now wants to change the rules. Her positions are absurd on their face. In fact, when I heard her say on NPR that the Michigan vote was fair because it was "his choice" to take his name off the ballot, I realized I could never vote for this person to be president. I've had a lifetime of bullshit artists in the White House. No rational, sentient being above the age of 8 could consider the Michigan result "fair." If she's capable of claiming that, she's capable of any conceivable lie to the American people.
March 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any objections tha Obama's peeps might have with the re-vote plan is irrelevant to why a re-vote isn't going happen. The people who actually run the elections in Michigan's counties came out on the record yesterday and said that if was practically impossible for them to pull off a re-vote in June given that they had to plan for this summer's local elections and then the general election in November. There are apperently serious computer program issues that just will not be overcomed regardless of whether there is the money to pull this off. On top of that, the Michigan Republican party isn't going to sigh off and the plan either.
This is why there are rules that are set and why said rules need to be followed. Michigan and Florida Democratic leaders brought this mess down on top of their heads and if the Democratic nominee has an issue getting those votes this fall because of this issue, it is the state party officials who are to blame.
March 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Give Hillary the damn delegates, and thus one less thing to whine about. The ROI on this is abysmally bad.
But really, I still think FL and MI should get nothing, nada, zip. They didn't misunderstand the rules; they just broke them, knowing full well what the consequences would be. Tough luck.
Oh - and can we all come together as a group, set aside the animosity between the BO and HRC camps, and agree that adding exclamation points doesn't make statement any truer? It's political discourse as written by a fifth-grade girl. (OMG!!! The dems are totally, like, tearing themseleves apart!!!)
Except for Idiotic, of course. Idiotic is my hero.
March 18, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
One person breaks the rules, the other is assailed for upholding them.
Round and round she goes, where she stops no one knows.
March 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take the 8 delegates from Michigan. And the 40 from Florida. And what happens if Sen. Clinton gets 25 from Pennsylvania?
More importantly, what if the margins in these three states are significant enough to have more PEOPLE vote for Sen. Clinton when all the voting is done. Would that make any difference to you?
March 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of what ifs in that.
Since there won't be new elections in FL or MI, there won't be any "margins" of victory. And without FL or MI, I don't see how Hillary can take the popular vote lead. But I guess I'll deal with that if it happens.
March 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever Clinton gains in Pennsylvania will be mostly wiped out by Obama's gains in North Carolina, which is almost as delegate-rich as the Keystone State and is very favorable territory for Obama.
March 18, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are just a few delegate slots in Iowa -- let's not let them vote either.
I wish people would stop using Michigan and not indicating whether they mean the voters, the state party or the state government.
The point is that ever since Obama figured out after Ohio that he might still lose Michigan he has opposed a re-vote. Prior to that he was pushing hard for one.
And in Michigan, we know that he was begged to keep his name on the ballot and refused.
March 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee Officer; yes we did run the red light, to speed past all the others who were obeying the traffic rules, but now that you have stopped us, how about letting us just go back and drive through the light again, instead of suspending our driving licenses.
Try that out on the next cop that pulls you over. Good luck.
March 18, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
hyperRevenue
I agree with you. That is what I meant in my original post:
If I were a betting man, I'd be much more willing to bet that Sen. Obama will prevail over Sen. Clinton. But with such a close race, it is in my own judgment that we ought to have everybody vote. Meaning, the remaining 10 contests as well as Michigan and Florida. I think this is the most effective way to leave no doubt who the winner is in the end. At it is most likely to be Sen. Obama with the trifecta--more pledged delegates, more states, and MORE votes. But there is a somewhat plausible scenario where Sen. Clinton could win more votes and have a valid argument to give to the superdelegates. That argument can't be made without these two states, and Obama and his supporters know that. I suspect (although cannot prove, of course) that if these were states that were VERY favorable to Sen. Clinton, many people's arguments would have a slightly different tone.
March 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I totally agree. If you look back over the weeks, I've been in full support of a re-vote as the only truly fair solution.
I think Hillary would have taken FL, but by a smaller margin than she did in January(I base that on the trend we've seen all over of Obama closing the initial gap after he's campaigned in the state) while Michigan would have been very close one way or the other. But now I'm more or less just sick of hearing about FL and MI and have come to the conclusion that all this attention and hype is giving the two states exactly what they wanted when they broke the rules in the first place - more importance.
And while I agree that it's possible for Hillary to take the popular vote if FL and MI had revotes, I think it's just as likely that Obama takes the popular vote by such a margin that FL and MI wouldn't have matter anyway, short of 80-20 victories for Clinton. There are a lot of hypotheticals floating around. I guess we won't know for sure until after Puetro Rico.
March 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant to say if these two states were very favorably to Sen. Obama, many people's arguments would have a slightly different tone.
March 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I thought that didn't make sense.
But I guess my response is so what?
It's fair to say that if Hillary had lost those 2 states we'd be hearing a very different tone from the Clinton camp. So what? It's not the reality.
March 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. MI and FL moved their date up to try to have more sway than the rest of us, even after they were warned not to.
Now that the election is still undecided and late voting states like Oregon finally have a chance for our votes to actually matter, because unlike MI and FL - Democrats here listened to the DNC's warnings, they want to change the rules so they can vote last and have the most sway.
It's all rather crazy for two states to decide that their voices are more important than the rest of ours. I'm sorry they made poor choices and now their voices aren't going to be heard until they meet up with the rules committee, but just like I tell my kids all of the time, "If you make a bad choice - bad things will happen as a result."
March 18, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can a Clinton supporter here explain how Obama convinced 15 of the 17 Dem Senators NOT to back the Michigan vote plan? What is the man, Rasputin? Svengali? Eugene Landy? Enough with the conspiracy theories, Clintonistas. You have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory the old fashioned way: hard work! Enjoy!
March 18, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink