MI and Republicans

Florida being out, all eyes turn to Michigan. There appeared to be a sticking point that Marc Ambinder said "could be a dealbreaker for the Obama campaign in Michigan." That is, the "proposed primary re-vote legislation in Michigan prevents those who've voted in the Republican primary from voting in the re-vote." The update though shows that this cannot be a sticking point, because its against the DNC rules:

"No person shall participate or vote in the nominating process for a Democratic presidential candidate who also participates in the nominating process of any other party for the corresponding elections."
Ambinder thinks the Obama camp might still hang their hat on this as being unfair, with the implication being that they disallow the re-vote in Michigan to happen. That'd be a big blow to Clinton, and the whole process, as getting Michigan off the table helps the chances of Florida being counted. Getting Michigan counted helps Obama too, as it brings at least those 55 delegates from uncommitted into his camp.

The whole debate over Republicans voting in the Dem primary seems to have shifted to favoring Clinton now more than Obama-- in order to further the primary mess. Here's a look how the upcoming states break down in terms of their makeup:

Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.

If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.

Long ways from happening too.

Delegate-wise, Obama is right on the verge of over-taking Clinton's most optimistic count, that includes FL & MI. That lead could be important if Obama, assuming that if he's in the same position then that his is right now with the numbers, and wants to avoid a conflict by going ahead with seating those states regardless of their standing. Clinton is likely to pull back ahead with PA, but here's where it stands right now:

Available delegates remaining:   959
Needed to Win:                   2208

Hillary Clinton:                 1686
Barack Obama:                    1685
Uncommitted:                     55
John Edwards:                    31

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)



Are There Any Republicans in Puerto Rico?

Probably not too many.

I think, Jerome, you're missing a good part of the story on why there's an issue with Republican primary voters in Michigan. Your co-author, Markos, openly called for Michigan Democrats to cross over and vote in the Republican primary when it was clear that the non-sanctioned Michigan Democratic primary would not count. Markos's call to arms got a lot of attention in the traditional press. A lot of good, loyal Democrats thus voted in the Michigan Republican primary to help keep Mitt Romney alive.

There are some possible remedies, though, to allow these good Democrats to vote in their home party's contest. One remedy is that people who voted in the Republican primary are eligible to vote in the new Democratic primary as long as they switched their registration back as of, say, the end of February, 2008. Assuming Michigan has party registration, that'd be quite fair and allow "Kos Republicans for a day" to vote.

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-18 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Are There Any Republicans in Puerto Rico?

Is there never any consequence for Obama's bad decisions?  If you chose to vote in the Republican primary, live with your decision.

Anyway I am sure the small number of Kosublicans will be swamped by the number of real Republicans trying to game our primary. That is Obama's real prize.

by ineedalife 2008-03-18 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Are There Any Republicans in Puerto Rico?

How is it to Obama's benefit that Republicans are trying to game the primary? Evidence shows that he'd have probably wrapped the game up if it weren't for Republicans.

Prior to March 4th, Obama was getting approximately 3% of his vote from Republicans, and Clinton slightly less (about 1-1 1/2%, according to NPR). Suddenly, Clinton's percentage of vote from Republicans shot to 9% in Texas and 12% in Mississippi, and a lot of those people indicated they were a)wanting Hillary to win because they viewed her as more "beatable", b)they really don't like Obama, or c)they don't care who wins as long as the Democratic party destroys itself.

Now, I don't care if you support Obama or Hillary, this is asinine no matter what the result. Rush says Hillary's more beatable, but since when does Rush Limbaugh know jack? Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, we all suffer for these jerks pulling this crap.

by ragekage 2008-03-18 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Are There Any Republicans in Puerto Rico?

Many of us decried the action of voting in the Republican primary.

Those who did made their beds. They can lay in them now.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Are There Any Republicans in Puerto Rico?

Agreed, but there was always a possibility that MI would get its collective poop in a group and hold a legitimate primary, ergo, those who chose to vote Republican made their beds and can now lie in them.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Are There Any Republicans in Puerto Rico?

Michigan DOESN'T have party registration and even though I'm an Obama supporter, if you played the game, oh well...

by thezzyzx 2008-03-18 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: MI and Republicans


I've looked at a variety of sources for the delegate count, including your main page, and your number in this article seems to still be inaccurate.


by ragekage 2008-03-18 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: MI and Republicans

I am used to online articles giving a link or at the very least a source when they give statistics like those at the end, that seems particularly important when the numbers seem quite different from those given by most of the MSM.

by Fred in Vermont 2008-03-18 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: MI and Republicans

It goes beyond inaccurate and into the land of either delusion or deliberately false propaganda.

One is forced to wonder what, exactly, Jerome thinks he's doing.

by Justin Alexander 2008-03-20 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: MI and Republicans

Read the diary and all will become clear, grasshopper.

by switching sides 2008-03-18 03:48AM | 0 recs
I am disgusted with Obama

Insisting that Republicans that voted in the Republican primary be allowed to vote again in the Democratic primary? That is just wrong. Hillary is no  saint but even she wouldn't go there.

So his respect for DNC rules and claim that he will abide by their decisions was just another lie. Add it to the list.

If the Dems do stiff MI and FL they will have blown their easiest chance at the Whitehouse in my lifetime. And why should America want these clowns to govern when they can't even run a primary?

by ineedalife 2008-03-18 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: I am disgusted with Obama

SCOTUS is clear on this in CDP v. Jones 2000. Can't double dip--it is illegal and violates free association. Apparently teaching con law/civil liberties at U Chicago didn't involve teaching the first amendment. Doesn't matter--it isn't that important.

by hctb 2008-03-18 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I am disgusted with Obama
sorry. you can only act strategically once in the primary election.
Sorry of you think you have all the information but then things change.
This is one area where there is actually clear legal support for the DNC's position about excluding those who voted in the Republican primary.
Your frustration is noted but, if you want to play a role in the selection of the Democratic nominees, you do not get to play a role in the selection of Republicans.
I will not defend people that are crossing over to the other party's primaries to cause trouble. In the long ist of people who we are choosing among to disenfranchise, I think this group is least worthy of my efforts of protection.
by hctb 2008-03-18 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I am disgusted with Obama
There is no should in this situation. There is no fairness. Is it fair for voters in early states to waste their votes on a candidate who doesn't stay in the race?  This isn't about fairness.  Take your 'fair' and get on the bus cause that is the only place fair is going to take you. The rest of us are going for a re-do. There is no pandora's box.  There was fairy universal agreement that FL and MI would get seated in full. No one expected things to be so competitive so they are going to redo rather than just accepting the results. Fine.
Sorry about the folks who tried to get cute. It was a costly decision for little impact. Lesson learned.
by hctb 2008-03-18 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I am disgusted with Obama

I think it's clear that we should hold a re-vote and every vote for Obama should count three times.

... I mean, if we're going to change the rules mid-stream, we might as well go all-out, right?

by Justin Alexander 2008-03-20 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I am disgusted with Obama

Well, first of all the SC has said parties can make the rules with regards to their nominating primaries, so I don't know if there is a constitutional question or not.

Second, I believe it is also against Michigan law to  vote in both parties' primaries.

Third, it's not unfair. These people are NOT disenfranchised - they cast legal votes in the Republican primary and that's where they will be counted.

It was their choice - they could have voted "uncommitted".

by cmugirl90 2008-03-18 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I am disgusted with Obama

No.no...he is insisting that Democrats and Independents who voted be allowed to re-vote...he surely doesn't want those Limbaugh republicans...

by trubble 2008-03-18 05:28AM | 0 recs
Delegate count?

What is the source for your delegate count?

by swarty 2008-03-18 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate count?

I'd say it got pulled out of a dark and humid place.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 04:33AM | 0 recs
Speaking as an Obama Supporter

Michigan should hold its vote and Michigan should bar anybody who voted in the Republican primary from voting in the legitimate Democratic Party.

Everybody knew the Republican primary would count and the Democratic primary would not count. Thos who chose to participate in the Republican primary did so with full knowledge of the consequences and therefore they do not have a say in any legitimate Democratic Primary.

This is no different from South Carolina where the Republicans held their primary the week before the Democrats.

To those who so stupidly participated in the GOP primary in Michigan I say "tough shit. You made your bed now lay in it."

I warned people not to take the advice of Markos in Michigan. People didn't listen to me.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as an Obama Supporter

The law and the rules are not accountable to the inability of people to think and reason.

It stands to reason that if you choose in an open primary state, to vote in the primary of one party you shall not be allowed to vote in teh primary of the other party. The possibility of holding a primary or caucus that fell within the rules of the DNC was always out there. It required people to think and reason in order to realize that, but it didn't require rocket science.

Those who chose to vote "Uncommitted" were the truly thinking individuals. Expressing "Uncommitted" regardless of who you really wanted, even if their name was on the ballot, was the only truly legitimate vote in an illegitimate primary. The only choice equal to that would have been to not participate at all.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as an Obama Supporter

That's because the framing of the thing as a "do-over" is blatantly false on its face. You cannot "do-over" what was never done to begin with.

The only elgitimate Democratic Primary in Michigan would be one sanctioned by the DNC and held between February 5 and June 10. The possibility of holding such a legitimate primary or caucus was always present under the rules.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as an Obama Supporter

Walt Starr's point is the one supported by precedent.  Delaware ran non-sanctions primary straw polls in 1996 and 2000.  D.C. ran an unsanctioned primary straw poll in 2004.  Both later arranged and held caucuses to actually select delegates to the national convention.

Neither of the straw poll primaries mattered.  All three times the state involved eventually held a real contest.

FL proposes to simply not hold a contest.  There is no precedent for that and the DNCC should simply refuse to seat any FL delegates at all.

MI proposes to hold a new contest.  Fair or not, that is supported by precedent and must be allowed to go forward, with or without the agreement of the candidates.

by Brian Watkins 2008-03-18 07:57AM | 0 recs
Fact based arguments

It would help immensely if the delegate count on this site reflected reality. Otherwise, it's easy to dismiss every argument here as propaganda, and that isn't the case.

by brit 2008-03-18 04:44AM | 0 recs
TYep, countin FL And MI as they stand

is illegitimate and nonsensical, not to mention propogandistic.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate count

Jerome is the only  person that has the current delegate count with Hillary ahead.

None of the news organizations or political people have this count.

Most show Clinton behind by 150-160 delegates that are pledged. Using the super delegates most have her behind by 110-120 delegates.

by BDM 2008-03-18 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate count

I always use Real Clear Politics as the refernce of choice since they seem to update almost immediatley whenever there's a change, such as Iowa on Saturday, Colorado last week, or California when the state certified the results.

They even update their Superdelegate coutner whenever tehre's another endorsement.

Right now their count is 1627 O 1494 C. That includes SDs, too.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-18 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegate count

While I don't think much of Jerome due to his extreme bias, he did say that the numbers he gave were "Hillary's best case".

Wouldn't surprise me if he got those from someone in Hillary's camp.

by Timetheos 2008-03-18 05:27AM | 0 recs
just to be clear...

...this would not be a "re-vote".

As was clear at the time, the primary held in Michigan in January by the state of Michigan was never an official primary that would be allowed to award delegates to the convention.

Any suggestion of a "re-vote" is nonsense.  If it is a new election, it is a new election and I would assume that the Democratic Party of Michigan would get to choose who can vote in that process.

However, they seem very disingenuous to me.

First, they complain about the cost, but they rule out caucuses or some other simple, cheap form of primary.

Next, they decide to escalate the cost by saying that only those people who voted in the democratic primary in January, or did not vote at all, are eligible to vote in their new super-duper primary.  This sounds like a nightmare from a logistics standpoint to me.

Either they want to do a primary or caucus that will follow the rules of the Democratic Party or they don't.

Either they want people to participate in the process or they don't.

From the very beginning it appears that they really just don't want to follow the rules and are seeking a pre-ordained outcome.

by d 2008-03-18 05:08AM | 0 recs

"The Texas Democratic Party will not do as suggested by one campaign and circumvent party rules to set up an unnecessary, ad hoc 'verification' process that could effectively disqualify delegates selected at their precinct conventions after the fact."

by ClementeR 2008-03-18 05:21AM | 0 recs
I love Jerome's numbers.

Sometimes I think he writes things that he doesn't think or believe just to see how much "buzz" they will cause.

It might be time to promote him to the white house press corps.

by d 2008-03-18 05:22AM | 0 recs
This site is getting down right silly...

Those numbers are literally made up.  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_delegate_count .html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/scorecard/

please explain.

For the record, Hillary can't win the delegate count.  She just can't.  At this point it is really just a matter of how far she'll bring down the party, Obama, and herself.

by wickedmessenger 2008-03-18 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: MI and Republicans

So... let's talk about gaming the system.

The MI and FL state governments and parties tried to game the system by holding their primaries early in the thought that the DNC would chicken out first.  They gamed the system as disloyal Democrats and lost.

The Democratic voters in MI learned that the only way that their vote would count is if they voted Republican.  They gamed the system as loyal Democrats and scored a temporary, tactical win, keeping Romney in the race a bit longer while we (and encouraging him to blow more of his own money... I'd chalk that up as a win, too).

Clinton, realizing that she's behind, suddenly gains great devotion towards seating the FL and MI delegations, which in large part voted for her because her name recognition was higher than the other candidates', and even scoring a minimal win in MI despite Obama not being on the ballot because he went in good faith with a DNC decision.  She attempts to get a fair redux, which was not really on the table before, and succeeds.  She gamed the system (I'm not going to say whether she is loyal or disloyal, draw your own conclusions) and potentially partially won, getting a MI revote.

All of a sudden, those loyal Michigan voters who are the only ones in this mess who gamed the system from an indisputably loyal perspective, trying to buy time for the Democratic primary to resolve before the Republicans coalesced around McCain, are being told that, in this Clinton-inspired redux, they cannot vote?  The voters aren't the ones who screwed themselves out of representation, it was greedy state governments who wanted to butt in line and disenfranchise other, smaller early voting states who have been given express permission to have a unique role in American politics.

We're already so far off the track in terms of fairness that Clinton can't, by her own logic of not disenfranchising voters in the affected states, say that a caveat that says that people who voted in the Republican primary cannot vote in the new primary is somehow fair.

Besides that, there's evidence that Republicans are starting to come around to Rush Limbaugh's belief that Clinton will be easier for McCain to beat.  I think the real tactical manuver here is that, even if she isn't easier to beat, and even if she wins, the amount of system-gaming and Democratic disaffection that would be required for that victory to take place throughout this entire process will guarantee Limbaugh ratings for years to come.

So Clinton should be all for Republican primary system-gamers voting here.  They could be her only chance.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-18 05:42AM | 0 recs
Let's back up

I think it's useful to back up and look at how we got here:

1. Candidates pander to Iowa and NH and agree Michigan and Florida don't count;  ALL AGREE

2. Ooops. Clinton suckers colleagues and keeps name on Michigan ballot.  Fool me once!

3. Ooops.  Clinton suckers colleagues again and rides into Florida announcing her victory and adopting the mantle of the hero of Michigan and Florida voters.  Fool me twice

4. The result is that no "re-do" election can be uncontaminated.  Who wants to run against a candidate who has set herself up as the hero (paradoxically enough given her betraying the process)?

Under these conditions, Obama would be a fool to trust her on any new vote going forward.  

Also, any superdelegate who is also in Congress might well ask whether she can be trusted to negotiate honestly on, let us say, healthcare coverage.

Ignoring all else, I think this trust issue is one that is likely to work to Obama's advantage with superdelegates.

by trubble 2008-03-18 05:51AM | 0 recs

Let's just quote the whole of the evidence that the Obama campaign is advocating letting people who voted GOP being allowed to vote here:

This could be a dealbreaker for the Obama campaign in Michigan.

Michigan Democrats have said that they won't move the bill the forward unless the Obama campaign gives its assent.

I'm told the Obama campaign is reviewing this part of the legislation...

The piece openly admits it is conjecture and that he has no information indicating that it is a problem.  Truthiness!

by PantsB 2008-03-18 05:53AM | 0 recs
What a joke, Delegate count???

Here is the current count from


Obama   1627
Clinton 1494

and Politico
Obama  1617
Clinton 1498

So where did you get your count?

by Silence Do Good 2008-03-18 07:13AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads