TPM's Mitt for Michigan Ad (Democrat style)

I am MItt (4.00 / 1)

Hi, I'm Mitt Romney and at one point in time I have either been for or against everything so vote for me!

---

by: doxie53 @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 13:42:23 PM CST

Hilarious ad... (4.00 / 1)

...and I understand the rationale. HOWEVER...

Those claiming that Romney doesn't have a chance in the General are the same people who claimed that McCain's campaign was dead a few months ago.

ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYTHING can happen. While I understand all of the rationalizations given for crossing over and voting for Romney, the fact remains that IF he were to win the GOP nomination, he DOES have a chance of winning the Presidency, period.

It may be a small chance. It may be a minute chance. But he DOES have a chance--and he might even have a better chance than McCain or Huckabee. Any number of developments could make McCain or Huckabee "weaker" than Romney--another personal scandal coming to light. A health issue. Financial misdeeds. Who the f*ck knows?

Bottom line: If I vote for Romney here in Michigan, and he goes on to win the nomination and the Presidency, I'd have absolutely NO ONE to blame but myself--and every other Michigan Dem who votes for him tomorrow.

It's awfully tempting, but I'm voting UNCOMMITTED tomorrow.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:13:18 PM CST

Nothing to do with electability... (0.00 / 0)

Everything to do with keeping the Republican field FUBAR'd right up till their brokered convention.

Pray for the dead, fight like hell for the living. - Mother Jones

---

by: chanupi @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:27:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Other Republicans could win, too. (0.00 / 0)

If Romney wins in November, it won't be the fault of Michigan in January. It will be the fault of Democrats in November. The Republicans are going to have a nominee no matter what. Our job will be to defeat him. As long as you vote against the Republican in the general, you won't have yourself to blame. You'll have those idiots who vote for Republicans in a general election to blame.

Or, if that doesn't convince you, and you're still in "I'd blame myself" mode, then think of it this way. McCain has an edge right now in the primary. If you don't vote for Romney, McCain could win the primary. And all the evidence we have right now shows McCain would seriously threaten to defeat our Democratic nominee, while Romney would not. So if you don't get out there and defeat McCain while you can, it will be all your fault -- yours, Brainwrap -- if he wins in November.

So vote for Mitt.

---

by: James X. @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:47:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Out-of-stater (4.00 / 1)

Hi, I've been lurking a bit from out-of-state (Oregon), and I just wanted to offer an outsider's perspective, if you want it. I don't think America will care what percentage of the vote Hillary gets. Unless she manages to get greater than 100 percent of the vote, no one will be impressed, and it will be written off as having been a one-person race. The best way to undermine the Clinton-only race, I think, would be to have low turnout, especially in comparison to the GOP race.

Also, even if the DNC takes the incredibly unlikely (and Clinton opponents could argue, unfair) step of changing its mind about seating your delegates after your election has already taken place, well, take it from an even less important state that votes in May: you are just one state. Your delegates are not all that important. The party has plenty of other delegates.

Also, if you're going to vote in the GOP primary, your choices are Romney and McCain. You're not going to be able to pull off a Ron Paul win. And it's not like Paul will drop out or run out of money if he doesn't win Michigan.

Dems for Mitt is, I think, a very smart option. I know I'd do it if I were a Michigander. At least it would be a whole lot more fun than voting for "uncommitted." I mean, really, how depressing is voting for "uncommitted?"

---

by: James X. @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:37:20 PM CST

Not Just One State (4.00 / 1)

Except Michigan's situation isn't limited to just one state.  All of Florida's delegates have been cut as well.  And the problem for the DNC is that Florida is the #1 most populated swing state and Michigan is the #4 most populated swing state.  The very unlikely scenario is that they'll actually carry through with their penalty.

---

by: northernlib @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 14:51:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I doubt it. (0.00 / 0)

They'll have representatives from Florida and Michigan at the convention, to be sure. They won't want to emphasize the issue. But they've already jilted you. The argument for seating a slate of delegates tainted by unfair elections (and the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries are definitely not fair to Edwards or Obama) isn't nearly as strong as the argument was a couple months ago, when the fear of affronting swing states was no less an issue.

---

by: James X. @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:16:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Fair? (4.00 / 1)

the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries are definitely not fair to Edwards or Obama

How can you make that case. OK, they are not on the ballot in Michigan, but that was their decision, done in consultation with one another to try and make Clinton look bad to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. They are all on the ballot in Florida so where is there any semblance of unfairness there?  

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:28:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Half a Clue (4.00 / 1)

I have a feeling that James X. doesn't even have half a clue what he is talking about here.

Edwards and Obama chose to withdraw from the Michigan ballot after they were put on it.  No one, including the DNC or New Hampshire or Iowa, asked them to take their names off.

Edwards and Obama along with all the other candidates will be on the ballot in Florida.

---

by: northernlib @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:33:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Four-State Pledge (4.00 / 1)

Clinton, Edwards, Obama, et al., signed the DNC's Four-State Pledge, with the penalty of not receiving ANY delegates threatened against them otherwise.

Four State Pledge Letter 2008

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

___________________________________
John/Jane Doe, Doe for President

DATE

Link [PDF]

---

by: James X. @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:48:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

*crickets* (4.00 / 3)

:-)

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

---

by: JNelson @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 18:21:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They can't campaign there. (0.00 / 0)

The DNC told them so. The DNC told them not to campaign in Michigan, either. The DNC can't do that and then say, "Surprise! You know that election we told you not to participate in? It counted!" That's not a fair process.

---

by: James X. @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:36:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And..... (4.00 / 1)

Neither is Clinton.

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

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:39:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Holding an election, (0.00 / 0)

and "equally prohibiting" everyone from campaigning, is still not fair. For example, Clinton has a name-recognition advantage, but no other candidate is allowed to increase their name recognition with television ads. Theoretically, automakers could create an organization to oppose Edwards, but Edwards would not be allowed to respond. It's not a fair process.

---

by: James X. @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 15:56:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have thought about this a lot... I am going to vote for Mitt (4.00 / 1)

The Democratic ballot is meaningless, especially since my candidate is not on the ballot.

Somebody has to win the Republican primary, so it might as well be Mitt.  I think his win would very much disturb the Republican nomination, especially because he has a tendency to run negative ads.  

Were Mitt to win the Republican nomination, he is a very weak candidate in the general election. I am sympathetic about not giving any of these Republican guys any encouragement, but the Democratic nominee will need to make his or her case.  If they can't do that what can they do?

Another benefit of voting in the Republican primary is that the Republicans will waste tons of mailings and calls on me all summer and fall.  I am very strongly against the fact that the voting data will be the property of the parties.  I consider it a plus that I will be on the wrong list.  

---

by: louise the dog @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 19:30:58 PM CST

Meanwhile, a Democratic State Rep (4.00 / 1)

on the eastside is encouraging Democrats to switchover and vote for Huckabee, MPR reports.

OK, so now we have schemes for Romney, Huckabee and Paul.

I suggest y'all chuck it and vote for Hillary if you want Hillary and vote for Uncommitted if you don't -- on the Democratic Ballot.

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

---

by: philgoblue @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 20:18:15 PM CST

Blah... (4.00 / 1)

No fun in that....

You are just a party pooper.

Pray for the dead, fight like hell for the living. - Mother Jones

---

by: chanupi @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 21:27:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Of course, naturally... (0.00 / 0)

If you want Hillary, because your candidate isn't on today's ballot, naturally you'll be voting on the Republican side to cause mischief.  But, you should come back to the Democratic ballot and really vote for the person you want to win the presidency because she -- oops -- is on the ballot.

I encourage transparency in all things ... thank you much for upholding that.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 00:48:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Vote Republican Uncommitted (0.00 / 0)

Or you could exercise your right to vote for Uncomitted on the Republican ballot thus allowing delegates to be selected at the county conventions and messing with the Republicans at the same time!  How's that for transparent!  ;)

The anti-Hillary vote has become a circus.

---

by: northernlib @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:32:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]