Talk:2008 Michigan Democratic presidential primary

The February 5th controversy

Some discussion about this would seem to be appropriate for this article, should it be created; see the text and references I've already posted at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#February 5 controversy. Wdfarmer (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the article has been created, I've added some of that text and references. Wdfarmer (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why won't write-ins for Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson be counted? 75.22.235.76 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Because they didn't file the correct paperwork. The article has a reference to this. --208.15.90.2 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Out the window

So I noticed an article a few days ago that said that said "If 15 percent of the vote in a congressional district is uncommitted, its delegates will be free to represent any candidate"[1], meaning that even if the Democratic National Party counted Michigan's delegates, they could go wherever they wanted anyways. Did uncommitted get 15% in every district? --Aknorals (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed fragment

Removed the following as an incomplete sentence. Also, the ref is for Florida, not Michigan. The idea is useful, but...

Since the cost of an all mail in primary has been estimated at being greater than 4 Million dollars and the DNC has offered only put up a portion of that<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/price-tag-precludes-revo_n_86119.html|title=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/price-tag-precludes-revo_n_86119.html<!--INSERT TITLE-->}}</ref>.

Feel free to re-include correctly with a more appropriate ref. --Siradia (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no revote !! Wikipedia mum

There is no revote in MI and Wikipedia has no info on this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.90.159 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama Bias?

The article cites Hillary Clinton as being "dishonest" about wanting to count the Michigan primary. However, no one ever points out that despite Obama wants the superdelegates to follow the "will of the voters", he voluntarilly took his name off the Michigan ballot and is adamant against counting those delegates. If he supports the "will of the voters", why not the voters in Michigan?

Is it dishonest or disingenuous (or one of its synonyms, calculating)? Can you be dishonest while doing everything in the public eye? Dishonest implies some kind of deception. I know it's stated as some critics say, but I think it should be removed altogether in order to avoid the appearance of bias.

Many critics have labelled her move as dishonest, as indicated by the citations. Feel free to add sourced statements criticizing Obama. Andareed (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just a place for obama supporters to write their unbiased crap and to write an article for the guy everytime he farts. Don't expect any unbiased reporting here. They even manage to make the article on the Democratic National Convention 2008 a Hillary hit-job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.122.59 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think the article is biased, then feel free to improve it. Andareed (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinton and Obama both issued signed statements in support of stripping Michigan and Florida's delegates, due to that being the established penalty for violating party rules on the primary dates. But now that Hillary's losing, she wants to retroactively change the rules in her favor. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Statement?

At the end of the introductory paragraph, the article states that the MI Supreme Court ruled that the election should go forward as scheduled. This is followed by the following statement:

"Delegates will be awarded per the popular vote, with a candidate needing 15% of the vote to receive any delegates.[3]"

As it stands right now, the sentence seems to imply that this is part of the court's ruling ("delegates will be awarded"), which I believe is not the case. The support for this statement is an AP article that does not mention the MI court's decision. Also, the article does not refer to MI specifically. According to the article, this is the DNC's rule for all primaries.

I think the sentence needs to be moved and clarified [or perhaps deleted?]. It fits better in the "Results" section. If it's moved there, it should be reworded along the following lines:

Under DNC rules, delegates are allocated at the District level among the presidential candidates who receive at least 15% of the vote in accordance with the vote in each District.

Note, I am fudging here a bit because I'm not sure how the vote is divided. Are the votes for candidates who receive less than 15% reallocated to the remaining candidates? It's likely, but this is not the best place for that discussion/explanation. It'd be better placed in a more general section about the DNC primaries. Ileanadu (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous Primary Date

Would it be valuable to include the date on which the primary would have been held had it not been moved? This is not only interesting information to include, but is also valuable in that the primary has proved so contentious that Michigan may have had great influence had the date been kept later than it does by having it earlier. Johnduns (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Election results

The table here implies that had the actual vote counted then Hillary Clinton would have taken all 73 delegates - isn't "Uncommitted" an official option that "won" delegates as well? Timrollpickering (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2008 Democrats Abroad primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)