  Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6950 Registered: 02-2004 |
Recent source from City of Detroit Dept. of Elections said that most of the Democrats will NOT be on the ballat come January 15th. Candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards and others. However Sen. Hillary R. Clinton will be on the ballot. Warring if you write in a candidate your vote will be spoiled and will not count. Instead either choose the candidates that is on the ballot or vote undecided. This is unfair to some people but a victory for the Republicans and Hillary Clinton supporters. Any thoughts? | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 2310 Registered: 01-2004 |
Jenny and Hillary sitting in a tree.. | ||
Shark Member Username: Shark Post Number: 311 Registered: 12-2003 |
Where have you been for the last 3 months Danny? And this has nothing to do with the Governor. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11262 Registered: 12-2003 |
Nah, she didn't help push for a move in the date to 'make Michigan more viable' in the process! I'm sure I heard her say something to that effect! | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 850 Registered: 07-2006 |
I agree with moving the date up, it's the Dems that took their names off the ballot that pissed me off. Considering that one of them was (and still is) my favorite, I am having a hard time reconciling that with the feeling that they're telling us to @#$& off, and now I'm really not sure how I want to vote at all - not only in the primary, but in the election as well. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 4383 Registered: 02-2007 |
Danny, the Democratic party's decision to punish US by disenfranchisement is the most un-democratic act of this election cycle. Worse, good ole deb dingell came out and said that if we don't want to vote for HC, we should vote "uncommitted." not "there are 4 candidates or uncommitted" grrrrrr | ||
Shark Member Username: Shark Post Number: 312 Registered: 12-2003 |
Everyone is the legislature knew this would happen. Both Dems and Reps told the state they were going against the rules of the parties and they could lose delegates. Well, they went ahead and moved the primary anyway and the expected happened. There is no grand conspiracy here between the Governor and Clinton. We chose to get greedy and go with a "me first" mindset regarding the primary, with predictable results. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 610 Registered: 11-2006 |
I don't know if you realize this but even a victory for Clinton doesn't mean anything we lost our delegates so Michigan gets no votes at the convention. I won't be voting because my front runner is not on the ballot. | ||
Archy Member Username: Archy Post Number: 47 Registered: 07-2004 |
Why the hell do they even put a line for a write-in if it 'spoils' the ballot? Does this also void your vote for the issue about the school board? | ||
Marianewtothed Member Username: Marianewtothed Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2007 |
The Democratic National Committee has ruled to strip Michigan of its 156 national convention delegates as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules. Therefore, I have opted not to vote in the primary altogether. Regardless of whether you vote (democratically) uncommitted, write-in or for a participating candidate, it is my understanding that Michigan will not have any delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Denver (Aug 25-28). Michigan will not have a say-so as to who will be selected as the Democratic Presidential Candidate..... WAY TO GO JENNIFER GRANHOLM!•• | ||
Shark Member Username: Shark Post Number: 313 Registered: 12-2003 |
Blaming this on the Governor is misguided and wrong. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 491 Registered: 12-2006 |
I would have voted for Obama, but since I can't...I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3174 Registered: 11-2003 |
If you want to get ticked off at someone: Get ticked off at him. Him. And, oh yeah, him. Danny, you're smarter than that. | ||
Marianewtothed Member Username: Marianewtothed Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2007 |
Shark-Whom should we blame...the media for not providing more coverage of this catastrophe...the state officials for not providing their constituents with the pros AND cons of taking such a drastic step to try and bring much needed attention to the state of MI. Well it looks as if the plan backfired! | ||
Izzadore Member Username: Izzadore Post Number: 99 Registered: 11-2006 |
The Democratic race looks like it'll be close. The DNC is probably looking back at their decision with a lot of regret. Sad. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 4394 Registered: 02-2007 |
already mad at richardson for wanting our water | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2686 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Governor Granholm was one of the people encouraging us to get into this mess. She did it knowing full well that it violated the very DNC rules that she herself voted for in 2004 and with full knowledge of the consequences. How can we not blame her? quote: It's interesting that none of the three people that you linked to were responsible for Michigan violating the rules. quote: The DNC was forced into a position whereby they could either a) piss off Michigan & Florida or b) they could piss off the 48 other states who were playing by the rules. Somehow I don't think anyone at the DNC is losing any sleep over this. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3176 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Violating the rules"? They took themselves off of the ballot. Now they have a number of people, whom now have to be "educated" by Rep. & Mrs. Conyers on how they should be voted for. No word if this is out of his pocket or Obama's. And sorry, but this party rules nonsense has apparently forgotten that political parties need voters, the voters don't need the party. That's why I'm of the strong opinion that the Michigan Delegates for "both" parties will be seated this summer. | ||
Marianewtothed Member Username: Marianewtothed Post Number: 12 Registered: 05-2007 |
With all due respect, Rep. & Mrs. Conyers are taking a re-active approach. Where were they when Granholm and other officials were masterminding this plot? As always, some politicians feel the urge to come in and "save the day" for those citizens who are clueless & could care less. In return, these same politicians would hope that you remember their "good deed" come election day. I'm not buying it; I'm voting against the incumbents. | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 1820 Registered: 09-2006 |
Well this means that ill likely vote Republican out of spite. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1567 Registered: 02-2005 |
Is the Michigan primary now open, or do you still have to be registered as a member of the party for which you wish to vote? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 4494 Registered: 10-2003 |
In 2012, Michigan will have an early primary in place, be more relevant in the process, and the punishments will be over. If this is a disaster for this election year, it isn't necessarily one moving into the future. Just food for thought. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3177 Registered: 11-2003 |
Anyone can vote in either party. You don't have to be a member, but you do have to declare. FYI, "both" political parties will be given access to the voter information from next Tuesday. It will only be available to the political parties. Michigan Citizens will not have access to that information. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4434 Registered: 10-2003 |
It is ridiculous to try to blame Graholm for this; BOTH parties in MI supported the early primary and rightly so. I totally agree with the action and, as for the loss of delegates, I would far prefer to make a statement, like MI and FL are doing, than letting insignificant states like IO and NH have undue influence election after election. This will force reform of that absurd process and any loss we have this time will be worth the sacrifice in the long run. What good is it have a primary after the candidates are already determined? The convention is just a coronation and your vote meaningless. "As the twig is bent, so the tree is inclined." We are already seeing benefits in spite of the sanctions. We are getting attention of the candidates and their ad revenue, particularly in the Rep. primary where suddenly all the focus is falling on MI following McCain's comeback in NH and Rommey's candidacy on the skids. The McCain - Romney matchup is hugely significant and Michigan will highly influence that selection, probably even determine it in the case of Romney. On the Dem side Clinton, even if she and others don't campaign here, will enjoy the default 'win' she is certain to have to add to her momentum out of NH and help offset what looks like wins for Obama in SC and NV. Should she do poorly, say non-committed votes outnumber hers, it would likewise greatly damage her. Now isn't this far better than going through the motions to make a meaningless selection of delegates for a race that is already determined? I think so. Congrats to the MI parties for finally coming together to do some new thinking that benefits all of us. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 4496 Registered: 10-2003 |
That's what I tried to say. You say it much better.  | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4435 Registered: 10-2003 |
Addendum: As for delegate loss, I think both MI parties should select delegates and send them to the conventions to march outside the halls in protest of the flawed process. IMO primaries should not begin until, say, May with the first round being in swing states [states from the previous election where the vote difference was 52-48 or closer] and representing the four corners of the country and one in the middle. The political season is way, way to long. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 2540 Registered: 01-2005 |
National primary all on the same day. So simple it's scary. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 4436 Registered: 10-2003 |
Ray, you are right as usual, however I favor a preliminary round of, say, six or seven decisive states as it offers the financial possibility for lesser candidates to emerge. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6091 Registered: 08-2004 |
I have to agree with Shark and Lowell... Granholm didn't put a gun to the head of the Michigan Republicans and force them to have their election next week... they did so voluntarily! And she couldn't have gotten the state Democrats to do so, unless they agreed. And if the national Democrats had any brains, they better not lock out the Michigan and Florida delegates... nothing worse than sending home the message of watching Michigan and Florida delegates picketing outside of the convention hall... that won't sit well with the Democratic voters at home. And to those who said that we (Michigan & Florida) took a gamble and lost... I say Bullshit... this scenario is a long way from being played out. It's still a tossup whether the gamble was worth it or not. Won't really know until as early as next week, or as late as the convention... The only losers so far are Obama and Edwards. They aren't getting anything positive out of staying out of Michigan and Florida... except perhaps the ire of those that would have voted for them, had they bothered to campaign here and stayed on the ballot. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2687 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: The took themselves off the ballot because Michigan violated the rules that its delegation voted for. quote: Political parties do need voters. Unfortunately for Michigan, the other 49 states have voters, too. They're not too happy with Michigan breaking the rules that it help to create. The DNC has to chose between pissing off one group of voters or missing a much, much larger group of voters. quote: Anyone care to make a wager on that? quote: The rules for the 2012 primaries will be set at the 2008 conventions. If we break them again, we'll get another round of punishments. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 1756 Registered: 07-2004 |
Ah, the Democratic Party. Weren't they the ones who went ape-shit about Nader, crying, "Don't throw your vote away!" | ||
Bigdada Member Username: Bigdada Post Number: 6 Registered: 09-2007 |
Because my preferred candidates are not on the ballot, I'm torn between requesting the Democratic ballot and either voting for Kucinich or "uncommitted" or taking a Republican ballot and voting for Ron Paul with the hope that a good showing for Paul in Michigan will further screw up the Republican nomination process. Does anyone else have any idea how those whose preferred candidates are not on the ballot can at least make a "statement" with their vote? | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 1824 Registered: 09-2006 |
Yeah Ive been getting a lot of advice to vote "uncommitted" as well but I'm with you in the screw the Republicans by voting for them while at the same time showing the Democrats no love. So it's looking like that whacko Ron Paul might get get my vote after all. | ||
Sbradke Member Username: Sbradke Post Number: 44 Registered: 05-2007 |
I want to respect the electoral process so I won't vote in the republican primary... unless I vote for McCain who I believe is their best candidate. I'm planning to vote uncommitted in the democratic primary | ||
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj Post Number: 236 Registered: 05-2005 |
They will seat our delegates...it's just a bluff to try and discourage states from moving up their primary. I'm disappointed too that the Democrats are not campaigning here, but at least the Republicans are visiting in force this week (much more than would have if we kept the Feb 5th caucus or primary). | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2688 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Care to make a wager on that? quote: Yeah, because having twice as many delegates would be a total turn-off for them. | ||
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj Post Number: 237 Registered: 05-2005 |
I wonder if the National parties will reimburse the cities for holding the primaries if the delegates aren't seated...lawsuits galore...Fieger what are you up to?? The delegates will be seated. | ||
Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 117 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Yeah, because having twice as many delegates would be a total turn-off for them." Don't fool yourself into thinking that nothing has changed with the earlier date. Michigan will now decide the fate of Romney's campaign. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6103 Registered: 08-2004 |
I know that Debbie Dingell had a lot to do with moving up the primary. I don't think the Democratic party wants to get on John Dingell's bad side. He is after all, with nearly 53 years in the House, the Dean of the House of Representatives, and one of the most powerful and formidable forces on Capitol Hill. (Note: after the elections the Dean of the House swears in the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and then the Speaker swears in the House members.) Aren't the delegates to the convention usually the states incumbent local/state/federal politicians, as well as party members? I don't think that the party will want to piss off Granholm, John Conyers, John Dingell, Carl & Sander Levin, Debbie Stabanow, Robert Ficano, etc. Besides, by convention time, the nominee has been selected. I don't think that the party will want to alienate the party politicians in either Michigan or Florida... too many electoral votes in those 2 states! It will not bode well if they are mistreated. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2689 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: When someone goes to jail for robbing a liquor store, does anyone reimburse him for his time in jail? In other news, people on this board keep saying that the DNC will seat Michigan's delegation, but no one will accept my invitation to make a wager on that. It's a damn shame. I could really use some easy money. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2690 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: If he loses here, Romney is done. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the date of our primary. That has to do with the fact that we're his home state. No one has ever lost his home state and gone on to win a nomination. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6105 Registered: 08-2004 |
... although Gore won the nomination... and then lost his home state in 2000 in the national elections...  Frank, one gets the feeling that you want the Michigan delegation to be punished for their obvious transgressions... I think that in the name of unity, by convention time this could be "water under the bridge". (Message edited by Gistok on January 09, 2008) | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 879 Registered: 07-2007 |
Mauser765 - Jenny and Hillary sitting in a tree.. k-i-s-s-i-n-g You can vote uncommitted like the democrats want. That why Michigan Primary votes will count. Bottom line is that the Democrats don't care about democracy, only self serving interests. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2691 Registered: 12-2004 |
It's not that I necessarily want Michigan to be punished as much as I'm painfully aware that this is what is happening. I'm, however, annoyed by the folks who keep trying to rationalize Michigan's decision to support the primary rules in 2004, break them in 2007-08 and then expect the rest of the country to look the other way. We knowingly and deliberately broke the rules that we ourselves voted in favor of in 2004. We are being punished for that act. The sooner we accept the reality of this punishment, the sooner things start to get better for us. As for this being water under the bridge by the convention, I have to ask: which convention? If you mean the ones in 2008 then you're just wrong. It's not going to happen. If Governor Granholm & Co. were smart, they would issue a statement expressing some modicum of regret for breaking the very rules that they voted in favor of in 2004. We might then be able to negotiate a settlement with the DNC whereby Michigan's delegation gets to vote on everything except the nominees. That would at least allow us a say in the rules for the 2012 primary, the platform and the various resolutions. The reality of the situation is that such a deal is the best Michigan can realistically hope for in 2008. Unfortunately, Michigan's "leadership" isn't smart enough to engage is such a negotiation. And because of that, we're locked out of the 2008 race and will likely have an even smaller role in 2012 than we had in 2004. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3179 Registered: 11-2003 |
Don't get too confident, Fnemecek, some of us have to work for a living. And just so Lowell doesn't get busted for condoning gambling on his site, I'll make it a simple wager: A six pack of Faygo says that they'll be seated...and in '08. I'll take Rock 'n Rye. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2692 Registered: 12-2004 |
A 6 pack of Faygo it is. | ||
Greatlakes Member Username: Greatlakes Post Number: 120 Registered: 07-2007 |
quote: Of course it has to do with the date of our primary. If Michigan still had a later primary, then his fate would be decided at other states, and those states' issues would be in the spotlight on the news. He's already lost a lot of momentum from his losses in Iowa and NH, and if he kept losing until he got to a later MI primary, he'd probably already have dropped out before even having to worry about winning his "home state." Now, because of our earlier primary, Michigan's issues are being addressed by the GOP candidates in front of the entire country. (Message edited by GreatLakes on January 10, 2008) | ||
Jenniferl Member Username: Jenniferl Post Number: 417 Registered: 03-2004 |
I am an independent and don't normally vote in primaries, but I must say I have more respect for Hillary because she kept her name on the ballot. As for Obama and Edwards, their decision to take their names off the ballot makes it look as if the party matters more to them than the people. So much for being the anti-establishment candidates! | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 49 Registered: 03-2007 |
vote ron paul | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 11295 Registered: 12-2003 |
Heya Frank! You didn't tell him what flavor is YOUR favorite. Great discussion, guys, this is really lighting up my political synapses, I usually let them atrophy...or whatever synapses do when they're not being exercised. They are little use to me, save during election years. | ||
Queensfinest Member Username: Queensfinest Post Number: 143 Registered: 08-2006 |
wow... people in michigan still believe that their state will make a difference in the outcome of national election? this isn't the 1940's... you people need to either move on and get jobs or relocate to a place that matters. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 1395 Registered: 11-2003 |
Overcompensating for an inferiority complex, or just lonely and angry? Perhaps its the nitrous that did it. Doubt you're from NYC as someone couldn't possibly be that pathetic to have a need to waste precious time deriding others from a hometown from afar.... unless we're back to my first guess. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2693 Registered: 12-2004 |
Me? I'm a root beer man, myself. | ||
Jonnyfive Member Username: Jonnyfive Post Number: 97 Registered: 03-2007 |
"wow... people in michigan still believe that their state will make a difference in the outcome of national election? this isn't the 1940's... you people need to either move on and get jobs or relocate to a place that matters." Why are you writing on this board? | ||
Dhugger Member Username: Dhugger Post Number: 384 Registered: 03-2005 |
I vote Democratic most of the time. If I feel that the Democrat candidate is set before the primary is over I will swing to the Republican ticket. My reasoning for doing this is I will vote for the GOP candidate that will pull down the Republican ticket in the main election process. I absolutely fear Huckabee with his bizarre economic policies & religious views "women should be subservient to their husbands." So it looks like I will throw next weeks vote to Romney or McCain in the primary election. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2694 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: They are??? When did that start? Mitt Romney and the others have been talking about tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy. However, the GOP always talks about cutting taxes no matter when the primary is or even if we have a primary election. The economy that we have today is the result of almost 60 years of talk about tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Have you heard any of the candidates talk about better enforcement of international trade agreements? What about currency manipulation by the Chinese and other foreign governments? Issues like these have a tremendous impact on the manufacturing sector. However, they've been generally ignored for years. Bottom line: The only thing that has been accomplished by moving the primary is to make us less relevant and our needs less important on the national stage. Because of that, everyone in Lansing - on both sides of the political aisle - owes Michiganders a tremendous apology. | ||
Atl_runner Member Username: Atl_runner Post Number: 1985 Registered: 10-2003 |
Moving the Primary was one of the most aggressive, exciting things that the State of Michigan has done. The National Media is not boycotting the state and it's importance. I live out of state, and I hear about the upcoming primary daily, and only once have they brought up the delegates situation. The Early primaries are not about getting delegates as much as they are a popularity contest. Do you really think that Iowa's delegates will sway the vote? Probably not, but winning that state was deemed almost as important as winning the presidency. Why? Momentum. Michigan will be a momentum boot for whoever wins it.. on the republican side. On the Dems, it really doesn't matter. They made their opinion known, and that opinion is that Michigan doesn't matter. Again, this was a fantastic move for Michigan. I hope they see it through in 2012, 16, and beyond. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2695 Registered: 12-2004 |
Yes, the national media is talking about Michigan's primary. That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee. Are the candidates talking about what they would do to help protect Michigan's manufacturing jobs? Are they promising to protect the Great Lakes? Are we getting anything beyond a few mentions in the nightly news? The answer to those questions are "No", "No" and "No". This means that we: a) lost all of our Democratic delegates & half of our GOP delegates; b) pissed off a whole bunch of people; and c) burned any chance of hosting a national convention anytime soon. And all we got in return was a few mentions on the national news. Yippee! |
