|
31 Mar 08 - 09:59 PM (#2302792) Subject: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Is it going to happen? Should it happen? Should they have moved up their primaries at all? What about the people who voted in the Republican primary, perhaps strategically, because they thought the Michigan primary wouldn't count? |
|
31 Mar 08 - 10:02 PM (#2302793) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Peace Yes and no. I can't be any clearer than that. |
|
31 Mar 08 - 10:03 PM (#2302794) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Peace Not until after Lent. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 09:46 AM (#2303182) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: wysiwyg How would you redo Mick?!? ;~) ~S~ |
|
01 Apr 08 - 10:45 AM (#2303240) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick I have tried to start a post in this thread 3 times but it always gets too wordy, imagine that!! Maybe the fourth time is the charm. Jack, I want you to know that these thoughts are the same ones I had months ago, so it isn't 20/20 hindsight, although they probably have been influenced a bit by all that has transpired. I spoke with an old friend a few days ago who is on the ground floor of all that has transpired here in Michigan, as I have been away from the State since 2004 and have just returned home. He detailed the long history the Michigan Party has with regard to the "undue influence that these two small States (Iowa and New Hampshire) have on the nomination". He detailed the meetings, the appeals, and conversations with the DNC. This didn't just come about in the last year. He detailed the floor fight on the issue in 2004 where the national party promised to deal with the issue after the election. After the election they dismissed Michigan's concerns with a wave of the hand. He detailed the possible solutions that the Michigan party has put forth, such as regional primaries and caucuses, and a schedule that allows for more input from the States in the early going. All for naught, the Michigan Democratic Party and its leadership felt they had no choice but to act. They are not totally unified on this path of action, but the main players are, such as the Governor and the Congressional Delegation. Which brings me to your questions. First off, had I been in the State during these times, I would have counseled against this course of action. My reasons would have been that what has happened was a consequence that couldn't be risked. When one seeks to violate the rules, that is legitimate, but one must be prepared to pay the cost. In this case the cost was predictable, as their was no other option available within the rules. The DNC had to suspend the delegates, and leave it to the credentials committee. I would have counseled that the outcome would be certain, and that puts far too much at risk. Even given the fact that the leadership felt they had the clout to force the delegates to be seated at the committee level, they nonetheless missed two other potentials that happened. The first is that you have a very tight race, mitigated by one candidate being the ultimate insider with the party poobahs, and the other being the charismatic candidate that has the ability to win and bring young folks into the party. That is a completely untenable position. Secondly, you have one of the candidates left that took his name off the ballot at the encouragement of the party. Clinton's position is that Obama didn't have to do that, he simply didn't have to campaign in the State. That is a slimy position in my opinion. The National Party was using its influence with the candidates to send Michigan a message. You can't penalize Obama for simply supporting the National stance. So here we are. We can't just let the results stand, as Obama never got the chance to be a part of the mix, and probably is in pretty good shape to challenge that on rules basis. Clinton doesn't want a redo, no matter what she says. But that is pretty much a moot point because we are out of time to do this cleanly. Despite conversations on the Mudcat to the contrary, you just can't get a bunch of halls and put up ballot boxes. This is a State of over 10 million people. Holding a primary that has results that are verifiable and making sure all the minutiae of ballot construction, balloting verifiable as clean, etc., is a monumental job that would fall on all the County Clerks, Township Clerks, and registrars. It requires much time and money to insure a clean outcome. There are various proposals out there that are a combination of the different potentials. Bottom line for me, and I have said so to the folks that I am in contact with is that it was an ill conceived, and not well thought out strategy. I completely understand the motivations,now that I have heard them, and I completely understand the exasperation with the DNC. One thing that I suspect will come out of this, is a real discussion of revamping the system of selecting a candidate. But it should not have been done this way. I see no way that Obama will agree to anything that would resemble just letting it stand. He followed the rules, the State Party did not. I see no way the DNC can risk alienating the voters of Michigan and Florida any further, so they will find a way, using some sort of apportionment scheme, to satisfy the parties. I don't see the Clinton camp being the peacemakers here, in fact they will oppose any attempt to make an equitable distribution of the delegates. But I believe the weight of the moment is going to weigh heavily on them. As it becomes more and more apparent that Obama is in the catbird seat, and more and more apparent that Hillary is approaching the seminal moment where she knows its over, the situation will resolve itself, with some heavy handed prodding from national leaders, and more public pronouncements such as Leahy gave the other day, and the Richardson endorsement. Funny, I heard Ann Curry's question to Obama from yesterday where she asked if he wasn't leapfrogging out of turn in this. Why did I know someone would ask such a stupid ass question? Still too damn wordy!!!
|
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:37 AM (#2303296) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Amos (Thread drift) Mick, I missed the Ann Curry shtick -- what did he reply? A |
|
01 Apr 08 - 12:00 PM (#2303334) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: katlaughing Thanks, Mick. Good to read your take on it. Now I understand it better. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 12:46 PM (#2303401) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Jack the Sailor Thanks Mick, I've heard everything you've said in other places, but then I've heard a lot of other things too. Thanks for cutting through the chaff. I also heard an excellent argument from Obama, that all his wins have been through campaigning. Hillary had the name going in. Unless there is a full campaign with a fair amount of time, it is not fair to him. I heard Tucker Carlson, of all people, make a suggestion that gives me some hope. That if well before the convention it gets to the end all results are in, and the super delegates have had their say. Obama will almost certainly have a lead larger than the difference in delegates from Florida and Michigan, If that is the case, he might just concede the delegates to her. If that were the case the remaining super delegates would have to be insane not to support him. Also what do you, and the regular voters of Michigan think of Hillary's claims that Barack Obama is disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan? Is that getting any traction or is it making her look dishonest? |
|
01 Apr 08 - 12:57 PM (#2303414) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick Only among the strident voices for her. Among most folks it is just electioneering. I would say she has a lead in the State, but not as big as she thinks it is. Mick |
|
01 Apr 08 - 04:12 PM (#2303656) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Cool Beans Michigan voters (I am one) do feel disenfranchised but nobody blames Clinton or Obama. We blame the Democratic party, which always manages to shoot itself in the foot. Ticked off as we are, few will jump ship and vote for McCain. It will be easier for the party to get women voters back in the fold if Obama is the nominee than it will be to get black voters back in the fold if Clinton is the nominee. This is true nationally, not just in Michigan. P.S. Welcome back, Mick! Few escape from New Jersey. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 04:32 PM (#2303683) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Q (Frank Staplin) The primaries concerned were scheduled and paid for by the State. They have the constitutional right to regulate associations and clubs and do so. What legal authority has the Democratic National Committee? (Or Republican, for that matter). No one has explained this to my satisfaction. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 05:16 PM (#2303728) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Jack the Sailor The Democratic Party uses the primaries to decide who will sit and vote in their convention, which is a private, closed affair. I won't go so far as to say what they did was fair or wise. But I will defend their rights to set the rules for their own convention. Cool Beans, I am glad that nobody in Michigan blames Obama. I am still a little irritated with Clinton for asking them to. But I am glad that clearer heads prevailed. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM (#2303902) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Susan A-R Thanks Mick, I'd been wondering what your thoughts on this were. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 09:45 PM (#2304076) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick Q, that is because you are a Canadian and you folks operate under different rules. The State does not have the right to regulate how the Parties run their conventions or select their candidates. Theirs is the role of simply conducting the Primary and insuring its validity and securing the results. What the Party does with that result is up to the Party. This is why a do over is very impractical. The State won't do it unless the Party guarantees that all costs will be covered. The State has satisfied its obligation. That is why the $12 million figure wasn't accepted. The State is not sure it can be done for that amount, and the donors wouldn't guarantee any overrun. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 10:17 PM (#2304110) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: maire-aine First things first, welcome back Mick. We're glad to have you back. Now, about the MI-DEMS--- I can't say that I'm very well-connected (I'm only a precinct delegate) but I've heard some discussion about the background. Mick summed it up very well. I've only a couple things to add-- 1) many in the grass-roots (I don't care for that phrase, but you know what I mean) of the party organization, were extremely outspoken against a primary in the first place. We wanted a caucus like we had 4 years ago, run by the party not the State, and separate from the Republicans. The GOP wanted the primary more than we did, and had more to benefit. A state GOP convention might have leaned further to the right than their leaders wanted. 2) the Gov. is a strong Clinton supporter, and she & her people supported the primary. Note that Clinton left her name on the ballot (in violation of DNC regulations) but Obama removed his name. I'm angry (sorta) at both of them for not opposing the DNC in the first place. 3) everybody was told "don't worry, they'll never really keep us out", and "the credentials committee at the convention will overrule the DNC". Hah! I suppose if it leads to a real reform in the way the candidates are picked (which stinks now) it will ultimately be a good thing. But personally, I'd rather see the delegates left out, than to give their votes to Clinton. She can't claim to have won the primary if half of the candidates weren't on the ballot. I'll get off my soapbox now. So, Mick, PM me and let me know where you're at. Maryanne |
|
01 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM (#2304127) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick Well said, Maryanne, I just wish you wouldn't try to couch it such delicate terms. Speak out, woman, let 'em know what you think......***lol***. I will PM you tomorrow. Mick |
|
01 Apr 08 - 10:39 PM (#2304129) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie Mick said:[[Secondly, you have one of the candidates left that took his name off the ballot at the encouragement of the party. Clinton's position is that Obama didn't have to do that, he simply didn't have to campaign in the State. That is a slimy position in my opinion. The National Party was using its influence with the candidates to send Michigan a message. You can't penalize Obama for simply supporting the National stance. So here we are. We can't just let the results stand, as Obama never got the chance to be a part of the mix, and probably is in pretty good shape to challenge that on rules basis. ]] Yes, and not only that, but Michigan voters had NO WAY TO VOTE FOR OBAMA (or Edwards or Biden, Dodd, etc.) if they TRIED. News reports said that ballots with write-in names would be discarded. You could vote for Kucinich or for "Uncommitted," but that would hardly mean that vote would be counted for Obama, even after everyone but he and Clinton left the race. Also [[One thing that I suspect will come out of this, is a real discussion of revamping the system of selecting a candidate. But it should not have been done this way. I see no way that Obama will agree to anything that would resemble just letting it stand. He followed the rules, the State Party did not. I see no way the DNC can risk alienating the voters of Michigan and Florida any further, so they will find a way, using some sort of apportionment scheme, to satisfy the parties. ]] Word to that. It would be totally unfair to let the "election results" stand, under the circumstances, and I think less of Hillary Clinton for being willing to let them, much less for actually calling for that. (Doesn't mean I won't vote for her if she's the nominee. Too much at stake to let McCain win. But some of her positions and actions have really lessened my admiration for her.) Now, as for redoing Mick, hmmm ... That might make for a good folk song. ; ) |
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:10 PM (#2304147) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Jack the Sailor Its too bad the choices were not as follows. Clinton Kucinich Uncommitted Not Clinton That would have sent a message ;-) Having come here from Canada, I continue to be amazed by partisans being allowed to frame the choices for the electorate and for partisans to decide the outcome of elections. Granholm rigging for Clinton, The Republican Florida Legislature interfering with the Democratic primaries. Katherine Harris, Democratic election committees in Florida. Elections not only have to be fair. They have to be seen to be fair and they should never, never have to be decided by judges and lawyers on legal grounds. There are a lot of smart, moral, democratic minded people in this country. A fair, non-biased system can be created. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:25 PM (#2304161) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie One possible solution would be to assign all "Uncommitted's" votes to Obama. That would still leave Clinton with 55% - clearly an unfair advantage for her, under the circumstances - but it wouldn't make a huge dent in Obama's lead in pledged delegates. If Kucinich would ask the delegate(s) he won to switch to Obama, that would help too. Better yet, follow the Republicans' lead in how they handled Florida, too. Let only HALF the Michigan Democratic delegates be 'seated' for the first ballot, with Clinton getting 55% of those and Obama getting 45%. That's probably more than fair to Clinton, tolerable for Obama, and about as fair as you can be to the eligible Democratic voters in Michigan. |
|
01 Apr 08 - 11:39 PM (#2304171) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Jack the Sailor There is really no way to do it fairly. Its pretty screwed up. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 02:12 AM (#2304211) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie True, but if none of Michigan's delegates are given a voice, the Dems risk losing the state to McCain in November, don't they? If too many pissed-off Democrats stay home? |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM (#2304571) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor The DNC is between a rock and a hard place. Its impossible to fairly revote. Consider the states which played by the rules. Why shouldn't they get a do-over? Granholm is trying to blackmail the DNC with her own people's voting rights. Can they give in to that? They need to stick to their own rules. They need to be fair to the candidates they need to be fair to the voters. There is no good way out. All the choices left are bad ones. Hillary and now Ed Rendell are rubbing salt in the wounds and trying to lay all of the blame at Obama's feet. Apparently, the people who made the decision are not brave enough to counter this fiction. Its a mess. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 12:30 PM (#2304579) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick To be fair, the DNC did not give its own actions enough consideration either. The penalty was pretty harsh. And you should not lay all the blame at the feet of Granholm. Levin, Stabenow, and Debbie Dingle were and are right in the thick of this. And it is a mess. I see no good way out. Mick |
|
02 Apr 08 - 01:16 PM (#2304617) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: maire-aine As far as the Dems losing MI and it going for McCain, I doubt it. As distasteful as it might be, I'd vote for Hillary when it comes right down to it. I think most folks (both Hillary & Barack supporters) will have vented enough between the convention and election day, and they'll support the nominee. Besides, we have some great local races that we need to win. Gary Peters is out to un-seat Joe Knollenberg in the 9th District (mine), and we really need to win that seat. And we (Dems) stand a chance of getting a majority on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners for the first time. Oakland County! Imagine! Maryanne |
|
02 Apr 08 - 01:37 PM (#2304646) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Jack the Sailor I certainly don't lay all the blame for the problem at their feet. But I do see Clinton supporters hurting the party for her short term gain. They keep bringing it up, time and time again. They blame it on Obama. Bottom line, Hillary did as more or more to create the mess and she is coming across as a dishonest opportunist by using the harshest of terms to blame Obama now, after publicly saying that the election would not count. And please do not think that I am saying this because I support Obama. I support Obama, I am giving his campaign my time, money and resources because of this action and others like it by Hillary's campaign. After this, I simply do not find her to be worthy of my trust. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 03:18 PM (#2304738) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Amos Justice would not be served by having the votes as they were cast, counted directly in MI and FL, because in one state Obama never campaigned and in the other he not only did not campaign but he had his name taken off the ballot in compliance with the party's wishes. The DNC has thus put itself in a position of running an injust, non-democratic primary. But this is not a federal or state issue, it is a DNC issue. The voters may be pissed off, but unless I am mistaken, their voting franchise does not obligate the various parties to include or exclude them one way or the other in its process of selecting a candidate. Helping select a candidate is not the same as voting in an election between selected candidates, clearly. Regardless, I would be irate at the DNC if I were a FLoridian who got lured off base by this twist. I suppose they could conduct wide, massive polls in both states and do a percentage split on that basis. Cheaper than a caucus. A A |
|
02 Apr 08 - 03:41 PM (#2304774) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie I don't think a lot of loyal Democrats will vote for McCain or even stay home, but many less-involved Dems and moderate-to-left-leaning Independents may. If our media would really put the facts out there in front of the public, I think the Republicans would lose the Senate, Congress, and governorships in a landslide this year. But with the complicity of our infotainment-"news" media, John McCain can maintain his image as a likeable "war hero" and fool many in the public into thinking he'll do something more sensible than follow in Dubya's footsteps. His image won't be scary enough to mobilize a lot of folks to vote against him. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 03:41 PM (#2304775) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Charley Noble Most states, I believe, have a regular statewide primary the 2nd week in June. Is that true in Michigan? If so, it would seem a simple matter to add a Democratic Presidential Primary ballot to the mix. Obviously this would be too simple a solution to have been ignored for so long. Maybe the primaries in Michigan are in the fall. Charley Noble |
|
02 Apr 08 - 03:51 PM (#2304782) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie That would be a great solution if it were true, Charley. Somehow I doubt that's an option in Michigan or Florida, or it would have been suggested by now. I like Amos's suggestion - in fact, I've been thinking that for weeks now. "... conduct wide, massive polls in both states and do a percentage split on that basis. Cheaper than a caucus." Yes, choosing their candidate really is the prerogative of the Democratic Party, so they can use whatever methods they want. (Convention delegates - especially the superdelegates - are PERMITTED to vote for whomever they want, even if they're "committed" to one candidate.) Using expert scientific polling techniques, they could discern "the will of the [Democratic Party] voters" every bit as accurately as most official elections (especially the ones we have today) do -- probably more so. Just make sure Obama's and Clinton's people are in on and agree to the polling methodology and can observe it to make sure it's fair. |
|
02 Apr 08 - 04:29 PM (#2304827) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick The problem with that scenario is that it negates the effect that the campaign in the State has. If I were Obama, I would turn it down without looking back. A poll would have to be among the people who would vote in a campaign, what we term "likely voters". If one tried to poll them, then others would get up in arms. Also, Obama is noted for bringing out new voters. How do we determine who they are? Further, he always has momentum, at least so far, based on his exposure during the runup. He is behind in Michigan at the moment, and due to a poll having no date certain where one would make a decision, he loses the urgency of a campaign in the State. He would want time for rallies, appearances, and roundtables. As I have said from the beginning... what the hell were you all thinking?????????? (addressed to my friends in the upper ranks of the party) What a tangled web we weave........... All the best, Mick |
|
02 Apr 08 - 05:26 PM (#2304888) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor Mick is right on the money. Any place Hillary can get a vote without a campaign is gold for her. Obama is beating her by campaigning. As he should. |
|
03 Apr 08 - 02:38 AM (#2305198) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie Mick, I don't think the problems you mention are insurmountable. A specific date for the poll could be determined well in advance. That would give candidates time to campaign. The respondents could be limited to registered Democrats. The 2 camps could negotiate whether to poll a) only voters who voted in the earlier primary b) all registered Democrats, or c) registered Democrats who say they "almost always vote" or d) some other designated population. Not perfect, by any means. But I think it's better than other options mentioned so far. It is, indeed, a mess. But the worst, most blatantly unfair, option of all would be to assign Hillary all the delegates she 'won' by being one of only 2 names on the ballot, with write-in votes tossed out. |
|
03 Apr 08 - 05:12 AM (#2305271) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: maire-aine Michigan doesn't require voters to pick a party affiliation. In fact the ill-fated primary was open. You just walk up and ask for whichever party's ballot you wanted at the time. You just can't vote in both parties at the same election. M |
|
03 Apr 08 - 08:30 AM (#2305378) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Cool Beans You can't? Uh-oh. |
|
03 Apr 08 - 08:38 AM (#2305387) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Charley Noble Well, I looked up the regular primary dates for Congressional and Legislative races in Michigan and Florida: Michigan - Tuesday, August 5 Florida - Tuesday, August 26 Neither works with regard to the date of the Democratic Convention. Oh, well! Maybe next time around these states will move their regular primaries to June, like the great state of Maine. Charley Noble |
|
03 Apr 08 - 09:50 AM (#2305441) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Q (Frank Staplin) The question of the Florida primary is going to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit, brought by Victor DiMaio, claims that excluding Florida's Democratic voters and allowing some states to vote earlier than others violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. On the other hand, the DNC claims that they have the power to exclude any state that does not follow the rules, and that past court rulings upholdthe right of political parties to make and enforce their own rules as protected by the freedom of Association in the First Amendment. The suit was filed mid-March and the appellate court's decision could take more than a month. The losing party is expected to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the question. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 03/17/08. The rights of the national committees may not be without limit. |
|
03 Apr 08 - 10:34 AM (#2305471) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Riginslinger I wonder if they could get a decision in time to make any difference? |
|
03 Apr 08 - 12:49 PM (#2305587) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor Doesn't the Democratic Party have a right to keep a Republican legislature from screwing with its primaries? |
|
03 Apr 08 - 02:13 PM (#2305686) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie I'd think so, Jack. And since the Democratic Party made its rules and Michigan violated them, one would think the Party is well within their rights, legally and ethically, to "re-do" their delegate-distribution process however they see fit. I.e., the fact that the early primary was open to all comers would not dictate that a Democratic Party re-do would also have to be open. It is, after all, the Democratic Party's nominee we're choosing here. As for people who voted before, they were told it wouldn't count. Hillary Clinton even acknowledged that, despite putting her name on the ballot. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 03:54 PM (#2306690) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Please pardon the cut and paste. it is a short one http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080404.htm Michigan Democrats Expected To Rule Out Re-Vote Today CNN's Election Center reported last night, "We no longer have to guess about a revote in Michigan. Tomorrow the state's Democratic Party is going to vote to abandon any attempt to replace the faulty vote in January." The AP adds the Michigan Democratic Party Executive Committee is expected "to hold a meeting by phone to vote on a statement saying any kind of election to replace the results of the January 15th primary no longer is possible, according to Democratic leaders who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions so far have been private." Michigan Democrats "now hope the two campaigns can agree on a way to split Michigan's 128 pledged delegates so they can be seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver, Colo." |
|
04 Apr 08 - 04:18 PM (#2306698) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Riginslinger Obviously the campaigns aren't going to be able to arrive at a solution. The DNC will have to do it. If they gave them all to Hillary, it'd be the start of a brand new ball game. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 04:31 PM (#2306708) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick If they gave them all to Hillary, they would lose the State. Not because Hillary isn't popular, but the voters would feel railroaded. Mick |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:05 PM (#2306739) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor What do you think the Michigan voters would go for? 55 Hillary, 40 Obama?, 55 hillary 40 Obama? straight up 50-50 split? |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:11 PM (#2306742) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Cool Beans THIS JUST IN...from the Detroit Free Press: LANSING – Michigan Democratic Party leaders said Friday they've given up on the possibility of holding a do-over presidential primary or caucus to replace the disputed Jan. 15 election. The last remaining option for conducting a second nominating process – a party- run caucus vote – was deemed impractical, Chairman Mark Brewer said in a statement released after party leaders conferred by telephone. Brewer and National Party Chairman Howard Dean, who released his own statement, said some other mechanism for seating Michigan's delegates to the national convention in Denver would have to be found. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:12 PM (#2306743) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick I don't think I can speculate on that. It doesn't really matter, because it is the campaigns that have to agree on a plan. And the same philosophy holds as I enunciated before. Obama's camp will reject anything, IMO, that doesn't take into account his well known ability to campaign, sway voters, and come from behind. Were I advising him, I would tell him that a 50/50 split should be the baseline from where he would start negotiating. Mick |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:31 PM (#2306756) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Ed Rendell keeps saying that Obama denied the people of Michigan their franchise by denying them a revote. But I wonder did Hillary's people try to do the same by denying them a caucus. Seems like Obama's people would have jumped at a hastily organized caucus. They probably would have won it three to one. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 05:47 PM (#2306765) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Big Mick That is simply Rendell mouthing the Clinton line. I am very disappointed in her tactics. They try to set up a revote that best suits their candidate. Obama tries to make it fair and they pull that crap. Mick |
|
04 Apr 08 - 06:59 PM (#2306833) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie Hillary "won" 55% of the votes in the Michigan primary, with none of the other main Democratic candidates being an option for the voters. If they simply give her 55% of the delegates (70) and give Obama the other 45% (58), that would be MORE than fair to Clinton, but it still wouldn't bring her delegate count even with his. I think if Hillary's (probably) win in PA is by only a few percentag points and Barack wins fairly big in NC, Oregon, and a few other states, he can still be far enough ahead in popular vote, states won, and delegates won that awarding Michigan and Florida's delegates to Clinton in a rather generous way won't keep him from being the nominee. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 07:32 PM (#2306863) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Guest There are plenty of signs though, to indicate Obama may have peaked in Feb, including an article about a new poll showing just that in the NYT. Then, you take into account that Clinton beat Obama in Florida by 17%. Then, if you add a decisive win by Clinton in PA (certainly still feasible), an Obama win in NC, and a roughly equal split in the rest, and then what? The Florida voters already have spoken quite decisively, and were given a clear choice, with all the Dem candidates on the ballot. If you are Clinton, why would you surrender a single FL delegate to Obama? Any attempt to tinker with those voting results would be perceived as exactly that--cherry picking which votes to count, and which votes to discount. VERY bad idea for the party in such a closely contested state as FL. Michigan is just such a cluster fuck, there is no way out, IMO. I think they'll have to end up throwing out the MI results, despite Dean claims to contrary. But no matter what way you look at it, the Dems are going to disenfranchise MILLIONS of voters, not the thousands that the Republicans disenfranchised in 2000 & 2004. And can either Dem candidate beat the Republicans is THAT message hammered home again and again and again in TV ads in the fall campaign? |
|
04 Apr 08 - 07:38 PM (#2306868) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>If you are Clinton, why would you surrender a single FL delegate to Obama?<< I don't think that I have more integrity than the average person. I obviously have more than Hillary Clinton and I evidently have more than you. If I were Clinton I would not insist that Florida be counted, that is if I had agreed that they would not be counted in the first place. You don't get to change the rules after the fact and cherry pick the rules that suit you. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 08:13 PM (#2306920) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Amos Your use of the word disenfranchise is fraudulent, and disingenuous. There was no violation of rules or laws in the Democratic Party's ruling about when to schedule primaries. Nor in their carrying out the consequences regarding delegates from those states. The citizens of those states were not disenfranchised, nor were the votes rigged against them. Place the responsibility where it lies -- in the knowing and intentional breaking of the policy by the scheduling controllers in those two states. For whatever reason. It's bad enough for you to get all bitter and bazzfazz about the issues, but ther eis no need to deliberately falsify the situation using buzzwords and emo push buttons. A |
|
04 Apr 08 - 08:27 PM (#2306942) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Guest Doesn't matter what you think of how I used the word, Amos. What matters is what general election voters will think when they are flooded by Republican attack ads, showing how the Democratic party ignored the votes of millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. So go argue with that, and while you are at it, take a flying leap through a rolling donut hole. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 08:29 PM (#2306948) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor "Disenfranchise" is Hillary's word. It is she who is fraudulent, and disingenuous, it is she who has used such words in a desperate attempt to pull a Samson, Pull down the democratic temple and hope that she can rise from the ashes strong enough to out-campaign campaign. Her strategy is the Republican's only hope in November. That's why she is getting all of those votes in districts that vote 80% Republican. That's why her popular vote count in Red states and swing state since super Tuesday is highly inflated. If she wins in Pennsylvania and loses in North Carolina by a similar margin, and splits Indiana she will be lucky to pick up a net of five delegates. Thank goodness the Pennsylvania primary favors democratic districts rather than those that vote for mischief. I suspect that on May 7th or so there will be a flood of super-delegates to Obama and the nomination will soon be decided. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 08:31 PM (#2306951) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Guest BTW, I loved the Florida primary election. Everyone on the ballot, nobody campaigns, millions still turn up to vote, and do it based upon their reasons, not the MSM & ad blitzkriegs. Can we do all elections that way from now on, no campaigning by politicians allowed? What a breath of fresh air that would be, eh? |
|
04 Apr 08 - 08:37 PM (#2306959) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>>What matters is what general election voters will think when they are flooded by Republican attack ads, showing how the Democratic party ignored the votes of millions of voters in Florida and Michigan.<<< They might show ads showing Clinton saying that. Which if Obama is running would force the party elders to get up and say she was lying, wrong and desperate. If they run those ads in Florida they will simply be reminding the people there that it was the Republican legislature that forced the issue and the Millions of REPUBLICANS in Florida and Michigan lost HALF their vote. You can't be a little bit Disenfranchised. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 08:40 PM (#2306964) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Guest Jack the Sailor, your Obama koolaid is obviously spiked with rat poison. If Obama wins the nomination, why in gods name would he run anti-Clinton ads in the general? Youse is obviously on crack. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 08:49 PM (#2306978) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Romney made a good showing in Florida, but McCain led and got the delegates, 57 rather than 114, so it made no difference since McCain didn't need them to take the Republican nomination. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 09:01 PM (#2306993) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Guest which means the Republica vote was never going to be contested, which has relevance to this conversation how, exactly? |
|
04 Apr 08 - 09:05 PM (#2306998) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>If Obama wins the nomination, why in gods name would he run anti-Clinton ads in the general?<< The "they" you were talking about, the Republicans! For jeebers sake! Pay attention!! |
|
04 Apr 08 - 09:10 PM (#2307009) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor What is the point in talking to you if you aren't paying attention. >>>which means the Republica vote was never going to be contested, which has relevance to this conversation how, exactly?<<< You can't be a little bit disenfranchised! Either their votes count, equal to other people's votes or they do not. The Republican's can't run those ads against Obama, because he, and the rest of the party can and will just dump the mess in Hillary's lap. They also can't run the ads themselves because their "compromise" wasn't democratic either. Its really very simple if you just pay attention. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 09:21 PM (#2307019) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>>From: Q Date: 04 Apr 08 - 08:49 PM Romney made a good showing in Florida, but McCain led and got the delegates, 57 rather than 114, so it made no difference since McCain didn't need them to take the Republican nomination.<<< For one thing, It probably meant an extra couple of weeks of Huckabee. |
|
04 Apr 08 - 11:55 PM (#2307135) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Amos Caucus votes and primary votes are not part of the American franchise. They are poart of the party selection process. Don't get them mixed up again, even for the sake of spicy polemics. A |
|
05 Apr 08 - 04:47 PM (#2307769) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie GG said: [[ I loved the Florida primary election. Everyone on the ballot, nobody campaigns, millions still turn up to vote, and do it based upon their reasons, not the MSM & ad blitzkriegs. Can we do all elections that way from now on, no campaigning by politicians allowed? What a breath of fresh air that would be, eh?]] Not really. The outcome would then be based pretty much on: a) previously established name recognition and b) the way the "mainstream media" (including propagandist talk radio) chose to paint (or ignore) the various candidates and frame (even distort) their messages Like it or not, actual campaigning by candidates is their only real chance to get known to the public without the filter of Murdoch, Disney, GE, and the big corporations that control nearly all the mainstream media. |
|
05 Apr 08 - 04:51 PM (#2307772) Subject: RE: BS: Mick, Michigan redo? From: Genie Oh, and what Amos said. The political parties can set whatever rules they want for choosing their nominees. Plus, why is it fair for people who are not members of a party - even outspoken enemies of that party - to have a say equal to that of loyal party members in choosing that party's nominees? But that's the case in open primaries or in states where you can switch party affiliation every month or so. |