The Prospects of a Do-Over Primary Just Got a Little Dimmer

As soon as I heard it was up to the legislature (4.00 / 3)

I figured it was unlikely.  Like I said back then "why would they do such a thing to help us?"

We can only hope enough people get involved to help win the state Senate this year so that no longer can the likes of Bishop & Co. screw everything up.

Julie

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

---

by: JNelson @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 17:47:39 PM UTC

No Senate elections this year (0.00 / 0)

We gotta wait 'til 2010 -- then we have to go all-out, full-throttle, because it'll be THAT Senate that redraws the Congressional District maps after we lose a seat in the 2010 Census.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:50:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hopefully (0.00 / 0)

That time 'round we won't have to put every resource known to man behind keeping the Governor's mansion.  While it's good we kept it in '06 I often wonder at what cost did we manage that?  A very high cost.

Julie

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

---

by: JNelson @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:13:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As soon as I heard it was a primary (0.00 / 0)

I figured it was unlikely.  Mixing state government up in a Democratic re-do was a dumb idea.  One would almost think the Powers That Be(tm) WANTED it to fail by taking that path, as opposed to a truly party-funded caucus.

---

by: China Mig @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 23:09:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought that (0.00 / 0)

As soon as the MDP Brain Trust punted the idea to the Legislature -- where a 2/3 vote was needed to make the new law have immediate effect -- I figured it had zero chance unless Bishop and DeRoche were sufficiently bribed.

Then, when Sen. Buzz Thomas, who is far far closer to the process than I'll ever be, raises quite legitimate common-sense concerns (Where's the money coming from? How do we overcome the supermajority hurdle? Do we really want to turn away Democrats who took a GOP ballot in January after being told again and again that the Dem contest was invalid?), because of his role in the Obama campaign it's suddenly ALL Obama's fault.

Hogwash.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 15:27:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The real costs of a do-over (4.00 / 3)

I think what likely happened in that meeting was the real costs of a do-over dawned on everyone. State democrats (and I'm guilty of this as well) were so caught up in the question of dollars and cents financing, they lost sight of the real problem, that the republicans would use this once in a lifetime opportunity to turn the democrats over and shake them until all their lunch money filled out.

There is no question that Mike Bishop correctly saw this as an opportunity to push though tons of republican "reforms" as they held the re-do process over. To be honest I'm not sure republicans would be against state funding of the do-over, so long as attached to the necessary legislation was a laundry list of republican legislative goals. And likely they could have gotten some.

If I was Mike Bishop I would be doing everything in my power to keep this process alive, so I could push the most controversial parts of my party's platform past the house and governor's office.

What likely happened here was the democrats realized the real cost of the primary do-over would be their legislative agenda. And they didn't want to give that away, even for this.

---

by: John Rawls @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:01:19 PM UTC

Have we seen any evidence (4.00 / 1)

that the Republicans were making demands?

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:33:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

I forget who it was, but I did see a soundbite of a GOP Senator expressing hope that they could incorporate some of their legislative agenda into the new primary bill.

I think the real shakedown would have come once the bill got out of committee.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 15:31:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's It: I'm Done with Obama (4.00 / 2)

As they say at Yost:  

Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh See Yaaaa!

I have a lot of respect for Obama-supporters here, I'm wondering what your take on his opposition to a DNC-sanctioned election is in light of reports he scuttled the revotes -- aka democracy -- in Florida and Michgian?

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:14:02 PM UTC

Against Democracy? (4.00 / 2)

The Obama camp, as voice by Sen. Hunter, appear to be concerned about how to pay for the darn thing.

Hunter added that he isn't absolutely opposed to a proposed do-over contest in Michigan.

But he wants to see the money to pay for it up front and won't agree to legislation "with a promise from governors who are Clinton supporters that they'll raise the money at some point and meanwhile Michigan taxpayers have to put the money out first. The money has to be in the treasury first. That's just fiscally prudent."

snip-

"I like Senator Obama's chances (in a redo). But I am also a state legislator, and I don't want the taxpayer stuck paying for this thing because the money never came," he said.

I agree. That's called pay-as-you-go budgeting. Sounds prudent to me. Have you thought about how this Do-Over Primary, using state assets, is to be paid for? Where is the money going to come from? I want to see a Do-Over Primary happen, but taxpayers should not get stuck with any portion of the bill.

---

by: rich @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:34:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Money question (4.00 / 3)

at this point, sounds like a poor excuse. The whole idea of doing it this way is that the money would be there, so there has to be a presumption it would. Isn't that written into the legislation, that the privately donated money had to be in place by a certain date for this to go forward. Hunter is just using the funding issue as an excuse IMO.  

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:44:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK... (0.00 / 0)

The assumption that $12 million (or whatever) in private funds would magically appear by the hard deadline of April 12 is just another hurdle this legislation has to overcome.

As if the 2/3 supermajorities weren't enough of a problem.

At this point, a party-run, privately-funded caucus -- that avoids the legislature (and GOP blackmail) entirely -- would seem the only option left. And the Clinton camp would veto any caucus plan twice as vigorously as Obama's has questioned the current bill.

On the bright side, Florida's not doing any better.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:58:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did you vote in the Democratic Caucus in 2004? Just like a primary, get in, vote, get out. (0.00 / 0)

It is called a Caucus but not at all like any other state.

---

by: Cole6015 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:03:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I did (0.00 / 0)

Voted for John Edwards, as I recall.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:08:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton Caucus (4.00 / 3)

Why would Clinton veto a Michigan caucus?  I imagine the Clinton campaign would support an MDP run caucus.  As a Clinton supporter, I would.  Our desire is to see a Michigan delegation representing the will of Michigan voters seated and fully participating in the convention.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:07:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course she would (0.00 / 0)

Edwards is out now. She was against a caucus in January though...and her supporters in the state leadership saw to it that it didn't happen.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:03:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because she wants the primary results to stand (0.00 / 0)

Key snippets from recent interviews:

In an interview with U.S. News, Clinton says she wouldn't accept a caucus to reallocate Michigan's and Florida's delegates.

http://www.usnews.com/articles...

Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

Her change of heart on a re-vote is recent and desperate.

---

by: China Mig @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 23:21:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that remains to be seen (0.00 / 0)

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:32:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poor Excuse? (4.00 / 1)

It's possible. If it is true that Obama simply doesn't want a primary do-over, then I, as an Obama supporter, will be angry. Because I think it's a lost opportunity for everyone who's committed to electing a Democrat in November.

But money does appear to be an issue. From TPM,

Top Hillary supporter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell privately appealed to billionaire George Soros for cash to help fund a new primary in Michigan -- a request that Soros is declining, a source familiar with their conversation tells Election Central.

A Soros spokesperson confirmed the account.

---

by: rich @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 22:02:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

then support the primary (4.00 / 3)

and if it's not funded, it won't be run.  Why stop it now?

1. Obama doesn't want democracy.
2. Obama has poor political instincts.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:10:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it's not funded... (0.00 / 0)

...it'd still cost the state money until April 17th.  And it's not clear HOW much it'd cost, given the expedited and unique stuff that goes into the primary and elections moved as a consequence.  

---

by: China Mig @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:26:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's No Funding for a Do-Over Primary Right Now (0.00 / 0)

1. Show me where Obama says he's against democracy.

2. By virtue of the fact that he is still narrowly beating one of our country's most formidable politicians in the current nominating process tells me he has excellent political skills and instincts.

---

by: rich @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:30:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

H may have excellent political skills and instincts. But he sure has poor judgment. (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:16:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

These are both wrong (4.00 / 1)

Shifting the blame to Obama is like pretending that it doesn't matter where Sen. Clinton stood on Iraq in '03.

We are in this mess with all its attendant gamesmanship because of the decision of Dingell, Grahnolm and Levin.  

---

by: Harris @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:56:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where have you been? The state paying for a primary has been off the table for sometime now. (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:01:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where will the money come from? (0.00 / 0)

Yes, that is true. I've been reading all the same stories, rumors, and speculations, you and everyone else have. What I still haven't seen is where the money will come from. Have you?

Sure, taxpayer funds have been "off the table." But the money needs to be there to pay for the costs of using state assets. Where's the funding plan?

---

by: rich @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:08:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The MDP has some wonderful, powerful friends with deep pockets. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:17:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And yet... (0.00 / 0)

no word on how a do-over primary would be funded.

---

by: rich @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:07:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shhh ... who the anonymous donors are is none of our business. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:32:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The bill said it was contingent on money (4.00 / 2)

that line is a fraud Tupac, meant only as cover.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:25:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfunded mandate until April 17th (4.00 / 1)

The bill specifies that, if the money isn't there by April 17th, we don't do the primary.  True.

But to make a June 3rd possible, the SoS, county clerks, state treasurer, and staff have to act NOW.  That's why there's language in the bill about all sorts of state actions that happen prior to April 17th, of destroying ballots already printed as of April 17th, etc.  There's also local school election actions that have to happen by May, when their election would have been.  None of this is cost-free.

---

by: China Mig @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 23:36:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strategy... (4.00 / 1)

It's all about strategy and delegates at this point, I think. Here are various thoughts:

1.  Obama is currently winning both in terms of delegate count and in popular vote total.

2.  Clinton won Florida and Michigan the first time around and not just because she was the only person really on the ballot (right, Florida; same thing, different details).  They're the kind of states that she's done well in the entire campaign.

3.  Florida would almost certainly go to Hillary; Michigan, the last time anyone polled, was deadlocked.

4.  That would mean that she could actually count them as victories and that it would narrow his lead in terms of both popular vote and delegate count.  It would also give the all-important superdelegates a powerful argument that she is -- for November -- more electable, because both Florida and Michigan will likely be in play this year (my prediction is that the economy will be so incredibly lousy by then that a dead man could beat John McCain).

5.  So, it is in Obama's best short-term interests to not have contests in Florida and Michigan, because holding those contests really only strengthens Clinton's hand.

I've also been of the opinion that the nominating process isn't democracy, per se, because it's really only nominating a party candidate.  If it were a race for higher office, I'd probably be upset (okay, really, it would just feed my strong sense of cynicism).  As it stands now, the question that Obama supporters should ask themselves is, "Do you want your guy to win, or do you want the opportunity to vote for your guy, even if that process helps his opponent."

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:41:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama could have won MIchigan (4.00 / 2)

which he has little chance to do in Pennsylvania. Michigan could have been his knock out punch. That would make it in his short term interest to have another contest here. It is not in his longterm interest to be the one to stop it from happening. That will not help him here in November if he hangs on to win the nomination.  

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:50:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More than 40% (0.00 / 0)

Actually, if you compare the uncommitted vote to the current polls in Michigan (suggesting a deadlock), this could ultimately be a net win for Obama.  Assuming he gets 90% of the uncommitted delegates, he would still leave the state with only about 38% of the vote.

If he can do better than that...pull off a 50-50 split, he is a net winner.  Its all about the numbers.

Obama-Edwards '08

---

by: tradina @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:56:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But, right now... (0.00 / 0)

Nobody has anything from Michigan, so a Clinton win here and a delegate split that helps her to narrow the gap between herself and Obama strengthens her hand.

The first and foremost question facing these campaigns today is not how to get Michigan's and Florida's delegations seated, but what positions them better to win the party nomination.  

If you're in Camp Obama, you answer that question with, "Whatever promotes as big a gap as possible in delegate count and popular vote."  Because Florida (especially) and Michigan represent strong pick-up opportunities for Camp Clinton, the best way to do that is to advocate a course of action that prevents both states from holding contests.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:09:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Short term thinking (4.00 / 1)

equals a harder row to hoe in November. Getting the nomination at all costs is not good leadership. It's short sighted.

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:40:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

which current poll (0.00 / 0)

can you post that current poll in Michigan? I keep seeing people reference it but no one has linked to it. I haven't seen any polls since January done here.

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:36:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Poll (4.00 / 1)

That poll is fishy.  It showed each candidate at 41%, essentially meaning 18% are undecided.  This is a far higher rate of undecideds than in other states.  Regardless, we don't select delegates based on polls.  We select them based on the results of legally held election results.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:47:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

exactly, and Obama made a decision (4.00 / 4)

he'd rather we not vote, vs. take the risk of democracy.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:27:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The risk of democracy (0.00 / 0)

As a tepid Obama supporter, all I can tell you is that this is my take on his shelving of a re-do vote.  I don't even know if his campaign thinks that it's strategically better to avoid a revote in Michigan and Florida and hope for some negotiated apportionment.

On the other hand, I'm not a member of the Democratic Party, so I guess any outrage I have to register with how they select their nominee could be filed in the category, "Why does your opinion interest us?"

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:37:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)

Eric, I understand you're not a member of the Democratic Party, but do you consider yourself a big "D" Democrat?

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:49:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't understand your question (0.00 / 0)

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:54:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Political Identity (0.00 / 0)

Most people who consider themselves Democrats aren't members of the Democratic Party.  Do you identify yourself as a Democrat?

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:08:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's best that I don't (0.00 / 0)

Whenever I deal with members of the media, their first instinct is to dismiss me as a partisan.  When I tell them that I'm not a Democrat, they usually take me more seriously.

So, to answer your question, for professional reasons I avoid aligning myself to basically anyone, or even giving money to causes.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:18:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair answer on your motivation (0.00 / 0)

I was curious because I've seen you say you're not a Democrat on the blog several times.  I was wondering why you distance yourself from the Democratic label as you are the owner and editor of Michigan Liberal and Michigan Liberal professes:

1) The Democratic Party is the liberal political party of America.

4) A strong, bold, and united Democratic party is the only viable means to restoring human decency and honor to our state and national government.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:28:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All true... (0.00 / 0)

Read the entire mission statement, rather than cherry picking parts.  I mean, at this stage it's true -- the only viable means to restoring human decency and honor to our state and national government is a strong and united Democratic Party ... because the other party decided at some point that honor and human decency weren't such important things to embrace.  In fact, they've waged unrelenting war on them for 20 years.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:14:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cherry Picking Part (4.00 / 1)

Eric, it wasn't an attempt to cherry pick parts.  The other two points simply didn't mention the Democratic Party.  I wasn't looking for a conflict with you.  In fact, I never am.  We've had a few disagreements over issues such as the automatic delegate thing but they're honest disagreements.  I'm not looking for a fight.

We've had bloggers on here in the past make the argument that the blog is "Michigan Liberal", not "Michigan Democrat".  While that seems a valid statement on the surface, the blog's About Us section clearly says the Democratic Party is "the" liberal political party of America, not "a" liberal political party.  Has there ever been a Green Party contingent on the blog?  If they showed up here tomorrow or Nader supporters, would they be welcome as fellow liberals even though they arguably suck votes off the Democratic Party to the potential benefit of Republicans?

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:39:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure (4.00 / 1)

I know what your intentions were, but it's important to read the entire thing in its totality because that's the way it applies to me personally.

The point of distinguishing that the site is Michigan Liberal and not Michigan Democrat is to make clear that we don't offer mindless, echo-chamber support for Democrats in general or any Democrat specifically.  I personally am a lot more concerned with positive outcomes on issues than I am simply in putting the Democratic Party in power.

Would Greens be welcome here?  I would like it very much if everyone of the same basic political affiliation felt welcome here, although that doesn't always happen for a variety of reasons so I can't say.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:25:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

High Respect (0.00 / 0)

I don't want anyone to take this as sucking up to you, but I understand what you're getting at and I know the Michigan blog world, right and left, has much more respect for Eric than they do for Nick.  The amount of comments, diaries and the even the presence of Saul and Leon here are testement to the quality blog you've put together and kept up over time.  If only you would quit picking on me...

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:49:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lots of people deserve credit for the building of this blog (4.00 / 1)

Matt Ferguson, Laura Packard, Jon Koller.  Even Mark Grebner.  I was lucky enough to inherit a well-built machine.  The front page crew and Rich deserve a lot of credit for helping to keep this pig moving forward, too.

But, thanks.

Personally, I've got bigger things on my mind than simply seeing one party get into power and hang onto it.  So, while I haven't voted Republican for federal office since the days of George Bush I, my personal policy is still that a candidate has to earn my vote rather than simply assume that it comes as part of the package.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:50:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you Once Forgave Him, why Change Now? (4.00 / 1)

If you forgave Obama (and Hillary, I might add) for signing the initial pledge to pander to Iowa and NH, and punish Michigan, why hold a grudge against him for following through on it?  Both candidates said Michigan would not count, and one changed their story when it looked expedient to do so.  The other has been consistent throughout.  Why is this so troubling now? Why reward the flip-flopper, under the apparent belief that the flop-flipper actually gives a crap about you or this state? I don't get it.  

I was pissed at Obama (and the whole gang, frankly), for their early state pandering, but I got over it.  Now I'm just pissed at the powers that be who screwed us on this.  Am I to buy Hillary's new spin about now being our champion? Hell no.  

p.s., I'm not so sure team Obama feared a re-vote in the manner team Hillary claims.  

---

by: Bluesman Johnson @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:50:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't have to forgive Obama (4.00 / 2)

The fault with pushing the non-DNC-sanctioned "primary" was with Granholm-Hillary-Dingell.  Obama and Edwards were correct to only campaign in DNC sanctioned elections.

My position is consistent throughout -- we should vote in an real election, with delegates at stake, with campaigns, with candidates.

Where are we at now?

Hillary wants us to vote, Obama does not (that's clear in that he hasn't come up with any alternative and in the statements of Hunter which is clearly the unspinned version of what Team Obama is saying on private conference calls).

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillary wants what's best for Hillary (0.00 / 0)

What we want is purely incidental.

---

by: China Mig @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 23:41:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and now it's clear that the same is true for Obama (4.00 / 3)

so I'll take the girl with the better healthcare plan (and the one that isn't blocking democracy).

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:13:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Healthcare Plans (4.00 / 2)

They both have good health care plans. Too bad neither of them has a plan to get the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to get the plans implemented.

---

by: rich @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:31:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is not about flip flopping (4.00 / 2)

This is not about flip-floppping. This is about giving United States citizens their right to vote. If she was wrong in the first place, she should be CONGRATULATED on coming around and changing her mind in order to support democracy.

Remember, we already have ONE president in office that stubbornly refuses to change his mind when he's wrong. We don't need another one.

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

---

by: yvette248 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:40:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right to vote? (4.00 / 1)

Let's dispense with the argument that the Democratic nominating process is an actual expression of democracy.  If it were really democracy, we wouldn't hold votes strung out across several months and we'd do away with caucuses altogether.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:53:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ahh, technicalities Eric (4.00 / 3)

Still, no one..... especially a democrat.... especially an African American democrat.... should block, hinder or give anything less than a full throated support of counting every person's vote.

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

---

by: yvette248 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:57:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Technicalities? (0.00 / 0)

It's not a technicality that the nominating process isn't an exercise in democracy if your argument is that Barack Obama hates democracy because he doesn't want people to vote in the nominating process.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:20:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

? (4.00 / 3)

There are many kinds of elections in a democracy, but we are looking at the difference between some kind of election and no election.

In most cases, people are free to vote in a primary or caucus on a one-person one-vote basis with those votes determining the number of delegates to the national convention.

I mean, there is no need to debate details, when we're talking about democracy or no democracy.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:20:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Democracy and private organizations (4.00 / 2)

You don't actually have a right to vote in a party nominating process.  That's something that's been extended to you for a variety of reasons.  If the parties wanted to, they could still pick their nominees from a smoke-filled room.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:10:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It seems to be all about details. (0.00 / 1)

How can you talk about democracy or no democracy and one-person one-vote in an election and not get rid of the super-delegates? They're the clowns that got us in this position in the first place.

---

by: qwerty7 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:54:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sound and fury (4.00 / 2)

signifying nothing.

The mistake was at step one, when the state Democrats decided to give a collective finger to the other 48 states...

Without step one, Obama and Edwards would not have had to make a strategic choice...

Without step one, Ms. Inevitability wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the situation...

Without step one, Ms. Inevitability wouldn't be able to continue to take advantage of the situation to prolong a campaign that has a slim to none chance of winning...

As stated elsewhere...the "Michigan-as-victim" song and dance continues.

Outside of Michigan (and Florida) most people see this as getting our comeuppance...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:02:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In another note (0.00 / 0)

it is funny now to watch all the Hillbots so damn eager for us to have a re-do when they fought tooth and nail against those who said the first primary was as stupid a move as could possibly be done...

And watching all the Obamanaughts demanding that we shouldn't have the primary (or it isn't his fault) when they were so eager to prevent the first primary...

Ugh...when will the silly season be over!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:11:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Last night Lou Dobbs (4.00 / 1)

called Democrats in Florida "idiots" for saying there was no chance of another primary. Not for making a mistake last fall, for making one now. Regardless of the mistake at step one we are way past that. Mistakes are made all the time and smart people figure out a way to correct those mistakes. That is not happening here, apparently. Now it will be our turn to be called idiots on the national news.

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:15:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Consider (4.00 / 2)

that the same people who got us in this mess are the same people "trying" to get us out of it...

I'm not sure where you are going to find those "smart" people...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:41:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

touche (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:58:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's what I thought when I first read who (4.00 / 2)

was on this 'blue ribbon' committee - abandon hope!

Now, if a month ago the Exec. Comm. simply said to Grebner "Make this happen", got Dean to sign off on it but didn't ask the campaigns for their blessing, we'd be in the middle of a mail-in caucus now and sharing the candidates attention with PA.

---

by: memiller @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 13:59:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lou Dobbs is the idiot... (0.00 / 0)

...for (among many other reasons) not comprehending that Florida Republicans control both houses of their legislature and the governor's mansion, and are thus even less inclined than Mike Bishop to do the Dems any favors.

After all, the Florida GOP already had their primary, which got plenty of candidate and media attention and helped decide their nominee (by eliminating Giuliani and putting Mitt on the ropes).

---

by: helzapoppn @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 22:10:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He was refering to the Florida Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)

saying they would not go through with another primary.

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:59:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

The Florida Dems realized the utter futility of their situation. Their best idea, the only one they could afford without praying for outside funding, was the mail-in ballot, which was summarily rejected by EVERYBODY. The other ideas were even less likely to succeed.

Knowing Tallahassee was going to be no help, I can understand why they essentially gave up.

Then, Dobbsy piles on, making a dismal situation worse.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 15:57:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The do-over never had a chance (0.00 / 0)

Delegates from MI will most likely be apportioned in a compromise.

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

---

by: detroit tiger @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:38:07 PM UTC

do-over (4.00 / 3)

The thought of not having a do-over is most upsetting and darn right depressing.  I cannot believe this is truly happenening. I do not see where anyone is helped by not giving Michigan Democrats a voice.
If it becomes evident that a candidates campaign stopped the revote then serious questions of "judgement" or lack of "judgement" quickly come to my mind.
This doesn't seem very Democratic to me.
I am more than just a little concerned.

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 18:43:16 PM UTC

But on the bright side... (4.00 / 2)

we won't be deluged by TV/Radio ads, robo calls, mailings and all of the attendant BS.  It will be put off a few months.

---

by: oldwarden @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:01:54 PM UTC

Dean's Dilemma (4.00 / 3)

Michigan and Florida just passed.  Your call, Howard.

I bet the DNC wishes it would have enacted real primary reform rather than just adding a couple more states to a broken system.

We need to base our primaries on the general election in November.  Caucuses, superdelegates, proportional representation, and preferred state status need to be eliminated.  None of these are used in the November election that picks the President.  We need to either have a regional rotating primary system that lasts no longer than 10 weeks or move to one national primary election like we have in November.

---

by: Brady @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:35:28 PM UTC

nice thought (4.00 / 1)

At least reform is something to look forward to. I can't say I have any confidence in the DNC or Dean on seating MI and FLA. What ever they come up with will feel like a poor substitute after the hope for a revote was dangled in front of us.

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 19:40:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No No No, Long, Small and Slow (4.00 / 1)

If we had a national primary, Clinton would be the nominee, and the race would have been over on one day.  Bill Clinton (getting his first win in after South Carolina, as I recall) would have never been the nominee.  Everyone jumped like Lemmings after Kerry won Iowa four years ago, and look what that got us - a candidate that couldn't defeat the worst incumbent in history.  The ideal behind going state to state is to give candidates and ideas a chance to evolve and catch on.  

Though I fear our infighting has already done more for McCain than he could have done for himself, I don't want the primary to devolve into a question about which establishment type has the biggest war chest on day one, and simply let them buy it in a process that's over in a day.  

Yes, share the love, pick some different states to start us out next time (but include some small ones), but please, let it be a process that allows or requires candidates to tough it out for a while. Otherwise these things will just be bought - it's bad enough as it is.    

---

by: Bluesman Johnson @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 22:04:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

national primary (0.00 / 0)

would provide time for candidates to go to states and campaign. I blame it all on Iowa Democrats. They picked Kerry (yuck) and now Obama. They pick the candidate that they fall in love with and then the rest of the country is stuck with that candidate.  

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 13:30:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is rather silly (0.00 / 0)

to suggest that Obama is doing well because of Iowa.

The desire of people from both campaigns to make mountains out of mole hills is extraordinary...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 14:12:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

dude (4.00 / 1)

I was trying to be funny!:) come on!

What would Eleanor Roosevelt do?

---

by: janeenr @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 14:14:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama is setting a dangerous trend (4.00 / 3)

This has less to do with the Republicans blocking the vote than Obama blocking our right to vote. His spokesperson has CONTINUALLY dragged his feet on giving the CITIZENS of Michigan and Florida their right to vote.

Obama is acting just like Bush Jr., not wanting to count people's votes just so that he can win an election. Believe me, if he would have won these states, he would be the loudest one calling for Democracy to work.

Supposedly representing a group of people who protested and DIED for their right to vote a mere 40 years ago, I am appalled at his undemocratic behavior.


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

---

by: yvette248 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 20:37:59 PM UTC

I wish (4.00 / 2)

you had shown such determination when folks were suggesting the very same thing about the first primary...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:13:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Levin, Granholm (i,e, team Clinton) Screwed You, Not Obama (4.00 / 1)

I don't think it is fair to argue that Obama is blocking your right to vote.  If Michigan voted to hold another election, Obama would have no choice but to participate, as Hillary would otherwise run unopposed. Under the statute being passed around, Mark Brewer gets to pick who is in the ballot. Presumably, he would pick Obama and Clinton. If the law passed, I don't see how Obama could take a pass on on it, or deny you your right to vote.

Indeed, it was team Clinton, and its stranglehold on the Democratic Establishment in this state, that pushed for the early primary back at the time when Hillary was at 50% and everyone else was in the teens, and she was already the presumptive nominee.  As Hillary would have this wrapped up by Super Tuesday, the prevailing thought was that she'd get the Michigan people seated by convention time and nobody would care.  Thus, your original vote, that she already promised you WOULD NOT COUNT and WOULD NOT BE COUNTED (in her pander to Iowa), would somehow later be symbolicly counted, but only because it didn't really count anyway, as she would be well over the requisite number of delegates by convention time. Remember those days with longing?  Ah, the good old days when the practically coronated establishment frontrunner called the shots.    

Further, why aren't you "appalled" by Hillary's resolute refusal to have a party caucus?  We wouldn't need the Legislature for that.  You are apparently not appalled that team Hillary screwed you out of your vote the first time, so where's the outrage at her reported reluctance to have a do-over caucus? Caucus votes and "primary" votes count the same, don't they? When 2/3 majorities were required for this questionable last-ditch re-do scheme, how can you blame the legislative failure on Obama? I don't get it.    

---

by: Bluesman Johnson @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:54:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brewer picked all 8 candidates to be put on the ballot in January, too. Obama removed his name and could do so again. (4.00 / 2)

They all buckled to Iowa and NH ... not the DNC.    

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:24:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correct Cole (4.00 / 1)

I don't even try to debate facts that are a matter of public record that people choose to ignore in order to excuse the inexcusable.

Obama has never said he would support a caucus OR a primary in Michigan. The only thing he has ever said is that our votes shouldn't count (only of course because he lost and/or is afraid he would lose).

Any other argument Obama peeps may try vainly to put up will never override this one callous, cowardly fact: He is too afraid to run and win. He wants to win by cheating.

Just reminds me of Bush is all I'm saying.

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

---

by: yvette248 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:51:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please (4.00 / 2)

talk about public record...

Why didn't Clinton remove her name?

Because she had no chance in hell of winning Iowa, so she had no chance of annoying them. She was way up in the polls in New Hampshire...

she was Ms. Inevitability...remember?

When that all went to crap after Super Tuesday, her first instinct was to try and get the delegates seated, even though the election wasn't real...

Lest anyone fails to understand...the January primary has all the legitimacy of an online poll...

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:19:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

On funding... (0.00 / 0)

From Talking Points Memo:

Top Hillary supporter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell privately appealed to billionaire George Soros for cash to help fund a new primary in Michigan -- a request that Soros is declining, a source familiar with their conversation tells Election Central.

A Soros spokesperson confirmed the account.

With the primary do-over DOA for lots of reasons, I wonder if the funding issue is relevant at this point?

Do stupid people know they are stupid?

---

by: JPowers155 @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 21:51:07 PM UTC

Soros is Right to Decline (0.00 / 0)

Considering how apoplectic some Rethugs get at the very mention of the word "Soros," I'm not surprised he's taking a pass on directly financing a Democratic Party primary.

It would instantly become an issue, distracting us and empowering the GOP.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 22:16:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Gov wants this and I assume (4.00 / 1)

Brewer wants this for the good of the MDP and downticket candidates.  One Senate Caucus does is not the entire game.  I'd expect there to be more push on this for the next 1-3 days.  Me thinks phones are ringing off the hook in Lansing and Chicago.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:15:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Money is Not Free (0.00 / 0)

It is worth remembering that any money used to fund this election would come from donors that could put that money to use in other areas.  I say we get Clinton and Obama agree to raise $12 million for our local candidates and split the delegates 55 Clinton 45 Obama.  That way Michigan Democrats will have a real voice with new leaders across the state and Hillary gets what she won in Jan and Obama maintains his delegate lead and popular vote lead.  Just a thought.

---

by: flivverking @ Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 23:31:30 PM UTC

because of democracy (4.00 / 2)

I urge you to watch HBO's John Adams series.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:16:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is an excellent series so far. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:26:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

John Adams (0.00 / 0)

Sure I'll catch it sometime next year when I'm not workng 100 hours per week.  You know after Hillary fixes everything on day one.  

---

by: flivverking @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:33:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

HILLARY IS COMING TO MICHIGAN! (4.00 / 2)

Imagine this far-fetched scenario:

The entire country is in gridlock, while two candidates battle it out for election. Massive chaos erupts in one state as voters are angry, frustrated and feeling alienated from the democratic process by political dickering.

One candidate completely ignores the chaos, or actually attributes to it by saying this state's voters don't deserve a resolution in order to make their voices heard. Another candidate calls time and time again for a SOLUTION to the problem to prevent voter disenfranchisement.

While the one candidate completely ignores the state - or speaks in a very critical disparaging term towards the voters and the job climate, the other candidate actually goes to VISIT the state to show voters that their concerns are being heard.

Sounds familiar? Like George Bush in Florida? Or George Bush in Ohio? No, try Obama in Michigan!

While this state spirals into political gridlock, Hillary is the only candidate showing leadership in this chaos by actually deigning to come to Michigan and speak to the voters here. Hillary will be speaking at AFSCME tomorrow morning in Detroit. I am taking off work in order to be there. Lord knows this may be the only visit we will ever get from a presidential candidate!

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

---

by: yvette248 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:19:38 AM UTC

Imagine ditching veterans to suck up to Michigan (1.00 / 2)

http://wvgazette.com/News/2008...

---

by: China Mig @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 00:41:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton's Detroit Visit (4.00 / 1)

I imagine there will be ten times as many veterans in Detroit tomorrow as there would be in Huntington, WV.  Perhaps you're just frustrated that Obama denied you the opportunity to vote for him in January and now also wants to deny you the opportunity in June?  Like in January, I imagine he'll use every excuse he can come up other than fact that he just doesn't see it to his advantage to compete in Michigan (show us the money, we're still analyzing this extremely complicated bill, why won't you let Republican primary voters vote, what about the school elections, etc. ad nauseum).  

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:55:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Levin and Granholm made my vote not count (0.00 / 0)

And you're assuming I would've voted for Obama at the time.  I was not initially for Obama.  ;)

I like how you're dismissive of West "By God" Virginia.  It's so, so "Hillary".  

---

by: China Mig @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:03:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Choices (4.00 / 1)

Hey, I think West Virginia is a lovely state.  But when it comes down to West Virginia or Michigan, I'll admit to having a very strong and very biased preference.

And once again, it appears Ovama is focused only on Denver and Clinton is focused on the White House.

By the way, I wasn't initially for Clinton either.  I initially liked Obama.  But a series of things, particularly his position on universal health care, his early comments about organized labor being a special interest and his lame excuse for taking his name off Michigan's ballot caused me to re-think my support for him.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 02:34:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Real Choices (0.00 / 0)

The reasons you state for switching to Hillary are at best flimsy (but hey it's your vote...or not in Michigan) you claim:
1. Universal Health Care? Not much of an issue in my book.  Both call for public/private plans.  Hillary wants to force someone that may not be able to afford it to pay a "poor tax".  It boils down to which can get it done.  The record right now is Obama 0 Hillar -1.

2. Organized Labor as "special interests": Obama did say that and it made me a little upset.  However, since his statement he has been endorsed by Teamsters, SEIU, Change to Win Federation, etc.  If organized labor can turn the other cheek then so can I.
3.  Lame excuse for pulling his name off the ballot: What was Hillary's lame excuse for not doing it? What was her lame excuse for not campaigning in Michigan?

I just am afraid that a Clinton Presidency will do damage to the gains we've made in 06.  I think her campaign dismissing the "red" states could do damage to the Senators that we need for our majority.  

I do, however, appreciate a good debate and find it a little funny that at the end of the day we (democrats) are arguing over whether or not to make health coverage mandatory.

btw, just a quick question, who is your boss supporting? You don't have to answer if it's not public.

---

by: flivverking @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:03:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My boss (4.00 / 1)

My boss has not endorsed either Hillary or Obama and my comments on this blog reflect my personal opinion, not his or his family's.

---

by: Brady @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:58:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't even know who you work for (4.00 / 1)

I used to work for a boss that had a different candidate than mine and he told me not to say anything about my choice.  Just interested to see how other House staffers are treated.

---

by: flivverking @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:01:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again (4.00 / 2)

all the time and emotion displayed by both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters would have the ring of sincerity if many of the same people weren't arguing the exact opposite positions in January!

Here's an idea:

Why don't you all calm the hell down and stop pretending like this is the most important thing evah....

The very stark truth is:

1) Michigan screwed up...and the folks that did the screwing were the state party leaders

2) Clinton and Obama supporters are not independent voices of reason on this issue as both they and their candidates are playing strategic games...not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

3) Democracy won't end and the process won't be illegitimate if Michigan and Florida have to suck on it...an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the United States have participated to get a very good sized representative sample of the voters to make a decision about who should be that party nominee...

4) The race is all but over (no matter what happens in PA) and continuing the debate over whether Florida and Michigan will get a do-over is only delaying that end result.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:27:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So true, Yvette. (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Cole6015 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 01:28:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Highly Unlikely (4.00 / 1)

Lord knows this may be the only visit we will ever get from a presidential candidate!

The one thing that I find funny about the debate about Michigan having a voice in the choice for President is that we are a large swing state.  In 2004 both Kerry and Bush visited the same park in Taylor.  John Edwards was at Labor Fest and came back two weeks later.  Michigan has and always is a key state.  

One candidate completely ignores the chaos, or actually attributes to it by saying this state's voters don't deserve a resolution in order to make their voices heard

Pleas provide the quote where Barak Obama said Michigan voters don't deserve a resolution.

---

by: flivverking @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:08:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are you doing? (4.00 / 1)

Adding actual reason and facts to an emotional debate...

Silly!

Next you'll be pointing out that Gore and Clinton visited the state in 2000 and cognitive dissonance will ensue.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:30:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My bad (0.00 / 0)

Will stop thinking for myself now.  Gore and Clinton were in Monroe I believe.  

---

by: flivverking @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:35:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gore visted (0.00 / 0)

East Lansing

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:47:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two visits (0.00 / 0)

How many times did he visit Wyoming

---

by: flivverking @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

100! (4.00 / 2)

I posted the 100th comment!  What did I win?

---

by: djtyg @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:17:43 AM UTC

You win.... (4.00 / 4)

a pony!  Ok, how about a Matchbox car and a coupon for Beaner's Biggby's?

Do stupid people know they are stupid?

---

by: JPowers155 @ Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]