If Michigan decides to hold a caucus with delegates at stake, Hillary will get smashed.

[Unsane]

Obama campaigning in a city with Detroit's demographics? How could she win that on a fair playing field? Any redo in Michigan = Obama victory.

[K Gardner]

1. ?? self deleting question !!

[Unsane]

3. No, fair playing field = Obama's name is on the ballot and he actually campaigns there.

[K Gardner]

7. Oh.. sorry.. ! Thanks for clarifying :-)

[Barack_America]

2. I'm inclined to agree.

Particularly because the 40% of Michiganders who voted "uncommitted" would be much more fired up to vote again, this time for their candidate of choice. The Hillary voters, IMO, would be more inclined to stay home.

And that's not even bringing up the issue of campaigning, which would favor Obama even more...

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. why not a Primay then? or is Obama afraid?

[Unsane]

5. Obama will win regardless of format.

[ginnyinWI]

6. primaries are more expensive. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. and infintely more small (d)emocratic

~

[blm]

9. Bring it, kiddo. I'm sure Detroit blacks were ALSO targeted by Poppy Bush's CIA drugrunning

operations that dumped TONS of cheap IranContra cocaine into their communities throughout the 80s.

You know this from the various reports that were deep-sixed throughout the 90s whenever these matters would pop up, don't you?

How do YOU think the folks in these cities should vote?

[pampango]

11. I haven't heard any Obama supporters oppose a new primary in Michigan or Florida.

Hillary supporters bring up many reasons not to have new primaries or caucuses. (Primaries are too expensive, no redo's in politics, caucus format favors Obama, among others.)

Better check with Hillary campaign headquarters before you taunt Obama. I believe their position is "We agreed that no delegates would be awarded in the Michigan and Florida primaries, but we won them both and the people of those states should not be disenfranchised. No new primaries or caucuses. Just tell people we won the primaries and then yell "disenfranchisement"."

[Coexist]

12. ?????

this is not a decision for Obama or Clinton to make - it is between the state party and the DNC.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. that may be true but wouldn't Clinton and Obama have to agree to the format?

[mckeown1128]

10. One little fact that Hillbots ignore....

If you check the cnn exit polling 1/5th of those who voted for Hillary said they would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot.

[LisaM]

16. He didn't have to remove his name the first time

Even though the delegates aren't supposed to be counted, and there was no campaigning allowed, removing his name from the ballot was voluntary. I never really understood why the candidates did so. I thought Edwards should have left his name on, too.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

13. Our Governor wants the Jan. results to stand.

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/15422151.html
Bryanton said a caucus would make the January 15th primary irrelevant.

"In my mind that's a waste of $20 million of taxpayer money," he said. "That is the part I'm incensed about."

Governor Jennifer Granholm doesn't want that to happen.

In a statement the governor's office said:

"More people participated in the primary than in any other time in history and we want to respect those votes. We will work toward a resolution to get our delegation seated at the democratic national convention."

Despite the wrangling over the primary or a potential caucus, Bryanton said it's an important year for the country.

~end.

http://www.demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Granholm has already endorsed Hillary with her Superdelegate vote.

[LiberalFighter]

20. I think the governor is exaggerating to say $20m wasted

If they had a Republican primary also then they would had spent at least $10m

[rodeodance]

14. your crystal ball has a big crack in it. sending you irrational messages.

[Pathwalker]

15. There will be NO caucus in Michigan. It would violate state law.

In order to hold a caucus, State law would have to be changed, and the State Republicans are loudly proclaiming that they will not allow it to happen. State law only allows ONE Presidential primary OR caucus to be held every four years. Nor will they allow a single red cent of State money, nor one voting resource to spent in this effort. But, then, if you don't watch Lansing, Michigan's local tv, you probably haven't seen them swearing to fight this effort "tooth and nail". And they know how to fight, and they fight dirty.
You can hope all you want that this will change, but it won't.

[pampango]

18. Thanks for the Michian insight. Looks like we're stuck with this controversy

until the convention. Sure hope we figure out a way to deal with it that doesn't split the party.

[displacedtexan]

19. And the state party (by law) had to subit its delegates by last summer.

I still don't understand why party members don't understand how elections
work.

I'm beginning to think that most people complaining don't actually belong to
the party; in which case, they have no basis for a complaint.

[LiberalFighter]

21. What? I doubt that.

Party rules determine when and how convention delegates are determine. Not state law. At best state law would require state convention delegate candidates file a month or two before the primary.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Well??? I would challenge the caucus restriction by the state.

If the caucuses are conducted without state funding then screw the state.

[Pathwalker]

23. This state has already been screwed. Repeatedly.

Screw State law? Oh yeah, that would make a great talking point - for the Republicans! Hold a caucus in violation of State law? Yeah, that's real smart. :sarcasm:

[LiberalFighter]

24. I researched trying to find the law applicable prohibiting a caucus couldn't find it

Do you know where it is?

[Pathwalker]

25. No. But even State Democrats have admitted on local TV

that this is true. All I have is their WORD on it, spoken on local TV. Lansing is the State Capitol, and both Democrats and Republicans have said they agree the law would need to be changed. Maybe they're lying... :shrug:

[shaniqua6392]

26. I heard the head of Michigan Dem Party on Bill Press this a.m.

He was saying that the decision of those who took their names off the ballot was their own. The National Dems did not ask them to take their names off the ballot. The Michigan Dems did not want them to take their names off the ballot. They were just told not to campaign in Florida or Michigan. My feeling is that those delegates will be needed to break a close tie in the race at the end and they will allow the delegates that we decided on in our primary. That is what he made it sound like. He said she got about 57% of the vote and Uncommitted got around 40% of the vote and that is the way the delegates could be proportioned. Very confusing stuff. In any case, I do not think the state will hold another primary.

[seybor]

27. Demographics likely to favor Clinton, but caucus to favor Obama

Michigan actually looks more like a Hillary state - poor/underemployed, large union vote, most focused on the harsh realities of an economy in which nearly 10% are unemployed.
That said, I will concede that in a caucus Obama stands a chance of beating her soundly. It's a sad statement, though, because it would likely have a lot to do with the barriers to access to Clinton's base who, per exit polls, tend more often to be:
- skilled hourly workers who tend to have little flexibility at work
- women, who tend to have more issues with childcare
- poor and elderly who tend to have more issues with transportation
Conversely, Obama has tremendous support among college students and college educated professionals. I fall into the latter category, and I definitely enjoy the benefits a flexible salaried position and access to high-quality childcare.

I actually find the notion of a caucus very romantic. Bringing people together for debate is so richly democratic.

Unfortunately, given issues of access (many of which are the same barriers to healthcare, education, healthy groceries) - particularly in a state like Michigan with such a huge number of shift workers - I think in practice it would be undemocratic.

[seybor]

28. Michigan voters, am I out of line in saying our original primary results are fair?

(copied of my post from another discussion - relevant here)

Some suggest that the Michigan primary wasn't fair because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. That was a bed of his own making - not something agreed to as part of the party's consequence for MI's early primary. At any rate, here in Michigan Obama's camp promoted "get out the uncommitted vote" rallies with great success, capturing a large share of the vote in a state that would likely have gone even more heavily for Clinton due to demographics if she, too, had campaigned. Besides, we Midwesterners have national news, radio, and, yes, access to the internet. People had plenty of access to information about all of the candidates. Didn't work out very well for us, but it was OUR primary in OUR state held OUR way - we all have to live with it. Obama also ran regional ads that aired in FL prior to its 1/29 primary. Effectively, his campaign reached both states. They just weren't his type of states. It pains me to admit that it would not be fair for the results to count since MI/FL clearly broke the rules. However, the results of our primary are fair.
We as a state moved our primary up in an act of desperation. We're still desperate and now on shakier economic ground. Redoing the primary (even if as a caucus) will divert funds needed to protect all the vulnerable positions currently enduring recall petitions. We can't afford this - financially or socially.
It's heartbreaking here. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear people discuss it as though it's entertaining - and even more sick to hear people use phrases like, " would SMASH ." The need for unity and change are very personal, life-and-death realities in our communities and will be long after the general election. Let's hear it for compassion.

[workinclasszero]

29. Hillary, the defender of democracy!

Well hey Hillary Clinton is outraged by the disenfranchisement of the poor people of Michigan! I'm sure she would be 100% for a democratic caucus for the people of Florida and Michigan!!:sarcasm:

buhahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[seybor]

30. Unity won't come through sarcasm - not sure where you vote

But this isn't funny to us here. I don't hold it against Obama that he won't recognize our primary and will encourage his delegates to stick to the punishment - strategically, it benefits him, and since the consequences were clear he has nothing to lose credibility-wise with voters outside Michigan. I support Clinton, true. I am, however, deeply disappointed that the other candidate (Obama) I had been excited about has so negative and Bush-style cowboy cavalier about delivering his position - without so much as a conciliatory nod to the fact that a struggling MI acted out of desperation, not jealousy. He didn't have to remove his name. He didn't have to be hostile and mean toward Michigan voters. The consequence itself was dire enough. I was shocked and dismayed that in his message of unity the need to unite our party across all 50 states seems to have been lost.