  Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 7792 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: http://marcambinder.theatlanti c.com/archives/2008/03/dnc_enc ouraging_florida_and_mi.php Who should pay for it? | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 855 Registered: 07-2006 |
I certainly don't want the taxpayers to pay for it. However, I would be furious if the delegates were seated as things are, because I do not feel the results truly reflect how the people of Michigan feel. It's no wonder Hillary wants them seated, she got a free win. The candidates need to get their asses up here and fight for our votes, like they should have in the first place. This primary was a sham, and did nothing to increase awareness of the state's issues. Don't get me wrong, I support the idea of an early primary, and am furious at the DNC for the stance that a bunch of party rules are more important than allowing the people's votes to be heard, particularly from a state with some serious issues. But at this point, I don't see an option that I would consider fair other than a re-vote, done at the Democratic party's expense. | ||
Pythonmaster Member Username: Pythonmaster Post Number: 139 Registered: 12-2006 |
Who were the genius's in the Michigan party that dreamed up this stunt? They should get full credit. | ||
Mrsjdaniels Member Username: Mrsjdaniels Post Number: 529 Registered: 08-2005 |
actually...I don't mind the state paying for it because the candidates will have to market to this state again...that will push money back into the economy so this re-vote could pay for itself or even make us some money... for example, if they come onto campus we will DEF charge them for coming plus they'd have to rent equipment and reimburse us for security and staffing | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 1000 Registered: 10-2003 |
Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for a "do-over" of the Democrat primary. For that matter, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for ANY party-specific primary elections. These party primary elections are not validated by the Constitution, nor are they subject to standardized election laws. The so-called "rules" in party primary elections are completely arbitrary, largely resulting from tradition and an uncoordinated system set up party-by-party, state-by-state, without any real standards. | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 3307 Registered: 10-2003 |
Do over = caucus | ||
Eastsiderules Member Username: Eastsiderules Post Number: 37 Registered: 01-2008 |
Democrats can never seem to decide when elections are final. HAHAHAHAHA It's Bush's fault. Engler's too. | ||
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge Post Number: 590 Registered: 08-2006 |
I'm absolutely infuriated with the DNC and the Michigan Democratic Party for flubbing this whole thing up. Ohio gets all the attention for being a "struggling state," but Michigan, with the highest unemployment in the nation, the poorest big city in the nation, the first to fall into a recession, a withering auto industry, is ignored by the most vibrant candidates of our decade simply because of some blunder. In turn the people of the US don't even know what's going on here and could care less. I say a re-vote is the only fair thing. Not only that, but because the race for delegates is so incredibly tight, and because every state counts, the candidates would be forced to campaign here like crazy and the issues really affecting Michiganders everywhere would be brought to the fore. Forget Pennsylvania, this race could come down to Michigan and Florida. | ||
Newportnic Member Username: Newportnic Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2007 |
Most people don't get the fact that the primaries are for the "Parties" not the public. The public complained that the candidates were selected in "smoky back rooms" so the primary systems evolved. Oh wait a minute... Hillary may be selected the candidate by the Super Delegates in a "smoky back room". | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3724 Registered: 06-2004 |
The DNC is a bunch of morons. They proposed an extreme punishment they can't afford to impose. The RNC was much wiser, cutting the delegate count in half. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6422 Registered: 08-2004 |
Lilpup, I agree. I also agree that it would be better to have a Michigan/Florida re-do of some sorts than have the superdelegates "crown" a winner. | ||
Jenniferl Member Username: Jenniferl Post Number: 425 Registered: 03-2004 |
I think the votes should count as-is. Obama chose to take his name off the ballot. He didn't give a damn about Michigan back in January. Why should the state of Michigan spend all that money-- this is OUR money, mind you-- just to give him a second chance? I say, seat Hillary's delegates according to the primary results and give Obama the 40 percent uncommitteds. | ||
Eastsiderules Member Username: Eastsiderules Post Number: 39 Registered: 01-2008 |
I think we should just keep re-voting until we get Bill Clinton as President again! | ||
Zephyrprocess Member Username: Zephyrprocess Post Number: 594 Registered: 08-2006 |
Yeah, those times really stunk... | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7169 Registered: 02-2004 |
Election is now a game of delegate competition. Let's re-vote. | ||
Stinger4me Member Username: Stinger4me Post Number: 199 Registered: 08-2007 |
Let the Democrats pay for all of the costs involved with an election. Maybe Gov. Granholm can pay for it, that way she could do something positive for the state of Michigan. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3726 Registered: 06-2004 |
What's to keep those who voted Republican on primary day from flooding a caucus or voting again in a primary situation? Does the DNC want to risk the possibility of results being badly skewed by twice represented Republicans? | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 338 Registered: 12-2007 |
You cannot give Obama the 40% uncommitteds because it could be argued he would have only carried 20% of the state...25% at most. Do you forget that Edwards, possibly the best candidate the Dems offered in this election cycle was still campaigning at the time? Edwards was strongly supported by labor and unions, which....surprisingly are also very strong in the state of Michigan. As for those of you complaining about how Michigan looks stupid in all of this. Look at it from the party leaders point of view: Iowa and New Hampshire...to of the least diverse, un-urbanized states in the union continuously go first and have an overwhelmingly unfair advantage in choosing the nominees election after election. The Michigan party bosses, who think our state is very important, in that we have a very diverse, industrialized, urban population that is more telling of the true breakdown of the country. Heaven forbid they think Michigan should move up their primary as they feel Michigan voters have the right to not be an also ran in the primary season. Now, Iowa and New Hampshire pressure the DNC, saying Michigan is taking away their pomp for not being the only fish in the pond, and Howard Dean, who feels the need to be in control punishes Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries. Mark Brewer and the Michigan Dems filed suit after suit against the DNC to fight this...yet we still get the snub. Fast forward to the primary day. Barrak and Edwards take their names off the ballot to appeal to the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Dodd, Biden, Clinton, and Kucinich leave theirs on the ballot, none campaigned within the state. Hillary wins, win becomes a foot note untill now. In Florida, where I currently reside, The candidates all agreed to NOT campaign, or run commercials of any sort...yet...oddly...the Obama camp ran TONS of commercials touting their candidate...and he lost by almost 20 points... Now...Why should these voters not be heard? As stated earlier, Michigan is the hardest hit state in the country and keeps getting snubbed, not only by the current Regime...but clearly by the powers chosen to pick the next Leaders. No do over...the votes should stand, seat the delegates or face loosing 2 of the most populus states in the country to the GOP...whatever... | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 353 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: So reward Hillary's straight up cheating? The DNC made the rules, HILLARY agreed to them. HILLARY did not campaign here, did not lobby for any change in the rules, and signed on to the boycott. She left her name on because as the anointed front runner and heir to the throne, her advisors and she thought Michigan wouldn't matter, the delegates could be symbolically seated, because this would all be sewn up on super Tuesday. WHOOOPS. Now they are trying to claim delegates she desperately needs from a primary with ONLY HER NAME ON THE BALLOT!?! You don't see a problem with that? This all from the party that still throws tantrums about Florida's election problems in 2000. What a sham. Why even vote in any Democratic primary? Hillary now wants super delegates to overrule the votes anyway. Congrats Dems, because of your colossal bungling, backbiting and deferral to party hacks, we can all now look forward to 8 more years of war and republican rule. | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 441 Registered: 05-2006 |
I voted in the Republican Primary for Ron Paul- as the Dem Ballot was Hillary or "Another Candidate"? What the hell kind of choice is that? Many Democrats voted in the Republican Primary because of this- So de we get punished, and not get to vote because we had a lousy choice on the ballot? If this is the case- expect a backlash! | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 339 Registered: 12-2007 |
Yeah Higgs...HER NAME WAS NOT THE ONLY NAME ON THE BALLOT! Stop with that crap...seriously... | ||
Jaydetroit Member Username: Jaydetroit Post Number: 6 Registered: 02-2008 |
No re-vote...and no reason too....Hillary was on the ballot to begin with, and the rest shunned the state because their party advised them too... I dont mind Obama, but it's his own fault for not being on the ticket when he could have...I say Hillary deserves the free votes...she treated Michigan like it counted when the others did not. | ||
Nainrouge Member Username: Nainrouge Post Number: 950 Registered: 05-2006 |
I agree with D_mcc 100%, but I think that a redo would give the state the attention that it deserves. I think that now is the time to squeeze Howard Dean for concessions (earlier primary in 2012 or new primary system altogether) and make the DNC cough up at least part of the money. He doesn't realize that he NEEDS Michigan to cooperate and that he is the one that looks like the fool if he can't work this out. He is the one who should have worked out a compromise to start with but he decided to be the hard ass and now he is paying for it. The MDP is not the only one to blame for this mess and it seems strange to me that people here are supporting the national party over our own state. "Playing by the rules" is not working for Michigan. Time to make some noise! | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 442 Registered: 05-2006 |
Jaydetroit writes: "No re-vote...and no reason too...Hillary was on the ballot to begin with, and the rest shunned the state because their party advised them too... I dont mind Obama, but it's his own fault for not being on the ticket when he could have...I say Hillary deserves the free votes...she treated Michigan like it counted when the others did not." -This is utter nonsense! The other candidates were told by the DNC NOT to put their names on the ballot. The followed their parties rules. Hillary could have cared less about Michigan and Florida until she was loosing to Obama in delegate counts. Now all of a sudden, we are important. -Mark my words, if Hillary gets Michigan's delegates, there will be a lot of pissed off people, myself included. Personally, if she winds up taking the nomination, she will go down in flames in the general election, just as the Democrats have a great history of doing- nominating people the party likes, but loosing general elections, just ask: Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. Remember, Clinton would not have won in '92 had Perot pulled Republican votes away. The problem Hillary supporters don't have a clue about is how polarizing she is, an absolute lightning rod, in a time when polarization has a tendency to loose elections for Dems. I know way to many Democrats that do not like her, and will not support her in the general election. That alone tells me she is the wrong candidate. Why bother with someone who will again loose the general election? If you want to see the Republican base re-energized and united, nominate her. They already have their playbook written. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3728 Registered: 06-2004 |
"The other candidates were told by the DNC NOT to put their names on the ballot." No, everybody had filed to be on the ballot. Edwards and Obama later made the conscious, but not required, decision to file to have their names removed. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 3323 Registered: 11-2003 |
If the DNC wants to cough up $10 million dollars to the taxpayers of Michigan, then they can do whatever they want. Until then, we already conducted an election. If they don't like the results, or the fact that certain candidates were too scared to campaign here, that's their problem! | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 342 Registered: 12-2007 |
Cinder...i would rather have a vetted polarizing candidate that has a firm grasp of the issues and a working knowledge of party politics, who has taken every attack against her and still got back up...than an untested JUNIOR senator who served less than a year in the senate before running for president because Oprah told him too. If I was a citizen of Illinois I would be furious that my elected representative in the senate voted "present" instead of voting on any real issues. And if I hear one more thing about how Hillary supported the war, I am going to go off. She represents the people of New York State. Which state was hit hardest on 9/11? New york? So if the people that voted her in wanted to authorize the president to investigate...by the way, if you read the bill...you will clearly see it was not a vote to go to war...then I bet voting for that bill was the right thing to do. As for Barrack...what if it had been Chicago that had been hit? Would he have supported the war then? What if he actually ran against someone, instead of Alan Keyes who was put in by the GOP last minute so it wouldn't be an unopposed ticket? He has not proven himself ONE bit...yet everyone wants to give him the key to the ferrari after getting his learners permit. Let me put it this way...Say you have heart problems...and you need to go in for a very risky and difficult surgery. Do you want the Kid fresh outta med school doing it? Or the doc who has been doing it for a long time? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2736 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Except, of course, so to have our delegates seated at the convention so we actually have a say in who the Democratic nominee is. Other than that, yeah - no reason to do it over. quote: I got phone call the other day from former President of the United States Paul Tsongas. He wanted to know just what "unfair advantage" he got out of Iowa and New Hampshire. Former Presidents Gary Hart, Bill Bradley and Ed Muskee also all had the same question. quote: Yes, and they were joined by 46 other states. What's your point? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2737 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Mark Brewer, Debbie Dingell, Jennifer Granholm and Carl Levin. They were the geniuses who got us into this mess. If they have to mortgage everything they own in order to get us out of it then so be it. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3973 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Okay, so everyone support Michigan (where the political leadership is dumber than a load of wood for NOT LISTENING TO INSTRUCTIONS), and then when the DNC runs out of money, McCain wins in November, and Michigan gets fucked over for 8 more years, pat yourselves on the back, because at least your egos got temporarily stroked. Michigan had a chance to get noticed. The MDP screwed up. Deal with it. | ||
Foxyscholar Member Username: Foxyscholar Post Number: 46 Registered: 12-2007 |
Simple answer: re-vote or don't seat the delegates! Team Obama, BTW! | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 345 Registered: 12-2007 |
Foxy...why do you support Obama? | ||
Foxyscholar Member Username: Foxyscholar Post Number: 47 Registered: 12-2007 |
D, because Obama is a QUALIFIED (Black) man who has AS MUCH experience as Hillary to do the job. Sleeping under the same roof as a president doesn't equate to experience to earn the title. Policy-wise, there's relatively little distinction between the two. | ||
Birdwoman Member Username: Birdwoman Post Number: 25 Registered: 06-2006 |
Clearly, the delegates should not be seated in violation of the rules. Not only are these rules everybody agreed to (DNC, state dems, all candidates...although not the voters, unfortunately), but it would really set a bad precedent for the next primary cycle. All hell might break loose! I also don't think a do-over is the right thing to do, but rather than debate that, why not wait until a few more states get counted? I think most projections are that Clinton will not have enough pledged delegates to catch up to Obama even with the Michigan delegates she might receive if there was a re-vote here (and if it's a caucus, Obama would likely benefit even more). If Michigan's delegate numbers won't make a difference no matter what, why go through the expense and inevitable hair-tearing over fairness if we do another vote? One way or another, it looks up to the superdelegates. From what I've heard, most of those uncommitted say they will not risk the deep, damaging resentment of the voters by going against the people's wishes, and it looks like Obama will be ahead in both pledged delegates and popular vote. Or at least, as I said, we can see how that looks after more states have voted. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2137 Registered: 12-2003 |
Do-Overs are for kids and bad golfers. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 350 Registered: 12-2007 |
Foxy...what legislation has he sponsored, written, passed? What has he done in the one year in the senate? What has he done on the Senate Foreign Relations committee? What is his voting record? No...sleeping under the same roof as the president doesn't equate to experience. Foreign policy experience, 7+ years in the Senate, Numerous bills written and passed, and a voting record one can actually discern can be qualified as experience. | ||
Foxyscholar Member Username: Foxyscholar Post Number: 48 Registered: 12-2007 |
D, amicably said, I'm not gonna get in a tit for tat on the issue of qualification because resumes can be tailored for any job. I think the overarching idea is accomplishments versus time served and keystrokes made. Hillary's "experience" is BOOSTED primarily by her last name and, despite how the winners of history have portrayed the Clinton years, his/her/their record has not favored (Black) America as much as folk would like to romanticize it as so. I'm ready to try fresh, untainted, unbought, unsold in Obama. George W. has proven that mere "people skills" is enough of a pre-requisite to hold the office, or how about snatch the office from the rightful owner, hmmmm? | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2808 Registered: 04-2006 |
I can't believe that some of you are actually advocating giving uncontested delegates to Hillary Clinton. She will not have to pump a dime of her resources into your economy. What is most amusing is that she was in full support of the DNC's decision until she realized that those uncontested delegates from Michigan would help her win the nomination. She didn't give a damn about your votes counting or your economy until she started losing. Rasmussen: Hillary Ahead In Hypothetical New Florida Primary, Tied With Obama In Michigan quote: | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2809 Registered: 04-2006 |
quote: What is this foreign policy experience that you (and she) speak of? What bills has she written and passed? And how does writing and voting for senate bills constitute as experience necessary for the presidency? The presidency is not a legislative role... | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 353 Registered: 12-2007 |
Florida should not be revoted... All the names were on the ballot along with a RECORD turn out... Revote Michigan alone. As for George W., he has also proven what happens when an inexperienced candidate takes office. Also, if i remember properly, Bush spoke of change and uniting the country...Sounds familiar... | ||
Foxyscholar Member Username: Foxyscholar Post Number: 49 Registered: 12-2007 |
Bush also maximized fear/scare mongering, particularly during the '04 campaign. His entire platform was about "securing the country".... He meant that just so, even if meant citizens sacrificing personal freedoms for such "security". | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6426 Registered: 08-2004 |
I have to agree with D_mcc. Florida is a fait accomplis (done deal). They were all on the ballot, and granted they didn't get to campaign there, at least ALL OF THEM didn't get to campaign. As for Michigan... let me ask this question... which is the lesser of 2 evils... 1) re-voting Michigan to get delegates that count. 2) letting the superdelegates decide who the nominee is without Michigan input. I think that #1 is the lesser evil, because if Clinton gets the Superdelegate nod, some of you will squealing like pigs... with displeasure... But if you think (like some do here) that Michigan blew it... then don't come cry that the outcome didn't go the way you wanted it. Then you'll be blaming the Michigan Democratic Party even more than the whining you're doing now. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 354 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: D_MCC --- Hillary Clinton was the only viable Democrat candidate that left her name on the ballot in Michigan. She boycotted the state just like the rest and won by default. 40% voted uncommitted... no doubt many more did not vote. If Hillary accomplishes this nomination theft she is attempting, either by convincing superdelegates to overrule the popular vote or by seating delegates elected in sham primaries; get used to saying "President McCain" because a whole lotta folks are going to stay home. "Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." -William Jefferson Clinton Kerry Campaign speech 2004 (Message edited by higgs1634 on March 07, 2008) | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2738 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: And folks who a) can't follow simple directions and b) don't want to live with the consequences of it. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6436 Registered: 08-2004 |
Sorry Fnemecek, but it looks like there will be some kind of do-over. Even Howard Dean today is talking about it now. Other states (PA & NJ) are talking about chipping in for a MI/FL do-over, possibly as a mail in type vote. It appears that without MI/FL delegates, the convention could have been deadlocked with neither Clinton nor Obama getting enough delegates to reach the magic 2,025. No matter how much some people seem to want to see Michigan and Florida punished, we may end up being the king makers after all... | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 149 Registered: 08-2006 |
Republicans and Independents who voted for a Republican last time around might get to vote for either Hillary or Obama in this round. Maybe they will be the king (or queen) makers. What a circus! | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 360 Registered: 12-2007 |
Thats why I disagree with open primaries and caucus'. I find if slightly humorous that Hillary wins head to head when its just the Democrat vote..and Obama usually wins because of the republican "crossover". I always wonder...just how many of those people are voting because they WANT to vote FOR obama...or because they want to vote against Hillary. I'm pro-dem either way...I just think when this whole Rezko thing comes out...the dems are gonna be screwed when Obama is named in the indictment...which he might be from what I have read. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 3674 Registered: 11-2005 |
Deal supposedly being hammered out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 80313/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scra mble | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6473 Registered: 08-2004 |
Am I the only one that noticed that even though we don't all agree on this topic, that we've kept it rather civil? I guess some of the more "outspoken" folks never venture here from non-Detroit issues!  | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 1005 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Why do Michigan voters have to "follow the rules" or "live with the consequences"? Fuck the so-called "rules". When did we all get together and agree on the unassailable supremacy of Iowa and New Hampshire to vote first in the primaries? There is no standardized system or logical reasons for the national primary election dates. The election dates have been determined over many years on a state-by-state basis, and the style of elections vary widely from state to state. Some states have elections, some states have caucuses, some states have a combination. The formula used to assign delegate votes also varies from state to state. The so-called "rules" for party primary elections are completely arbitrary, and subject to modification at any time, for any reason. There is no valid reason for Michigan and Florida to NOT change their primary elections to a more suitable date or format, if they choose to do so. | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 369 Registered: 10-2005 |
quote: I agree that Iowa and NH leading the season is stupid. The problem with the MDP and their revolt is that THEY...Debbie Dingell, Granholm..etc were all on the rules committee and VOTED FOR THE CURRENT SET UP when the rules were written. Where was the "No" vote at the beginning? Debbs in a couple of recent interviews has liken herself and the MDP to MLK jr and the participants in the Boston Tea Party... they are just using civil disobedience to right an injustice. incredibly she seems to forget that those participating in the civil disobedience are not the ones that caused the injustice in the first place. | ||
Peter Member Username: Peter Post Number: 135 Registered: 02-2007 |
If there is a new vote in Michigan and/or Florida, Obama can kiss any hope of victory goodbye after his preacher's nutty anti-American sermons were posted all over the media. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7187 Registered: 02-2004 |
Political elections in America is now a media circus just to boost ratings, getting politicians to show their pagant bodies and playing race cards. I wonder what show those politicians are going to do next? YAY CLAP CLAP! | ||
Alfie1a Member Username: Alfie1a Post Number: 38 Registered: 10-2007 |
Peter "If there is a new vote in Michigan and/or Florida, Obama can kiss any hope of victory goodbye after his preacher's nutty anti-American sermons were posted all over the media." agreed. With this happening to obama's candidacy, my bet is the dems will allow a revote, because without it, an unelectable obama will be the nominee. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 6496 Registered: 08-2004 |
OK... I just heard this today... that Nevada moved their caucuses ahead of New Hampshire, which then caused New Hampshire to move their primary ahead by a few weeks to be ahead of Nevada. Was this sanctioned by the DNC? | ||
Alsodave Member Username: Alsodave Post Number: 956 Registered: 10-2003 |
We can rephrase that to read: After the new vote in Michigan and/or Florida, McCain can kiss any hope of victory goodbye after his preacher's nutty anti-Catholic remarks were posted all over the media." |
