One of the reasons a re-vote did not take place in MI, where I reside, is that it was an open primary and given that we were told it would not count many dems who would have wanted to vote for Obama participated in the Republican primary instead. Those voters would have been disqualified from participating in the re-vote, as one cannot vote in both and the Rep. primary counted. Obama would have started the process at a significant disadvantage.
That being said, as an Obama supporter, I think he missed an opportunity here. Coming off his dominant Feb., I think he should have taken the lead on re-votes in FL and MI. He might have ended up losing both, but the display of political courage and principle would have both minimized the margin (at worst...I think he would have won MI) and set him up pretty for the general election. It would have made sense on both principle and politics. He missed an opportunity to display unconventionally principled leadership. Instead he played it safe. He is best when bold. He wasn't either on this issue.
From as early as last fall there has been many statements and declarations in the media and elsewhere that the MI situation would eventually be resolved and there might even be a later primary or caucus in compliance with the calendar. Although MI has an open primary, voters must choose to participate in either the Dem or the Rep contest but not both in any given election cycle.
Democrats knew this and by voting in the Republican contest they knew they would not have the opportunity to participate in a later Democratic revote. Also the brains at DailyKos decided to push their MI readers to vote for the unelectable Romney to put the Republican Primary into chaos. By playing these games they knew that they were opting out of participation in the Jan Democratic Primary or any later revotes.
It should also be noted that the Democratic Primary in MI had record turnout. Any suggestion that Democrats stayed home so the results were skewed are specious. Also Obama campaigned in MI by having surrogates tell his supporters to vote uncommitted. Hillary followed the DNC rules to both the spirit and letter. If anything there is an argument that gave Obama an advantage in turning out his supporters that Hillary hadn't.
First off, I live in Ann Arbor, a bastion of progressive politics in this state. I also teach adults who live in Metro Detroit who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. I assure you that no one I knew thought there would be a re-vote at any point. Many stayed home. Most people I discuss this with oppose counting that contest as such, even some who are Clinton supporters. The group I refer to includes retirees, school teachers, clergy, academics, undergraduate and graduate students, business people, lawyers, and health care professionals. None of us "knew" what you claim we did. A few voted Clinton and a few voted uncommitted. Most did not participate at all. You may argue this is not a representative sample, as it is anecdotal, but you will need provide data to counter this perception. But again, please do not presume to tell us what we knew.
It should also be noted that the Democratic Primary in MI had record turnout. Any suggestion that Democrats stayed home so the results were skewed are specious.
False. Turnout has been up all over the country this year. That doesn't mean that many people in Michigan didn't stay home because they knew that the election was illegitimate.
If you don't think that knowing that the election wouldn't count for anything would keep lots of people from wanting to vote, I have some oceanside property in Kansas I would like to sell you.
Michigan was one of the few states were the Republican vote was more than the Democratic vote. As I remember the states were.
Utah-as conservative a state you can get
Arizona-Favorite son factor
and the only other two states were Florida and Michigan. Seems to be pretty clear that there was an effect on the voter turnout.
Remember, you must judge something in context of the environment, not just as a stand alone
