Carville offers $15M for MI/FL contests, etc.

thanks Hazen (4.00 / 1)

this story isn't getting much traffic on the wider web..odd.

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 13:59:38 PM UTC

And on the MSM (4.00 / 1)

It is being mentioned on CNN and the Network news every time I watch them. When we had the 1/15 primary it was hardly mentioned at all. Not sure we want this kind of attention but I think with all this press the pressure is on the four entities(MDP,DNC, Clinton, Obama) to make something happen that will lead to our being a part of the convention.

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 14:23:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why wouldn't we want this attention (4.00 / 1)

think of the dollars to local economies if the press et al came to Michigan during a do-over. Think about how the rest of country would have to look at what is going on here - the good and the bad.

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:26:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That attention yes. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not so sure on the "controversial" part of it. The attention we are recieving is mostly good, and as I said if it leads to a new primary/caucus I'm glad to recieve it. But the part that makes us look bad or that might alienate voters I'm not so sure of.

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 14:39:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An MDP State Convention is an option. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:11:01 PM UTC

The Obama "Fair" Solution could be (4.00 / 4)

what the NY Times reported yesterday (7 March)

David Plouffe, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, floated the idea of allocating the delegates from the two states 50-50, which would erase Mrs. Clinton's hypothetical advantage and essentially make the two states meaningless in the competitive delegate count. It would, however, allow Michigan and Florida delegates to participate in the national convention.

Which means: Obama doesn't want me to vote because he's scared I might not vote for him.  WTF?!  The guy thinks he's running a banana republic.

Plus, this means no help for Michigan Democrats by having a competitive race that mobilizes people and gets uot the brand message.  Obama can only think about himself which to me isn't the "New Politics" he once promised.

Get right on this by Monday or we part company Mr. Obama!

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:12:04 PM UTC

That's jumping to conclusions. (0.00 / 0)

You could also read the Free Press article on this, and see what the "firehouse" would entail. http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll...

Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate.

Given how many Democratic voters crossed over knowing that the election was meaningless, Granholm herself shouldn't even endorse that as a solution.

---

by: stormhit @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 18:54:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, if that's Jen's plan (4.00 / 1)

Then Obama should come out publically for something better.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 19:00:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read that a bit closer (0.00 / 0)

And have to agree, we don't need Republicans voting in both elections.

And if you were stupid enough to follow Kos' or Eric's advice, then tough luck.

Plus, a look at exit polls stated that only 7% of voters on the Republican ballot claimed to be Democrats, so the numbers of folks who would be tripped up by their own supposed cleaverness is miniscule.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 19:18:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Granholm isn't an honest broker (2.00 / 3)

The governor supports Clinton. Dingell supports Clinton. There's no way Obama is going to get a fair shake from Michigan's Democratic establishment on a do-over or anything else. With Clinton's top campaign official engaging in 'Ken Starr' name-calling, and Hillary herself saying McCain but not Obama is prepared to be commander in chief, the prospects of many of us supporting Clinton should she be the nominee are getting dimmer by the day.  

---

by: LiberalBubba @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:14:37 PM UTC

huh (4.00 / 4)

how can he not get a fair shake in a do-over?

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:24:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Obama blocks (4.00 / 4)

our delegates from the convention, no matter how they are picked, he will have no chance to win Michigan in November. How he wins the General Election without Michigan in beyond my imagination.

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 14:25:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was under the impression (0.00 / 0)

our admittance to convention, at this point, would be determined by the DNC Credentials Committee.  Of course the candidate(s) will have a say and really, do you think either of them, in the end, will be foolish enough to not seat any state?

I do not.  No one will want to present such a picture of dis-unity at our national convention for all the world to see, much less hand custom made commercials to the Rethugs for two key states.

Not gonna happen.

There are more than two options here.  There are at least three:

A.  Do-over

B.  No do-over, seated as allotted. (an option that seems to be overlooked in this discussion)

C.  No do-over, not admitted to convention resulting in political suicide for the Dems in the must-win states of MI & FLA.

While we have clearly seen some not-too-bright, rather clumsy political manuevering at the state level, I cannot bring myself to believe for a moment that no one will be stupid enough to choose option C, do you?  Does anyone here?

Julie

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

---

by: JNelson @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:12:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Options (4.00 / 1)

Julie, you did a great job in outlining the options.  Option C seems to be the preference of the national Obama campaign.  Option B seems to be the preference of the national Clinton campaign although it would consider Option A.  Option A seems to be the preference of most of us bloggers and the DNC.  Option A clearly offers the least chance of benefit to John McCain.  

---

by: Brady @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 16:16:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it is real close going into the convention (4.00 / 1)

and Clinton's net gain in delegates from Michigan and Florida would let her retake the lead from Obama then yes, I see him choosing option three. It would be a murder/suicide.

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 02:59:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

McCain-supporting Republicans are even less honest! (0.00 / 0)

If Obama's alleged objection is based not wanting people who  won't EVER vote for a Democrat in November having a big say, then I have a hard time blaming him.  Do YOU want hardcore Michigan Republicans selecting the preferred Democratic candidate for the country?  I sure don't!  

It's one thing to have a delegate selection process with the potential for such mischief at the point when no one's voted, where candidates can factor that into their campaign plans.  It's quite another to do so when 70-80% of the delegates have been decided and it's still close.

We don't even need to get into the political favoritism of state level Democrats to conclude that this is objectively bad.  And it's not like we haven't had this issue crop up in our delegate selection process before...  where were Gore and Bradley on the primary ballot in 2000?  

---

by: China Mig @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:19:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama is getting screwed by the MDP (0.00 / 0)

No way is Jen, Debbie, Joel and the gang giving Barack an even chance.

The MDP can't follow rules, now wants to rewrite rules during the game and is having a hissy and wants to upturn the game board until Hillary wins.

The MDP wants to give it to Hillary and feel "good" about themselves. They want the illusion of a fair election but make no mistake about it, they ain't gonna give Barack a chance at winning.

This has been BS since January. You try and tell me that Hillary innocently left her name on the ballot while all others, except for Dennis the menace, pulled thiers? No flags go up, no flares, no rotten smell?

Once again Michigan gets press for all the wrong reasons. And I like that we now are grouped with Florida, that bastion of election accountability.

We violated the rules, we are disqualified, the previous election was BS and any future election,caucus or firehouse crap is crap.

And I have no solution except to just eat it and go to Denver sans Mi and Fl. Life is togh some times but my momma and daddy taught me that you abide by the rules.

---

by: doxie53 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 21:06:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your solution gives the election to McCain. (4.00 / 2)

Which is unacceptable to anyone who wants the U.S. out of Iraq, anyone who wants an improved health care system, and anyone who is a Democrat. Rules are changed and rewritten all the time. If the DNC, the MDP, Obama and Clinton can agree on how to make our votes count, as they must if they want to win in November, then the old rules are in the garbage where they belong.

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 21:35:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

15 January was a "strawpoll" (4.00 / 2)

and most of here said that since October 2007.

We have yet to submit a Delegate Selection Plan that has been approved that we have inacted.  No rules are being changed and it's not even a "do-over" since there never really was a primary.

Michigan Democrats deserve to vote.  Heck, use the exact same system we used in 2004 and problem solved.

I want -- and deserve -- the right to vote.

Why do some people -- including apparently Obama and the folks who will back anything and everything his campaign does -- not want me to?

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 21:53:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why is Obama hiring staff in Michigan? (4.00 / 4)

Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Barack Obama campaign has 60 job openings at $8.00 an hour. Interviews from 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm at 600 W Lafayette, Detroit, Michigan. Any questions call Kermit at (248) 667-1264.

This job posting was listed on the blog Michigan Caucus on March 2nd.  It sure seems to me the Obama camapign is planning for a do over!

---

by: ebba debba @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 14:56:16 PM UTC

they were going to ohio for gotv (4.00 / 1)

The Pay is $8/hour. For Monday and Tuesday Election day in Ohio. Transportation is provided from Detroit to Ohio and Back to Detroit every night. The interview will be at the Acorn office in Detroit. Any questions call Kermit at 248-667-1264.

---

by: Jon K @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 22:11:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't help but think (4.00 / 2)

how many people Michiganians could have a roof over their heads - instead of sleeping in the streets - with that $15 million.

---

by: land of the free @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 15:24:21 PM UTC

Do you think any of those people (4.00 / 2)

are going to get a roof over their heads with McSame as our next President?

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 21:36:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to say (3.00 / 3)

off topic, that I was rather disgusted to find that Grebner's "blackmailing" experiment* not only was condoned by a major institute of learning (Yale) in violation of every standard of ethics in place in most of America, but it also got published in the premier journal of political science.

Unbelievable!

* A study in which the researcher threatens to expose the individual to their neighbors and family if they don't vote. One of the underlying principles of any study of human subjects is the issue of implied consent. How on earth choosing individuals at random and threatening to expose their lack of voting to impose shame can meet this standard is beyond me.

This is disgusting behavior on the part of scientists and I hope fervently it is ridiculed and shunned, but unlike their test subjects, they will have had the opportunity to chose to participate.

This is the kind of nonsense that gives scientist bad names and including individuals who are not schooled in the proper moral and ethical guidelines of the science should not be tolerated.

If you are interested in why these guidelines are in place, you can read about three very famous cases in the post-war era that led to these restrictions.

I have to wonder, given Yale's propensity to engage in these kinds of "experiments" in the past and the age of the "scientists" involved (older individuals schooled in the "hey that's a cool idea" form of 50s and 60s experimentation) had most to do with this.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 21:01:12 PM UTC

But the cowboy mentality is so much more fun.... (4.00 / 2)

Special thanks go to Mark Grebner of Practical Political Consulting, who designed and administered the mail program studied here. This research was reviewed and approved by the Yale Human Subjects Committee.

---

by: Jon K @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 22:20:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Social Pressure and Voter Turnout" (4.00 / 7)

(http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/APSRFeb08Gerberetal.pdf)

I realize you are firm you are in your opinion that my research is useless or improper.  For myself, I'm pleased the two leading academic authorities on the subject feel my work is worthy of their attention and support.  And that the leading journal selected it for publication.

The findings so far point to ways to fine-tune the method, reducing the volume of complaints, while preserving the very large effect on voting.  I view myself as literally a "political scientist", but NOT "an academic".  In other words, I'm a free-lance experimenter and tinkerer, without a university position.

I wasn't aware it was in print - thanks for bringing it to my attention.  

---

by: Grebner @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 22:46:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like your work (4.00 / 1)

I have found all of your ideas fascinating. For example, your near on prediction that proposition 2 would lose 60 to 40 in the 2006 election. Despite Eddie and Epic popping up all over the MSM announcing neck and neck polling, you stayed with your prediction. Alas, you were correct and Epic was wrong - again. The result was prop 2 goig down 59-41 but you were pretty close.
Your method and explanations of those methods have always been clear and concise. The mailing of self addressed with postage on post cards, guaranteeing anonymity was brilliant and proved to be far more accurate than a phone poll of people who were predisposed to vote a certain way.
I am only surprised that it has taken this long for some place like Yale to notice you. If someone wants to run for office or wants to pass a proposition they would be very foolish not to utilize PPC.
I do not work for Grebner and have never met the man. I am merely impressed of Mr. Grebners ability to identify the fact that our old methods to predict outcomes are dated. Mark has come up with new methods that seem so simple that they just could not be accurate. But time after time, they are proven to be correct.
Please keep doing your work and give us more "looks under the hood" from time to time.

---

by: doxie53 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 00:39:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry..not true (4.00 / 1)

Much of what Grebner brings up at this site already has much literature associated with it.

My complaint is with his blatent disregard for basic standards of moral and ethical cannon in scientific inquiry.

Now it seems he has infected my discipline with it as well. Given or country's slipping morals, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Follow the links I provided below to get an idea of what it was he does that is wrong.

Picture yourself as an individual being selected for an 'experiment" without your knowledge or consent.

The fact that their isn't further outrage about this aspect at this site is disappointing.

What damage was caused by this "experiment" to the individuals involved?

Does anyone care? It is clear Grebner doesn't..what about it?

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:45:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What you do is wrong on so many levels (4.00 / 1)

but you have your own self to deal with.

The fact that Yale allowed this to get past ORB is beyond common sense.

It isn't that your research is "useless" but it is improper.

Are you even aware of the regulations covering the testing of human subjects?

More to the point, are you even aware of what impact your "experiment" may have had on the individuals who were subjected to it without their knowledge or consent?

Did you contact them afterword to explain to them that it was in fact an experiment and that no action would be taken?

My guess is no, or the paper would have said so.

To make this perfectly clear, you are not a scientist of any kind or you wouldn't violate the basic precepts and standards of the discipline.

In addition, beyond that basic standard, your past statements on this blog confirm your poor grasp of basic statistical methods such as ecological fallacy, selection of the dependent variable and internal validity.

But the problem isn't you. You are a local version of James Carvel...which is OK. Be that.

The fault is with those three academics who picked up your "experiment" and used the results violating every standard of research on human subjects.

And by the way, you got screwed my friend...if you created the experiment, created and administered the test...and didn't get a co-authorship on the article, you were ripped off. A grad student who runs the numbers and does the donkey work gets a co-authorship.

But please, feel free to make this about you and me and don't address the much larger issue that your study violated standards that are considered unethical by the scientific community you claim to be part of.

The fact that they didn't give you one only further adds to considering their ethical behavior less than stellar.

Perhaps those who are ready to jump on the local famous guy's band wagon should take the time to actually follow the link I provided above and read about some key concepts relating to how testing on human subjects are to be carried out...

And most importantly...why these rules came into effect:

Milgram experiment

Stanford prison experiment

The Monster Study

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:40:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To further illuminate (4.00 / 1)

since it is clear not too many feel the need to follow links...

From Yale's own IRB webpage, they follow the Belmont Report.

The history of why restrictions on testing of human subjects:

Scientific research has produced substantial social benefits. It has also posed some troubling ethical questions. Public attention was drawn to these questions by reported abuses of human subjects in biomedical experiments, especially during the Second World War. During the Nuremberg War Crime Trials, the Nuremberg code was drafted as a set of standards for judging physicians and scientists who had conducted biomedical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. This code became the prototype of many later codes(1) intended to assure that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an ethical manner.

The report calls for some basic ethical principles:

1) Respect for Persons:

In most cases of research involving human subjects, respect for persons demands that subjects enter into the research voluntarily and with adequate information. In some situations, however, application of the principle is not obvious. The involvement of prisoners as subjects of research provides an instructive example. On the one hand, it would seem that the principle of respect for persons requires that prisoners not be deprived of the opportunity to volunteer for research. On the other hand, under prison conditions they may be subtly coerced or unduly influenced to engage in research activities for which they would not otherwise volunteer. Respect for persons would then dictate that prisoners be protected. Whether to allow prisoners to "volunteer" or to "protect" them presents a dilemma. Respecting persons, in most hard cases, is often a matter of balancing competing claims urged by the principle of respect itself.

In other words, the value of the findings must be weighed against the rights of the individual...and if even prisoners have this right...

To be more specific: Was the value of finding out that voters can be shamed into voting at 9% (subject to this one test) worth the loss of individual freedom of the individuals who were subjected to the test against their wills?

2) Beneficence:

Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well-being. Such treatment falls under the principle of beneficence. The term "beneficence" is often understood to cover acts of kindness or charity that go beyond strict obligation. In this document, beneficence is understood in a stronger sense, as an obligation. Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: (1) do not harm and (2) maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms.

The obligations of beneficence affect both individual investigators and society at large, because they extend both to particular research projects and to the entire enterprise of research. In the case of particular projects, investigators and members of their institutions are obliged to give forethought to the maximization of benefits and the reduction of risk that might occur from the research investigation. In the case of scientific research in general, members of the larger society are obliged to recognize the longer term benefits and risks that may result from the improvement of knowledge and from the development of novel medical, psychotherapeutic, and social procedures.

Pretty clear...I think.

What was done in the course of this study to ensure this standard was met?

3) Justice:

Questions of justice have long been associated with social practices such as punishment, taxation and political representation. Until recently these questions have not generally been associated with scientific research. However, they are foreshadowed even in the earliest reflections on the ethics of research involving human subjects. For example, during the 19th and early 20th centuries the burdens of serving as research subjects fell largely upon poor ward patients, while the benefits of improved medical care flowed primarily to private patients. Subsequently, the exploitation of unwilling prisoners as research subjects in Nazi concentration camps was condemned as a particularly flagrant injustice. In this country, in the 1940's, the Tuskegee syphilis study used disadvantaged, rural black men to study the untreated course of a disease that is by no means confined to that population. These subjects were deprived of demonstrably effective treatment in order not to interrupt the project, long after such treatment became generally available.

Against this historical background, it can be seen how conceptions of justice are relevant to research involving human subjects. For example, the selection of research subjects needs to be scrutinized in order to determine whether some classes (e.g., welfare patients, particular racial and ethnic minorities, or persons confined to institutions) are being systematically selected simply because of their easy availability, their compromised position, or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to the problem being studied. Finally, whenever research supported by public funds leads to the development of therapeutic devices and procedures, justice demands both that these not provide advantages only to those who can afford them and that such research should not unduly involve persons from groups unlikely to be among the beneficiaries of subsequent applications of the research.

Now please, feel free to tell me I am being a pain in the ass here.

While Mr. Grebner is under no such restrictions, the authors of the article were.

And if Mr. Grebner wants to style himself a political scientist, than he should consider the moral and ethical obligations of the profession.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:10:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

From the paper... (4.00 / 2)

The authors are grateful to the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University and to Practical Political Consulting, which funded components of this research but bear no responsibility for the content of this report. Special thanks go to Mark Grebner of Practical Political Consulting, who designed and administered the mail program studied here. This research was reviewed and approved by the Yale Human Subjects Committee.

Take it up with Yale.

---

by: rich @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:27:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will do so (4.00 / 1)

and I will take it up with Grebner, the self-styled scientist...no matter how big the man crush over him is at this site.

Because he proclaims himself a political scientist and than proceeds to violate its basic principles.

So you can understand what this means:

1) A study was conducted that selected individuals for an experiment that they did not volunteer for and had no knowledge they were part of...

2) That took no consideration of or actions taken to minimize the effect said study on the individuals

3) The worth of the study doesn't outweigh the costs associated with the potential damage, the literature already pointed to this effect for anyone who has ever study comparative electoral laws can tell you that you can increase turnout using various carrots and sticks.

To make it even easier for you...suppose I wanted to see the effects of various tactics on suppressing minority turnout.

Should I do it?

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:35:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How were people invloved harmed? (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, I just don't get it.

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 13:02:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Would you like someone to get your voting history and publish it? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 14:52:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's public information (4.00 / 3)

I couldn't stop it if I wanted to. How we vote is secret, when we vote is not.

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 21:38:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

your rather angry (1.00 / 2)

Are you always this pleasant?

---

by: doxie53 @ Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 15:42:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]