  Jonesy Member Username: Jonesy Post Number: 412 Registered: 07-2005 |
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8T8NQ9G0 VIENNA, Va. (AP) Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules. Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5. Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary. (Message edited by jonesy on December 01, 2007) | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3119 Registered: 11-2003 |
Guess I won't be voting democrat. Anyone else with me? | ||
Jonnyfive Member Username: Jonnyfive Post Number: 79 Registered: 03-2007 |
whats the point? I mean do you think our result will at least make a statement, even if it carries no weight? | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2908 Registered: 06-2006 |
Good...the state had no business moving the primary like that... this is the national party's deal...it's their job to schedule the primaries in such a way that results in a candidate being nominated that accurately reflects the sentiments of their base and that also has the best shot at winning the national election...it also allows the candidate to campaign in the various states leading up to the primary all that falls apart if every state tries to move their primary date up in order to be first...you need a central entity to coordinate and organize all of it | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1290 Registered: 12-2005 |
"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers (1879-1935) | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 303 Registered: 05-2006 |
I am disgusted with the Democratic party's handling of this. It makes no difference anyway, Hillary is already their candidate, so she can go down in flames in the national election like Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. Then they'll point fingers again and ask the same consultants that failed them what went wrong. I have lost all faith in the dems, when they rolled over and played dead and gave bush everything he wanted for Iraq. I am with Mcp001- no vote from me, at the moment I'll go with Ron Paul. | ||
River_rat Member Username: River_rat Post Number: 312 Registered: 02-2006 |
The Democrat Party has demonstrated its disdain for democracy by denying this state (and Florida) the right to decide when it wants to have its election. The reason for this is that anything but lockstep adherence to "the rules" might deliver power to the people rather than the boys in the smoke filled rooms. This may be the time for a third party candidate for Michigan wielding our electoral college votes after the phoney popular vote. Think of the power Michigan could have over the selection of the next president. Ron Paul sounds better every day. | ||
Lifeinmontage Member Username: Lifeinmontage Post Number: 31 Registered: 10-2007 |
How long will it take to create a rolling primary/caucus system? I'm sick and tired of two states whose combined population is less than 1.5% of that of the entire country getting all of their issues addressed because they have a chokehold on primaries. The only reason the state pushed for an earlier primary was to try to get some of our issues addressed. The actions of the National Democratic Party are just like that of the French government in Les Miserables, the Michigan Dems being Jean Valjean, just stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. | ||
Miesfan Member Username: Miesfan Post Number: 78 Registered: 11-2007 |
The Michigan Democrats were warned. Violate the rule and the state loses its delegates. This primary is dirty, dirty business. quote: http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=12020 (Message edited by Miesfan on December 01, 2007) | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2632 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: In other news, Britney Spears really isn't a virgin. Really, now. This was old news months ago. Why bother bringing it up again? | ||
Yeti Member Username: Yeti Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2007 |
I so totally do not understand this issue. Why did we want to move the primary? What was our logical reason? I guess I can understand why the Democrats are pissed, but why did we move it? | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11726 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ok, I can see a black president in my lifetime. A woman president, a little less likely, in my personal opinion. Both would have to overcome leaps and bounds in order for it to happen, as there is no denying there are great numbers in this county whom are ready for neither. So why in the hell would the Democrats put so much into both running in the same election? Like it or not, I'm fairly confident that we're going to see a Republican in the oval office for 4 more years, and likely many terms after if the Democrats continue to pick canidates who don't have a chance. Obama? Have you heard his stance on guns? Did anybody read the article the other day on more women arming themselves these days? It's not just a Michigan thing, more people across the nation have taken advantage of passage of legislature allowing for concealed pistol licenses. As of a few months ago, even Washington D.C. was in the midst of challenging the constitutionality of their ban on guns. Times are a changin', and while Obama will probably remain hush on the matter, the Republicans will definitely bring his opinions to light. We'll see how much power gun owners and the NRA really have when they hear a canidate say they believe that semi-automatic handguns should be banned and only 6-shooters allowed. Can a card carrying Democrat please tell me what their party is thinking? Are they really going to bank on Clinton and Obama? Please tell me their is a third person who will surpass these two during the primaries. | ||
Gps Member Username: Gps Post Number: 11 Registered: 08-2007 |
The primary was moved in order to draw attention to the issues affecting Michigan which have been largely ignored by both parties. It my opinion it was appropriate for MI to move the primary because it is in a one state recession and is in the most need of new ideas and change that could be driven at the national level. This should be taken as a clear sign that the democrats are not going to address the problems that are specific to Michigan. They are not concerned with helping out an individual state, they are probably more concerned with creating new jobs for the foreign automakers down south in swing states than saving the economy of Michigan. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1126 Registered: 10-2003 |
The national Democrat Party has basically told Michigan to screw off. They want us to do what we are told to do like good little disciples. Screw them! Vote Republican. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 1282 Registered: 11-2003 |
If you're a Democrat then you might as well register and vote for the worst Republican. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2915 Registered: 06-2006 |
For those of you complaining that this is somehow undemocratic or interferes with Michigan's constitutional rights, might I remind you that political parties have nothing to do with the constitution or democracy. The primary is the process by which THE POLITICAL PARTY selects the candidate that they wish to run in the national election...as such, it's up the party to set the rules on how best to reach this decision. The party does its research and decides which states should be most the influential by looking at a number of factors such as their demographics their tendency to vote for the winner in the national election. If you left it up to states to decide who should have the most influence, not only would every states will believe that they should be first causing them to keep moving their primaries to the front of the line, but the delicate system by which candidates are selected will lose its effectiveness. So not only is it the right of the parties to set the dates for THEIR OWN primaries, but it's also the most logical way to proceed. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3124 Registered: 11-2003 |
It's a shame then, that these "parties" haven't put their wallets where their mouth is, and paid for these out of their own pocket. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1127 Registered: 10-2003 |
It is also the right of Michigan to tell the national Dem party... who doesn't give a rip about our state, our manufacturers or our employees...to eat %&*$%•••• Unless some level of influence is demanded, we will simply be lead like lemmings to the cliff. Nobody in this state owes those clowns in Washington anything...they are here to serve us. Given the fact that the Dems have just served us the middle finger...it would seem appropriate to give it right back to them. Vote republican | ||
English Member Username: English Post Number: 609 Registered: 10-2003 |
Dumb Michigan. Dumb Democrats. Prediction: Michigan goes Red in 11 months. And I want every dime I sent to Obama and the DCCC back. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2916 Registered: 06-2006 |
Political parties are not an official system by which we select a president. They're just a group of people with a particular brand of values that nominates a candidate who represents those values to run in the general election. They don't even have to hold a primary if they don't want to, since, again, they are not an official part of our election system. If they wanted, they could just have the head of the party decide who their candidate is going to be. But they don't do that. The hold primaries in an effort to gauge which candidate has the potential to be the most successful in the general election, and they do this in a way that allows their candidates to campaign in each state right before the election and in a way that results in a candidate being nominated that has the best chance to win the national election. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2917 Registered: 06-2006 |
"It's a shame then, that these "parties" haven't put their wallets where their mouth is, and paid for these out of their own pocket." Sorry, but it's a sellers market as far as that goes. Michigan is not obligated to pay to hold a primary for the Democratic party any more than they're obligated to hold a primary for the Nazi party. But because the Democratic party has established itself as one of the two major political parties in the country, Michigan has CHOSEN to participate in the Democratic and Republican primaries so that it has some influence over the selection of the two candidates most likely to become president just as other states do. Since the state of Michigan has more to lose than the DNC does by not holding a democratic primary in Michigan, it only makes sense for the state to pay for holding the election. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5837 Registered: 08-2004 |
Well, the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries may not count towards the convention... but the results will still count towards building momentum of particular candidates. Both states have populations that probably exceed the total of the first 4 states combined... and that will mean something... even if the tallies are not counted toward the convention. I'm curious to see the ensuing brawl at the convention over the over who gets the over 300 MI/FL delegate count. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2634 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: NEWS FLASH: The GOP is penalizing Michigan for moving its primary, too. quote: They don't care about Michigan, our manufacturers, or our employees??? When was the last time CAFE standards were changed in this country without Chrysler, Ford & GM agreeing to it? There have been several proposals over the years to mandate changes in how SUVs are made, so they're less likely to roll over and don't do as much damage to passenger calls in a collision. All of the died as a result of concerns from Chrysler, Ford and GM. The list goes on. We haven't gotten everything we want. No state does. However, by breaking the rules, Michigan ends up getting even less than it otherwise would have gotten. MORAL OF THE STORY: If you don't want to be penalized, don't break the rules. | ||
Miesfan Member Username: Miesfan Post Number: 81 Registered: 11-2007 |
quote: The Republicans are expected to take away half of Michigan's delegates for violating their nomination rules by holding an early primary. So if that's your reason to vote Republican have at it but that seems like bad logic to me. Personally I'm sticking with the Obama because the primary process is less important to me than electing a president who will extract the US from Iraq, balance the budget, and find creative solutions to our nation's health care crisis. The issues will require quality leadership in the White House long after anyone remembers the primary schedule. I think Obama is the best candidate to provide that leadership. As someone who spent many a weekend in 2003-4 knocking doors for John Edwards in New Hampshire, I believe two things about the nomination process. NH and Iowa shouldn't go first just because they've always gone first and the political parties should jointly create a national nomination process determined and set in stone well before the prior midterm election. To some extent the February 5 rule is a step towards that national nomination process unfortunately it leaves NH/Iowa in the drivers seat. Still a step in the right direction is better than nothing. I think the primary schedule should be scheduled at random. Like the NBA Draft Lottery. That's my suggestion for whatever it is worth This dust-up is a real threat to democracy. Right now voters in Michigan and many other states don't know when they will get to select (and how they will select) Presidential nominees. Candidates are in a lurch because until that schedule is determined how can they effectively allocate resources or devise national nomination strategy. If I were a campaign manger, I would keep my candidate in Iowa as much as possible because Iowa will go first and I'd build a good organization in New Hampshire because that state will be important. But if Michigan or Florida or whomever move up than the 2/5/08 Super Tuesday will be blown up as states race into January. For what it is worth, I think the candidate who pulled out of Michigan are justified and I don't think they are attempting to slight Michigan voters, Michigan politicians on the other hand that's a different story. The process should be settled well before this late date so candidates know when and where they need to campaign. Voters deserve to known when and where the campaign is going. What is going on right now is an unmitigated disaster. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3125 Registered: 11-2003 |
I wonder why political "parties" are as entrenched in elections as they are? Actions like this should be used to eliminate any advantage that they "parties" have to placing candidates on the ballot. | ||
Atwater Member Username: Atwater Post Number: 117 Registered: 09-2007 |
quote: Yup.. they're basically telling us they don't care if we vote for them or not. Ok, well then.. we won't! | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1128 Registered: 10-2003 |
"MORAL OF THE STORY: If you don't want to be penalized, don't break the rules." Moral of the story when this state goes Republican: Don't tell the voters of MIchigan to bow down to Washington and expect our support in the Election. The Dem party is of the opinion that we are here to service their needs. They exist only because some people have found value in their existence. They no longer provide value to anyone in this State who cares about Michigan issues. Vote Republican...and vote often! | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 1021 Registered: 11-2004 |
So I guess you're OK with the GOP stripping half MI's delegates? | ||
English Member Username: English Post Number: 611 Registered: 10-2003 |
Miesfan, I'd *love* to vote for Obama. But since we have no primary vote whatsoever, only way that will happen is if he is the Democratic nominee. And if Obama is the Democratic nominee, my vote won't matter in this state much anyway. I live in Michigan. He offended the auto industry months ago, and people here have long memories. We *will* go red if he's the Dem's choice. We're going to go red anyway. If Romney is the Republican nominee, he can definitely count on Michigan... I mean, a lot of older black Detroiters have fond memories of his dad. Same with Giuliani (as many, many Michiganders have a fantasy of Rudy doing with Detroit what he did with NYC). I was so excited about the '08 elections at the beginning of the year. I was looking for the best candidate on either side of the aisle to flyer and fundraise for. But now? Whatever. I'll do my civic duty and vote, but I'm so disillusioned by my 2 party system right now. I really hope I see a viable third party that stops playing the race card either way and caters to workers' interests and the environment. Unsure if Green is going to be that party, but change is definitely needed. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 421 Registered: 04-2006 |
Screw the candidates, their platforms, etc., just blindly vote Republican because you're pissed at the DNC...sounds like a great way to end up with a terrible president. |
