Question on MI ballot: What happens if the DNC and MI Dem party work out a compromise?

[rinsd]

Say the DNC and MI Dem party come to some form of agreement allowing the MI delegates to be seated.

Won't the candidates who just had their names removed from the primary ballot in a bit of political theater be screwed? Having to rely on write ins?

[Lucinda]

1. Kicking before I leave for a bit...

This whole thing has me scratching my head...

[mitchtv]

2. Compromise being

MI backs down. I don't see the DNC punishing the candidates who obeyed the rules.

[rinsd]

3. I guess a compromise would have to take the candidate into account.

[Romulox]

4. Michigan's legislature, not the DNC, is in charge of setting its primary schedule

"Punishing the candidate" = Michigan casts its votes for the Republican.

[cyclezealot]

5. yet, the entire MI Dem leadership

seem entrenched and supportive of the change. Gov. Granholm signed the new primary into law. . Its now the law, how can the rules now be changed.

[Romulox]

14. The primary date was set by an act of the legislature...isn't it obvious how it can be changed?

What should be clear is that the Mi. Democratic Party has no power to "compromise" by changing the date.

[cyclezealot]

17. the governor and state house are Dem controlled.

The date will not change. The GOP state senate will not allow for a change. it's too much fun. The Repukes are co- existing with the change, why should they.

[Romulox]

21. Thanks for the civics lesson, but I live here! nt

[cyclezealot]

23. I am a Michigan native too.

Since you live there. Debra Dingell, State chair is pretty adamant. You see a compromise. Take it you are not planning on going to Denver.

[Romulox]

24. "Going to Denver"? LOL, I'm just a regular schlub, not a party apparatchik

Frankly, I'm not sure I'll be casting a vote for President in 2008. :shrug:

I'd definitely be open to hearing from any reasonable third parties that wanted to take advantage of the DNC's neglect of my state, however.

[cyclezealot]

29. If it were not for Kucinich

Maybe Edwards? We'd be just ignoring the whole thing. Issue affecting Mich. Obama says today, he will vote for Cafta in Peru.

[Romulox]

31. Perhaps because of the oversize influence of Agricultural states

Both Edwards and Kucinich have been (almost) shockingly silent on industrial and trade policies. One of the reasons John Edwards pulled out of Michigan, for instance, is that he has almost no chance of winning a primary here. Obama and Richards seem the most overtly hostile to labor of all the major candidates.

As an aside, I'm no zealot, but I'm a big fan of cycling as well (that is, riding bicycles.) :toast:

[cyclezealot]

34. Good Romulox. Real cycling fanatics here.

Edwards' chief of staff is former MI Rep. Bonior? He is a pretty reliable force for labor? Bonior once marched in Tijuana for Maquadilorro workers. It would seem Bonior would not align himself with anti labor candidates. Now Hillary with the anti labor lawyer on staff, that is another matter . can Michiganian's be fooled twice. ( PS. you ever ride about Washtenaw county.) Looks like we Michigan Democrats have nothing else to do this coming primary season.

[Romulox]

36. I live in Dearborn. My favorite ride is Hines Park Drive nt

[cyclezealot]

37. Since we have no electioneering to do

maybe meet you somewhere along the Hines trail. U a roadie or a off roader.?

[Romulox]

41. Sounds like fun! I'm mostly a roadie.

Though I plan to buy a nice mountain bike next season and challenging myself with the Potawatomi trail! :thumbsup:

[cyclezealot]

42. Me too.

I'll be riding Hines park come Nov. , when we are back in town. I had thought I'd be helping Kucinich. But, no use now. We travel a lot , but are Michigan residents. Might have to rent a bike in Ann Arbor tho. November can be nice riding weather still.

[yewberry]

7. And the DNC is in charge of the convention.

MI can set its primary tomorrow if it wants. However, by doing so, the state violates rules it agreed to. The DNC regulations had sanctions in place for states who chose to violate their agreements, and MI and FL were perfectly well aware of that before they chose to change their primary dates.

[Cameron27]

9. The DNC is in charge of the convention

until the nominee is announced? And then the nominee makes the rules, right?

[ripple]

10. No, they aren't the officially the nominee

until the delegates cast their votes at the convention.

[yewberry]

11. I don't mean to be obtuse

but can you unpack that a little bit relative to the discussion of the primary calendar?

[Cameron27]

16. Sorry I was being obtuse,

that's what happens when you try to listen to the GOP debate for too long.

FWIW, I was referring to this:

The DNC's rules committee on Aug. 25 will consider the Florida Democratic Party's plan to hold a Jan. 29 primary. What are the prospects the committee will approve that plan and waive any penalties against the state?

"None, " predicted former state Democratic chairwoman Terrie Brady, a DNC member from Jacksonville.

That means that starting on Aug. 26 any candidate campaigning or raising money in Florida will likely lose a shot at winning any of Florida's 208 delegates.

Ultimately, though, state Democrats hope the eventual Democratic nominee, who controls what happens at the convention, will make sure Florida's delegates count. The nominee can't afford to antagonize key activists in a swing state with 27 electoral votes.

"I'm a candidate that's just about to be nominated, and I'm not going to seat Florida at the Democratic National Convention with a full delegation?" Brady said.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/13/State/Florida_primary_will_.shtml

[ripple]

18. Interesting, it sounds like they're speculating that the nominee

will be able to put enough pressure on the DNC that they will back down and allow the Fla delegation to be seated. I'm just not aware of any official leverage the presumptive nominee would have until they are actually voted in.

I'm not sure Florida would be too terribly happy with such a scenario, even if it occurs, as they still wouldn't be able to be involved with actually choosing who the nominee will be, which was their main motivation to begin with.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Romulox]

15. And Michigan can cast its EC votes for the Republican. Go ahead--cut off your nose!

:silly:

[yewberry]

25. So, the loyal Dems of MI will vote republican in the GE?

And you support this? Over a primary schedule?

That's just shameful.

[Romulox]

30. You don't get it-- Michigan does not belong to the Democratic party

And you need to look at the history books: Michigan has had several Republican governors, and has cast its vote for Republicans in the President election many, many times: Reagan (2 x) Bush 41, Nixon.

You are delusional if you think Michigan will automatically go for the Democrat in spite of all of the DNC's abuse. We are NOT "in the bag", and we CAN NOT be safely snubbed.

Finally, what's shameful is the ham-handed way Dean has attempted to punish Michigan voters, who are caught in the middle of this whole thing.

[yewberry]

32. I do get it. I never suggested that MI was a Dem lock.

My point was that the primary is not the GE.

You are suggesting that MI Democratic voters will vote republican in GE because of the primary schedule and that you support that. In reality, that's pretty much the entire argument that FL is employing, and it boils down to blackmail. "They need our votes, so we can force the DNC to go along with our demands. We are more important than the party, the election, and all of the other states." That's disgraceful, and while MI voters aren't responsible for that, they should acknowledge that that's the message that's being sent.

I do think FL should lose its delegates. All of them. MI is another story because the MDP wasn't behind the primary change, but I gotta say that they really made themselves look bad by calling on the DNC to sanction NH when NH hadn't broken any rules.

And how about the rest of the Dem voters in the country? Let me tell you, I don't think it's great to feel as though FL and MI can hold the election hostage just because they want to.

[Romulox]

33. If that's your definition of blackmail, then *democracy* is also blackmail

Michigan is dying. We spent 8 long years at the back of the Clinton bus, and 7 long years under the * bus. The people of NH and Iowa do not give a fuck about manufacturing job losses or urban poverty. They do not represent us, or even give us much thought.

You don't seem to understand the gravity of the situation. Right now, the only people who will stand up for Michigan are the people of Michigan. That means we can't let anybody can take our vote for granted.

Right now, from a Michigan perspective, the difference between a free trade Democrat and a free trade Republican is that the free trade Republican will at least talk to us. It's terrible, and true.

[cyclezealot]

35. The Repukes are living with MI, FL decisons.

Last night the National Republicans in Michigan put on a song and dance about more rigid free trade requirments . I'll bet lots of Michigan Democrats get suckered in by their rhetoric. Republicans are now knocking on Democratic doors. I bet it will make Michigan only slightly favoring the Dem's. They bought it when Pat Buchanan said it. In fact with Michigan's trade problems, if racist Buchanan were to oppose free trade Hillary, I might wonder if raacist Buchanan might be better for Michigan than free traders, Hillary and Bill. Just from a perspective of Michigan's outsourcing woes. I'll bet lots of union members would think so. Michigan had nothing to loose by supposedly breaking the rules, the big dem candidates would still be flying over Michigan as they went to California, Minnesota and Texas on Feb 5. No one gives a damn about rust belt state problems.

[yewberry]

39. So, is that finally what this is about?

If so, then thank you for actually saying so.

Honestly, the months of name-calling and pettiness had me just about convinced that that's really all there was to it.

MI needs help, that much is a given. I just don't think this is the way to do it. And you think I don't understand lack of representation and being taken for granted? Just where do you think I live, NH? MI should have worked with the other states to get themselves heard, but this approach guarantees that other states won't want to work with MI.

It's a shame that the Dems won't talk to the voters of Michigan, that's true. How, realistically, do you see that happening at this point?

[bain_sidhe]

43. Pot, meet Kettle

"They need our votes, so we can force the DNC to go along with our demands. We are more important than the party, the election, and all of the other states."

Isn't that exactly what Iowa and New Hampshire do EVERY presidential primary season? In fact, isn't that what the blog post from Gordon Fischer, the former Iowa Dem chairman in the thread up above, is essentially saying to Clinton?

(I'll repost it here for those who don't want to click through):

Dear Iowa Democratic Leaders:

As former Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, I spent significant time protecting our state’s historic, significant role in choosing the Democratic nominee for President. This year, the Democratic candidates for President each signed a pledge agreeing to protect Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses by not campaigning in states, like Michigan, that are actively seeking to undermine Iowa’s status by moving their state’s contest to compete with the early states.

Yesterday was the deadline for candidates to petition the Michigan Secretary of State to have their names removed from the state’s January 15th primary -- a primary that is not in compliance with Democratic National Committee rules. I’m pleased the candidate I am supporting, Senator Barack Obama -- along with Senators Biden and Edwards and Governor Richardson -- successfully removed their names from the ballot.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign, however, indicated her name would remain on the Michigan ballot, saying it was “unnecessary” to have it removed. Needless to say, this news begs a rather disconcerting question: If Senator Clinton intends to fulfill the spirit and letter of her pledge to the Democrats of Iowa, why would she want her name on the ballot in Michigan ?

As an Iowan who has seen firsthand the importance of the Iowa caucuses to our nation and our party, I’m asking my fellow Iowa Democrats to call on Senator Clinton to fulfill both the spirit and letter of her pledge by pursuing every available legal recourse to have her name removed from the Michigan ballot. I believe Senator Clinton should honor her word to Iowa Democrats.

But it's ok for them to do it, not once, but every damn election, huh?

[yewberry]

44. And you're suggesting that I'm a hypocrite why?

I'm neither a manifestation of NH and IA or a voter in NH or IA.

Just so you know, there are reasons for the small-state strategy, and some of them are valid. Do I think that NH and IA should be first every year? No.

However, for states to pull this shit during an election cycle is completely wrong. It's bad for the candidates (except for the super-wealthy, of course), bad for the party, and bad for every other state that is following the rules. The fact that NH and IA have held their positions so long is not a good enough reason to try to sabotage this election.

I don't live in a state that has a stake in this, but frankly, I'm pissed that FL and MI want to put their desire for what--power? prestige?--over the outcome of this election.

If you can't see the difference between having an early primary and screwing over the party and the candidates, I'm not going to bother to try to explain it to you.

[William769]

6. Then the DNC would be breaking the rules. NT

[mitchtv]

8. No delegates for you

come back next year

[cyclezealot]

38. the national conventions are b.s. anyway.

so the national party ignores the rust belt and selects candidates lackadaisical about manufacturing state interests, we can sleep our way all the way to 2012. Such as Hillary.

[madfloridian]

12. Why are the names off the ballot?

In Florida they are just agreeing not to compaign.

Someone is confused on this issue...or I am.

[rinsd]

13. See here MF. Richardson, Edwards and Obama removed their names from the MI ballot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3593088

[madfloridian]

19. Thanks, but still confusing. I think they stay on the ballot in Florida

so I am trying to figure out the difference.

I am really puzzled on this. I thought the agreement was just not to compaign.

[rinsd]

20. You have the agreement right.

The agreement was to refrain from campaigning or spending money In MI or FL or any other state that moved their primary up not in accordance with DNC rules.

What the 4 Democratic candidates have done is engage in some political theater by having their names removed from the MI ballot.

Perhaps it was too late for them to remove their names from the FL ballot :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

27. They are trying to ingratiate themselevs with Iowa voters...

Hoping it will boost them in a tight race...

Of course they have now alienated Michigan voters...

It's a big risk, but I guess at this point they had to try something...

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. They cannot remove thier names from the ballot

The Chairwoman of the FL Democratic Party submits the names of the candidates. They have no say in the matter.

[Romulox]

22. It's called being a hypocrite.

Kind of like promising not to campaign, but continuing to fund raise! :puke:

[rinsd]

26. MF I found out an answer

In FL one cannot simply remove themselves from the state's primary ballot, they must submit an affadavit stating they are no longer seeking their party's nomination.

[CK_John]

28. That is why Hillary is the front runner, and the other are going to regret this move.