Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Michigan turnout "busiest ..primary in decades" (Original Post) restorefreedom Mar 2016 OP
At what time will we be seeing results? Cleita Mar 2016 #1
this should,work restorefreedom Mar 2016 #2
Thanks. I will be watching the results. Cleita Mar 2016 #3
yw. oh also, young turks will be covering it all online nt restorefreedom Mar 2016 #5
Turks Turks Turks!!! yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #6
definitely! nt restorefreedom Mar 2016 #14
Thanks for the link. liberal_at_heart Mar 2016 #11
yw! nt restorefreedom Mar 2016 #15
Thanks for the link! senseandsensibility Mar 2016 #21
yw! nt restorefreedom Mar 2016 #30
Interesting that the NYT finally took out the superdelegates from the count Roland99 Mar 2016 #22
hmm, maybe enuf controversy and complaints have made them Karma13612 Mar 2016 #23
Great catch! Ruby the Liberal Mar 2016 #24
That is interesting. CNN was doing it too. CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #26
yes it was good to see. nt restorefreedom Mar 2016 #29
I am nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #4
Interesting. kentuck Mar 2016 #7
Makes sense MSMITH33156 Mar 2016 #8
There was a Michigan Democratic primary in 2008. n/t demmiblue Mar 2016 #13
It didn't count towards the convention delegates alcibiades_mystery Mar 2016 #16
Both Clinton and Obama had delegates from Michigan at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. demmiblue Mar 2016 #31
Not one that counted MSMITH33156 Mar 2016 #20
Clinton pulled some mind games in Michigan, that is for sure CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #28
Actually it was sanctioned (or else it wouldn't have happened) and it did count, to a degree. demmiblue Mar 2016 #32
That must scare the shit out of the establishment in both Parties? kentuck Mar 2016 #9
I dunno about that. longship Mar 2016 #10
In my precinct I was voter 206 on the democratic side. Rybak187 Mar 2016 #12
10% of my precinct had voted by 9:15am, Barack_America Mar 2016 #18
I cast my vote for Sanders at 10am, was voter number 424 putitinD Mar 2016 #27
kick kgnu_fan Mar 2016 #17
Regardless of how it turns out Aerows Mar 2016 #19
I tell my friends (old construction trash) that if you don't vote panader0 Mar 2016 #25

Karma13612

(4,549 posts)
23. hmm, maybe enuf controversy and complaints have made them
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:32 PM
Mar 2016

realize that if they keep reporting like this, readers will tune them out.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
24. Great catch!
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:44 PM
Mar 2016

I wasn't going to bother with their link because of the SD stupidity. I'll watch for the updates there now.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
26. That is interesting. CNN was doing it too.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:58 PM
Mar 2016

Just last week, a CNN commentator was saying that they decided to not include the Superdelegates because it caused so much controversy and there was no need to play that way.

I guess they got different instructions after last week!

Make no mistake--what determines whether or not they include the SDs in their counting--is a direct reflection of their willingness to kow tow to the Clinton camp. CNN commentators made it woefully clear that the Clinton spinmeisters spend inordinate amounts of time talking to the CNN commentators and reminding them of the "realities" that need to be disseminated.

MSMITH33156

(879 posts)
8. Makes sense
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 05:28 PM
Mar 2016

Because there was no primary in 2008. That year was historic, which is why the narrative of turnout being down developed. They keep comparing 2016 to 2008, which is silly. Since there is no 2008 comparison for Michigan, all of a sudden turnout is up.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
16. It didn't count towards the convention delegates
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 07:49 PM
Mar 2016

As you may recall, Michigan and Florida defied the DNC on scheduling, and had their delegates stripped. Clinton won both easily, but got zero delegates out of them. I think the claim here is that 2008 is a bad comparison because people knew the vote wouldn't count.

demmiblue

(36,835 posts)
31. Both Clinton and Obama had delegates from Michigan at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 09:58 PM
Mar 2016

Not the full count, but by half.


CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
28. Clinton pulled some mind games in Michigan, that is for sure
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 09:07 PM
Mar 2016

I remember Michigan very well. All candidate camps signed a pledge saying that they would not compete in Michigan. They all agreed.

Clinton never took her name off the ballot. So, there was a vote and she won.

Clinton went on to argue that the Michigan delegates should be seated (after she won in a state in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot!). She argued that for quite a while.

At least she's consistent. Her snake-like behavior just boggles the mind.

From Wikipedia:

Hillary Clinton says the results [in Michigan] should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot. "That was his choice...There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."...Clinton [says] that the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates should count because both are seen as key battleground states in the general election. But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries.[28]

When pressed by NPR, Clinton said, "We all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary, and most people took their name off the ballot but I didn't."[28] Critics have labeled Clinton's actions as dishonest, and charged her with trying retroactively to change the rules for her own benefit.[29][30][31]

demmiblue

(36,835 posts)
32. Actually it was sanctioned (or else it wouldn't have happened) and it did count, to a degree.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 10:03 PM
Mar 2016

My thoughts about Hillary Clinton are a different matter.

kentuck

(111,074 posts)
9. That must scare the shit out of the establishment in both Parties?
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 05:29 PM
Mar 2016

They can usually predict who is going to vote before the ballots are cast.

longship

(40,416 posts)
10. I dunno about that.
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 05:42 PM
Mar 2016

My experience at the polls this afternoon :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511445581

BTW, WZZM is a Grand Rapids station. And G.R. is the home of the lunatic deVoss family and the Dutch Reformed church (both the same thing). Downtown G.R. all but closes down on Sunday -- it's the sabbath, you know.

It is an absolutely horrible place to measure voter turnout.

Barack_America

(28,876 posts)
18. 10% of my precinct had voted by 9:15am,
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:01 PM
Mar 2016

When I cast my vote for Sanders. Just going by the ballot box counter, not including absentees.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
19. Regardless of how it turns out
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:07 PM
Mar 2016

I'm just thankful to see that people have gotten over the damn voter apathy and are interested in the governance of our country.

Even if someone turns out to be a crappy politician, it teaches those who care to make a different choice the next time.

People actually paying attention to the decisions those who we the people send to DC is a huge positive, in my opinion, as is casting the vote for those that are sent in the first place.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
25. I tell my friends (old construction trash) that if you don't vote
Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:53 PM
Mar 2016

you are not allowed to complain later.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Michigan turnout "busiest...