Campaigning for Obama to lose in Michigan

Is Getting Out The "Uncommitted" Vote—i.e. campaigning to lose—any less of a political campaign than a GOTV effort to win an election?

Background: The battle began, so it is reported, based on "a fight between Michigan's leading Democrats, including Sen. Carl Levin and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, and the Democratic National Committee. Frustrated that Iowa and New Hampshire were getting so much attention, Michigan's political elites in both parties changed their Feb. 9 caucus to a primary and bumped it to Jan. 15."

On October 9, 2007, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Office said that Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who had already agreed to not campaign in Michigan "because it broke" Democratic National Committee rules by moving its primary date ahead of February 5, 2008, filed paperwork to boycott the ballot.

"Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface," Lynda Waddington reported in the Iowa Independent, adding that the Obama campaign, "arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa."

On November 21, 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court okayed the January 15, 2008, presidential primary date, after which the DNC stripped Michigan of its delegates for the national convention.

As pledged, none of the Democratic candidates was to run a GOTV (Get Out The Vote) political campaign in Michigan.

Vote "uncommitted": It was projected that, if "uncommitted" were to get at least 15 percent of the primary vote, there would have to be "a separate delegate selection meeting to determine who the uncommitted delegates should represent," according to Mark Maynard, who cited the following from the Washtenaw Dems in his blog:

The 2008 Michigan Primary will be on Tuesday, January 15th. Voters registered before December 17, 2007 are eligible to vote.

You will cast your vote in your usual polling place. If you need information, please go to the Washtenaw Votes website. At the polling place you will be asked for identification in order to vote, but if you do not have ID, you will be asked to sign an affidavit, and are still eligible to vote.

On this Democratic primary ballot the candidates are: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd (has withdrawn from race), Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. There are also lines for uncommitted and for write-in candidates. If you want to vote for Barack Obama or John Edwards you must vote the "UNCOMMITTED" line! NO WRITE-IN VOTES WILL BE COUNTED FOR ANY CANDIDATES!

If "uncommitted" gets at least 15% of the vote, there will be one or more delegates elected at the Congressional District Convention which will take place on March 29th, 2008. In order to be eligible to vote at the Congressional District Convention, you must be a member of the Michigan Democratic Party. To join, go to Michigan Dems dotcom and then to the membership tab. If you want to be eligible to influence who is elected as uncommitted delegates, join the MDP and attend your Congressional District Convention!

Campaigning to lose: The Denver Post reported January 10, 2008, that Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers, both Obama supporters, produced and aired campaign ads urging voters to cast 'uncommitted' ballots in Michigan's Democratic presidential primary:

MALE: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS CONFUSING. I WANT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BUT OBAMA'S NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT.

FEMALE: THERE IS NO ONE ON THAT BALLOT I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.

MALE: WELL, THESE FOLKS CAN HELP US. EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS, WE NEED YOUR HELP.

FEMALE: HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR OBAMA ON TUESDAY?

Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN'T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA'S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES. BUT YOU CAN VOTE UNCOMMITTED

Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED.

Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE.

MALE: THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS. I WILL JOIN YOU AND VOTE UNCOMMITTED ON TUESDAY.

FEMALE: ME TOO - AT LEAST MY VOTE WON'T BE WASTED

Councilwoman Conyers: THIS TRUTH IN POLITICS MESSAGE WAS PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MONICA CONYERS

Early warning: Lynda Waddington's October 2007 report was confirmed January 10, 2008, by Nick Bunkley, who wrote in the New York Times' The Caucus blog that the Conyers urged voters "to vote 'uncommitted' to help them gain momentum and to deal a setback" to Sen. Clinton." New groups, including Michiganders for Obama, Michigan for Edwards and the newly formed Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters, "campaign[ed] door-to-door, on the phone and at rallies, spreading the uncommitted message."

Campaigning or not?: On January 14, 2008, the day prior to the Michigan primary, the Detroit News reported

The Obama and Edwards campaigns are urging voters to opt for "uncommitted." ... Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, co-chairman of the Obama campaign in Michigan, said there is no organized effort to push the uncommitted vote here.

He said word of mouth and letters to the editor are the main methods of communication he's using to reach Obama supporters. He said he knows of no phone banks set up to coax uncommitted voters to the polls in the last two days.

This raises the question of whether or not Sen. Obama was actually running a political campaign in Michigan through surrogates pressing for an "uncommitted" vote, particularly when it is clear that, contrary to what Michigan Sen. Thomas stated, there was an "organized effort to push the uncommitted vote" in Michigan.  

It also raises the question as to whether those who were voting "uncommitted" understood that they were being used as pawns in a political game that skirted on the edge of FEC rules on what constitutes electioneering.

These questions appear to not have been raised. They certainly have not been answered.



Display:


Re: Campaigning for Obama to lose in Michigan (2.00 / 1)

Tip jar. Please be kind.


by Artificial Intelligence on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST

Re: Campaigning for Obama to lose in Michigan (none / 0)

Very good diary.  People can make of this information what they will, but it's important for folks to understand the reality of what happened in Michigan.  What's reported in this diary is entirely consistent with what I've heard from all my friends and family in Michigan, and I have quite a few.

The Michigan Democratic Party was quite publicly telling people that if they liked a candidate who wasn't on the ballot, they should go out and vote uncommitted.  It wasn't just Obama partisans saying this.

The reporting by the Iowa Independent as to why all the candidates pulled their name from the ballot has never been debunked, or even called into question.  Folks, it's just reality.  With Hillary having a big polling lead in the state, and with everyone having agreed not to campaign, they all figured there was no way they were overtaking her.  So they pulled their names to minimize the impact of Hillary's win.  That's just reality.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST

Re: Campaigning for Obama to lose in Michigan (2.00 / 1)

And it shows the lengths to which folks would go to control voters' votes (i.e. disenfranchise). By not letting voters know what the REAL agenda was, they prohibited them from exercising free choice at the ballot box.


by Artificial Intelligence on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:53:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Campaigning for Obama to lose in Michigan (none / 0)

Thanks for spelling it all out.  I was getting tired of the "H only got 55% of the vote even though B didn't even campaign" storyline.


by demmonty on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST

Michigan was good template for FL and super T. (none / 0)

I have friend who lives in MI. He's diehard Republican and Clinton hater. He tells me everyone in MI knew exactly what was going on. And why shouldn't they, MI is not Mars. He personally debated whether to cast vote against Hillary because everyone knew and uncommitted was a vote against her. He ultimately voted Romney because he is pro business and felt Romney is bes t business candidate. Clinton got around 55% of vote which is where I expect her to be in FL and most of super Tuesday primaries which bear a much closer resemblance to MI than ever IA does.


by ottovbvs on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST

Re: Michigan was good template for FL and super T. (none / 0)

I hear what you are saying but I have to disagree on whether or not everyone knew that an uncommitted was a vote against Sen. Clinton—or even what that really meant. Keep in mind that Obama's supporters twisted in the wind until they found a way to turn this to his advantage. Until we had the results of the Iowa caucus, nobody really had an idea of how that was going to turn out. Panic set in now that Obama was viable and the campaign had to improvise to neutralize a bad decision.


by Artificial Intelligence on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.