Michigan Primary now "all but dead".....

[better tomorrow]

Things have changed.......and changed quickly......

[Johnny__Motown]

1. Florida's is dead, Michigan's pretty much dead, Hillary's chances......

[DrDan]

2. this also will have an impact on the D's chance in the GE

[DemVet]

5. Exactly. Some people will never realize that until it's too late, though.

[Johnny__Motown]

18. I live in Michigan, It will go Dem in the GE. As for Florida it is so fucked up who can tell?

Maybe there will be a backlash against the Repugs who changed the date of the primary in the first place.

[SoCalDem]

30. Dems have only won Florida 3 times since 1968.. we need to plan to win without FL

and if we win it...great.. but never count on FL..

[DemVet]

34. It will be extremely difficult to win without FL.

You know that, right?

[SoCalDem]

36. I am a realist.. Florida will do what Florida will do

:shrug:

[FlyingSquirrel]

42. That depends.

If we recognize in advance that FL's 27 EV's will probably not go our way, and instead focus more on states like Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, as well as the blue-leaning states of NH, NM, and IA without losing any states we took in 2004 - we'll be fine.

If we waste a lot of time and money in FL, or use a strategy where FL is a key component, we will NOT be fine. That doesn't mean abandon FL altogether - just don't get bogged down there to the detriment of other states we have a better chance of winning.

I can hardly wait till we get rid of this horrible electoral college so we don't have to choose which states to campaign in and which states to "write off."

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

[MindMatter]

50. Well, yeah, with that BS DLC approach to elections

They write off 49% of the electoral votes then have the gnashing of teeth with something goes wrong in FL or OH.

By not challenging in the so-called "red states" they let the GOP play nothing but offense.

The unreliability of Florida is exactly WHY we cannot have another DLC candidate.

[tgnyc]

44. dems have only won 3 GE's since 1968 too. see the connection?

[SoCalDem]

51. I never said we should not try to win FL..just cannot "count" on it

especially if/when McCain chooses Crist...He's got nothing to lose by signing on to the campaign.. he loses...he's still governor.. he wins, he's vice president..

who's the 2nd in command in FL? y'all might get a new governor....

hey Jebbie's still there..maybe he'd run again..

can he ever run again ? is it limited to 2 consecutive or 2 lifetime terms?

[vanboggie]

63. Don't be so sure

We have voting machines that are easy to manipulate, former Bush-campaign-cochair Terri Lynn Land as SOS, and one of the judges that was replaced is from West Michigan. That all adds up to we'll get what they give us.

[DrDan]

38. exactly

the D's will never learn - we stumble in to wins

[Johnny__Motown]

12. Seating the delegates with 1/2 vote each is still a viable option

as long as Obama gets all of Michigan's Uncommitted votes it is also a reasonable one.

[Texas Hill Country]

19. that would mean they still have no voice and their votes dont matter.

[DrDan]

31. well I think there are a lot of voters in small states - Wyoming, Delaware, etc - who feel that way

all the time.

But there is something satisfyingly symbolic in knowing you voted - you see the results - you see delegates seated and doing their voting relative to the primary results.

Not sure it will be very satisfying knowing the votes are worth 1/2. Not unlike the 3/5 of a vote in Black's history.

[ieoeja]

45. African-Americans never got 3/5 vote. The slave owners did.

The more slaves a slave owner owned, the more representation they got in Congress and the Electoral College. It would have been better for Blacks had their owners received NO additional representation for owning them as the 3/5th increase gave them that much more incentive to own more slaves.

You do not seriously think those additional congress critters saw those slaves as part of their constituency, do you?

[DrDan]

57. no - just that they represented 3/5 of a person

not unlike representing 50% of a vote . . .

[ieoeja]

60. No, they did not represent 3/5 of a person.

They represented the owners of those persons. So each owner's representation was:

1 + (3/5 multiplied by how many slaves s/he owned)


So a slave owner with 10 slaves received the representation of 7 non-slave owners (not unlike 700% of a vote). The slaves received ZERO representation (not unlike 0% of a vote).

And the slave owner received that representation even if s/he was Black (as a small few were).

[DrDan]

62. ok - I think you understand my point . . .

[JVS]

59. Yeah, the fact that people get this wrong annoys me.

It wasn't as though black people got to go to the polls and cast 3/5ths of a vote, it was that they were counted in the assignment of electoral votes for southern states. The (relatively) liberal side on this issue was arguing that since slaves were not free, they shouldn't count at all for electoral voting allocations.

[Johnny__Motown]

32. No,, not a 50-50 split, Hillary would still win but the impact would be cut in half

[Texas Hill Country]

64. that would make more sense... and sure, do that... they get some proportional representation

[ieoeja]

39. Put it would equal things up with the GOP who stripped MI/FL of half their delegates.n/t

[Texas Hill Country]

20. Florida is gone, Michigan may be not far behind... lots of Reagan Democrats

[DrDan]

26. and I fault neither

they had their votes stripped - why should they sit idly by and put up with it.

[ieoeja]

40. Not this year for Michigan.

"Those auto industry jobs are not coming back." - John McCain, 2008, showing the people of Michigan how much he cares

It may be a harsh truth. But to the Michiganers it sounds like McCain just doesn't care. Michigan is a surer thing this year than in 2004 (when it barely went Democratic).



"Americans wouldn't pick lettuce all day even if you paid them $50 an hour." - John McCain, 2006, calling Americans lazy

Come to think of it, McCain shouldn't win a single state. If the Democrats don't replay *this* soundbite a hundred times a day in October, we deserve to lose on the grounds of extreme stupidity. That declaration should have ended McCain's political career.

[Texas Hill Country]

66. I would pick lettuce at $50/hr!

[Royal Oak Rog]

17. What Happened Johnny?

I was following and I thought is was a go...personally I'm glad it's over, but what happened? I'll send along a Sgt. Sackto double pumper if you fess up.

[Johnny__Motown]

21. It is all over the news, not enough votes in state legislature to change the law and allow a redo

[Royal Oak Rog]

22. Great, glad that nonsense is over...Hillary too!

[PassingFair]

67. Bet we could still do a CAUCUS!

Bet those in the state legislature
are only arguing a re-do PRIMARY...

[Ravy]

61. Even with no do-overs, they have the popular vote count, and I am

pretty sure that will be taken into consideration by some Superdelegates.

[Dawgs]

3. Won't matter... she will still count the votes and delegates.

She'll do it kicking and screaming, but she will do it.

[DUyellow]

4. she can not count the super delegates

[better tomorrow]

6. and after today, any Super who doesn't support Obama

will answer in their next election.....they have not choice after a speech like that....

[monmouth]

7. I think MI was waiting to see what FL did. This is a great tribute to

Howard Dean. If you break the rules you don't get rewarded for it. Very plain and simple...

[JimGinPA]

8. 48 Other States DID Follow The Rules...

To blame Dean or the DNC for the wrong-headedness of the political leaders of MI & FL is not only wrong, but ignores those that followed the rules.

[jackson_dem]

9. To lose the election because of Iowa and New Hampshire is idiotic

The only proper thing now would be to seat both FL and MI but cut their delegations in a half.

[thewiseguy]

11. The most stupid statement ever

What about the other 30+ states that have already voted?

[jackson_dem]

13. The early state rule is all about IA, NH, and to a lesser extent SC wanting to be 1st in the South

It has nothing to do with the other 30+ states.

[thewiseguy]

16. Not really

Obama won Iowa but Hillary won NewHampshire then she won Nevada but lost South Carolina.

And from there on we went. Right now Pennsylvania might get more attention that it would have if it held a primary on super tuesday.

[jackson_dem]

14. You aren't exactly that wise

The early state rule is all about IA, NH, and to a lesser extent SC wanting to be 1st in the South. It has nothing to do with the 30+ other states. It is IA and NH that blackmail everyone into preserving their status. MI and FL didn't commit a crime. They just wanted a say. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives NH and IA preeminent status.

[cui bono]

46. The Constitution has nothing to do with primary rules. Each party makes their own

rules for their respective primaries.

The rules were made, and MI and FL Dem parties chose to break them.

Now I don't know about Michigan, but in Florida the Repubs tied the primary move to some other piece of legislation, so it got passed when perhaps it may not have had it been on its own.

[ajamo]

15. No delegates for either State.

I question the honesty of a new election in Michigan. I live in Michigan and our party leader screwed up very simple. No one should be seated at the convention, and that should teach them something.
I was denied my rights as a Michigan voter by not being allowed to vote the one I wanted. All abide by the National rules, except Hillary and she tried to pull a fast one. My Governor whom I think a lot of should have never have supported either delegate, until the election of the primary is completed. Then you do the supporting.

[MindMatter]

52. How about another compromise that I have not heard anybody mention.

Seat every one of the FL and MI delegates, but don't give them a vote in the first ballot. If either candidate can prevail on the first ballot (with the FL and MI numbers out of the mix), then it is over. If it goes to a second ballot, then the delegations get their say. This allows them to come to the convention with a role. And in fact, it would be a bigger chance of affecting the outcome than they have in 95% of the conventions because few of them are seriously contested. Moreover, there are many other proceedings such as platform selection they could participate in.

This seems like a fair compromise. Their punishment for breaking the roles is one round in the penalty box, but if the nomination is seriously contested, they will be right in the mix.

[JimGinPA]

29. No, The Proper Thing Would Be For HRC To Step Aside & Have Obama Campaign In MI & FL...

To win in Nov.

[better tomorrow]

10. FL was moved because of the Republican Governor.....

not the Democratic Party

[SoCalDem]

28. Dems in Florida always get snookered by the republicans

no surprise here..

[Johnny__Motown]

35. It was my understanding that the Dems did not fight the move

[SoCalDem]

41. They even had "merchandise" made up to boast about their

big primary date change.. buttons that said "Screw Dean" and shirts that boasted about Florida's "size" mattering..

They were loving it..and the attention.. until they realized that the rules WOULD matter

[TahitiNut]

23. It was a FUBAR. It is a FUBAR. Nothing can change that. The bell cannot be unrung.

The voters of Michigan were disenfranchised as a result of state and national party infighting and prolonged autocratic (a latter-day "Congress of Vienna") privilege afforded to states historically aligned with the status quo.

The most economically troubled state is deprived of the campaign spending.
The electorate with the greatest unemployment is not confronted by Democratic candidates seeking the nomination.
The region with the greatest rate of home foreclosures in the nation is thrown under the Democratic bus.

Then insult is added to injuries and "good Democrats" blame the victims ... yet again.

:puke:

[Alter Ego]

24. What? I thought they had something planned for June 3.

What happened to that?

[better tomorrow]

33. Barack gave a speech.......

and they knew it is over now....

[quantass]

25. bye, bye

[SoCalDem]

27. Rules have consequences.. everyone who ever had a Mom & Dad, should understand this

The state screwed up by putting ANY names on the ballot..and of course, by moving the date up..

What needs to happen NOW, is for the DNC to SET dates via a regional system, and be done with it..for the next time.. we have at least 3 years to figure it all out.. (but then we have had almost EIGHT years to correct the 2K fiasco, and .....)

[MonkeyFunk]

49. arbitrary rules

where the penalty is totally out of proportion to the offense are wrong.

NOBODY was harmed by FL and MI changing their dates - Iowa and New Hampshire got what they wanted anything.

Disenfranchising two large states is just profoundly stupid.

[SoCalDem]

54. and the time to fight those battles?

BEFORE they jumped ahead..

[WilyWondr]

55. It will be profoundly stupid..

.. if the people of FL and MI do not hold their state representatives
accountable for the date change they made.

One can only hope.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. They won't

because the state didn't impose the penalty. The Democratic party did.

People don't want Iowa and New Hampshire to have the role they do. They wanted to change it - and very reasonably so. The DNC SHOULD stop kowtowing to those two tiny states.

No, it was the DNC that came up with the draconian penalty. To think they won't take it out on the Dem party is naive.

[jefferson_dem]

37. Hillary's Michigan Co-Chair: Revote Probably Wouldn't Affect The Race Much

That about settles it ---

Hillary's Michigan Co-Chair: Revote Probably Wouldn't Affect The Race Much
By Greg Sargent - March 18, 2008, 2:45PM

One of Hillary's most important supporters in Michigan, former Governor Jim Blanchard, went way off message in a conversation with me moments ago, saying that even if a revote were held in the state, it would likely be so close that it wouldn't make much of a material difference in the delegate count.

"I think if we had a vote in Michigan, it could easily be close," Blanchard told me. "The amount of delegates wouldn't make much difference."

Blanchard's claim is significant, since the Hillary campaign points to a revote in Michigan as one of their key routes towards closing the delegate gap.

Blanchard made the comments in the context of a conversation about the Obama camp's posture towards a revote, suggesting that the Obama campaign's hesitancy over it was surprising, since (in his estimation) it probably wouldn't affect the race's overall outcome that much.

Blanchard also made something of an inflammatory accusation, saying that Obama's two Michigan co-chairs -- state senators Tupac Hunter and Buzz Thomas -- were deliberately slowing the progress of the revote

<SNIP>

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillarys_michigan_cochair_revo.php

[Bullet1987]

43. Without Florida and Michigan...what does Hillary have as an excuse now?

[nxylas]

48. She still has 30+ more Superdelegates than Obama

For now.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. Glad to hear that rules will be followed. No doubt, Hillary is deeply saddened by the news.

[CoffeeCat]

53. They just said the same thing about Florida...

...on CNN.

They even interviewed Floridians who said that they don't want to put their state through a re-vote.

[kennetha]

56. Here's an idea!

I don't know exactly how uncommitted delegates actually get chosen. Maybe let the state parties somehow choose them. Let them go to the Convention as uncommitted. Let them vote their conscience. Let both Clinton and Obama try to persuade them. In effect that would create 300 some additional "superdelegates."

This (a) re-enfranchises the people of Florida; (b) does not give either candidate an automatic leg up; (b) gives Florida and MI a great opportunity to actually influence who gets the nomination; (c) saves the expense of a primary; and (d) would make for a VERY dramatic convention, one that would not resolve into a bitter dispute, since it would probably be seen as fair to all sides.

The repugnants couldn't begin to compete.

Am I missing something? Is there any reason either FL, MI, the DNC or either campaigns would object?

The one kink I see is I don't know who would actually name the uncommitted delegates. I would think the state parties. But then the candidates might not like that. Maybe let Hillary name 1/3. Barack name 1/3 and the State party name the other 1/3. But they would al be uncommitted on the first ballot and could vote whichever way they chose - just like any other delegate.

[vanboggie]

65. It's always been all but dead to me

I already lost my chance to vote for John Edwards. I don't give a frick about the other two. Just wake me up when it's time to fill in the D ovals in the GE.