Clinton camp warms to new Michigan caucus/primary

No Taxpayer Money... (4.00 / 4)

should be used to finance a "do-over." If it's that important to the MDP, they (and maybe the DNC) should fund a primary or caucus. Or, if the Obama and Clinton campaigns want do-overs in MI and FL, maybe their campaigns can pay for it with the millions they're raising.

---

by: rich @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:10:54 PM UTC

McCain won (0.00 / 0)

We need to remember that McCain won his nomination last night and he can start the stepford candidate change.

The DNC needs to wrap this up. No time for a re-vote. I voted and I want my vote to count. If not - the Republicans have offered to count my vote.

Really not interested in voting again.

---

by: farmboy @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:49:44 PM UTC

Apparently, your candidate was on the ballot... (4.00 / 1)

Lucky you.  For most of us, we had no choice.  

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The DNC has wanted Michigan to hold a re-vote for a while. (4.00 / 2)

As I interpret the Guv's comments, they suggest Hillary's folks have realized there is no chance of getting the 1/15/08 delegation seated while the nomination is up in the air, and they've decided they're willing to take a chance that a caucus gives her a chance to pick up some delegates.

I don't know who would win a caucus - especially since the rules will be established by a crew that has already wrecked one train - but Hillary's strategy has to be motivated by realizing she has almost no chance without Michigan, so why not roll the dice?

This evening, I'll reprise, at greater length, my description of how a caucus could be held by mail, with easy access but tight control over raiding, at no expense to either the state government or the MDP.  Scoffers are invited.

---

by: Grebner @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:41:09 PM UTC

No scoffer here- (4.00 / 1)

I thought it both plausible and eminently fair when you described it before.

We were in wait-and-see mode for the last few weeks, hoping that March 4 would resolve this. Well, no such luck.

Would the Obama campaign go along? It might be difficult for them to refuse. If MDP and DNC came to agreement, the campaigns would have a choice to go along, or not participate, with the certainty that the delegates would count this time.

I'm an Obama supporter, but if his campaign will not go along, too bad.

---

by: memiller @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:41:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Michigan Caucus (4.00 / 1)

Farmboy brings up a good point.  How can we tell the people who voted on January 15 that their votes are just going to be thrown out?  That election was held according to Michigan law, paid for with taxpayer dollars and supported by the Michigan Democratic Party.  Also, if we were to hold a caucus, how would we keep Republicans from voting in it?  The only possible solution I can think of would be to limit the caucus to people who voted on the Democratic ballot on January 15.

If we make sure that Democrats are the ones picking the Democratic nominee, I would be able to live with a caucus on three conditions...

First, the DNC has to apologize to Michigan, Florida and the nation for not enacting real primary reform.  Giving South Carolina and Nevada the same privileged status as New Hampshire and Iowa was moving in the wrong direction.  We need a regional rotating primary schedule over the course of about 10 weeks that doesn't give an advantage to any particular state or states every primary season.

Second, neither the State of Michigan nor the Michigan Democratic Party will be paying for the caucus.  Michigan Democrats need to focus their spending on building the majority in the State House and sending people like Schauer and Peters to Washinton.  Either the MDP can pay for the caucus or the Clinton and Obama camps can.

Third, both Clinton and Obama would need to agree to the caucus and to its format.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:47:18 PM UTC

Talk to your campaign chairman (4.00 / 1)

How can we tell the people who voted on January 15 that their votes are just going to be thrown out?

Here's how. Put out a statement to the effect of:

"Hey, people: in case you didn't notice, that primary we had back in January only had one real candidate on the ballot. It was a completely bullshit election. Sorry about that. And sorry about the $10 million of taxpayer money we flushed down the toilet. But hey, now Michigan has a chance to actually have the final word on who will be the Democratic nominee! Unlike last time, it will be privately funded. The entire world will be here, spending money and talking about our issues. And this time you'll have more than one candidate to choose from!"

With regard to money, I have a hard time believing that between the DNC, MDP and all of the super-wealthy people across America who have interests riding in this election that we can't scare up the money somewhere. It was $10 million for a primary - which, as it happens, isn't really much more than Kwame Kilpatrick recently doled out in hush money to the three cops he fired. If Obama and Clinton agree that this needs to happen, the money will be there.

How would we keep Republicans from voting? By doing what we did in the 2004 caucus: make people sign a statement saying they're a Democrat. There would be exceptions, but blatantly lying in print is something most people are disincilned to do. And if this wasn't a real issue in the other states, why should it suddenly matter here?

Anyway, Hillary's campaign manager is the one saying:

"We're all for a primary in both states because we can't go into a general election and say those votes didn't count,"

Who am I to argue?

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 19:22:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too many lawsuits if the primary results are scrapped. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 19:25:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Filed by whom? (0.00 / 0)

If both the candidates agree to this, who will have the incentive to stop it? And on what grounds?

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 19:30:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

600,000+ primary voters. I think the ACLU would definetly be available. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 19:43:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And on what grounds? (4.00 / 3)

The parties have wide lattitude in deciding how they nominate their candidates. For instance, there's actually nothing to stop the so-called "pledged" delegates from changing their minds at the convention. Also, you may recall that in 2000 there was a government-funded Democratic "primary" too. One candidate was on the ballot: Lyndon LaRouche. The actual voting on Al Gore (who I believe had it wrapped up by then) took place at a private caucus. I don't recall hearing of any ACLU lawsuits back then.

If anyone should be sued it's the DNC for creating a process whereby a host of well-connected bigwig super delegates can render the popular vote expressed in months of primaries and caucuses across America - meaningless.  

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 22:07:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What grounds? All the voters in the Jan 15th primary should be told what? Your vote doesn't count, Sorry. (0.00 / 0)

Have you ever heard of a state election being tossed?  Ever? Any where, any place?

If Earl could get a MDP member to file suit because she was denied the ability to vote for the "candidate of her choice", don't you think REAL votes being tossed is a very worthy a case?

---

by: Cole6015 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:20:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read my comment (0.00 / 0)

Have you ever heard of a state election being tossed?  Ever? Any where, any place?

Like I said: the 13,195 people who voted for Lyndon LaRouche in the government-sanctioned Michigan Dem primary in 2000 had their votes tossed out. So yes, it has happened some where, some place. Here - as a matter of fact.

With respect to what to tell voters, it's quite simple. Admit what the papers have been saying for months: that the January election was bullshit because only one major candidate was on the ballot (whoever's fault it may be).

As far as your lawsuit is concerned, until you can show me some state or federal statutes that would form the basis of such a claim, I say any such challenge would be fall squarely into the realm of "frivilous."  

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:55:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It isn't a state election (0.00 / 0)

the national party gets to determine the manner of how the national candidate will be selected.

Michigan is in violation of the rules. In order to come into compliance they must either re-do or petition the convention committee. I have to tell you, the other states are real interested in what Michigan and Florida think about all this.

On another note, I predict a re-do election will have a larger turnout than the number of voters who participated in January.

Haven't you seen what turnout numbers have been in every state that actually had a primary?

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:38:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

that should be (0.00 / 0)

are not interested

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:39:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Calling all political historians (0.00 / 0)

Is there any precedent in Michigan for throwing out the results of a state-wide election?  I'm not saying there needs to be, I just wonder what happenend in the past.  I not very comfortable simply ignoring those hundreds of thousands of votes.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 21:51:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes - see above (4.00 / 2)

In 2000, Lyndon LaRouche was the only candidate on the Dem primary ballot. 13,195 people voted for him. Their votes were cast aside (and thank goodness they were! He's a flaming third degree nutcase!) and Michigan's delegates were given to Al Gore at a privately-run caucus. Here's the vote tally, in case anyone cares.  

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 22:13:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, I've been pursuaded (0.00 / 0)

Not that my opinion matters much at all, but as a former opponent of a do-over election, I would be willing to support a traditional Michigan style caucus (not the Iowa kind) with a simple signed statement at the caucus site that the person is a Democrat.  However, before the MDP agrees to it I think a deal must be cut with the DNC to pay for at least half and that the DNC needs to adopt a schedule of regional rotating primaries that doesn't give special treatment to any particular state.

Still, I've heard that both the Obama campaign and the MDP don't support a do-over election and I think holding one would anger many voters who participated in the January 15 primary.  A rational compromise would be to select half the delegates based on the January 19 primary and half based on the results of the caucus.  We'll call it the Michigan two-step.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 22:37:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Think of it as a run-off vote. (0.00 / 0)

Besides, it is his/their turn.  We had our votes not counted the first time.  

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They already knew (0.00 / 0)

Farmboy brings up a good point.  How can we tell the people who voted on January 15 that their votes are just going to be thrown out?

They were already told that.  They were told that it'd count for 0 delegates in advance.  There was no campaigning.  There were major candidates missing from the ballot (Edwards could have made a STRONG stand here at that point in the campaign).  The people who voted, and the people who didn't vote, made decisions based on that fact.

The real question is "how can we tell them that we're a bunch of idiots, pissing away their tax dollars on a primary that won't count".  But we won't be doing that -- Republicans will and there's no way we can take that ammo from them at this point, no matter what the DNC or MDP does or doesn't do.

---

by: China Mig @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 14:04:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

HOW? (0.00 / 0)

Do-over is a MUST. But, HOW?

I, absolutely, agree. A do-over is a MUST. But, HOW?
Let's assume the do-over can be scheduled for June 10th or 17th. (Possibly on the same day as Florida--Super Tuesday III). This needs to be done, as a date certain, as soon as possible for the respective campaigns to plan resource allocation, etc...

It seems to me, that the Clinton's want a primary, this would cost much more than a caucus, but, I think the DNC will have to pay for it, and, that will be that.

The main problem, I see with the do-overs in Florida and Michigan is the fact--that if both states are open, boatloads of Republicans will vote in the Democratic primary (most likely for Clinton), and, in effect, cause mischief that will skew the results.

I think if there is a do-over, it needs to be Democratic only, and, voters should need to register as Democrats, at least, 30 days before the vote.  

"Those who attempt to censor free speech by filtering the Internet, are... the... TRUE... "tiny cats" of cyberspace."

---

by: detroit tiger @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:35:12 PM UTC

No, they won't (4.00 / 1)

"Boatloads" of Republicans won't cause mischief in a Michigan do-over, just as the supposed "boatload" of Democrats voting for Ron Paul or John McCain never materialized in the January 15 primary.

(I thought about it, even posted in favor of it...but in the end I took the Democratic ballot and voted for Uncommitted.)

Remember, in January McCain's people were actually counting on Democratic crossovers to defeat Romney in his "home state," and when that didn't happen people thought Romney was building momentum and McCain was faltering.

Hard to believe that was less than two months ago.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 16:14:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually they will (0.00 / 0)

the reason they didn't was because they had a competitive primary of their own.

But just like Democrats crossed-over to screw with the 2000 Republican primary, so too will Republicans return the favor.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 18:10:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have become pro-do over (4.00 / 3)

but not for any pro-candidate reason.

All across the country, state after state, our Democratic brothers and sisters are building the infrastructure necessary for November.

We got bumpkiss!

We need to tap into the organization that would be fueled by a competitive primary/caucus fight between these two candidates.

And PS, this isn't tearing the party apart, in fact it is energizing it and help us to get ready for November.

If anything, Hillary showed she can handle herself in a knief fight while Obama faced his first dirty campaign and stumbled badly, costing him Ohio.

Both of these candidates need more work. Even though Republicans have picked Methuselah for their nominee, the people with their hand up his ass know what they are doing.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 20:56:40 PM UTC

Looks like we'll get the chance - (4.00 / 1)

Yes, this will add energy to our party, and get us way past the ill feeling lingering from the 'primary'. A real contest will help us really unite as Democrats afterwards.

If Clinton wins, fair and square, I'll work as hard for her as I would (and still expect to) for Obama.

---

by: memiller @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:35:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This still hurts Clinton (0.00 / 0)

she has 63 delegates to 0 for Obama.

Even with a win as big as Ohio, Obama's lead would increase by 30-50 delegates.

I am puzzled by their support for this.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:55:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because as of right now she has none, that actually count, (0.00 / 0)

from Michigan. Even if she ends up with a say 53% to 47% win she will at least make a pick up of some delegates(that would be counted) compared to what she has now. In this race every delegate vote is looking very crucial.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:04:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it's less about delegates, (4.00 / 2)

and more about wins.  She already lost the pledged delegate race, even with the michigan and florida delegations counting.  The re-do could give her a big win though, and may convince the super delegates still on the fence that she's the one to run.

---

by: Jon K @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:41:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do you believe Hillary will win? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not so sure.  NAFTAGATE: Clinton's classic switcheroo  If this is true and Obama uses it, she'll lose in PA and in MI - big time.  
And then there's Detroit. 83% of blacks are voting for Obama.

---

by: dkmich @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And Saginaw (0.00 / 0)

and Flint...I believe the majority of African Americans in the state live outside Detroit.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 18:12:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

MPR Reports MDP Agreement Reached for New Primary (4.00 / 3)

just heard it at 6 pm Michigan Public Radio top of the hour news.  It'll be on a Saturday, details forthcoming.

Well, this kills my chance to be an Uncommitted delegate and it's funny that today I got my official letter announcing the 29 March 3rd Congressional District Convention, but enough about me ...

Hurah!  Way to go Mark and the Guv!  Finally (and I have to say I told you so) YOU GOT IT RIGHT!

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:12:38 PM UTC

Does that mean (0.00 / 0)

that the March 29 CDC will be postponed?

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:24:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, certainly. (0.00 / 0)

But the same procedures will be followed whenever, because they are the same as we have used in previous cycles.

---

by: memiller @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:30:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good question, I'm sure we'll hear (0.00 / 0)

but the CD Parties just blew $.41 per member sending out that letter.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:31:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We sent 1500 (4.00 / 1)

How annoying.

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:39:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just heard it - (4.00 / 1)

Woo-hoo!

I'm quite willing to give up being an Uncommitted delegate, for the chance of being an Obama delegate.

It'll be interesting to see if we hear the details behind the negotiation that must have taken place to get to this.

---

by: memiller @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:29:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I believe the negotion went something like this (4.00 / 2)

Hill: Jen, this is Hill, we need 10 more delegates that can really get seated and our Plan A Scheme didn't work.

Jen: Sure thing Hill, you can count on me.  We'll do better than that state down south since Kwame hates Obama and has his own problems to worry about.

Jen (to Mark):  OK Mark, you win, we'll do that caucus thingy you always wanted to do.

Mark: Yes, Jen, whatever you say.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:33:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Luck Mark (4.00 / 1)

Damn, now I'll really have to get off the fense -- though I could form the Committee to Re-Elect Uncommitted ;-)

It'll be great all around to have a real campaign.

Although, all snark aside, I think this was the GUv's decision, I'd like to think that all the pressure both Edwards and Obama and other people put on the MDP made the decision a little easier.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:39:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's always Gravel (0.00 / 0)

Huzzah!!!!!!!!!!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:58:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

lol "Committee to Re-Elect Uncommitted" (4.00 / 1)

Good one Phil.  :-)

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:41:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exciting News (0.00 / 0)

I heard the early reports of the do-over too.  No details yet and nothing showing up on the MDP website.  Hopefully Michigan got a concesssion by the DNC regarding primary reform in future years.  Let's get this thing done because I imagine it's about all the blogs will be talking about in the meantime and we really need to focus on our Congressional and State House seats.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 23:52:31 PM UTC

A Michigan Public Radio Scoop? (0.00 / 0)

It's strange the the reports of an agreement for a new Michigan caucus are only showing up on MPR.  There's nothing on the websites for the Free Press, Detroit News, LSJ, tv stations, MDP, etc.  Only the news from this morning about Gov. Granholm and Florida's governor suggesting a new caucus are showing up.  Has anyone seen this news from a source other than MPR?

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:30:31 AM UTC

Lessenberry has been all over this today (0.00 / 0)

My guess is that it's been reached, Jack knows.  Other reporters are typing away as we speak.  Either that, or memiller and I heard it wrong.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:38:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Heard it Right (0.00 / 0)

You heard the same thing I heard on MPR.  I'm just wondering why the breaking news that an agreement has been reached (sans details) is only showing up on MPR.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:45:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just found this on m/live (0.00 / 0)

http://www.mlive.com/elections...

It sounds like there is an agreement but nothing is absolutely certain yet.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:38:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Mark, but.... (0.00 / 0)

The primary source for that article is Michigan Public Radio.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:46:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What about this (0.00 / 0)

We have a new caucus that counts for 50% of the delegates.  The votes that were cast in the primary count for 50% of the delegates awarded and the uncommitteds go to Barack Obama from the primary.  

---

by: bfealk @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:37:26 AM UTC

Two Step Plan (0.00 / 0)

The one problem with that plan is exit polls indicated only about 45% of the Uncommitted vote went to Obama.  Likely half of the Edwards supporters are now with Clinton.  A better way to do it would be to just leave the Uncommitteds as uncommitted delegates or split the Uncommitteds up 75% for Obama and 25% for Clinton.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:49:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But Edwards isn't in the race any more (0.00 / 0)

So why give any of the uncommitteds to Clinton.  She was on the ballot and got the number of votes she deserved from people who thought she was the best candidate.

---

by: bfealk @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:07:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edward's supporters (4.00 / 1)

You're saying that Obama should get all the Uncommitted delegates.  Your assumption is that all the people who voted Uncommitted in lieu of Edwards are now supporting Obama and Uncommitted delegates should actually be Obama delegates.  But polling shows the former Edwards supporters are actually about evenly divided between Hillary and Obama.  So why should Obama have any more claim than Hillary to the 55% of the Uncommitted vote that was voting Uncommitted for someone other than him?  Obama has no more right than Clinton to Edward's supporters.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:27:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The people that wanted to vote for Hillary (0.00 / 0)

got to vote for Hillary.  Why would it be assumed that people that voted for uncommitted would ever vote for Hillary.  It's obvious by the fact they voted for uncommitted they were NOT voting for Hillary, and since Obama is the only other candidate left in the race, why should Hillary get any of the uncommitted votes?

---

by: bfealk @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:03:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, Edwards Supporters (0.00 / 0)

Because a lot of Edwards supporters also voted Uncommitted, and they weren't voting for Barack Obama.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards Dropping Out (0.00 / 0)

Just because Edwards is no longer in the race, doesn't mean that his voters are no longer in the race.  His supporters and his message are still actively involved in this election even if he isn't a candidate anymore.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:07:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WUOM retracts (4.00 / 3)

False alarm. From Michigan Radio's web page:

ANN ARBOR (2008-03-05)

A CORRECTION:

MICHIGAN RADIO INCORRECTLY REPORTED WEDNESDAY EVENING THAT A DEAL HAD BEEN REACHED TO HOLD A NEW DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONTEST.

NO DEAL IS IN PLACE, THOUGH STATE & NATIONAL PARTY LEADERS, AS WELL AS THE CLINTON AND OBAMA CAMPAIGNS CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THEIR OPTIONS.

WE SINCERELY REGRET THE ERROR.

I do think things are definitely moving in a positive direction, though...

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:49:05 AM UTC

Thanks for the Retraction News (0.00 / 0)

This seemed rather suspicious when only one news outlet was reporting it.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 00:50:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Florida Closes Door to Re-vote (0.00 / 0)

Statement from the Florida Democratic Party:

""It is important also that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  The Florida Democratic Party cannot consider any alternative that does not meet these requirements. Indeed, it is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary."

Howard Dean is saying that the DNC will not agree to any deal that would require the DNC to change it's rules.  This seems to rule out a compromise decision with Michigan and Florida.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:46 AM UTC

Well, at least with Florida. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: memiller @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:23:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even better for us! (4.00 / 1)

Then Michigan can get the very last word in the most exciting Dem contest in generations! The grand finale! Here! Wow!

I hear Florida's muggy in June anyway.

"HAZEN S. PINGREE...He was the first to warn the people of the great danger threatened by powerful private corporations, and the first to awake to the great inequalities in taxation and to initiate steps for reforms. THE IDOL OF THE PEOPLE"

---

by: Hazen Pingree @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:00:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comment today (0.00 / 0)

I've been reading over the comments made today by Brewer, Granholm, Howard Dean, etc. and I don't see any evidence that a do-over is any more likely today than a week ago.  If anything, Dean and Granholm have reaffirmed their previous positions.  Dean is saying any new election has to be by June 10 and Brewer is saying there are no deadlines and that negotiations have been on-going for weeks but no agreement has been reached.  I think Michigan Public Radio might have been reading Michigan Liberal and wrongly made the assumption that a deal had been reached.

To correct any misunderstandings, despite the statements from Clinton and Obama supporters on this blog (including me) and in the Michigan Legislature in support of some type of deal to allow a do-over election; neither the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign or Governor Granholm has ever said they support a do-over election in Michigan.  The only big gun pushing this is Howard Dean.  He's trying to get the DNC out of a lose-lose situation.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:42:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dean is trying to get us all out of a lose-lose deal (4.00 / 1)

And I appreciate his efforts.

Julie

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:47:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is true (0.00 / 0)

Although, had the DNC adopted a system of regional rotating primaries that occur during a 10 week span, we wouldn't be in this mess or have a primary season that will end in late April at the earliest and likely will go into June.  I can see an agreement coming together that allows for delegates to be seated from Michigan and Florida through a different method that those states' early primaries but there has to be some recognition that the DNC screwed this up as well and the DNC will need to do its parts to make amends.  That's how compromise works.  I have yet to see any recognition by Howard Dean that a primary system needs to be implemented that doesn't give a preference to certain states and counts all the states' votes.  Howard Dean and the Obama camp aren't just trying to cut out Michigan and Florida.  Both were making statements last week and over the weekend that drawing out the primary season any longer was destructive to the party.  Imagine how the voters felt about that in the 10 states and two territories who have yet to vote and weren't violating the DNC's rules.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:21:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You make it sound (0.00 / 0)

like Dean came up with this plan.

This was the plan that worked it's way through the committee and could pass given the circumstances.

What the hell does the DNC have to take blame for?

In case you don't know...we are the DNC.

It is the collection of party activists from Democratic parties of 50 states and the protectorates...

You know, like Congress only more dysfunctional.

Showing the fact that the DNC is weak is not a principled stand...it's being a very large penis.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:45:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not too familiar with Dean, eh? (4.00 / 1)

I think you have got to be one of the few who are unaware of the fact that Dean is no friend to the status quo.  And then there is the unrealistic view that upon election to the chair he should've just popped out a new primary system.  Zowie.

Here's something to think about...

We're glad to hear that the Governors of Michigan and Florida are willing to lend their weight to help resolve this issue. As we've said all along, we strongly encourage the Michigan and Florida state parties to follow the rules, so today's public overtures are good news. The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates. We look forward to receiving their proposals should they decide to submit new delegate selection plans and will review those plans at that time. The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game.

"Through all the speculation, we should also remember the overwhelming enthusiasm and turnout that we have already seen, and respect the voters of the ten states who have yet to have their say.

"As we head towards November, our nominee must have the united support of a strong Democratic Party that's ready to fight and ready to beat John McCain. After seven years of Republican rule, I am confident that we will elect a Democratic president who will fight for America's families in the White House. Now we must hear from the voters in twelve states and territories who have yet to make their voices heard."

http://marcambinder.theatlanti...

To prepare for when your life flashes before your eyes, make sure it's fun to watch.

---

by: JNelson @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 13:48:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The door might be shut(or might not) (4.00 / 1)

but it is not locked, yet.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:32:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aren't any of you skeptical? (0.00 / 0)

I've nothing but questions since I first heard Tim Russert bring up the issue of a "do-over" last night just before 1 am, within the hour of Obama's concession speech.

Why the sudden about face by folks who've been closed to the idea of a do-over, while the delegate counts from Texas aren't yet set in stone?

Why all the throwing around of the word "primary", which as I understand it cannot be done over under current Michigan legislation, since there is no method for having a second primary provided for without the help of Michigan's Republicans in the state senate?

Why aren't the folks who are all of sudden finding a "do-over" so appealing using the word "caucus" instead?

For starters.

BTW, those of us who were disenfranchised by the same folks who are now finding a "do-over" so appealing will never be satisfied with this.  They've managed to narrow the field down to two candidates, and I still won't get to vote for the one of my choice.

Oh, and another question: are there any Edwards' delegates -- the few he won -- that are still uncommitted?  Hmm.

---

by: lapojoynt @ Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 04:29:02 AM UTC