Michigan, Hillary, and the Worst Case Scenario

Many months ago, I postulated that the DNC's rule that Michigan delegates wouldn't be counted would almost certainly be overturned at the actual convention.  At the time, Hillary was almost certainly going to win 40+ primary contests, and since Michigan wouldn't make any difference, there'd be no harm in going back on the ruling.  

However, I also noted (uneasily) that there was a second possible scenario that would be extraordinarily damaging to our party: if, for some reason, Clinton and Obama split the delegate count, and Michigan's votes would put Clinton over the top, but Obama would stay on top if the Michigan delegate ban held.  Again, at the time, this seemed unlikely with Hillary's "inevitability".  But now... well, there's several possible scenarios that this could mathematically happen.

Why is this so important?

Well, the DNC ruled Michigan's primary would be null and void, because leaders in the state broke the "two tiny all-white non-representative states must singlehandedly decide who leads the free world" rule, and moved the date up.  As we know, Iowa and New Hampshire moved theirs up even earlier, so it's kind of moot, but the DNC has stood absolutely firm in not counting Michigan's delegates, no matter who they vote for.  The DNC told each of the candidates to officially drop out of Michigan's primary.

And, all the major candidates did... except Hillary.  She's the only current candidate on the Michigan ballot (well, save Kucinich, who TRIED to also back out, but filed the wrong paperwork.)  

The Michigan primary is therefore a non-exercise.  It's completely invalid.  And yet, there is an increasing possibility that Clinton, who will win Michigan by default, might try to challenge the DNC delegate ban of these states at the convention.  States in which voters were not even allowed to vote for Obama (or Edwards or Richardson or anyone other than Hillary.)  It's like the Iraqi ballot to reelect Saddam Hussein.

If the Worst Case Scenario happens, and the Clinton powers insist on accepting Michigan, that would constitute a clear and umambiguous stolen election.  (Florida's delegates were also stripped, but at least all the candidates are on that ballot.)  It's the equivalent of, say, if the state of Florida was told in advance their state wouldn't count in the year 2000, and kept Gore's name off of the 2000 ballot, and then Bush after the election said "nuh uh Florida's votes for me count anyway, even though I was the only one they could vote for", and used his "votes" to "win".

Senator Clinton needs to say, on record, unambiguously and as Shermanesque as possible, that she will not challenge the Michigan delegate ban under any circumstances, and not accept degate votes from Michigan under any circumstances.  If she won't commit to this statement, she is patently unqualified to run in the Democratic primary to begin with.

•  Tips for protecting the democratic process

  And, can anyone inside or outside her campaign get that promise and statement out to the media as soon as possible??  I'd lose a lot less sleep.  :)

  by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:02:39 AM PDT

  •  There's a third possibility

    "Uncommitted" could win in Michigan.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:13:30 AM PDT

    •  Or Kucinich n/t

      by DelRPCV on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

    •  See my comment below. n/t

      by recusancy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM PDT

      •  Maybe I shouldn't have written that diary?

        Nahhh, Penn will screw it all up anyway.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:34:18 AM PDT

        •  D'oh! REsponded to the wrong post! n/t

          - Albert Einstein

          by Walt starr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:35:04 AM PDT

•  Gravel's also on the Michigan ballot.

  Can Clinton's comeback overtake him?

  by ben masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:07:39 AM PDT

  •  Heh

    I forgot about Gravel.  :)

    Actually, there's another bizarre possible scenario that local media's mentioned recently -- Democratic voters have a "none of the above" option on their ballot.  No one ever really uses this option, since why would you go into the polling place to begin with, if you didn't care?  

    Especially in Michigan, where it's an open primary, and you get to choose whether to vote Democratic or Republican at the beginning, and so if there's nothing interesting happening on your side, most people just vote on the other side, and try to do something strategically damaging (like, say, voting for Ron Paul, or Geoffrey Feiger, hehe.)

    by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:10:14 AM PDT

    •  Hey, watch it.

      I like Geof Feiger as far as rebels go.  Talk about bucking the system, he doesn it best.  Kervorkian would never have been jailed if he hadn't of gotten into a pissing match with Feiger and canned him.

      by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:15:14 AM PDT

•  Interesting.

  I had not heard before that the DNC told all the candidates to take themselves off of the Michigan ballot.

  If that is true (I am not doubting your word, but I am surprised that I hadn't heard that, especially as I was on a thread a couple of days ago where a lot of people were making the argument that it is too damned bad for those fools who inexplicably took themselves off the ballot . . . apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't know this), then the fact that Clinton decided NOT to take her name of the ballot suggests to me that it is unlikely that she would commit to this statement.

  I think the DNC would have a huge, huge, HUGE problem if it attempted to reverse course on its prior decision at this point.

  by Mother of Zeus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM PDT

  •  My understanding

    Is that the DNC made all candidates promise not to campaign in Michigan as punishment, and asked all candidates to take themselves off the ballot.  (This is what my guy at the Edwards camp says, anyway -- that's the highest source I have on this.)  All the major candidates agreed.... and then Clinton backed out and stayed on.  

    by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:13:07 AM PDT

    •  No, DNC did not make them....

      DNC asked them not to campaign here.  Obama, Edwards and Kucinich decided to remove themselves, Hillary and Gravel did not.  However, Kucinich screwed up the paper work twice and remains on MI ballot.  We have Hillary, Dennis, and Gravel. According to MYDD, Obama cooked a strategy and asked the rest to play.  Apparently, they said yes.  

      by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:17:22 AM PDT

      •  Hmm

        That's not how I heard it, but ultimately I'm not sure it makes much of a practical difference.  Either way, the DNC told them that Michigan's delegates were not going to count, and they made their decision based on that promise.  They obviously wouldn't have removed their names if there was even a chance Michigan's votes would count.

        Look at it this way.  Suppose at the convention, Obama was leading Clinton by 10 delegates, and then the party decided "hey, ya know what -- we're going to increase Utah's delegate count from 10 to 50, and Hillary won there!  Don't you wish you had campaigned harder there?"  It's changing the rules in the middle of the game.  Can't do that.

        by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:25:56 AM PDT

        •  Doesn't matter at all, except party

          sucks enough without having this hung unfairly around their neck - at least according to Jerome.

          I "heard" that they did it because Hillary appeared to be a shoe in in MI, and that this way they wouldn't lose to her.  I really don't know.  

          by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM PDT

          •  Well, that seems verrrrry unlikely

            There's not a single other state that Obama or Edwards aren't on the ballot on, including states where Hillary is an absolute shoe-in, so I can't honestly believe that scenario.

            I'm told by the Edwards camp that the DNC asked them to take their names off, and all agreed, including Hillary -- she just changed her mind and stayed on at the last minute.

            by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:45:48 AM PDT

•  Well.

  Being from Florida, I've been looking at this from a different perspective. Now I see that your situation makes ours just as untenable.

  I've been thinking that Hillary could easily win Flroida if she skips South Carolina, which she is going to lose anyway, comes here to campaign and promises everyone that if she is the nominee she will see that the Florida delegates are seated.

  But what you are pointing out makes that more difficult. Anyway, the next few weeks should be interesting.

  by Tally on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM PDT

  •  Right

    Cause at least in Florida, the other candidates are on the ballot, so it could theoretically still be valid.  Michigan's, by definition of being "Hillary... or Hillary" is not and could never be considered a valid primary.

    by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately,

    if it's close enough to impact the outcome, I don't think there's any chance either Michigan or Florida will have their delegates seated.

    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:56:31 AM PDT

•  Well, I've decided I'm voting for Ron Paul.

  There is no point in voting in the Democratic primary; and since Republicans and Independence got to pick my nominee, I figure it is only fair that I get to screw around in their primary.  

  I think there is a very good likelihood that McCain will take MI in the primary and in the general if he makes it that far.  Both dailies have endorsed him, Ron Paul has a strong showing in MI, and I don't think Obama will have the draw out of Detroit that Clinton (or Edwards) would have had.  

  So I've requested a Republican ballot, and Ron Paul is the guy.  

  by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM PDT

  •  hehe me too.

    I wrote a diary on it here, where I think we talked about it then.

    It's good strategy for Democrats -- the higher Paul's percentages are, the more they have to keep him in the Republican primary debates -- and I love love love love love love love seeing McCain and Giuliani and Thompson squirm and whine and sound like out-of-touch dinosaurs having to defend Bush's war.  :)

    by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM PDT

    •  Have no other reason to vote, so why not. n.t

      by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM PDT

•  Wouldn't worry about

  Michigan's delegates won't make a difference.  This will be decided way, way before the covention.

  by Paleo on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM PDT

•  I think it's still to early

  to be guessing at a split convention. We have only had one state make a choice. Things could still change.

  Now ask me on Feb 6th.

  by DrillSgtK on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:14:42 AM PDT

•  We can't fix the primary process

  ...if states don't learn to respect the democratic authority of the National Committees to clearly establish the nominating process.  

  Thank you, Florida and Michigan, for helping other states understand the consequence of not playing by the rules.

  by Subversive on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:16:50 AM PDT

  •  Don't be so quick to believe what you read.

    Iowa screwed around first, Michigan called, and Michigan got screwed.  After all, Iowa and New Hamshire are "special" and nobody better mess with them.

    by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:19:27 AM PDT

    •  Iowa was already first. nt

      by cville townie on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM PDT

  •  That makes me feel so much

    better about being disenfranchised.

    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM PDT

  •  democratic?

    democratic authority of the National Committees to clearly establish the nominating process.

    It's certainly authority, but I would hardly call it "democratic". Did you have a chance to vote on the schedule? Neither did I. It was more-or-less decided by the powers that be.

    On another note, is it not hypocritical to disenfranchise voters for a primary and then ask those same voters for votes in a general election, in addition to campaign donations? At some point, if either wins the nomination, Obama or Edwards will have to face the following questions during the debates: "You ignored Michigan and Florida during the primaries. Why are you campaigning there now? If you didn't want their votes then, why are you asking for them now?" Those aren't easy to answer.

    by incompleteness on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM PDT

    •  Not difficult to answer at all.

      Elected political representatives for all states mutually agreed on the existing restrictions for the primary schedule.  That's democracy.  And it's nobody's fault but your own if you chose not to involve yourself  (in sufficient numbers) in your state and local political parties, to either express a problem with those dates before the rules were established, or to prevent your state from breaking the rules once they had been established.

      And these two states only invalidated their primary results, not their election dates.  That's why only their primaries were invalidated.  They could still hold a primary at a later, valid time if they chose to--totally their choice.  No hypocrisy there.  And lucky for them, federal law prevents them from doing anything to mess up the validity of their vote in the general election.

      by Subversive on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM PDT

•  If I may ask this here..

  What to do we Michiganders do? Do we write our candidate in despite not being on the ballot, or do we assume we are doa and vote strategically in the Republican primary (I did this in 2000 and cast a vote for McCain only because I was deeply worried about Bush)

  by LauraC on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:18:48 AM PDT

  •  I donno

    I still think I've voting for Ron Paul, under the strategy of annoying Republicans and making them look bad :) , but now I'm wondering if voting in the Dem primary with a "none of the above" check is safer, as a stopgap to potential (though hopefully unlikely) Hillary election theft.  What do you think?

    by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:21:22 AM PDT

    •  personally,

      I am leaning towards voting strategically in the republican primary (though I'm not sure which of theirs I'd rather face in a general election)

      by LauraC on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:28:23 AM PDT

  •  Write ins will NOT be counted.

    There is no one strategy.  Some think voting uncommitted is the way to go.  Hillary will lose to uncommitted, and WHEN our delegates are seated, they will be able to give their votes to the leader.  Some believe they will never be seated.  Others are positive they will, based on other precedents.

    Some are voting their choice, if it happens to be Hillary or Kucinich.  Others are crossing over to screw up the Republican ballot as best they can.  I'm one of them. Not only do I want to see their faces contorted over a huge Ron Paul showing in our state, but since we are paying for their data collection, I figure they can waste money in the future by sending direct mailings to my home.  When they call, I can lie my ass off in the polls.  

    Last but not least, since Rs and Is got to pick the Democratic nominee, I think its only fair that I get to pick theirs.

    by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:23:46 AM PDT

    •  yeah, i know about the write-ins

      not being counted.  I don't view it as throwing away your vote when one is voting their conscience. It's more the principle and duty of voting one's personal choice.  Having said that, I am all well and fine with messing up the other side by voting strategically.

      by LauraC on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:34:54 AM PDT

  •  write-ins won't be counted

    Hate to write that but when my wife asked about write-ins, that was the reply.  No way can anyone say anything about the Michigan process being fair to the Democratic voters of Michigan, but it was largely Republican politicians in the state legislature that pulled this stunt.

    The only bright point: despite each of the networks having commentators proclaim that 2/3rds of the Democratic voters rejected Hillary, that wasn't true in Iowa.  They stated only that they preferred someone else.  In Michigan, you will get some perspective on that point, albeit turnout should be atrocious.

    by Rich S on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM PDT

    •  Wasn't Republicans this time

      I've been following this really closely (live in Lansing and work politics) -- this was pretty much all Levin/Granholm.

      by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:30:02 AM PDT

      •  That's what I've heard too

        I also heard the name Debbie Dingell (wife of one of our congressmen) prominently mentioned.

        by Noisy Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:24:56 AM PDT

    •  In my precinct we have other issues

      on the ballot...some millage ones.  

      by cfk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM PDT

  •  This Michigander is voting "uncommitted"

    If HRC loses in New Hampshire, this could be an opportunity to put another nail in her candidacy's coffin. A loss to, or even a close win over "uncommitted" would add to the "Hillary is imploding" narrative.

    The time will eventually come to hold Mark Brewer, et al., responsible for the farce of a primary they inflicted on us.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:07:53 AM PDT

•  Vote Uncomitted

  Party officials urge Democrats whose favorite candidate is not on the ballot to vote "uncommitted."

  If at least 15% of voters statewide vote uncommitted, that spot will be filled by delegates who'll pledge for a candidate at the Democratic National Convention in August.

  http://freep.com/...

  by recusancy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:22:29 AM PDT

  •  I don't care what the MDP says... n/t

    by dkmich on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:25:05 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      They also assured us -- promised us -- that there was "no way" the national party would take our delegates away.  :)

      by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM PDT

•  This anti-Hillary crap is pathetic!

  I'm not the most pro-Hillary person in the world, but you people here are going a little too far with your hatred of her. I almost feel like I'm on a Republican attack blog. This is pathetic!

  Keep it up. When it backfires, you have only yourselves to blame.

  by ClintB on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:27:04 AM PDT

  •  What's anti-Hillary?

    She needs to come out and forcefully state that she will not challenge the Michigan delegate ban under any circumstances, and not accept degate votes from Michigan under any circumstances.  She has to do this.  If she does, I wish her the best of continued luck.  If she doesn't, she's a crook.

    by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:29:01 AM PDT

    •  I completely agree

      Michigan is a sham election. There is no way in hell the result from this ridiculous Democratic primary should be counted when Hillary and Gravel are practically the only candidates on the ballot! That's like paying attention to the results of a Vladimir Putin election like they meant something.

      by scimitar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM PDT

      •  If the others...

        wanted on the ballot, they could have been on it!

        by ClintB on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:32:01 AM PDT

        •  They listened to the DNC

          and took their names of the ballot out of respect for the rules of the national committee. There's no way they should be punished for helping to reinforce the legitimacy of the DNC!

          by scimitar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:36:12 AM PDT

          •  EXACTLY. n/t

            by cartwrightdale on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM PDT

    •  Why does she have to say anything about it?

      It's a non-issue.  The delegates aren't being seated but I'm sure if there is no impact on the nominee every candidate will want them seated.

      by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:00:29 AM PDT

•  There is a third scenario you forget about

  Obama could run away with it on Tsunami Tuesday and make it academic again.  Other commenters have it right. Vote uncommitted.  Maybe if its large enough, Michigan will have to run a caucus again later.  

  And don't feel sorry for the MDP, they knew the rules and decided not to play by them.  It was a gamle and they lost.

  by Nick A on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    I support the DNC - while I think the current primary system is terrible, both Michigan and Florida knew the rules. They should have to suffer the consequences - they've been given multiple chances now to change the date, but they've refused.

    by scimitar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:32:50 AM PDT

    •  100% Agree

      Nominating system as it stand really stinks, and needs to get fixed, but Florida and Michigan DPs were out of line here.  They chose to silence their own voice.

      by Nick A on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM PDT

      •  No. Our

        Republican legislature did.  And we have to pay the price for it.  I'm glad to see we here at Daily Kos stand up for the rigth of everyone to have their vote counted.

        by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:02:06 AM PDT

        •  The law had to

          be signed by your democratic govenor, no?  Regardless, the state democratic party could have run a separate nominating process from the primary set for all other offices by the state. The leadership of the MDP certainly was a part of the call to move up the primary so I don't think this was a republican move to silence your voices.

          And I do think every vote should be counted. Unfortunately for nominating the presidential candidate, those rules are set but the national parties, and the DNC warned the state parties over and over again, that if you break the rules you lose your delegates.

          by Nick A on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:45:10 PM PDT

          •  Wow. No.

            We haven't had a democratic governor in 9 years.

            I'm in Florida and the FDP actively opposed the change in date.  I'm not sure how you would propose that the party hold its own election.  Would the DNC fund it?

            The Florida Democratic Party did not break the rules.  But we're paying the price.

            by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 06:39:53 AM PDT

      •  "They chose to silence their own voice" OH YEAH?

        The DNC and and State Party jobbed the voters
        for their own ends.  Just because it LOOKS like a screw-up
        doesn't mean 'the powers that be' didn't get EXACTLY what they want.

        Which would be, of course, an easy 40 votes for HRC.

        And, just for the record, the THUGS were up to their eyeballs in this.

        HRC will win because of this. I will lose.

        Somebody care to explain, in little words if possible,
        why this doesn't justify as much anti Clinton anger
        I can generate ?

        by slowheels on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:04:29 AM PDT

        •  edit: not 40, 156 votes

          by slowheels on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          Rank-and-file Michigan voters never demanded that our primary be moved up early. It was a big manipulation -- how much orchestrated by Dems and how much by Republicans, I don't know in terms of exact percentages, but I can see enough of the outline of the situation to know that I'll make sure to show up just so I can vote Uncommitted. I have to make at least that small gesture of defiance.

          by Noisy Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

•  The superdelagates wouldn't allow...

  this to happen.  They'd work together and defect to Obama in large enough numbers to ensure he squeaked on through.  

  They might be Hillary supporters now, but enough of them would care more about keeping the party intact than propping up team Clinton.  

  by telephasic on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM PDT

  •  It's been a long time since I believed

    in the essential goodness of party hacks.

    I mean 'super-delegates'.

    "If you believe," (Peter Pan) shouted to them,
    "clap your hands; don't let Tinkerbell die."

    J.M. Barrie

    by slowheels on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM PDT

•  I'm beginning to think that

  the uncommitted slate will win in Michigan over Hillary.

  by IhateBush on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:28:23 AM PDT

  •  And the Lions will win the Super Bowl

    by slowheels on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM PDT

•  Vote "uncommitted"

  If you don't want Sen. Clinton to vote by default, vote "uncommitted." Don't write in your candidates name. He won't win that way. Uncommitted delegates will commit to the winner.

  by jwendland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:29:03 PM PDT