Last-Ditch Talks Continue On Revote Between DNC, Michigan Dems And Clinton And Obama Camps
There are reports today that the Michigan revote is dead, and Obama's Michigan co-chair is saying that the votes aren't there in the state legislature to get a revote proposal passed.
But oddly enough, I'm told that private conversations are continuing right now between officials at the Democratic National Committee, the Michigan Democratic party, and the Hillary and Obama campaigns over ways to salvage some kind of last minute solution. Elizabeth Kerr, the spokesperson for the Michigan Dems, emails me:
I can confirm that discussion are ongoing with the DNC and both campaigns but cannot comment on the substance of those negotiations.
There's nothing in the Detroit News on the revote being dead, and the paper is reporting that several influential Michigan political players -- Senator Carl Levin, UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger and Democratic National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell -- are still gearing up to push the legislature one more time.
As best as I can understand it from talking to Michigan insiders, there's a sense that if a solution is agreed upon that Obama can support, then the situation in the state legislature could conceivably shift and it could conceivably pass. But it remains a long shot. There are no indications that Obama will shift his stance, and one aide to a Republican state senator put the chances of a revote happening at "two percent."
I'm trying to determine what's going on in the discussions and will keep you posted.
I'll be very disappointed if Obama doesn't agree to a reasonable proposal.
March 19, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would make two of us. A re-vote is the right thing to do. Of course, the operative word here is "reasonable." Any proposal which would not stand up to predictable legal challenge or which unduly favors one candidate or the other is not reasonable, but if a reasonable proposal is advanced, I expect Obama to support it. I would be hard pressed to continue to support him if I thought that he was willing to give the shaft to my fellow democrats in MI (or FL).
March 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last line, Greg
Aren't we being a mite petulant ?
What's FL anyway ? Obama didn't have any role in that, did he ?
March 19, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. Nota bene the "if" in my remarks. I am not really convinced that Obama is trying to give the shaft to the good people of FL and MI. I simply said that if he were, I would find it hard to support him.
March 19, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotcha. Mea Culpa.
March 19, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If MI and FL do not get to vote at the convention, the blame resides at home, not with Obama.
March 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, as opposed to some of your other posts today, THIS is actually reporting news
March 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, penn just told him to post it again to keep this story alive for the clintons' whining strategy. Big deal, I'm sure his phone line will be burning up again when they come up with another idea for a post on this topic.
March 19, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
A modest proposal: It has been a few years now since I was a Michigan voter, so my opinion in this matter counts for rather little, but I understand that one of the potential obstacles ot a re-vote is that state law does not allow the use of the voting machines for some extended period of time after an election, so it is not legally possible to use them without running up against the barrier of their use in January and November.
I remember that I voted online in the democratic caucus in 2004. A few of my housemates voted by mail. We were all quite satisfied with this arrangement. Others in my acquaintance went to the ward office and voted in person and were equally satisfied. This is a long way of saying that the democratic party in Michigan has (in recent memory) run elections to determine convention delegates without using the state's election apparatus. In other words, if the campaigns really want a re-vote (are you listening, Clinton campaign?) then they could have one arranged without any involvement by the state. This would obviate the need for support in the state senate or objections by county clerks' offices (etc). Just have the party run a vote-by-mail/internet/firehouse caucus.
March 19, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious how they resolve the issue with the voting machines....
March 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Party caucus, that is how. I said it before and I will say it again - this is how Michigan has traditionally selected its delegates and the system works just fine. If the process to get this re-vote is encumbered by the workings of Lansing, then I say just forget Lansing and let the party run a good old-fashioned caucus like in 2004. That would be a darn site better than no re-vote.
March 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has already said no to any caucuses. If she'd been agreeable, this thing would have been resolved WEEKS ago.
Also, who's paying for the primary? I suspect the Republicans are not going to agree until there is evidence of the cash.
March 19, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So he should call her out for obstruction just like she is trying to do to him. Give her a taste of her own medicine.
March 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's already sold the media on the story that caucuses are "undemocratic". Meanwhile, they seem willing to skip over the problems inherent in privately funding a primary where many Democrats who chose to vote in the open GOP primary would not be delegable to revote now.
A caucus works and would be cost-effective, but it's a none starter to Clinton. A rushed and imbalanced primary in the middle to June when Michigan students will be gone is (or should be) a none starter to Obama.
Situation? Impasse, and best solution to move forward would be to split the delegates. But that won't extend the clock the way Clinton needs.
March 19, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone else sick of the quadruple overtime in MI? I'm not even talking about who's ahead/behind or right/wrong. I'm just getting worn down reading about the whole process. Are they trying to beat the enthusiasm out of us?
(And no, I don't know who "They" are).
March 19, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Greg, who's votes aren't there? DNC approves the revote plan, Clinton's campaign does too, Obama's cmpaign obstructs and tries to run out the clock - why don't you say so in plain English? You say: "if a solution is agreed upon that Obama can support, then the situation in the state legislature could conceivably shift and it could conceivably pass." Translated from TPMese into English this means that Obama's supporters in the state legislature are preventing the re-vote law, approved by DNC, which grants full representation to the MI Dems, from passing. Am I missing something?
March 19, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mr Sargent. This is the sort of story which keeps me coming back to this blog.
March 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
AP:
Her schedule for Nov. 10, 1993, shows her speaking at a NAFTA briefing closed to the media, with 120 people expected to attend.
Via: Ben Smith
Does Hillary have a NAFTA problem? If so, let them vote in Michigan!
March 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. I forgot to say that I think Michigan should vote regardless of NAFTA. I think Obama is wrong on that score politically.
March 19, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER:
1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION
2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY
ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. I ALSO BELIEVE LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AFTER ILLEGALLY CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.
March 19, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
Nevermind, don't bother.
March 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
While both parties of the Dem camps are in the same room why doesnt someone propose that BOTH candidates get out and endorse and campaign for thier state DEM Senate & Congressional nominees for 08?
That is the one & only chance you have that can stifle the continued Bush/Cheney policies in 09.
A joint ticket won't help you in 08... too much poison in that glass of water.
Besides its easy for newbies, indies & crossovers to just leave the Dem Pres slot BLANK if its not the candidate of their choice.
I especially enjoyed watching a Dem candidate endorse a Republican for Commander in Chief rather than one of their own party members... ROFLMAO ... Will Rogers was so right!!!
I am not a member of any organized party--I am a Democrat. Author: Will Rogers
March 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the matter with the DNC? What the hell happened to rules? This is unbelievable. Just because MoNsTeR complains about this doesn't mean you have to cave in to its demands.
March 19, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Here's the response from Change to Win in Michigan:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/michigan-change-to-win-says-seat-the-delegation-50-50,320855.shtml
They're calling for a 50-50 split of MI delegates, which seems like a fair solution. If Hillary wants more, give her a 53-47 split. It doesn't matter.
March 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is the insurmountable problem with a revote:
Michigan has open primaries, so any Dem can cross over to vote in the Republican primary, and vice versa. They are held on the same day, and you can only vote in one primary.
Many Dems knew their votes wouldn't count in the Dem primary, so they crossed over and voted for or against Republican candidates because their vote would count in that primary. Every revote proposal I've seen says if you're a Dem or independent who voted in the Republican primary in January, you're ineligible for the Democratic revote. It makes sense on one level - if you didn't have this rule, all the Republicans who voted in their primary could cross over and make mischief for the Dems.
BUT it's really not fair to the Dems who would never had voted in the Republican primary had they known they were forfeiting their right to vote in a later Democratic primary (and one that turns out to matter quite a bit).
If they don't have a closed primary, for Dems only, allowing all Dems to vote (regardless of whether they voted in either of the earlier primaries), then I don't see how they aren't inviting lawsuits from Dems who voted in the Republican primary and find themselves shut out.
What is the election law in Michigan? Is it a requirement that the primaries be open?
March 19, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm only repeating what I read elsewhere (I think it was a Matthew Yglesias link from a couple of days ago), but one observation is that the Clinton team really doesn't want MI (or FL) resolved because that closes off one of their supposed possible scenarios to Hillary winning the nomination; they know neither state will do a revote, but they keep complaining about them so that voters/supporters/contributors will be fooled into believing that Hillary still might have a chance. For what it's worth.
March 19, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
While waiting for MI politicians trying to take their faces outta their collective a..s, here is Onion's take on BHO's yesterday speech. Hope you will enjoy as much as I did.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change
March 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this minutia in hot pursuit of trivia OR trivia in hot pursuit of minutia?
March 19, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut the number of delegates in half and seat them as is. There's just way too much drama about this and it's costing the democrats votes.
March 19, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As best as I can understand it from talking to Michigan insiders, there's a sense that if a solution is agreed upon that Obama can support, then the situation in the state legislature could conceivably shift and it could conceivably pass"
But, will he be asked to walk on water?
If he does , will this make him CIC materials?
Oh, the he is Obama; he kinda is responsible for everything but Clinton's campaign.
The Clinton folks sure are helpful!!!!
March 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be stunned if there is a reasonable proposal generated for Obama to agree to.
Right now, the plans are being drawn up by state officials who Clinton supporters, and possibly financed by Clinton "big money" backers.
Yeah, that looks fair so far.
March 19, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define "reasonable".
If the DNC OKs a plan, and MI sets a date and allocates funds, there is no way Obama gets to say anything but yes.
March 20, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink