Michigan Democrats have been dis~enfranchised by the DNC...

How can we expect them to vote for the nominee come the general election? This is just shameful! Something should have been worked out~~~perhaps along the lines of what the repigs did: giving half of the delegates a vote. The way things stand, repigs will probably win Michigan in the general...and all because of some stupid power~play. This is the LAST thing our party needs: To dis~enfranchise the American voter.:grr:

They would be ahead of the curve right now, because Michigan's economy was simply a portent of problems that are suddenly seen as everyone's problems. It ticks me off no end.

They lost the vote on primaries in the national committee, but ignored majority rule and went their own way anyway.

the voters were disenfranchised because their votes won't count. I don't know who they are blaming, their own state leaders or the DNC, but I suspect it's the DNC...There is no reason why Iowa and NH should have supremacy in the primary. Who died and made them king? No matter what, what I fear is the possible loss of the party to the repigs come the general...if Obama, Edwards or Clinton gets the nomination we will need MI to win. That's my biggest concern.

The DNC didn't fight for us, the rank and file Dems. In order to punish the higher-ups and the GOP in the state legislature, they screwed us all and probably threw the election to McCain.

The Michigan state democrats who decides to play chicken with their delegates as wager(their problem tho being they tried playing chicken against a wall)

and the fact that the DNC went above and beyond the usual rule censures means nothing....

plus the fact that Edwards and Obama could have left their names on the ballot means nothing...

did I mention the fact that Edwards and Obama could also have applied to be write in candidates also?

but naturally they don't want to be write in candidates since they seldom "win" and that would look bad...but that is supposed to mean nothing to the voters....

Good thing they left their names on the Florida ballot though....whew, wouldn't want them to write off two states...just the one that Congress and the executive branch have already written off...

That confirms what I've heard. How in the hell are we supposed to get people to vote for someone who didn't fight for us when it counted?!

Remember that thing?

Forget what you know about it from here and just think like an average Michigan voter. No money, job in peril if not lost, house payments going up, prices going up. Now, who first fought to get Michigan's issues in the national media? The Republicans. Who have spent their campaign monies here? Republicans. We have no apparatus up and running in our county, we're losing population, and our economy's tanking--and yet, the only ones talking about it are the Republicans. Who would an independent or moderate vote for?

but i will not place any blame on the DNC for that since they stood by their rules that was agreed upon(that includes an agreement by both Michigan and Florida), the DNC did their best to convince the state party to change their mind but since the state parties from what i've read didn't even seem to try to fight the change of date they lost their delegates

Yes, it sucks that the voters are punished, and i wish the rules did not do so

Do you have any good ideas on how to punish the state democrats that will not hurt voters?

Our state legislature passed it as a law, so the state Dems would've had to pass another law in the middle of a huge budget battle they weren't doing well in and convince the nasty Republicans to vote for it when they weren't hurt as badly as we were. Like that was going to happen.

Why not just strip Michigan of our party leadership delegates and just keep the voted in ones? That makes sense to me.

its delegates if they had tried to fight it, since they have none i'm going to assume they didn't really try to resist.

There were exceptions made for just the situation where republicans tried to change the date(fight it and you might get some or most your delegates), from what news i have read the dem leaders in both Michigan and Florida seemed to be totally behind the change of dates.

Edwards and Obama stood with their party as they should be rather then two states who tried to boss the party around due to their perceived importance

In regards to the Florida ballot, unless i misunderstood their rules you have to drop out to be removed from their ballot

Edwards and Obama saw a state they probably could afford not to campaign in and save some money. That's all their end is all about.

in charge of how the rules of their party is to be done, sure the state parties don't have to listen, but if they don't then they will have to face the punishments for breaking the national parties rules.

Its like if you join a group and are told the rules, you decide you don't like some of them and ignore em, the group punishes you by restricting some of your perks(or in extreme cases kicking you out)

Not exactly what i was looking for but it will do until i find something more concrete: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/sr_primary_role.html

"The power of the national parties over the state and local parties is no more than advisory," Mayer said. "They can't issue binding orders to their state and local affiliates."

One concrete power the national party does have over state parties is the seating of delegates at the national convention, where the party candidate is nominated for the presidential race. If a state party selects its delegates in a way the national party feels is inappropriate, then the national party will simply not recognize that state's delegates -- for example, the DNC refused to acknowledge the Mississippi Democratic Party delegation that had been elected through racially exclusionary rules at the 1964 Democratic National Convention.

There is also legal precedent that favors national parties over state parties when election rules conflict. According to Mayer, several clashes between state and national parties, notably between the DNC and the Wisconsin Democratic Party, as well as the Supreme Court ruling on Cousins v. Wigoda (1975), favored the national party over the state parties. In Cousins v. Wigoda, two sets of delegates claimed they had been elected to represent Illinois at the Democratic National Convention -- one group according to state law, the other group backed by the DNC but not according to state law. Illinois courts found the DNC delegates in violation, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the DNC.


Here is the case i was referring to from 1981: http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/107/case.html

The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and, to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed.

It so ordered.

in the past, that courts have ruled and that courts have ruled both in favor of the DNC and in favor of the states.

I still feel that the DNC has behaved badly as the state of Michigan did not violate any laws declaring when their primary would be held. And that is at the heart of the matter. Does any political party have the right to tell states when they may hold their primaries and do they have the right to discriminate against voters by encouraging candidates to remove their names from a ballot.

But I'm just a voter in Michigan who paid for this primary so what do I know...anyway, most people stayed home today as they could not make hide nor hair out of the whole thing.

the US supreme court

Michigan broke the rules in that the national party had set the order of when the states would hold their primaries and caucuses, in so doing they conflicted with the national party's rules and was given a period of time to change their mind

They had no incentive to pass a law nullifying the primary move-up law after finding out it hurt us more than it hurt them.

Our state's going red. I've never seen people this pissed.

s the wealthier candidates when the primaries start.

I'm on the DNC's side on this one. I wanted the minor candidates to have a fighting chance.

So what happens during the general election? Will you want the Michigan democrats to vote then? And how do you think they will feel about their treatment?

They should have given in and gone by the DNC's schedule. It's about the Democratic Party, not about Michigan.

What's shameful is thinking you are so special that the rules which everyone had agreed to, don't apply to you.That you can jump inline ahead of everyone else. They were warned not to do this. But just like Brittney you go ahead with bad behavior then whine about the consequences. The party suffers the voters suffer and the state suffers because of the stubbornness of a few.

You blame all of us when the Michigan Republicans had the most to do with it on the state level. *sigh*

the DNC and the Michigan Democratic Party should have been RESOLVED PRIOR TO THE PRIMARY. The voters are the one's being punished. That is beyond reprehensible. I've been squaking about this for some time now with some friends and it seems as if very few people have paid attention.

It was a republican who initiated the bill. Please get your facts straight.

I believe the DNC offered to fund a separate primary, and state Dems refused.

But that ship has sailed. After stripping the Michigan delegates on Dec 1st, the DNC offered to help Michigan Democrats setup a post Feb 5th Democratic primary. But they had to decide by Jan 5th.

Michigan Democrats decided to go ahead with the meaningless state run primary instead of a later one run by the party.

I was going to say the DNC did everything they could/should have done. But changed my mind. The DNC could run a Michigan primary on their own. But without the support of the Michigan Dems this would be really tough.

Something to think about though. Maybe you could petition the DNC to help you since your state party failed you so badly?

just so the DNC can have its way. Nah, this was bad politics at the state and the national level but it certainly wasn't all the fault of Granholm or the state dem's. But you'd have to live here to understand it or spend time on the liberal Dem. boards to understand. Most people on this board or in the media see Michigan as a mere petulant child who spoiled the the national election party. Too bad people can't think it through a little more. We're all acting like little Fox news robots these days.

To include the fact that the DNC did, in fact, give Michigan 30 days to comply after stripping them of their delegates.

Maybe you should petition the DNC to establish a primary for Michigan Democratic voters since your state party failed you so miserably?

During that 30 days, our state legislature was in a massive fight over the budget. The primary concerns got put on the back burner, especially considering the GOP controlled House didn't have any incentive to help the Dems (they get half of their delegates).

But then, I'm not in Michigan. So it's easy for me to recommend something difficult.

I love hard work. I could sit around watching people work hard every day.

:)

how can it benefit our party to snub them and to discount their vote?

Our lovely state is dying, not that the MSM or the national party leaders give a crap.

Makes my blood boil. :mad:

Sorry but that is the truth.

There's more to this than your fucking piehole and feigned outrage, hillary echoer.

imo.

And the stupidity of the MI Dem Party is no excuse for punishing the voters.

I'm worried it'll turn the state red. We're not as blue as people think we are.

But your frustration is entirely understandable

Nor did the state reduce or eliminate the delegates. They also didn't cancel the hotel rooms for Michiganders who would or could serve as delegates at the national convention.

Pretty poor politics to shit on the citizens who have no power to have a dog in this fight. Way to hand Michigan over to the republicans.

If they went with Feb 5 it would have been legal.

But, MI's unemployed and blacks would have given Edwards and Obama a lot of votes. So, what to do if you're in the Clinton camp, like our governor, senators, and everybody else who has any say in our state? The best thing to do is have an illegal primary so that Edwards and Obama don't benefit. Somehow persuade Edwards and Obama to take their names off the ballot while HRC leaves her on, which would give her the most delegates should MI be admitted to the convention. Kucinich not expected to be a great draw, so he was okayed to be on the ballot.

Dirty politics.

That's just my theory after today.

FL and MI are not the only ones who think they are importatn.

This was a power play by power brokers in the party.

Party bosses, smoke-filled rooms, the DNC, and the people of the party.

It was meant to keep power where it is now. It was deliberate, and it favored one candidate more than others.

The DNC did its job...it stood up for the other 48 states.

legislator broke which rules: That has nothing to do with the citizens and their right to vote.

it keeps them interested in the disco ball.

The DNC was the one that held the power to give away hotel rooms and approve delegates. They robbed us of our voice today just to punish our party higher-ups who don't listen to us anyway? If Michigan goes red, and I think it will after this from what I'm hearing here, and if Florida goes red, I hope they choke on that damn rule book.

Both sides really blew it. Yes, most of the blame goes to the state party for their arrogance in skirting the rules. But the DNC was reactionary and the penalty was excessive.

A compromise should have been worked out.

Truly idiotic.

The Michigan Republicans are the most selfish, obstinate, self-serving group of assholes ever elected. They are constantly trying to thwart Granholm, not to mention vilifying her for trying to clean up Engler's mess.

And excuse me, I think Michigan's problems need to be accelerated to the level of attention they deserve. I, too, am tired of Iowa calling the shots. It's bizarre and I think that the caucus system is stacked so that people who want to vote for a minor candidate can't have their voices heard.

The Democratic Party of all 50 states got together and established a primary order. All 50 states agreed to that schedule.

Florida and other states attempted to change their primary dates to move more toward the front. Why? Because tons of money are involved in the early states. Mostly money and some sort of nebulous pride/ego.

Michigan also decided to go earlier, breaking the agreement with the DNC--the national Party.

Michigan was penalized for breaking their agreement(contract).

The candidates were asked to boycott campaigning in Michigan. The candidates, with the sole exception of Dennis Kucinich, observed that boycott. Some candidates decided it was politically expedient to take their names off the ballot--not something that the boycott even suggested. One could almost say that it was those candidates who did in the honest hardworking voters in Michigan.

Hillary kept her name on the ballot. Kucinich claims that he botched the paperwork to remove his name, but then that was a sly way to remain on the ballot.

If Michigan voters have a beef, they should look to the Michigan Party for breaking the agreement with the national party. And, just possibly at those candidates who removed their names from the ballot.

Bottom line is probably this: If Michigan is to get any Federal help in the future, Michigan voters would be in a better position if they vote Democratic. You ain't gonna get money from the Repugnants.