Previous Next Latest

Michigan Revote

3/14/08, 10:57 pm EST

Looking like June 3 for a re-vote in America’s Mitten.

The details still need to be sorted out and the legislature has to act, so this is far from a done deal at the moment, but tentatively it looks like a primary, not a caucus, with non-state funding to be determined.


Previous Next Latest

Comments

Dick Pasman | 3/17/2008, 11:51 pm EST

I think Michigan should follow Florida’s lead and not waste any more time or money on a re-vote. Allowing one party to hold a private election seems a little queer to me.

Rich Greer | 3/18/2008, 9:27 am EST

Anyone with basic math skills knows that, absent a miracle, Obama will be the Democratic nominee. That will be even more apparent after North Carolina and Oregon have their primaries. The Michigan re-vote will have no bearing on the end result. Why spend the money?

Regardless of the re-vote Michigan is not going to vote for Bush’s 3rd term by electing John McCain.

DirtyDennis | 3/18/2008, 7:01 pm EST

Rich,

I never was very good at math and don’t know how ANYONE can be sure of what’s going on in the delegate count, but consider this:

Total Pledged: 3,253
Needed to win: 2,045
Obama: 1,413
Clinton: 1,242
Remaining Pledged: 598

Even if Obama got all the remaining pledged delegates, he wouldn’t have enough to win going into the convention. The Superdelegates can vote their conscience, as, in fact, can many if not all of the pledged delegates. And what of the Edwards’ delegates? Richardson delegates?

Now, if MI and FL are NOT counted, do you lower the number of delegates needed to win? This is shaping up to be a sh_itfry of considerable proportions. Hopefully some good will come of all of it, but for sure there are going to be a LOT of po-d folks come July.

Stephen Smith | 3/19/2008, 2:47 pm EST

Why is it that Hillary is fighting for a re-vote in Michigan if that is a state that she mostlikely will not win? And, even if she did win it by some miracle she would not pick up enough delegates to gain a lead. There are only 128 delegates at stake for Michigan. If she won 51% to 49% the delegates would be split about 64/64 leaving her still over 100 delegates behind. I just don’t understand her strategy here. It doesn’t make any sense.

Anonymous | 3/19/2008, 9:09 pm EST

(Jed Clampett)

It’s merely a negative PR campaign against Obama.
When you realize what her campaign manager is like, I wouldn’t put it past him to make such a calculated gaffe merely to take the opportunity to do what they are doing. Disparage Sen Obama as if he’s being unreasonable for not accepting their terms for a revote, just like they blocked florida by using their local supporters.

I’ve seen the tactic used many times on committe floor or even the senate floor. They know all they need is the soundbite, They have the certainty that the media will use it to distort the truth and change peoples perception of the event so they can use it in favourably.

John Sampson | 3/20/2008, 8:19 pm EST

I’m sorry to see my brothers and sisters in Michigan falling for the big con. For years our primary votes (I’m from Florida) were virtually meaningless because the politicians had made a deal to let Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina get first crack, and control the choices left to us. They did this solely for their own benefit – it was easier to raise money and run those limited campaigns, rather than fight in a big state early. So last year, we convinced our legislators to let us vote earlier. Hey- it’s supposed to be a democracy. The party rules of BOTH parties said they’d strip half of our votes if we did that. We were willing to take half as many delegates just to get votes that actually counted, so our legislatures passed the necessary laws and adjourned. The DNC and the candidates got together and agreed to punish us for having the gall to stand up for our rights. The DNC broke their standing rule to strip the rest of our delegates, and the candidates agreed to skip our primaries. Frankly, it is not of concern to us, now, who won or lost, but we want our votes. Friends in Michigan: stand up for yourselves, stand with us. If you give up this year, they are offering you the “compromise” that you can vote over, and a have a voice this year. But look at it. It is not a compromise: they’re simply allowing you to surrender and vote when they wanted to begin with. And 4 years from now, when the race is not so close, and they don’t need your votes so much, you’ll again be forced to cast votes that don’t matter. Stand tall with us! Reject any revote!
And to those of you in all our sister states: please quit trashing us because we try to stand up for right, for good change. Tell the politicians to back off and recognize our right to vote when we want to.

Anonymous | 3/22/2008, 12:04 pm EST

You all talk about why bother to allow Michigan and Florida to revote because Hillary still can win, etc. What difference does it make. I live in Michigan and want my vote to count, no matter what the results. If these 2 states aren’t allowed to revote, Obama’s win will be as hollow as Bush’s in 2000.

Post A Comment

Caution: Off-topic comments will be deleted

Name:

Comments:



Advertisement

Advertisement