The parallel universe from which hails this morning's Freep editorial

Did the Freep follow the same session of Congress I followed? (4.00 / 1)

The editorial said that "Minority Republicans who sought changes in the Democrats' health care and stimulus initiatives were similarly rebuffed."

If memory serves me right, 41 Republican senators, aided by a few Democratic turncoats, rebuffed the Democratic-controlled House on a wide variety of issues--and blocked the confirmation of a long list of presidential appointees.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 19:45:47 PM UTC

Also, three of those "Minority Republicans" had a big hand in crafting the final drafts of the ACA (4.00 / 1)

Remember the "Baucus Caucus?" Three Democrats and three Republicans, led by the centrist Max Baucus, took a three-month detour in the late summer and fall of '09, essentially rewriting big chunks of the package of bills behind closed doors.

All momentum on the bill stopped, and into the vacuum came the Tea Party protests at town halls.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 00:54:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Being an old fart.... (0.00 / 0)

I am not sure where or how to best post this, so will start with the most recent rant.

When I first started following this blog--six or so years ago, it seemed to be open to comments, opinions and thoughts on things other than the bloggers paranoic dribbles. Maybe I misunderstood the idea of a blog, or maybe it was better then (I think). I feel that there were more and varied responses at that time.  However...

...considering the recent events in the Republican primary races, I would like to see opinions on the soon to be Michigan primary election.  Will it be significant in the final decision by the Republicans?  Will it be an excercise in futility? Who has an edge? A waste of scarse resources? An important excercise in democracy? I think  those kinds of comments are more important than "Magic Frank" or opinions on Nolan Finley, who is much like Rush Limbaugh in that his idiocy and does not deserve reconition.

---

by: oldwarden @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 00:51:50 AM UTC

Waste of money (4.00 / 1)

In 2004, Michigan lawmakers (of both parties) decided to cancel the primary, since Democrats were holding a caucus and Republicans weren't having a contest.

For this year, Republicans didn't want to do the same thing. They wanted to make us pay for their own primary.

Democrats are having our own caucuses at 200+ caucus locations on May 5. The MDP and local Democratic Parties are handling everything surrounding these caucuses.

Republicans, on the other hand? They are forcing taxpaying citizens to pay for their nominating process - a process in which only Republicans may participate (at least on the Republican side of the ballot). There will be a Democratic primary too, and if you request a Democratic Party ballot, you can get one; you may either vote for Barack Obama or Uncommitted. The thing is, the Democratic primary will be non-binding; delegates will not be allocated to Obama or Uncommitted based on the result of the primary. (Delegates will instead be allocated based on the results of the aforementioned caucuses).

Some Democrats have told me that, over the objections of Democrats, Ruth Johnson put Obama's name on the Democratic Party ballot in order to justify Republicans' spending tax dollars on this primary.

Next time you hear Republicans talking about fiscal responsibility, remember this. And remember how many teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others have been laid off.

Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott

---

by: ScottyUrb @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:09:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Ruth Johnson's fault (4.00 / 2)

I'm happy to bash our Secretary of State on any number of grounds, but I do prefer to remain fact-based in doing so.  The new statute creating this year's presidential primary essentially required that every candidate in either Party appear on the ballot and made it impossible for any candidate to remove their own name, regardless of the Party's plan, or the candidate's wishes.

That was a short term move to reduce potential Dem crossover, by providing Dems with a sop for their votes.

As of today, well over 100,000 absentee ballots have been requested, with very little sign of crossover; Dems are overwhelmingly specifying Democratic ballots.  If the Republican race remains interesting at the end of next month, there might be a substantial Dem raid on behalf of the non-Romney, whichever clown that is at that time.  But such raid will apparently consist almost solely of walk-in voters.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 14:14:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I will be one of those! (0.00 / 0)

I assume this will be the only opportunity I ever get to vote for Newt Gingrich, so I don't intend to pass it up.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 14:31:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why are you voting for Gingrich? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Seth9 @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 15:54:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because I'm a jerk, that's why (3.67 / 3)

Four years ago, the readers of this website became enraged when I announced my intention to cross party lines and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. I take voting seriously, you see, and tend to get offended when that seriousness isn't matched by the people responsible for giving me choices ... say, they spend $20 million creating a race between Hillary Clinton and "Undecided." This year, I have no choice, but would rather pound my forehead bloody with a 2x4 than see any of the Republican field win the presidency (not because I'm a partisan, but because they're all so awful), so my intention is to do whatever I can to prolong the GOP's pain before the rest of the country.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 16:16:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure who to vote for. This is the worst field of candidates that I've ever seen and all of them are unfit to represent a major party in a presidential election. Thus, my hope is that the GOP has a brokered convention, and will cast my vote in the hopes of furthering that aim. Right now, that looks like voting for Ron Paul, since if he can grab 5-10% of the delegates, he might be able to stop either candidate to get a majority. But I'll vote for Romney or Gingrich if either of them fall too far behind the other.

---

by: Seth9 @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 17:03:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Winner take all by Congressional District (4.00 / 1)

It's looking like the Republican race will still be entertaining when Michigan weighs in on Feb. 28, but we won't be able to participate in any meaningful way.  Assuming Romney is still competitive nationally (that is, his campaign hasn't broken down and capsized like the Costa Concordia) he'll place first in every Congressional district in Michigan, which will mean he takes 21 of the 30 delegates available.  The only fight will be over the remaining 9 at-large delegates, and even there it will only be to decide whether Mitt takes six of them or seven.  

Part of the problem is that winner-take-all reduces the chance of picking up a stray delegate. Another part is that Michigan lost half its delegation for holding the primary before March 1.

---

by: Grebner @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 23:23:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Questions on the primary process (0.00 / 0)

1. Is Michigan using half-delegates?
2. How exactly are the remaining at large delegates awarded?

---

by: Seth9 @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 00:05:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan Republican Party has decided to send 60 half-delegates (4.00 / 1)

As I understand the process - based on reading everything I can find on various websites - there will be 60 half-delegates.  (Originally, Michigan was entitled to 59 full delegates, which got reduced by half and rounded up to the next full delegate, meaning 30.  The MRP re-made those 30 full delegates into 60 half-delegates.

Each CD awards six half delegates on a winner-take-all basis.  The remaining 18 at-large half delegates are to be awarded proportionately to any candidate who receives at least 15% of the statewide vote.  I don't know the system that will be used to distribute those delegates over various fractions that might arise, but I assume it will be roughly the same as applying the "method of equal proportions" after omitting votes wasted on candidates receiving less than 15%.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 00:45:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Then the second thing I would ask is why you see Romney taking 6-7 delegates. I don't know that his support around the state is enough to go well above 50% if Gingrich doesn't run into major problems.

---

by: Seth9 @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:07:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Votes for candidates receiving less than 15% are disregarded. (0.00 / 0)

Let's say Mitt gets 52%, with 33% going to Gingrich, and the remaining 15% being divided among Ron Paul and various lesser lights.  (Michigan's ballot includes Bachmann, Perry, Huntsman and Cain, notwithstanding their having dropped out.)

If that occurred, Mitt would get 52/80 * 9 = 5.85 delegates, meaning 6, while Newt would be left with 3.15 or 3.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 03:30:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah (0.00 / 0)

I was taking it for granted that an election without Santorum would net Paul at least 15% of the vote, which is not a safe assumption when I think about it. Thanks a lot.

---

by: Seth9 @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 07:56:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Then the second thing I would ask is why you see Romney taking 6-7 delegates. I don't know that his support around the state is enough to go well above 50% if Gingrich doesn't run into major problems.

---

by: Seth9 @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:07:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Me, too (3.50 / 2)

I'm voting for Gingrich, because I, too, would like to do something to help prolong the Republican nomination process. Besides, the spectacle of a Newt Gingrich Presidential Candidacy would be something to behold in all its blustery manic glory.

---

by: rich @ Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 00:40:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The idea of a blog, or at least this one (4.00 / 1)

Well, first off, I'm not a trained monkey. I don't do tricks by request. I write about things that interest or amuse me, not stuff I think people who aren't me find interesting and amusing. Also, this kind of post is the exact kind of thing I've been writing for the last six years, especially when Election season hasn't yet fully heated up.  In fact, you used to post comments under posts I wrote about environmental policy all the time.

If you'd like to see blog posts like that, you should write it yourself. The idea of this blog is that people can write their own posts, and if people with requisite powers -- like me -- deem it worthy, we'll throw it on the front page. As for me, my standards for front paging stuff have always been remarkably low ... as long as it's not some thinly-veiled attempt to call attention to one's own blog elsewhere (i.e. link pimp), as long as the post is mostly original and formatted so those who read it don't believe the author to be a manifesto-writing nut, as long as it appears that there is good reason to believe that it's accurate, as long as it adheres to the basic rules of posting (i.e. no pointless personal attacks), it will probably go on the front page.

As for the Republican primary, I don't care about that. Who has the edge, and what will it mean? I haven't the slightest. Anyone who says is either taking a complete shot in the dark, or is just full of shit.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 14:45:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Independents versus moderates (4.00 / 1)

This editorial from the Freep is one of many examples of people trying to hype up the importance of the independent vote. Many cite Obama's low approval among independents as proof that Obama is in trouble. But as Jed mentioned on Daily Kos (emphasis mine):

PPP's Tom Jensen says Obama has "claimed the middle," leading Romney 68-27 among moderates and 51-41 among independents.

Think about that, folks - a 41-point lead among moderates but only a 10-point lead among independents.

Moderates are the group Obama needs to win. They're the ones most likely to be open to voting for either major-party nominee. If he can convince enough moderates to vote for him (while convincing enough Democrats to vote), he should be fine.

Keep in mind also that Obama only won 52% of the independent vote in 2008 - while winning 53% of the national popular vote. His win was more the result of Democrats outnumbering Republicans at the polls (39% of voters being Democrats, 32% being Republicans) than of his lead among indies (who made up 29% of the electorate).

According to Gallup, Obama's approval rating is much higher among moderates (50%) than among pure independents (36%).


Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott

---

by: ScottyUrb @ Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 08:25:24 AM UTC