How to pay for a caucus/primary

Ah, no. (4.00 / 2)

And that's a flat no.  As a Clinton supporter, I'd only favor a do-over election if it was a Michigan-style caucus, had some reasonable method to prevent Republican intrusion, and the DNC was paying for at least a portion of it (an thus, to me anyway, admitting at least partial responsibility for this mess).

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:26:48 PM UTC

a firehouse primary... (0.00 / 0)

is a michigan style caucus.

---

by: Jon K @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 20:54:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, Jon. (4.00 / 1)

I know.  I prefer the term "Michigan-style caucus" or a "Michigan caucus".

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 21:57:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The last Michigan presidentail primary .. (4.00 / 1)

that I voted in was for Jesse Jackson in 1984 (I think). It was actually billed as a caucus.  It was on a Saturday in the local library and all you had to do to vote was to raise your hand, swear you were at least 18 years old and a Dem, and then (I think I'm recalling this correctly)sign your name on a form and put it in the candidate's box (each candidate had a box). There was only one official from the Party there. I'm sure he was a volunteer, and the room at the library was probably free. How much could an operation like that cost?  

---

by: nRkiSt @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:28:15 PM UTC

We would be offering the option of voting by Internet or mail. (0.00 / 0)

That's where the cost comes in. If we were willing to forego that, the cost could be minimal indeed.

But in that case, as grebner warns, if we have let's say five percent of the normal number of polling places in a regular election, our voting stations could be overwhelmed with the crush of voters.

---

by: memiller @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:03:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FYI:........ (1.75 / 4)

THE DNC WILL NOT APPROVE A VOTE-BY-MAIL NOMINATING SYSTEM, CONTRARY TO WHAT ANYONE TELLS YOU.

ACCORDING TO DNC RULES, IF WE HAVE A RE-DO, THE DNC WILL NOT APPROVE IT IF THERE ARE NOT POLLING LOCATIONS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN.

IN ADDITION, YOU GUYS HAVE COME UP WIH BETTER IDEAS. THE IDEAS STATED IN THE DIARY AND COMMENTS ARE AWFUL.

FOR ALL OF YOU THINKERS.........THINK....THINK.....THINK.........

---

by: S.Carter @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:15:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why (4.00 / 5)

are you SHOUTING

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:16:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely not (4.00 / 1)

The MDP was willing to pay for a caucus in December or January .
It can darn well pay for one, now.

Trained staff is standing by.

BTW, I don't like either one of our choices.

---

by: Smike @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:36:01 PM UTC

Hell no (4.00 / 1)

As a Hillary voter, I voted once. Why should that not count. Obama realy failed his supporters.

Obama made the political calculation to dis Michigan to win New Hampshire.

I recall he lost in NH

Now he wants us to bail him out.

Part of Politics and being a President is being right in political calculations.

He blew this one.  

---

by: farmboy @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:46:34 PM UTC

Hillary dissed MI, too, (4.00 / 1)

by refusing to step foot into the state.  I want a do-over.  It should be by mail, internet and at polling locations.  All libraries provide free internet access.  Schools all have computer labs that are empty at night and on weekends.  I like the idea of a Saturday vote day, but I do not want to be forced to show up in person.

I voted for Romney because I refused to give up my vote to uncommitted to do with as they pleased.  I was denied free and full access to the voting process, and I am not happy about that.  I want a redo.  

MI went through all of this BS to be "heard".   The race to the bottom is being lead by the auto industry - that's us.   Now is our chance.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:12:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it shouldn't count for two reasons (0.00 / 0)

first, it was made very clear that our votes in January would not count. A lot of Democrats who would have voted actually stayed home, as they knew their vote was useless. The January vote was not an accurate representation of the voters of Michigan.

Personally, I did vote in January - for "uncommitted". No one should assume that means those votes go to Obama automatically, just because he's the last one standing who wasn't on the ballot.

If MI had scheduled the primary in accordance with DNC rules, perhaps we would have a very different situation now. Edwards was likely to get a good showing in MI, as would have Clinton. But, we'll never know what would have played out if the primary were held in accordance to the rules.

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:25:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Caucuses (4.00 / 1)

Hazen, I recognize you're an Obama supporter and I know you want to give your canidate as much of an advantage as possible.  That's normal and there's nothing wrong with that.  But, ultimately we need to do what's best for the Democratic Party.  And unlike in the Democratic nomination process, there are no Iowa style caucuses in November.  If Obama's going to win in November, he'll need to win all the big Blue states and key swing states like Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and these will be with secret ballots in traditional elections.  These reason Obama hasn't won the nomination to date is because he hasn't shown a convincing ability to win these types of states in those types of contests.  Holding an Iowa-style caucus in Michigan might help Obama win the nomination, but it isn't going to help prepare him for November.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:24:00 PM UTC

Exactly (4.00 / 2)

which is why...if Michigan and Florida do not conform to the rules of the DNC, their delegates should not be seated our counted.

That is what is best for the Democratic Party.

We knew the rules (we voted on them) and we chose to violate them.

Now suck it up and correct the mistake (taking the full brunt of the costs) or don't make any travel plans for Denver.

Simple really.

And beyond the fever swamp of Michigan and Florida, don't expect any sympathy from the other 48 states...well, maybe Iowa and New Hampshire will get our backs...after all, we just handed them the excuse they need to stay first forever.

Thank you Debbie Dingell.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:21:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes, and the number of delegates needed to win (0.00 / 0)

nomination should be reduced by the number that FL and MI would have contributed.

(Note: my understanding is that the FL situation is a little different than MI - from what I've read, the Governor moved the date, not the FL Democratic Party. I don't understand enough about the details to weigh in whether they should get a re-vote. I don't see why MI should get a second chance, since the MDP knew fully well the decision they were making. They took the gamble that voting early would make Michigan an important player in the deciding the election. That didn't work. Now, they want a re-do so they can make MI an important player in deciding the election. How selfish.

If we care about the Democratic party as a whole, we have to follow the national plan. And, our state party has to eat the egg off its face.

Our state party knowingly chose to take the punishment for breaking national party rules. It was a selfish, self-serving action. It weakens the national party, which is something we don't need.

This is not the DNC's problem - it's the MDPs problem.  

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:59:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not about egg on face (4.00 / 1)

it's about taking the White House in November. And if Michigan or Florida are not allowed to take part in the convention, in other words are told sorry, you are not a part of the Democratic Party, then Michigan and Florida will be won by McCain and so will the White House. What is more important here, holding the MDP accountable or taking the White House?

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:40:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

how in the world (0.00 / 0)

would the MI delegates not be seated give McCain the Presidency?

I agree compeltely that it was ridiculous that our votes didn't really count. Most of the MI voters I know say it's annoying, but not a big deal. Having a revote won't make them feel better.

I don't know one person who will either stay home or vote for McCain this fall if they don't get a chance to revote. Do you?

---

by: land of the free @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 15:27:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama has already won. (0.00 / 0)

Hillary cannot catch him on popular vote or delegates.  Obama won Texas by popular vote and delegate count.  He  lost Ohio because of the NAFTA flap out of Canada that only got hung around his neck and let Mrs. NAFTA herself, skate.  If you want some answers on globalization, trade, and how many goats and mud huts are in MI future, we need a re-do.   I haven't heard anything about an Iowa style caucus, heaven forbid.  What I assumed is that it would be like every caucus we have held in the past.  

Is there a link to the rules or options being considered?

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing that organized (0.00 / 0)

This whole thing is still in complete flux and being negotiated behind closed doors - so no one has bothered to put up possible options being discussed (other than what's appeared in the papers). The set of options is probably changing as we speak anyway.

The Governor favors a "firehouse primary", which would supposedly be like the party-run primary election we had in 2004. Because it has the potential to involve the greatest number of people, that would be my preferred option too...though it's probably the least helpful to my candidate (Obama). I don't much care for Iowa-style caucuses either - but I'll still take it if it's the only way for me to finally be able to cast a vote for Obama.

"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 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:30:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama did not win popular vote (4.00 / 4)

Here are the official results:  http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr...   Showing Clinton winning the popular vote 51% to 47%

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:45:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you,,, (4.00 / 1)

This requires some prodding.  I read on dailykos, twice, that Obama won both delegate and popular vote.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:08:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

fascinating (0.00 / 0)

so, perhaps Daily Kos isn't the best source of news and facts? Perhaps incorrect things are posted there? I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you.

/sarcasm

P.S. How's Jim Blanchard? Has he mentioned this in your discussions?

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:20:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Back again this very minute..... (0.00 / 0)

I'm going to post your link.  

As to your other two links, I read DHinMI; but I did not read your other link.  Interesting.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:01:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is why I read several blogs.... (0.00 / 0)

What else you got?  I hate being lied to.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:05:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure if people are outright lying (4.00 / 2)

or if they're confused about the difference between spin and facts.

I've just become thoroughly disgusted with the bias at Daily Kos. The diarists are one thing, parroting all sorts of false or misleading info - but the frontpage has been following their lead. I'm truly undecided between Obama and Clinton, and when reviewing their front-page posts, it's clear that there is a very strong anti-Clinton bias. They've posted a lot of incindiary stories about Clinton, and then published very little positive about here - didn't even publish any acknowledgement of the error in the front page story I noted above. Also didn't publish any contrary professional opinions about the so-called "blackening" of Obama footage for a Clinton video.

It's good to read a lot of places and look at the skew of information. I used to think Daily Kos was a good source for fairly reported, balanced info. I'm now completely turned off.

Talking Points Memo gives a much better reporting of facts than DK.

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 17:18:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Me, too. (4.00 / 2)

I was Edwards, crossed-over and voted for Mitt because he at least left the airports when campaigning in MI, don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Barack, and concede both are better than McBush.  The trade issue would absolutely decide my vote.

I like Open Left.  It reminds me  of what dailykos use to be like.  Chris, Matt - lots of smart people doing good work.  Civil.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:01:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards, the trade issue, etc. (4.00 / 2)

I was for Edwards, too. I voted "uncommitted".

I think the trade issue is a big deal, too... but honestly, I'm not sure what the next President will be able to do unilaterally. There are a lot of complex agreements with other countries, and more red tape than the rhetoric they're trying to sell. To me, one of the biggest things that could be changed is our healthcare system. So many companies are outsourcing because they can't afford the healthcare and pension costs of American workers. If we could get a single-payer national healthcare plan for all, we would be on a much more level playing field with people from other countries.

Neither of the current candidates is tying together the clear link between outsourcing and healthcare.

I haven't read Open Left too much... I'm checking out docudharma right now. It seems much more civil, as is Firedoglake (which I really like, although the commenting system is kinda annoying). I'll check out Open Left, based on your rec. Thanks!

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 23:09:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Single payer, redoing the tax incentives so that (4.00 / 1)

companies stay and not leave... tax credits for skill upgrading and training existing US workers, lower tax rates for companies that incorporate and mfg. in US vs. those that don't, and much, much higher fees for H-1B visa's.  Tax structures and single payer could go a long, long way to addressing the trade deficit, which is a major source of the shitty economy in the US and in MI.  It is also an issue of national security.  If we can't make anything, we sure as hell can't defend ourselves, e.g., France refuses to give us planes, Saudi Arabia refuses to give us gas, etc.  Hell, China could destroy us without firing a shot.   This has all got to stop.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 14:16:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you should run for office! (4.00 / 1)

I agree with you 100%.

---

by: land of the free @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 15:29:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would much rather be King.. :) eom (4.00 / 1)

---

by: dkmich @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:56:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a bad idea (4.00 / 1)

I think there are a lot of supporters from both camps, from around the country, who would like to see a caucus in MI and who would pony up to help make it happen.

Julie

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

---

by: JNelson @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:36:51 PM UTC

I hate to say it (0.00 / 0)

but these may be some of the most ill-considered ideas I've seen in a long time.

MDP paid in 2000 and 2004, they can pay in 2008.  There is no reason the DNC should pay, they didn't pay for the 48 states that followed the agreed upon rules, why should they pay for the rule-breakers.

My solution (and this is the way it should be everywhere in my mind): you must be a MDP member to vote.  You may signup to be a MDP member at the caucus at the $20 basic membership or for free (but you have to give your email, address and phone).

The candidates and their supporters should be entirely left out of the process.  As Dean has said, this is about the MDP submitting a new DSP to the DNC who will then approve it.  I could care less what the Clinton or Obama campaigns think, though I'm more than a little pissed at how the Obama campaign seems to be considering coming out against democracy (the Obama grassroots in West MI seems smart enough to know better, but the actions of Tupak Hunter and the Obama national team are pushing me away from him).

We've screwed up enough already, get it down Jen and Mark.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 14:37:11 PM UTC

Obama disconnect (4.00 / 1)

Phil, I've been wondering the same thing about the disconnect between Obama supporters.  The national Obama campaign seems to be against a do-over and simply prefers to deny seating to Michigan's and Florida's delegates based on the results of the January election.  The pro-Obama bloggers on the other hand, sound like they prefer a do-over.  I'll admit, I may come across as favoring a do-over more than the national Clinton campaign but they've made it clear they're very open to the possibility with funding being the big hump to get over.  Maybe us bloggers are just addicated to this thing.  Anyway, the big hang-up on a do-over appears to be the funding issue and consent from the national Obama campaign.  

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wonder if the funding (4.00 / 1)

is mostly a BS issue.  The DNC ain't paying (why should they pay for the rule-breakers when they didn't help the rule followers?).  Maybe Jen can get a wealthy benefactor to pay, but the MDP will have to pony up at least $1 million.

And yes, there is a disconntect.  The Michigan grassroots and netroots for Obama are right.  The official Michigan folks and the Obama national campaign ... we'll I've been disappointed.  They should be all over this since if they're not it sounds a lot like the "old politics of personal self-interest" I thought Obama was against (or did the Canadians learn that was BS too?).

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:04:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WWJRED? (0.00 / 0)

I agree.  I often wonder how this campaign would be different if it were Hillary Clinton running against John Edwards as the "change" candidate or Barack Obama running against John Edwards as the more tested candidate.  What would Senator Edwards do in the same situation?

A year ago I was split between Edwards and Clinton as they were the only two candidate I felt/feel were tough enough and tested enough to win the White House.  My nostalgia for the 90's perhaps caused me to underestimate the change component in the election this year.  In retrospect, Edwards may have been the best choice.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:44:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama announces opposition to do-over (4.00 / 2)

State Democratic chairman: Obama opposes Michigan 'do-over' plan
Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

The Barack Obama campaign opposes a do-over election format proposed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the Michigan Democratic Party chairman said today. "Obama opposes the redo as proposed by the governor and unless we can get the two campaigns (Illinois Sen. Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton) to agree on something it's not going to happen," said party Chair Mark Brewer.

Brewer said he doesn't know why the Obama campaign opposes Granholm's approach.

I know why he opposes it - its because it doesn't favor him. He didn't campaign in Michigan the first time because he knew he couldn't win. Now he is opposing us again because he know he can't win. What a freakin' weasel!

(sorry, I don't mean to stoop to calling people names, but this really pisses me off!)

Nothing is easier than solving a problem on the back of the poor. People who don't have lobbyists or clout.

---

by: yvette248 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 19:59:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the news update (4.00 / 2)

Obama's opposes a do-over despite the request by Dean and the DNC to have a do-over.  This will help the automatic delegates support Hillary and the inclusion of Michigan's and Florida's delegates being seated according to the wishes of the January elections in those states.  The Obama campaign is in a freefall.  I see he just dismissed one of his advisors for calling Hillary a "monster".

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 20:49:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It would not be fair to say $20 MDP membership (4.00 / 1)

payment is required to participate in the selection process for the nominee.

Heck, it might not even be legal. It would be requiring a fee to vote. I don't know my legalese, but I thought this was the whole reasoning behind stopping Voter ID laws - that it suppresses the vote, that it disenfranchises people who don't have an ID, so you have to purchase something like a driver's licence to vote.

Maybe it's different for a nominating process (like the caucus), but a fee to participate just seems wrong. It means those willing to pony up money will decide what the state thinks.

The precedent set would not be good.

---

by: land of the free @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:56:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"or for free" (4.00 / 1)

Probably most would go for free, but some would pay the $20 in cash and we'd grow the Party.  

It'll help keep out Republicans too.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:01:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't see that part! (0.00 / 0)

but, dontcha think the Republicans would come out in droves to "vote"? Since they don't have to choose between voting for a Republican or a Democrat, you know they'll come out to muck up the system.

Are there any voting records from the Jan primary list to indicate who voted in the Democratic primary? If that information is legally allowed to be reviewed (not showing WHO they voted for, but that they participated in the Dem primary in January), I could see limiting participation in a new primary/caucus to only those people who participated in the January event. That would limit the chance for shenanigans... however, it'll cause a lot of outrage by Democrats who truly want to get involved now.

I think the entire do-over concept is frought with problems.

---

by: land of the free @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:06:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, the voting records are out (4.00 / 1)

there, but they've been blocked from being released by an ACLU lawsuit.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:10:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Free Party Membership (4.00 / 2)

Supposedly there is a method to become a party member without paying a fee, but a simple look at the membership page on the MDP website doesn't show how.  Regardless, it wouldn't help pay for the election and is even more cumbersome than having to show ID.  It's undemocratic especially given the historical infamy of the poll tax.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:04:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The MDP can run this as (0.00 / 0)

a "private organization."  There's lots of legal stuff here, but asking to register for free isn't a detriment to voting.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:06:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so, a private organization determines who (4.00 / 2)

will be our nominee and possible President?

I'm worried that we'd be creating so much juicy campaign fodder for the Republicans. They would CRUSH us with ads about how the Democratic Party (in Michigan) only wants their private club to determine who can run for President - they won't let the voters of Michigan decide for themselves. This would be a terrific talking point they can use to try and distance Democrats and Independents against the Democratic party.

I can see the ads now: "John McCain thinks everyone should have the right to vote. He cares what you think."

---

by: land of the free @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:09:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Political parties (0.00 / 0)

are private organizations. They get to determine membership rules.

The only reason they are so lax in the US is due to the electoral laws we chose to select our candidates for the general election.

IE: First-past-the-post (Plurality)

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:25:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

while I agree on the technicality (0.00 / 0)

don't you think that holding a new caucus/primary limited to only those people who officially join the MDP is just handing a big club to the GOP, with which they can whack us over the heads repeatedly?

This flies in the face of the Democratic party's tradition of wanting to get as many people as possible to participate in elections. It's restrictive. It encourages a poll tax. It is not inclusive, but exclusive.

It would be a PR nightmare, in my opinion.

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:28:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a thought (4.00 / 1)

The DNC doesn't want to pay for it.

The MDP doesn't want to pay for it.

Michigan taxpayers surely (and correctly) don't want to pay for it.

Seems like the only two entities with the funds to cover this do-over are...the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

Is it even possible for the two campaigns to kick in, say, $3 million each to defray the costs?

Wouldn't that solve the problem...assuming it didn't violate FEC rules?

Even if it did, there is no viable FEC to enforce the rule anyway...we've seen that with the McCain "did he or didn't he accept matching funds" fiasco.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:03:59 PM UTC

Excellent Point (0.00 / 0)

Both the Obama and Clinton camapaigns had their best ever months for fundraising last month.  The Clinton campaign raised $3 million on Wednesday this week alone.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:48:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How weird is it... (0.00 / 0)

...that I've been validated by James Carville?

If he thinks the two campaigns share the costs, I'm on board. The publicity of the do-over would trump any hard feelings from those people who voted Janaury 15. After all, I'm one of those voters and I have no problem with voting a second time. By the time June 7 comes (if that's the date), everyone will know why it's happening.

He may have endorsed Clinton, but unlike most of her slash-and-burn inner circle, I beleive Carville's a Democrat first, Clintonista second.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 20:02:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is as good a place (4.00 / 5)

to post this as any.

I've stayed out of the caucus/primary kerfuffle until now. I hadn't made up my mind. I was going to sit back and let the older, wiser folks state their cases and make the decision. The fact is that I'm a snot-nosed little kid and no one cares what I think anyway.

But I've made up my mind, and I might as well say so.

I don't support a re-do.

1. It won't change the outcome. Demographically Michigan and Ohio are pretty similar, and with Hillary's strong showing in Ohio I am convinced the momentum will not swing big industrial states like Michigan in Obama's favor. Like it or not, the biggest Democratic voting bloc in Michigan is the Nascar dad demographic--union voters who are generally socially conservative but vote Democratic because, well, because that's what union voters do. These are Hillary's core supporters. They will come out in force for her, and Obama won't have the independent vote to back him up like he did in January. Beyond that, the "powers that be" in Michigan are clearly Hillary supporters, and thus the Democratic machine here will do what it can to back their candidate. (I love Jennifer Granholm, as you all know, but I can vehemently disagree with someone I love and still love them.) I predict no more than a 5-point swing in either direction.

2. It's expensive. We're talking about doing this in June, two months before the convention and four months before the general. Every penny the MDP spends on this caucus thing is money that could be better spent on party building, visibility, voter outreach, voter identification, GOTV, etc. Spending all this money on something that will only get us what we already have seems foolish.

I don't care who pays for it. I'm against a re-vote.

---

by: PerfectStormer @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:05:35 PM UTC

I welcome your view! (4.00 / 3)

I may be weird for an "old" person but I like to hear the views of the younger activists.  They/you bring new ideas and fresh perspectives and I hope you never let anyone discourage you from doing so.

With that said I still contend that youth is wasted on the young. haha

Cheers,
Julie

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

---

by: JNelson @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:21:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This seems to be the thoughts from the Obama Campaign (4.00 / 2)

On point one, this seems to be the thoughts from the national Obama campaign as well.  I think it and the MDP's concerns (your point No. 2) are what is keeping a caucus agreement from coming together.  It's expensive and neither Michigan nor Florida are likely to be Obama friendly states despite the pro-caucus atmosphere on blogs like Michigan Liberal.  That's a shame.  The January primary was great.  A spring caucus would be double-great.  The candidate's would have spent a lot of time and money here and we'd have gotten even more national attention than the tone we've gotten already through our civil disobedience.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:32:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the cost may be counterbalanced. (4.00 / 3)

Your points are very well reasoned. But the cost may be counterbalanced as Grebner and others have posted by the value in MDP memberships both in dollars and increased voter registration.
I fear it doesn't matter what any of us want. To me it is very unclear who will make the decision on this but it won't be the people who voted or didn't in January.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 15:32:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you (4.00 / 1)

the MDP screwed this up, and we need to put our time, focus, and money on the general election.

The Republicans want us to do this! They want us to waste our time and money on this. It's not good for our Presidential and down-ticket races.

I'll be honest - I have no idea which canddiate I'd vote for in a do-over.

My husband is in the same boat, and he has made a good point to me why we can't use the January results - most people didn't vote if they were supporting a candidate not on the ballot. He only voted cuz I made him do it (and he was at the polling place to volunteer to counter the RTW signature gatherers, too). Janauary's voting results are completley null. He said he'd really like a chance to vote again, because the MDP made his voice irrelevant... but he sees my point that holding a new contest would be expensive and would be rewarding the MDP for their bad behavior.

I just think it seems a bit disingenuous for MI to keep moving the goalposts in an attempt to be relevant.

---

by: land of the free @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:01:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Keep moving the goalposts" (4.00 / 1)

I've seen this phrase a lot the past couple of weeks.  We need to keep in mind that 50 states will be voting in November and all of those states including DC and a number of territories should be picking the Democratic delegate to run in the fall.  Obama's problem isn't that the goalposts are moving, it's that he continues to have a lot of difficulty getting first downs and moving down the field.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:52:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry, what? (4.00 / 1)

28 wins (including Democrats Abroad, the Virgin Islands and DC) is not a first down?

He may have trouble getting "first downs" but he's still got more points on the board than Hillary.

---

by: PerfectStormer @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:54:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Football (2.50 / 2)

Sure, Obama has more points on the board than Hillary but not by much and he just had his third critical fumble.  Hmmm, I think I remember seeing this campaign as an actual football game rather recently.  The only difference is the Patriots put their hands over their hearts during the National Anthem.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 19:41:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's 3am (2.50 / 2)

"The only difference is the Patriots put their hands over their hearts during the National Anthem."

You can support your candidate but spouting the propaganda of racists is going too far.

---

by: flivverking @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:47:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Far from Racist (2.50 / 2)

I don't care what your age, race, sex, sexual orientation, political party, military service, religion, etc. is.  Your hat comes off, your hand goes over your heart, and you get goose bumps during the National Anthem.  Pride in our nation isn't ignorant nationalism and I won't cede it to fascist right-wingers.  There's a lot to be proud of in America's past and even more in it's future.

---

by: Brady @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:36:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

It just isn't true (not that the truth ever stood in the way of the Clintons) that Obama does not put his hand over his heart.  This type of smear usually comes from fascist right-wingers so I see you are not ceding that either.

---

by: flivverking @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:45:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you implying that the video we have all seen, was doctored? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:50:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Er... (4.00 / 3)

There is no law or order that says you must put your hand over your heart during the national anthem.

---

by: rich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are correct, but why not put your hand to your heart? (4.00 / 1)

When those around you are doing so, what is the point of not doing so yourself?

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:53:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (4.00 / 2)

So he's caught in one photo apparently not putting his hand on his heart during the National Anthem and somehow this makes him ineligible to be POTUS?

---

by: rich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:53:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ineligible? Where did that come from? Just an awkward situation that Obama could have avoided. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 20:11:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then why bother... (4.00 / 3)

bringing it up in the first place? These are the kinds of silly things that divert attention from issues of substance. I'm sure Dubya makes sure he puts his hand over his heart during the national anthem, but that doesn't make him a better person, politician, or more true patriot.  

---

by: rich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 22:26:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was sure BO was smarter than that ... why risk the criticism? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:16:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So with all the problems this country has, (0.00 / 0)

the big, big issue is obama's lapel pin and putting his hand over his heart.  Missing white chicks!  Could anybody ever get to debating the issue that matter to us and our grandkids.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 14:21:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Law or order (4.00 / 1)

You're absolutely right.  There is no law or order that says you must put your hand over your heart during the national anthem.  There also is no (enforceable) law that says you can't burn an American flag as a symbol of protest.  You can thank generations of young American liberal men and women that gave their lives at Concord, New Orleans, Gettysburg, Havana, Flanders, Omaha Beach, Pusan, etc. to preserve an American democracy that doesn't require you to put your hand over your heart but instead allows you put your hand over your heart during the National Anthem in rememberance of the great price they paid to protect our liberal democracy on your behalf.  Fortunately no one is going to be arrested for not placing their hand over their heart or taking off their ballcap, but any disresepct directed toward them is well deserved given the historical context.

---

by: Brady @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:20:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting Take (4.00 / 1)

I must admit you are right.  Come to think of it I've never seen George W. Bush not put his hand over his heart.  I'll change my tune from now on I'll judge all candidates for office based on thier "respect" for the brave soldiers that fought for our freedom.  Never mind the issues, just show me a clip of a pol with their lapel pin on, hand over their heart, holy christian bible tucked squarely in their other hand and add on a few tears.  That's the kind of leadership we need.  No ideas, No new politics, No judgement just the kind of skills one would need to watch a hockey game (just don't the salute the Canadian flag, traitor!). GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

by: flivverking @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:25:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why can't they have both? (0.00 / 0)

Why shouldn't we expect a President both exhibit patriotism and be a force for progressive change in our country?  We have no reason not to be proud of America.  On the contrary, America has been the biggest liberal success story in world history, often despite conservatives.  For example, look at the progress lesbians and gays have made in the past 28 years despite 12 years of Bush I and Bush II in office and 8 years of Reagan.  Conservatives try to own American history and Christianity as their own and all too often modern liberals let them.  There's no reason to.

---

by: Brady @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

my comment has nothing to do with candidates (0.00 / 0)

and I'm not sure why you're turning my comment into a candidate comment. (I'm an Edwards supporter who is uncommitted to either Clinton or Obama).

I'm focused on how the MDP wants to play kingmaker. They keep moving the goalposts so they can be relevant. It's a desperate cry for attention.

I'd just like to take this opportunity again to sarcastically thank the Michigan Democratic Party for their spectacular screw-up. Their decision to move the primary to January, and now diddle around trying to figure out what to do, has wasted millions of dollars, has immobilized volunteer efforts and GOTV, and continues to make us look like fools. The Michigan voters have been denied the chance to make their votes count, and now we're going to spend precious campaign time watching McCain and the Republicans get organized while we chase our tails for millions of dollars to try and have another election. Millions that could be spent on much more important things than the egos of Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingel.

If you shoot yourself in the foot, why not just keep shooting yourself in the other foot! Maybe it'll make the first flesh wound feel better.

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:34:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two reasons we need it (4.00 / 2)

and about the results, you may be wrong. Rasmussen has the state tied 41% a piece.

1) Party building at the grass roots level. We can't afford to not have a competitive primary between the supporters of these two campaigns.

2) We must keep the punishment in place. If we don't any future ruling by the DNC to correct the horrible primary process will be blatantly ignored by Iowa and New Hampshire...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:31:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democracy (4.00 / 3)

Who cares how this effects Obama or Hillary?  Michigan Democrats deserve the right to take part in a real election.

End of story as far as I'm concerned.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:37:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Since there isn't a dime's worth of difference (4.00 / 1)

between these two, I would agree with your comment.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 14:22:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Effects on the General Election (4.00 / 2)

My guess is that if during the big, bloody, very public convention fight which would occur in the absence of a second Michigan primary, Obama-leaning delegates on the credentials committee were to vote against Michigan and Florida delegate seating, that would be the functional equivalent of handing every single Michigan elector to John McCain.  Can you conceive of the attention McCain would give to a decision by the Democratic convention delegates to entirely exclude Michigan and Florida?  Two of the top "battleground states?"

---

by: faithandreason @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:55:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please explain the disconnect between (0.00 / 0)

NAFTA and CLINTON.  The two are synonamous.    

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grassroots to the rescue (4.00 / 1)

This whole darn process has been a matter of the Democratic party elites dictating to voters how and when to vote, and whether their votes would be counted (qua delegates seated).  I'm livid about Mark Brewer, Jennifer Granholm, and Howard Dean treating Michigan voters like little pawns in "their" game of chess.  I think that to the extent to which the rules of the national party allow (and maybe if they don't), the new caucus should be run at the county level by party officials.  However they want to do it is just fine, as long as it's democratic and inclusive.  I think that as private organizations, each county party should put together its own ballot, find someone in each county with a copy machine willing to donate the copies, come up with its own voting rules, and then TELL the state party how the voters in the county voted.  The state party could facilitate the process by putting up a web-based vote entry system, where vote-counters at each polling station could enter the data.  I think it'd be a lot cheaper and less bureaucratic if it were done that way.

---

by: faithandreason @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:43:01 PM UTC

Good idea (0.00 / 0)

It's not all that different from how we did it in 2004. In Manistee County we rented the voting site ourselves and volunteers from our county party worked the caucus/election. Ballots were provided by the state.

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:07:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

JNelson rocks! (4.00 / 1)

Okay...looks like 5-1 against my suggestions from the commenteer brigade.  

That's cool. I'm a tough guy. I don't take it personally.

But part of this exercise was to solicit other ideas from those who also favor having a new contest on how to fund it.  Here's what we got (basically):

"Make the MDP Pay"
"Make the DNC Pay"
"Make the Hillary/Barack pay"

I can easily live with any and all of those options - though I guess, in spite of their sins, I'd rather not sock the MDP because that cash will just be drained away from Michigan GOTV activities in November. Far better, in my view, to draw in as much out-of-state cash as we can. Nevertheless, there's the question of how exactly do we "make" any of them pay? That's what my scheme attempts to deal with...by creating some tactical incentive for candidates and their supporters to raise lots of money for our caucus/primary.

As I said, since Hillary favors the more expensive option (firehouse caucus) this would put a disproportionate burden on her backers to raise the cash. I tend to think that's justified, since her opposition to a new contest for the past several months is part of the reason we're here today. But obviously this is a significant weakness.

So...what if we were to combine my two ideas? In this situation, people who donate could check off which candidate they prefer. We'd have the same thresholds to determine whether we'd have an Iowa-style caucus or "firehouse primary." But on top of that, the candidate with the largest amount of donations gets to choose the date.

What I expect would happen under such a scenario is that Hillary supporters would be by far the biggest donors in the beginning. But...if the tally starts to approach $8 million or whatever the supposed cost of the primary is, then the Obama campaign would kick their fund raising machine into high gear in order to secure the right to set the date...which could be very critical tactically. With Hillary's head start, he may or may not succeed. It could be an interesting race - and one that could possibly even MAKE money for the MDP, in addition to funding the caucus/primary.

Okay, so you don't like that one either. Fine. Tell us your plan. We're in a fix here and need some creativity...

"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 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 23:42:48 PM UTC

WASHINGTON -- The office of Senator Carl Levin released the following statement today: (4.00 / 1)

Michigan Democrats have for years argued against the unfair and irrational system in which New Hampshire and Iowa almost always have a hugely disproportionate impact on our presidential nominating process.  A DNC commission reviewed the system and recommended a new sequence for 2008 in which New Hampshire would hold the third nomination contest.  It was only after New Hampshire indicated its intention to violate the new sequence -- and the DNC's failure to enforce its own rules in light of New Hampshire's violation of those rules -- that Michigan decided it would move up its primary to January 15.  The DNC subsequently voted to strip Michigan of its convention delegates.

Senator Levin was asked to join with Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, and DNC Member Debbie Dingell to work with the DNC, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in an attempt to resolve the Michigan delegate dispute.  

Senator Levin doesn't see at this time a practical and fair way to hold a "do-over" election in Michigan given the immense financial and logistical hurdles, and in any event believes that a change in course would require acceptance by both candidates.

Unless an agreement is reached before the Democratic National Convention in August, the issue would be addressed by the Democratic Convention Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee's recommendation would be subject to an appeal to the full Convention.

The current course is for delegates allocated to Michigan's congressional districts to be selected at district conventions on March 29 based on the proportion of the January 15 primary vote in each district tallied for Senator Clinton or "uncommitted."  The remaining pledged delegates will be selected at a Michigan Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting on May 17 based on the statewide election results

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 00:13:26 AM UTC

way to focus on the issues that matter to America Carl... (4.00 / 1)

Carl, please tell me that you recognize your job is more important right now that spats with the DNC about how your state is treated after it broke the law of their national party. How about worrying about jobs, health care, and such?  Try to get some things done ... I don't know what the hell is stopping you and your other Democratic colleagues from pushing healthcare reform now.  Oh .. right ... you don't want change, do you?

---

by: jimwhitaker @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:50:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Since HRC has MI super delegates in her pocket, (0.00 / 0)

Levin's position ought to work out swell for all of them. Levin refused to support Lamont, too, even though he won the D primary.   Apparently, democracy is only OK when it favors their guy.  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sounds good Hazen... (0.00 / 0)

and I would put pressure on Obama and Queen Bee (Clinton) to encourage contributions to the fund for the re-do ... and if I were the MDP, I'd add a $10 additional fee to any new memberships that sign up this month just to vote (to try to discourage Republican-come-by-to-elect-Hillary-votes)

---

by: jimwhitaker @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:44:01 AM UTC