Oh, BOY! Yet another national pundit has come up with a plan to fix the problem of Michigan & Florida delegates.
Over at the Huffington Post, Mark Green thinks that we should hold new primaries on April 22 -- along with Pennsylvania -- and create a "Super Tuesday III." He is a bit reserved on the utility of this idea, though, likening it to "Not quite winner-take-all but close to winning the fifth set in the Wimbledon final."
(Quick, bring me my latte!)
It's a little concerning when people start talking about do-overs, being as how this is a presidential election and not a dodgeball game.
Imagine if Edwards and/or Obama had campaigned here & been on the ballot. One of them could very well have won. The resulting support from that win ($$, delegates, free media) could have created a political landscape that's significantly different from the one we see today. Would Edwards still be in the race? Would Obama have even more delegates?
UPDATE by Hazen Pingree: A source close to the negotiations has confirmed to me that the Clinton campaign is indeed giving serious consideration to a new vote in Michigan. An actual government-sanctioned primary isn't going to happen. What may emerge is a party-run primary with a large and expansive multitude of sites and opportunities for participation. Electronic voting could potentially be involved. Funding issues still need to be resolved and it's not yet clear what Obama's position will be. However, given his support for a new Michigan vote in the past it would be pretty lame if he backed away now (this coming from a diehard Obama backer).
It could be one hell of an exciting Michigan summer!
Results were too close to call in Texas early today, but even before Clinton won in Ohio, her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said he would welcome a second chance in both states (Michigan and Florida), where Clinton won what are, for now, meaningless primaries.
"We're all for a primary in both states because we can't go into a general election and say those votes didn't count," he said. "But do-overs cost millions of dollars. It's up to those states."
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, said the victory in Ohio changes "the landscape a bit" and could open the door to a Democratic caucus -- not a primary -- in Michigan, though it would have to be privately funded and both candidates would have to agree.
Earlier this week, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said of the Clinton camp "they keep moving the goalposts, but at some point you run out of field." Well...I guess this is one way to address that problem: make the field bigger.
I guess since I'm an Obama guy I should favor a caucus...but really I can live with a primary too. Just so long as it's not paid for with tax dollars and both candidates are on the friggin' ballot.
Who knows? Maybe we get to go the prom after all?
BTW, congrats are in certainly in order to Camp Hillary for their victories yesterday (even though the overall delegate count margin remains roughly the same) and for a hard-fought campaign. For Obamarama, here's hoping we get our groove back in Wyoming and Mississippi...
It was a primary that would have made Pervez Musharraf blush. Only the name of one viable candidates was on the ballot. No major candidates campaigned. Even the "winner" dismissed the Michigan primary as something that "would not count for anything anyway."
45% of the voters still voted against the winner, and many said that if other candidates had been listed on the ballot those candidates would have gotten their votes.
But still the Michigan Democratic Party leadership, all endorsers of the "winner," Hillary Clinton, are planning to try to seat the delegates at the DNC in Denver.
According to an MDP press release yesterday (authored by a public Clinton endorser), 73 delegates will try to be seated in Denver as pledged to Clinton, while 55 will be uncommitted.
National Clinton campaign spokespersons, despite what Clinton herself said in January dismissing the Michigan primary, are now claiming to have "won" in Michigan.
We've heard a lot of talk out of the Clinton campaign in Michigan – who also happen to control the reins of power in the MDP and the state government – that the issue is about the importance of Michigan and its role in selecting the nominee.
You won't
see either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in Michigan, but from all
appearances they are now locked in a spirited battle for our delegates.
What? I thought the Michigan "primary" happened a
month ago?
Well,
consider this...
On Monday, Hillary stumped
at a General Motors plant in White Marsh, Maryland. Flanked by Michigan
DNC member, GM lobbyist (and Hillary donor) Debbie Dingell, Hillary
declared that we're going to have the "strongest and best automotive
sector in the world" - ripped the South Korea free trade deal and
promised $22 billion in federal grants and bonds to help automakers
retool to build "green" vehicles.
Yesterday,
Barack stumped at a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. In his
speech he ripped NAFTA and touted his
10-year, $150
billion plan to promote "green" manufacturing.
Interestingly,
Debbie Dingell was there too - and delivered a
kind quote to the Detroit News:
"It was
significant," said Michigan Democratic activist and GM Foundation head
Debbie Dingell, who attended Wednesday's speech and toured the plant
with Obama. "When he talks about these issues, he demonstrates that he
gets it."
Today, if media
reports are to be
believed, Hillary will be going to - you guessed it - another
GM
plant. This time in Lordstown, Ohio.
Gee,
I wonder if Ford's and Chrysler are getting envious?
The prospects for a Michigan Democratic presidential primary do-over election -- a party-run caucus -- are probably not all that good. Why? Give credit to party leaders for recalling the advice: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
But if they throw caution to the wind and give it a go, let's hope they at least consider the approach of a blogger at www.michiganliberal.com going by the name Hazen Pingree (the name of a Detroit mayor and governor in the late 19th Century). The blogger suggests waiting until all other primaries and caucuses are concluded in June. At that point, if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama remain deadlocked, he says, both Michigan and Florida could have "overtime" contests to break the tie. "The eyes of the world would SERIOUSLY be on us."
Back when the
powerful people put together the plan that led to Michigan's so-called
primary, the argument was that it would make our state much more influential
in the nomination process.
Well, some have tried
to spin it otherwise, but it's pretty clear that nobody who doesn't
live in a state surrounded by fresh water has paid any real attention
to Hillary's 55-40% win against "uncommitted." Meanwhile, the winner
over on the Republican side has decided to cut his losses (very
literally) and get out. Not only that, because the Democratic primary
season is now dragging on into infinity, it's beginning to look like
the most influential states won't be the first states, but the last.
Too bad for us...
Or maybe not!
It
would take a great swallowing of pride by some, but Michigan now has the
opportunity to possibly cast the deciding votes
between Hillary and Barack. What could possibly be more influential
than that?
Here's what I suggest...
If
Hillary or Barack somehow manage to get all the delegates they need,
there isn't much point in the Michigan Democratic Party spending the
dineros to pay for a caucus if it isn't going to make any real
difference.
But...could an agreement be reached
with the DNC to hold tie breaker caucuses in Michigan and Florida in
the event there is still no winner on June 3 (when South Dakota and
Montana hold their contests)?
In other words,
Michigan and Florida could be like going into overtime in a basketball
or football game.
The circumstances that would
trigger the "tie-breaker" caucuses would have to be clearly defined.
For instance, maybe have the Michigan and Florida caucuses be
triggered if no one on June 3 has a majority among non-superdelegates.
Can
you imagine? Hillary and Barack would finally have to really campaign
in Michigan and Florida. The eyes of the world would SERIOUSLY be on
us and, by association, our problems with manufacturing, jobs,
etc. Not only that, the media madness would descend on Michigan not in
February, but in one of our most beautiful months of the year! Who
knows, it might be good for tourism? At the very least, our hotels
would get lots of extra business from the Democratic campaign roadshow.
We could use the money.
Of course the great irony in
this is that we were originally so desperate to be first. But the
opportunity here for Michigan is simply too exciting to ignore.
On
the other side, if we don't have an
overtime caucus, then this thing will get decided in a bitter floor
fight involving many smoke-filled rooms and a host of superdelegates
that aren't answerable to anybody.
Okay...so here's
four of the likely arguments against this idea:
(More below the fold...)
The Elections Division continues to update the presidential primary returns to reflect official numbers as they are reported by the counties. Most significantly, the Division has fixed an error that inflated the vote totals -- Democratic and Republican -- in the Congressional District part of the returns in Wayne County.
The most significant changes are that it now turns out that Uncommited defeated Clinton in CD 13 as well as in CD 14. In CD 13, the margin was 23,454 to 22,362. In CD 14, which was originally reported with a 1500-vote margin the Uncommitted margin is now up to about 5000 votes -- 31,738 to 26,769. The other districts that have parts of Wayne County show smaller changes.
None of this appears to affect the delegate counts at all. CD 13 will elect six delegates so the effect of moving from a slight Clinton win to a slight Uncommitted win remains three delagates for each. Uncommitted already had a 4-3 delegate advantage in CD 14 and the larger margin is not large enough to switch that margin to 5-2. The smaller changes in CD 15 leave the delegate distribution there at 3-3, with Clinton still narrowly missing a fourth delegate.
I have been musing that the MDP scheduled a primary on Martin Luther King's birthday (as opposed to the national holiday), when it was a primary that disenfranchised a black candidate who respected the letter and spirit of DNC rules (and a replacement February primary/caucus could easily have been scheduled); but maybe the forces of justice had their due last night.
...the exit poll results from this strange contest reveal some troubling trends for the New York Senator. ...
Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by "uncommitted," 26-70. If that kind of margin among African Americans continues into future primaries, she faces major problems in the heavily black January 26 South Carolina primary....
...Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.
Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. ...
A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. ...
Ominously for the Clinton camp, the former First Lady was losing the African-American vote -- in Wayne County and statewide -- to "Uncommitted." African-American leaders such as Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who backs Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had urged an "Uncommitted" vote. ...
It is hard[] to believe that Clinton will get very far claiming Michigan handed her a meaningful victory Tuesday night. When two out of every five voters choose nobody rather than a prominent candidate who is running with little or no opposition, that candidate's got no reason to celebrate.
With comments like the Mich Lib one recently about needing a Caucasian fella on the ticket (Why? I'd vote for an Obama/Sebelius ticket, no white guy there), I think it is good to be sensitive, racially and otherwise, when making comments, maybe. And with the Daily Kos observations today, John Kerry: Kicking ass, defending the right to vote, and flying to Nevada (on John Kerry's fighting the Clinton attempt to disenfranchise largely Latina/o workers' vote), and Say Goodbye to Howard Dean, (about the DNC entering the legal fray against the Clinton disenfranchisement attempt, and the likelihood of the Clintons booting Dean, in favor of Terry McAuliffe, if they win), it looks not just like a Michigan Dem struggle against Granholm/Brewer/Dingell's complicity with disenfranchisement, it looks like a national battle, of the reformers against the unworthy Establishment. I hope we'd all be on the side of the reformers.
(While the DNC can't per se oppose the Clinton campaign, it's nice to see them at least opposing a Clinton initiative. Maybe Dean knows that not only will he be booted if the Clintons return to power, but decency itself will be booted as well.)
--The message, as always, is, be active and take back your party. Find replacements for the people I mention above who need to be replaced. Run yourself if you have to. Be inclusive to minorities and to people in general. Promote the right over the wrong, and progress over stagnation. Keep the dream alive. MLK would expect no less of you.
Despite low turnout due to bad weather and a virtually uncontested primary, young voters gave Democrats much to be happy about in yesterday's primary. According to data released by CIRCLE (an organization that specializes in studying civic participation among 18 – 29 year olds), turnout among young voters in the Democratic Primary rivaled participation among conservative youth in the GOP primary, which was hotly contested.
Overall, 100,776 young voters aged 18-29 participated in yesterday's Democratic Primary, compared to 112,833 in the Republican Primary. Not only did almost as many young Democrats head to the polls on Tuesday, but young Democrats had a larger say in determining their party's nominee. Young voters made up 17% of the Democratic electorate compared to just 13% of Republican voters. These numbers are a far cry from turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire though, where young Democratic voters outnumbered Republican youth by about 2–1, and young voters outnumbered or rivaled turnout among 30-somethings and those over 65.
Nevertheless, the numbers were good news for Democrats. Unlike in the first two primary states, Democrats did little campaigning in Michigan, and Senator Barack Obama, the most popular youth candidate on the Democratic side, was not on the ballot. The fact that Democrats were still able to compete with the Republican turnout, despite less than ideal conditions, suggests that the eventual Democratic nominee will have a significant advantage in Michigan come November.
Youth turnout was not the only surprise in yesterday's primary. While Clinton – running unopposed – gained a higher share of the youth vote than in the previous two contests, she still lost the youth vote to "uncommitted" by 48 – 43%, according to CNN exit polling. This defeat spanned both segments of the youth demographic – 18–24 and 25–29 year olds. It seemed to erase Clinton's gains among the older demographic, in which she narrowly beat Senator Obama by just 2% of the vote in New Hampshire.
On the Republican side, young voters gave Mitt Romney a plurality of their votes, though it was a fairly tight race between the Governor and his top three opponents - McCain, Huckabee and Paul. So far, Republican youth have split their votes in the first three contests of the primary season: choosing Mike Huckabee in Iowa, and John McCain in New Hampshire.
Lack of Election Day Registration also may have played a role in driving down overall turnout on Tuesday. Both Iowa and New Hampshire, which saw record youth turnout, allow voters to register to vote the day of their caucus or primary.
If Barack Obama and John Edwards wanted to back up their blustery tough-talk about "change" and "the courage to take on the Washington establishment," they had the chance to show the world that they are willing and able to do whatever is required to get down and dirty and deal directly with the country's, and Michigan's, most pressing problems. But when push came to shove, these anti-establishment crusaders politely followed the Howard Dean-provided status-quo script.
If these two do not have the courage to challenge the Democratic National Committee's archaic rules, like Michigan can't move up its primary, why should we think they would or could ever muster the 'ganas' to take the bold actions required to effectively address real problems like corporate welfare, labor law, trade policies, education, health care, defense spending, infrastructure, civil liberties, climate change and more? The very problems at the forefront of why Michigan moved up its primary in the first place. Their cowardly actions in the Michigan primary tell us we simply cannot count on them to do what's right if the 'good old boys' say it's wrong.
Understand, Clinton's willingness to leave her name on the ballot does not, by any stretch, mean she would or could fights those fights either.
However, the whole ordeal certainly left this voter proud of his support for Dennis Kucinich.
Yeah, it's pretty cold. So are my legs, and my feet. I knew the feet were cold while I was standing there in the second hour, but didn't realize how cold my legs and butt were until I started walking back to my car.
I trudged back through the slushy snow on this cold Michigan morning, got in my car, turned the heat up and came home to warm up for a little bit.
While my kitty won't sit on my lap just yet (my jeans are apparently too cold), I'm holding a mug of hot cocoa and feeling pretty good. I'm gonna jump in the shower to warm up, and then head back to stand in the snow.
I am compelled to make sure my fellow Michiganians know that Right-to-Work legislation is terrible for workers and would be a disaster for our struggling economy. So, I'll spend a couple more hours standing in front of a polling station to warn people about a petition circulating to bring Right-to-Work (for less) here.
Below the fold, you'll find some important bullet points about how Right-to-Work is devastating for workers and our economy. Grab a hot cider and join me...
Many have endorsed the new primary date with the rational that “Michigan’s issues” were on display in the national sphere, and that the media and candidates would have to start addressing the issues that are important to Michigan voters rather than just those important to New Hampshire and Iowa. The question is: did this really come to fruition? Did the candidates, Republican or Democrat, address real Michigan issues, or just give the same superficial stump speeches that would work in any state? CNN, Fox News, and every other media outlet have been hammering Michigan for having the highest unemployment rate in the country, citing the legacy of the auto industry contractions of the past decade or so. And what happens after they mention the Big Three? Commercial break before the next story. The same goes for the candidates who campaigned here. John McCain and Mitt Romney got into a tussle over Romney’s desire to bring auto jobs back and McCain’s view that we need to create new jobs. Beyond that, silence. The rest of their speeches were simply modified stump speeches, the same things they said in South Carolina and New Hampshire. Great Lakes protection? Urban sprawl? Education reform? Health care? Mortgage crisis? Where are these issues in the debates? Michigan, with its gorgeous environment threatened by urban expansion and falling lake levels, some of its schools among the worst in the nation, millions of uninsured, and thousands upon thousands who have already or are in danger of losing their homes, is more diverse than car company jobs. It will take a lot more than a snap primary to force candidates to address these controversial yet vital issues here.
But will she capture a large enough percentage to avoid embarrassment Tuesday?
),
Gov. Jennifer Granholm said this morning at a Clinton rally in Southfield that her candidate "is committed to Michigan."
"Her opponent in this state apparently is 'uncommitted,' which is not an opponent," Granholm told reporters after speaking to 100 Clinton supporters at the Westin Hotel. "That is why we are encouraging voters to get out and vote for Hillary Clinton. She is not uncommitted to Michigan, which the other candidates apparently are."
Clinton opted not to campaign in Michigan because she made a pledge to uphold the party primary calendar, which is tilted to early races in Iowa and New Hampshire.
There are multiple truth problems with JG's words here, including the fact that, uh, Clinton pledged not to campaign in Michigan (as noted above)! so that Dennis Kucinich, whatever his other problems, is more committed to Michigan than Clinton, cf. George Bullard in DetNews, Re Michigan, at least Kucinich shows up.
As well, like it or not, Gravel and Kucinich are opponents of Clinton, too, so JG is inaccurate by not mentioning them as opponents, mentioning only "uncommitted" as an opponent. (Cheap rhetorical trick?)
Last but not least, Granholm (who USED to say that Michigan Liberal is her favorite blog--is that still true??--, so that she may read here frequently) may have borrowed the "committed/uncommitted" wordplay of yours truly on 1/9/08, "Ironically, then, if you are COMMITTED to change, you may have to vote UNCOMMITTED on 1/15." ...I wonder how much she might owe me for "copyright infringement"! No wonder the writers went on strike...
Now what is really interesting, is Jennifer Granholm's lack of commitment to staying in Michigan herself and doing her job, instead of running off to D.C. with Hillary, if she wins, and then leaving the Michigan mess to her new "Chief Operating Officer" (!! "Michigan Incorporated"??), and to John Cherry, whose, to be blunt, "charisma issues" might prevent him from becoming governor in a normal election.
See Tim Skubick, the "Off the Record" video of his JG interview on 10/12/07, at c. 13:45-15:45 on the video. (Check WKAR if the above link doesn't work) TS asks JG repeatedly if she will pledge not to leave Lansing, and JG refuses again and again to answer, talking about "speculation", dodging the issue, and leaving a deep suspicion about her own commitment to Michigan. (She does say that fixing Michigan should take longer than a year and a half, and that she doesn't want to go to D.C. ...o.k., then why can't she pledge to stay in Lansing? Whom does she think she's fooling??)
Repeatedly refusing to pledge to stay on the job in her own state, throwing (or even subtly massaging...) the election for a pal who can give her a cushy slot in D.C., and taking millions of taxpayers dollars to do it, plus the voter list graft, plus holding the DNC-rulebreaking election even after 4 Dem candidates correctly avoided it, plus Michigan's collapse in general...how committed is politician Granholm to Michigan, or staying in Michigan, or anything? Can she be believed when she mocks "uncommitted" voters like the great John Conyers and says voting Hillary is better?
Probably not. If you vote, vote "uncommitted"...and commit to doing something about Granholm's, Dingell's, Brewer's, Anuzis's, McManus's, and Bishop's noxious dedication to doing the wrong thing re the 1/15 primary, and so many other wrong things as well. Thanks for your commitment to Michigan and to Michigan rank-and-file Democrats!
On the morning after Clinton's victory, I talked to Sergio Bendixen, one of her pollsters, who specializes in the Hispanic vote. "In all honesty, the Hispanic vote is extremely important to the Clinton campaign. [...]," he said. "The fire wall doesn't apply now, because she is in good shape, but before last night the Hispanic vote was going to be the most important part of her fire wall on February 5th." The implications of that strategy are not necessarily uplifting.
...he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: "The Hispanic voter-and I want to say this very carefully-has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."
The question of who stands to benefit from making the campaign about race has only one answer: Hillary Clinton. ...
Now, there is a certain irony in Lizza's noting of Camp Clinton's Hispanic strategy at the same time that Clinton surrogates are seeking to disenfranchise the culinary union members in Nevada, many of whom are Hispanic. (One would hope the Obama campaign would be quick to point out this hypocrisy.)
But the pattern from the Clinton camp is quite clear: they want to make the campaign about race. They want to make Obama into the second coming of Jesse Jackson, 1984 & 1988.
Well well. Disenfranchise Latina/os, then pit them against African Americans, maybe? --Perhaps not explicitly, as in printing flyers that say, "Hey Hispanics, vote against Black Barack" or something, but still...read what Ryan Lizza and Bob Johnson (of DKos) say. And such double-playing of Latina/o voters doesn't sound very nice to me.
As for the relevance of all that to Michigan, see my earlier diary Hillary DISSES MLK. ...Big mistake, on Hillary's clumsiness or insensitivity on racial issues. It seems that the Clintons have learned little since I wrote that diary; and maybe John Conyers, and many others, are right to urge an "uncommitted" vote after all.
As it became clear over the last few weeks that nobody had a plan to replace or fix Michigan's pending disaster of a primary, I started learning more about the situation, and talking to people about it. I talked to my friends and family first, of course, then later to my Michigan state legislators, and to various members of the blogging community here and elsewhere. Eventually I created a Web site, WhoStoleMiVote.org , to create centralized place to send people for information and help contacting party leaders.
In each case, I've been surprised by the lack of outrage about this issue.
We're not just striking out with the Primary, we are compromising our chances in November.
The most striking aspect of the present situation is that the Dems have no message in the airwaves. Meantime the GOP candidates hustle a Michigan is hurting campaign, the latest instance being The Grand Rapids Press, above the fold on the front page: "This country owes Michigan." Or that nasty Huck line "our President should look more like the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off." Meanwhile Romney (yikes!) and McCain all get to hustle the same message. Sure it's a policy disaster. But when every D candidate avoids the state, what are the voters (and the public) going to hear?
Something always beats nothing.
It also confirms the perception (and Republican message) of Democratic incompetence.
