|
|
Primary 
Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 01:05:49 AM EDT
|
|
It was just a couple of nights ago that Keith Olbermann was challenging us, in one of his "Special Comments", to rise up in the streets and take back this country.
He pointed out that the only way those on the left were going to be able to fight against those who are looking to get all "Tea Party" is to be as angry and as organized and as aggressive as the Tea Party community, and if we're smart, we'll take him up on that challenge.
But if you really want to push "professional" Democrats to the left, most especially this President, and you want to do it in time to impact the '12 cycle, the only way to do it is to run a candidate in primary contests that either moves the conversation your way...or leaves you with a surprising new Candidate.
And right here, right now, we actually have a chance to do exactly that - and that's why, in today's discussion, I'm going to challenge Olbermann right back.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 1180 words in story)
|
|
Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 17:29:25 PM EST
|
Remember all the teeth-gnashing and irritation back in 2007-2008? Well, according to DNC delegate Frank Leone (VA), here's what's going on in the DNC thought process:
As to timing, the discussion was relatively brief and consistent with prior discussions - Iowa/NH/SC/Nevada can go after Feb. 1, every other state goes after March 1, the rules should encourage regional clusters by offering incentives such as bonus delegates, the RBC will address enforcement procedures and sanctions, and the DNC will try to coordinate timing with the RNC rules committee. The RNC coordination process is ongoing.
This will be worth keeping an eye on...
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 10:48:17 AM EST
|
It may be shortly before Christmas, but it's not too early to start thinking about 2009. As is common when looking to the future, people create resolutions- New Year's Resolutions, to pick one or a couple of things that they want to improve. These resolutions are much maligned in popular culture as being promises that are never fully implemented (who can forget the famous 'loose weight' line?). But sometimes, when the right people set the right goals with the right amount of determination, a New Year's Resolution can be a true impetus for change.
Our leaders in Lansing are already on vacation. I wonder how many of them are thinking on 2009 and their New Year's Resolutions as they sit down to Christmas dinner. What form will these resolutions take? Will we see our leaders resolve to work together to address the pressing issues we have in Michigan, such as smoking regulation, individual market health insurance reform, auto insurance reform (lest we forget the Kreiner Report), expanding public transit, tourism, and high-tech green industries and research, et all? Or will they look back on 2008 and be proud of their 'accomplishments': delaying the passage of a RPS, failing to incentivize economic development, and removing Michigan's national political influence through a botched primary- and resolve to 'keep up the good work'?
With the crisis our state and nation faces going into 2009, one would hope the need for change would be apparent. Let's hope that legislators resolve to change more than their girth come January 1st.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 19:20:21 PM EDT
|
|
And update from YAF Watch on YAF member activites. In the primaries three YAFers ran for office, with two earning Republican positions, one internal, one for public office. Read full story at Michigan Messenger and YAF Watch. Former YAF Chair Kyle Bristow was elected to a seat be a Republican Pecinct delegate. This is a win not only for Bristow, but for Michigan Republican Party State Chair Saul Anuzis, who calls Bristow "exactly the kind of kid we want" Dennis Lennox considered a run for the state house, but instead ran for the Republican Primary for drain commisioner for Cheyboygan county in an uncontested race. From the Traverse City Record Eagle "There are two candidates for drain commissioner, a four-year position, including incumbent Democrat John Pietrangelo and Republican challenger Dennis Lennox. " Democratic incumbency and Lennox's lack of any experience in environmental engineering should make this a win for Piterangelo.
Tyler Whitney, one of the YAF participants in the anti-gay rally in Lansing who later came out, came in fourth out of five in a Republican primary race for commissioner in Bath Township.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 09:11:12 AM EDT
|
(Amen. - promoted by rich)
With less than a week to go until yet another primary election in the state of Michigan, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land announced that she expects 1.4 million voters to turn out and cast a ballot. With 7.4 million registered voters in our state, that means fewer than 20% are expected to make an appearance at the polls to decide who will run the state for the next two years. Given that there is so much excitement centered around the presidential election in November, the primary is unfortunately overlooked by most voters. Many Michigan legislative seats are determined by the winner of the primary election. In effect, 20% of voters determine who will be elected in November to run the State House and in two years, probably fewer will turn out to see who runs the House and the Senate. Get out the vote efforts are almost more important for the primary than for the general. Many of the decisions that impact the day to day life of Michiganders comes from the State Legislature. If you can spare the time, head out to your neighborhoods on August 5 and encourage your neighbors to vote in the forgotten race. --- "Decisions are made by those who show up."
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:25:31 AM EDT
|
|
Yesterday, I sent Hillary Clinton an email message at her website admiring her awesome barrier breaking campaign and appreciating her contribution to the presidential nominating process. I also asked her to please(and I did write please);end her campaign so that we can begin to unify as a Democratic party. So, I don't know if others are on her e-mail list, etc but in the extended Text I cut and pasted the letter she has sent her supporters.No matter what happens, whether Hillary does become President or not some day, her candidacy will be cited as the barrier breaking event that laid the groundwork for a woman to become President of the United States. To me, that is no small thing. Yes, history has been made with regard to Obama becoming the first major African-American nominee for President of the United States. But there is also serious historical resonance to Hillary's campaign as the first serious woman candidate for President of the United States.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 375 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 22:58:34 PM EDT
|
Michiganders' right to vote is under attack. From the primary to Voter ID and Rogers Law, we citizens need to get involved to prevent any more damage to our constitutional rights.
The most recent challenge to Michigan’s enfranchisement finds its origins last year, when the Michigan Legislature debated moving Michigan’s presidential primary date up to January 15th rather than its original date in February, with tax payers foot the bill rather than the state party organizations. Both national political parties were outraged, pledging swift action to punish Michigan. Despite these threats and seeing the Democratic National Committee strip Florida’s delegates after it made the same change, the measure passed and was signed into law.
Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the new measure in Lansing, the Republican and Democratic parties reacted. The Republicans announced that Michigan would only be allowed to send half of its delegation to the Republican convention, limiting the voice Michigan had in choosing their nominee. The Democrats, however, went further. None of Michigan’s more than 150 delegates would be able to represent the Great Lakes State or have any vote at the Democratic convention in Denver.
The individual candidates even reacted to the change. The entire Democratic field refused to campaign in the state, robbing us of the millions of dollars that would have been pumped into the economy through ads and other means. Candidates even refused to have their names on the ballot, leaving Hilary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich as the only choices for Michigan voters.
The Democrats in Michigan now have no say in choosing their party’s candidate. The Republicans are in negotiations to try to restore their delegation, but nothing has happened yet. Michigan has almost been stripped of any meaningful contribution to the primary cycle.
This controversy is just the latest in a prolonged attack on the enfranchisement of citizens in Michigan. Many college students are already familiar with the infamous ‘Rogers Law’ that requires Michigan voters have the same address on their voter registration cards and their drivers licenses. Over the past several years, this law has stood as a major barrier to students voting at their college addresses. In East Lansing, this has prevented MSU from electing a student to the city council or affecting the community positively in a political way.
Recently, the State Supreme court overturned a previous ruling from former Attorney General Frank Kelly that prevented the 10- year old ‘Michigan Voter ID ‘law from going into effect. This law requires that voters present one of a few forms of state-issued ID in order to vote. However, low income citizens and the elderly, who have been voting for decades without these extra-stringent laws in place, may be adversely affected. Low income citizens may not be able to afford a new piece of ID or not have the ability to go through the layers of bureaucracy necessary to obtain one for free. The elderly may be in the same situation, or even if they have the means, may not be fully informed of the new processes.
Why are we seeing our voting rights be slowly stripped away from us? It’s not like we are in the best of situations as a state where we can afford to sit idly by. Our economy is in shambles, our healthcare system is almost completely defunct, and people are fleeing the state not by choice, but because their homes are being foreclosed on by banks at a phenomenal rate. People are concerned, and at the very time large-scale public involvement is needed the most, it is becoming harder and harder for it to happen.
I would say the majority of people reading this want to see change for a better America and a better Michigan. The question is: what are you doing to make this happen? Do you vote? Lobby? Write letters? Anything? How many people knew of the voter ID law before this column?
It all goes back to participation. The few who benefit from our woes are almost unopposed in exerting their influence on government. The apathy of the citizenry has gotten so great that they are even able to attack our fundamental rights without any major reaction.
This cannot continue. People need to stand up. Much as great men and women have in the past, so must we now rise, not to secure, but protect the right to vote. Write letters. Lobby. Do whatever it takes to make sure that your voice, that our voice is not wiped out.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 13:55:19 PM EDT
|
|
Found this little gem from last week about 10 minutes ago: Right from the start, Ingham County Circuit Judge William Collette struck down the law as unconstitutional. The Michigan Court of Appeals backed him up on it. But the state Supreme Court said no, the law enlightened the public and encouraged an informed decision-making process. Blame Justices Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan, Robert Young Jr. and Stephen Markman for that one. So, to them, the law didn't violate the state Constitution. Makes you wonder.
My emphasis. The court are supposed to be a neutral arbiter, not an enabler of law that is clearly both bad and not within any sane person's understanding of how things were designed to work. In this case, we didn't get that, and thankfully at least one of the state's newspapers has decided to share with its readers the names of the guilty.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 16:50:40 PM EDT
|
|
Good news! Republicans across the country are abandoning the Republican Party in order to vote Democrat! Hopefully people can read this news story just for its entertainment value without starting another round of non-productive candidate trashing (I'm officially done with the Obama-bashing.... at least until the next time he does something stupid :-). To be fair, there are pros and cons on both sides in this story that I've made sure to include. But two things really stood out to me: 1. People are voting en masse because for the first time in decades THEIR VOTES MATTER. (Yet another strong reason to kick Iowa & NH out of the vetting process.) 2. Republicans are voting for Hillary and Obama for two very different reasons. Clinton-Obama race spurs party switches "The bottom line is, this is the first Oregon presidential primary I have ever voted in my life that actually could matter, and I am not going to pass up that chance just because I am registered with the wrong party," said the 45-year-old Buckingham. "I want to make sure whoever gets in there, it is someone I can live with." Many voters say they have made the switch to grab the chance to have.... Some renegade conservatives, though, will admit to switching in order to drag out the Democratic primary as long as possible in the hope of bruising both candidates along the way. 'We don't know a stinking thing about him' Talk radio hostess Victoria Taft, a familiar Republican voice in the Democratic-leaning Pacific Northwest, said that even in her wildest dreams, she never imagined urging her listeners to vote for Clinton. But these days, Taft is firmly on the New York senator's bandwagon, along with national conservative talk radio heavyweights like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham. "I almost can't say this without choking, but I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton," Whisler said. "Just on the basis of finding out more about each candidate." None of the major candidates reflects her views on immigration policy, Whisler said. Still, in November, she said she'll "hold my nose," and vote for McCain.
Link to the full story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23898341/
|
|
Discuss
:: (8
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 13:43:34 PM EDT
|
In a taping of OTR (and, apparently in a not-so-candid conversation with a Detroit Free Press reporter), Former Governor Jim Blanchard equated the current primary debacle in Michigan and Flroida to a 'McCain Victory'. The article can be found here:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/NEWS06/80328018
Despite being biased to the Clinton side of the potential options facing Michigan, Florida, and the DNC, Blanchard does make a point: if we can't get our act together to decide on who we want for President, how will we ever be able to get an effective campaign on in the generals? The candidate will have to bear a heavy burden from these primary scars, and the GOP is ready to go with their golden boy and his requisite arch-conservative running mate.
How did we get here? I think because of a front-loaded political calendar that is almost unprecdented in our history. This should stand as an example of an election cycle gone awry. Bill Nelson, PLEASE help us get out of this mess by standing up for REAL reform!
What can we do? My vote is a 50/50 split. Simple, cost-effective. Hey, maybe we can do a 51/49 for Clinton to 'preserve' her victory. I don't care.
As someone who is running for a delegate seat, I beg the DNC, MDP, and both candidates' campaigns to her me: I don't want to be disenfranchised, nor do I want to hand McCain a victory. This issue needs to be decided by the populace and not the supers. Give us a chance, however small it may be, to have our voices heard, and bring respect back to a party that will desprately need it come August.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 19:14:07 PM EDT
|
|
DETROIT, March 19 -- The following is a statement from Michigan Change to Win legislative chair Bill Black regarding the current discussion surrounding a Michigan revote. "The Change to Win coalition, representing 200,000 working families in Michigan believes that a delegation representing the voters of Michigan should be seated at the Democratic Convention this year. "Michigan Democratic Party leaders assured the Change to Win unions that any effort to bring about a new Democratic primary would be open and transparent and would not be tilted to the advantage of either the Clinton or Obama campaigns. Regrettably, we are learning that may not be the case. "As of Tuesday, only two of the seventeen Democratic state senators were supporting the hastily drafted legislation for a process to conduct a new primary. Many legitimate concerns need to be addressed including voter eligibility, insuring the integrity of an election conducted by an outside party, and the ethics of raising resources to pay for the election with money raised outside of Michigan by governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania who are actively campaigning for Sen. Clinton. "Further, the concern that the proposed legislation will disenfranchise many Democratic voters in Michigan who played by the rules and cast a vote in the Republican primary in January because their Democratic candidate was not on the ballot or because they were told the results wouldn't count, has yet to be addressed. Exit polls showed that 32 percent of those voting in the Republican primary were Democrats who would be disqualified from voting in the Democratic primary under the proposed legislation. "In Florida, when a group of elected Democratic officials, included supporters of both campaigns, could not reach a consensus the plans for a revote were ended. "Rather than an open and transparent process a pressure campaign has been mounted in Michigan. Senator Clinton is making an unplanned visit to Michigan and there are unprecedented efforts by Sen. Levin, D-Mich., Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich., United Auto Workers (UAW) president Ron Gettelfinger and GM executive Debbie Dingell to pressure Michigan Democratic state legislators to change their minds and support the legislation. "The Clinton campaign's legislation has won the support of a majority of Republicans in the State Senate and can pass with a minority of Democrats. In an election that only affects Democrats, this is clearly the wrong way to run a primary and it would be a mistake for party leaders to support it. "We call upon Sen. Levin, Rep. Kilpatrick, UAW President Gettelfinger and GM executive Debbie Dingell to end their lobbying efforts and instead work with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and both campaigns to reach a fair and equitable solution to the delegate impasse. We propose a serious discussion of a fair solution to end the debate and insure the seating of a full Michigan delegation with 50% of the delegation for each of the two major Democratic candidates." ** Note: Media representatives interested in scheduling an interview to discuss Michigan Change to Win's position on holding a revote should contact Noreen Nielsen at Noreen.nielsen@changetowin.org. ** About Change to Win Seven unions and six million workers united in Change to Win to build a new movement of working people equipped to meet the challenges of the global economy and restore the American Dream in the 21st century: a paycheck that can support a family, affordable health care, a secure retirement and dignity on the job. The seven partner unions are: International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Laborers' International Union of North America, Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, United Farm Workers of America, and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
|
|
Discuss
:: (12
Comments)
|
|
Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 13:26:00 PM EDT
|
|
This just in from WWJ in Detroit. It's appearing more and more likely there will not be a re-do of the Democratic presidential primary election. WWJ Lansing Bureau Chief Tim Skubick reports state Senate Democrats came out of a closed door meeting Tuesday morning and said there are not enough votes to approve a re-do.
Legislative approval is necessary for a re-vote to happen.
Speaking live on WWJ, Skubick said it would take a "miracle" to have the re-do approved, but he added it's still possible.
So spaketh the Skoob. Looks like Grebner was right. Why would Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Green Spike Hair Gel) and the rest of his Roadblock Caucus do the Democrats any favors by voting to allow a Democratic Party-only primary in June? Question: Given the obvious roadblocks, did the Michigan Democratic Party leadership really believe a primary, using state assets, was the most feasible option? Update: I just read the short MIRS [subscription required] article referenced in this diary. The Legislature would need to approve a bill by a two-third vote to put in place a June 3 special primary that would replace the results of the Jan. 15 presidential primary, which the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is not recognizing because the early date violated national party rules.
Support for the primary is weak for numerous reasons, the biggest reason being Obama's reluctance to sign off. Republicans, local clerks and state officials, however, also have raised concerns about rushing to create a special primary for logistical and legal reasons.
Even with Obama's sign-off, reaching that two-thirds threshhold is only possible with Republican support.
|
|
Discuss
:: (110
Comments)
|
|
Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 15:33:23 PM EDT
|
|
Ben Smith of The Politico got his hands on a copy of draft legislation that Democratic leaders in Michigan are set to propose to the Legislature.
According to the summary, it would:
Designate June 3, 2008 as the date of a state presidential primary election in Michigan. The election would be conducted in the same manner as a regular election in Michigan, except for procedures specific to presidential primaries such as party ballot selection.
Read the legislation for yourself and see whether Grebner got it right. (Full disclosure: it's 38 pages long - mostly edits.)
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 14:45:21 PM EDT
|
(bleepin' intertubes - promoted by Eric B.)
Here's the price of turning the primary over to the state Legislature ... Mike Bishop on Frank Beckmann's show taking a strong stand against the Democrats seeking public tax dollars to pay for a re-do. On the easy, amiable atmosphere of the Frank Beckmann show, it provides Bishop an easy opportunity to make hay over the fact that the Democratic Party can't settle on one candidate, to say, "We want to help, but you're not going to charge the little guy to pay for your do-over." Most of us understand how darkly amusing this is. The first time around, pushed primarily by the state's Republicans, it cost the state's taxpayers at least $10 million and resulted in three different lawsuits. But, well, that water under the bridge by this point. Although there's the argument making the rounds that Florida and Michigan re-dos are not in her best interests, Michigan and Florida probably represent the only real hope that Clinton has to win the nomination without dragging the thing to the convention floor. Presumably she'll win Pennsylvania, but there's nearly no reasonable calculus under which she can win the nomination outright between now and the convention. Although polls are tight, a big Clinton victory here isn't outside the realm of possibility. No one really had a ground game here in January. On the other hand, enough of the state's leading Democrats backed her that much can be made up for lack of organization. That kind of thing can change a race very quickly by mobilizing folks mighty quickly. It can't be said enough ... organization and strategy trump headlines every time. Everyone figures that she isn't going to do as well in either state as she did the first time around, and that this doesn't really matter. At this point, most of us realize that this first time around is just a chip thrown into the public relations game -- pretending that victories without consequence really have meaning so you can claim that you "won" something. But, she doesn't need to do win by much, and if she comes out only winning by a slim margin, she's done better in real terms than if she keeps pushing the first results as though they are meaningful. In the words of Kasper Gutman, delegates are the genuine coin of the realm ... one of them is worth 10 pounds of talk. Instead, she need only win to show that she's got what it takes to win key swing states by a margin large enough not to push enough delegates to Obama to let him slide into the nomination without winning any of the remaining big contests to perhaps convince enough superdelegates that she's the party's best shot to win in November.
|
|
Discuss
:: (46
Comments)
|
|
Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EDT
|
|
I thought I'd post this article in case any of you missed it. It was posted at Real Clear Politics. It basically makes the case that Obama is better off NOT agreeing to any sort of re-do. March 10, 2008 Michigan, Florida Options ShrinkingBy Reid Wilson
Democrats, faced with two candidates nearly three-quarters of the way to the magic number required to secure their party's presidential nomination, face what can be described as a nightmare scenario. Better positioned for victory in November than any party since 1984, Democrats are close to throwing that advantage away, and options for salvaging a unified party by the late August convention are dwindling. Florida and Michigan, both states who jumped ahead of the party's pre-approved window in which they were allowed to hold nominating contests, are now casting about for a way to have their delegates seated in Denver this summer. That's not the way their gambit was supposed to go. When both states' legislators moved their contests to January 15, in Michigan, and January 29, in Florida, they thought they knew exactly what they were doing: While the DNC might strip them of delegates, the eventual nominee would instruct credentials committee members to allow the two states' slates to sit n the convention floor. But that plan did not factor in the possibility of a contested convention. Now, based on delegate allocation, it looks almost certain that votes to seat the delegations in their current iterations - both overwhelmingly favoring Hillary Clinton - will not exist. Examining the 186 members of the DNC's Credentials Committee, which would decide any contested delegations, the deck is heavily stacked against both states. Of the twenty eight members DNC chair Howard Dean appointed, five have already voted to strip the states' delegates. Committee chairs Alexis Herman and Jim Roosevelt, along with members Ralph Dawson, Tina Flournoy and Janice Griffin, all served on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which decided the punishments for non-compliant states. The remaining twenty three members will likely follow suit and vote to uphold the rules. Based on results so far, it appears that Barack Obama's team will control at least 68 seats on the credentials committee, after an estimate that is, if anything, generous to Clinton. Clinton's wins have netted her 55 seats, while states that have yet to hold contests -- Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennyslvania, South Dakota, West Virginia and Puerto Rico - have yet to allocate their combined 22 seats. With Dean's selections voting to uphold the rules and Obama's delegates voting in their candidate's interest, 96 delegates would vote to keep Michigan and Florida out. While the committee is slated to have 186 members casting 183 votes (delegates from the territories are given a quarter of a vote, though all four voted for Obama, suggesting they will cast their combined one committee vote for him), Florida's and Michigan's combined 14 delegates are still allowed at the convention, but they cannot vote on matters involving their own states. Even assuming Florida votes to seat Michigan's delegates and vice versa, the coalition voting against Clinton's delegations from both states will likely add up to more than half of the remaining 180 votes (with Florida delegates voting) and 178 votes (with Michigan delegates included). Obama can't use that majority to seat a friendlier delegate slate, though, as Clinton would benefit from Dean's contingent, again voting to uphold the rules rather than in her favor, and could block new delegate slates. In short, the only ways for Florida and Michigan to find their seats on the convention floor would be for the Clinton and Obama camps to reach a deal and together outvote Dean's credentials committee faction; or for the two states to hold some kind of revote, either a primary or a caucus. A caucus in either state is unlikely to fly. Clinton, who has found herself at a disadvantage in those contests, has already declared she will not accept caucuses. The New York Senator also has an advantage on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, through which any new Florida and Michigan plans would have to be approved. Twelve of the 28 committee members are publicly backing Clinton, while seven have said they support Obama. Clinton would need just three additional votes to block a caucus plan, and several committee members are said to back Clinton but are withholding public endorsements. Too, Clinton and Obama are unlikely to come to an agreement on how to split the delegations fairly. Any agreement that advantages Clinton, she will argue, is only fair, since she won both states. But Obama is still free to walk away from that agreement, and he has no reason to accept a plan that puts him at anything resembling a disadvantage. Clinton would probably veto a plan splitting the delegations evenly, which would only make the magic number climb higher, from 2,025 to slightly north of 2,200, making her overall quest more difficult. That leaves both states contemplating a primary, something that would cost each tens of millions of dollars. The trouble is that neither state has the resources to pay for the primaries, and barring a massive infusion of soft money from wealthy donors, the DNC or the candidates themselves, they won't be able to afford do-over contests. The DNC option is off the table: Dean offered to pay for alternate primaries last year, but was refused. In a phone call last week with Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, Dean told Nelson the party could not afford it now; through January 31, the DNC had just over $3 million in the bank, less than one-tenth what contests in both states would cost. In short, neither Michigan nor Florida will benefit from taking their cases to the credentials committee. Both states will have difficult times financing new primaries, relying on wealthy donors pouring in millions of dollars of soft money, which state parties can accept under campaign finance laws, or on Clinton and Obama donating toward a do-over. Democrats already caught bad luck when John McCain won the Republican nomination, as the rival party chose the candidate who would be strongest in November. Now, faced with the option of holding new contests in Florida and Michigan or nominating a presidential nominee without input from two key swing states, Democrats are seemingly losing the choice they would clearly prefer, the revotes. A party whose fortunes looked so brilliant just months ago could be on the brink of the most public collapse since 1968. After riots in Chicago that year, Democrats rewrote their rules to resemble those they operate under today. The rules are clear, and everyone knows what they are. The trouble is that neither candidate seemed to imagine that the rules would actually have to be enforced. Arcane political party rules are not what voters looking for change want from their candidates. Thanks to two strong, and stubborn, candidates, the Democratic Party is seriously in danger of taking what was once an embarrassment of riches and turning it into a plain old embarrassment.
|
|
Discuss
:: (18
Comments)
|
|
Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EDT
|
Thank You Chris Dodd! It appears the cacophony of voices is moving for a heavily modified version of Mark Grebner's plan for a do over primary through mail-in ballots. Levin, Granholm, and even Bill Nelson of Florida are expected to push this plan to the state Democratic Party pretty soon. However, another voice has joined in with a different view.
In reference to my previous post, http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11614, I spoke about a Professor at Wayne State who had a great idea: send the delegates, but split them 50/50 for Clinton and Obama. This is possible because delegates are in no way compelled to actually vote as they are originally apportioned, meaning that if we send 100 delegates for “Clinton” and 56 for “Obama”, they may get to Denver, and 100 will vote for Obama while only 56 vote for Clinton.
Today, Chris Dodd endorsed this plan at the International Association of Fire Fighters. He brought up all the key points: it is wrong to put this all on taxpayers’ bill again, it still would ‘punish’ us without totally disenfranchising us, and he is opposed to having any election be funded solely through, “a bunch of fat cats”.
I like Grebner’s plan for its simplicity of funding and the inclusion of a few physical polling stations. The talk I’ve heard about special fundraisers for the do-over and whatnot makes me concerned, let alone the fact that we would have to get the state House and Senate to pass a new law to make any do-over a possibility. This plan is simple, cost effective, and would force people to take a closer look at who they send to the convention, rather than take it for granted.
The article on Chris Dodd’s remarks can be found here: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/POLITICS01/803110417/1361/rss41
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM EDT
|
I was looking around the net today, and came across an interesting tidbit. Mark Brewer's rationale for the past month of why we would be seated at the DNC was that they were holding hotel rooms for us. Turns out, the DNC just canceled those reservations the other day.
I can only imagine that these hotel rooms go pretty fast. Even if we get delegates seated, where will they stay? Will there be rooms left in Denver, or will Michigan be done a further disservice and forced to stay outside of the city?
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM EST
|
|
This Michigan Primary situation has gone from bad to worse. It was bad enough that the Legislature, fully aware of the candidates' decisions to boycott our state and the censorship from both the Republican and Democratic parties, decided to spend over $10 million of our dollars on this January 15th mistake, and then withhold the information from the very people who put up the money: the public! Now, just as there was beginning to be hope that Michigan delegates would be re-enfranchised with the close race, this issue of another, 'do-over' caucus/primary/who-knows comes up. Should we do one? Will it count? Who will pay? What form will it take? If we do one, how will it be administered: by the state or by the party?
Governor Granholm's got her plan for a 'firehouse' primary: a semi-open primary that would be done at community gathering places with a relatively low cost that would have to be shouldered by the state parties. Some throw out the idea of a party-run caucus. James Carville has publicly stated that he will raise $15 million (if the Obama campaign agrees to do the same thing) to contribute to the primary and cover campaign costs. Obama's people have been non-committal, and Senator Levin (a Clinton supporter) agrees with Senator Clinton that the vote from January 15th should be honored and that's that.
Everyone and their brother seems to have an opinion one way or another, most of them formed not out of reason, but from a feeling of being slighted. So far there are only two progressive ideas I have heard: one, from Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson, an associate professor of political science at Wayne State University, is to re-enfranchise our delegates and commit them 50/50 for Obama and Clinton. The other is from Mark Grebner, whereby we would do a mail-in primary, with low costs for everyone involved. This would also eliminate many of the barriers that exist with traditional polling places: harassment, wrongful disenfranchisement, and the inability of low-income citizens and seniors to turn out in as great number as their younger and wealthier counterparts.
I have another idea: IT DOESN'T MATTER. A lesson in DNC politics: all delegates are only bound to their stated preference for the first round of balloting. After that, it's anyone's game. Therefore, if Michigan splits 50/50 for the first round of balloting, or if another proportion is found through a new primary, or if the results of Jan. 15th are upheld, it doesn't matter. There are bound to be multiple rounds of balloting, with an intense floor battle that will render any apportionment we can think of moot. Some may complain that this is un-democratic; if so, it is the system's fault rather than Michigan's. We should not unfairly burden our people for another election that will not hold much water. Grebner's plan is solid and provides the best compromise between the unfortunate reality of the DNC system and the preciousness of our tax dollars, while Mrs. Sarbaugh-Thompson's plan would also be sufficient. Personally, I think the original primary should be honored, as the Uncommitted delegates in Michigan's delegation hold a great deal of power, being able to make up their own minds and give the Superdelegates a small challenge.
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM EST
|
|
I've been investigating Debbie Stabenow's most recent vote on FISA in this diary, Stabenow's betrayal vis-a-vis FISA not as bad as thought. In the comments of that diary, the user Poe suggested Kathleen Law as a possible primary opponent for Stabenow.
I'll admit I'm unfamiliar with her,so I'm doing some digging on her.
|
|
There's More...
:: (15
Comments, 192 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
