What should we do about Michigan? (from a Michiganian point of view).

What a shitstorm this primary has become, just for the sake of two little old states...that could possibly turn the general election. Right now it seems like every other post is raging about these two states with opinions ranging from "count the vote! (but not for Obama)" to "Kick 'em the fuck out of the Union! (but make sure they vote for Obama in the fall).

The problem is that the vast majority of the people posting these messages aren't from either state and have no real clue, other than talking points, about what actually happened and how to best resolve it.

I won't speak for Florida, because they have their own idiotic politicians and their own set of circumstances, but I will speak for Michigan as a lifelong resident and someone who knows the politicians who caused this fiasco.

I'm not going to get into too many of the details of what actually caused this problem as I've posted it several times and you can find it in my journal if you want to read it. I am, however, going to talk about the best way to resolve the problem while still maintaining a chance to win the state in November.

First, if you don't think that the citizens of Michigan realize what a clusterfuck our primary was, let me assure you that we do. It was not our decision to do this; we didn't vote for it on a proposition and there was no mass mailing screaming for our chance to jump ahead of our posted date. This was all the work of our state party and their lust to play queenmaker for Hillary Clinton (this is not a dig against Hillary, I'm sure Obama would have done the same thing if he could have gotten the support).

Early on, the majority of the power brokers in MI rallied behind Clinton and began using the Democratic party political machine to drive her polling numbers up. As part of this push, they also decided to break with the DNC to bring the date of the primary forward for two reasons. First, Clinton's desire this entire season has been to break the DNC so that she can replace Howard Dean with a supporter (once again, not a dig. This is how politics work). If Michigan could move their date forward and get away with it, the Clinton faction could argue that Dean was unable to control the party so he should be isolated (and they would have been right). Second, Michigan has a very large African American population in key areas of the state. If Obama were to take off, he could swing those voters and destroy the work of the political machine. Bringing the date forward was a way of killing two birds with one stone.

Obama, Edwards, Biden and Kucinich all knew that Clinton had a lock on the state so they removed their names from the ballot when Iowa and New Hampshire asked them to (Kucinich messed up his paperwork and remained on). Clinton didn't because she wanted the talking point of winning the state if Iowa or New Hampshire fell through. Unfortunately, this left us without a viable primary. Most Democrats either stayed home or crossed over to help Romney win the state to set McCain back (ironic since we did the same in 2000 to hurt bush*). The others either voted for Hillary - 55%, Uncommitted - 40%, or Kucinich/Gravel - 5%.

Now here's where the really dirty part comes in. Most would think that by voting uncommitted the delegates from those votes would be giving to Obama at this point, but that's not the case. Remember the queenmakers I spoke of earlier? They're the ones who get to decide who to appoint as those "uncommitted" delegates and they would be very willing to give them in great numbers to Hillary. So, in Michigan, voting specifically against Hillary would be effectively casting a vote for her. Can you see why so many didn't bother?

So what do we do when the state Dems have screwed things up so insanely? There is no real fair way of handling it because there was never a real vote. However, if the DNC decides to leave Michigan unseated, the repubs will turn the state red come November and now matter how angry all you Obama supporters are with us that would ensure McCain's victory. On the other hand, if our delegates are allowed to be seated without punishment there will be six or more states jumping ahead of their scheduled dates in 2012. In reality, we could end up voting for our nominee in the fall of 2011. It would be the end of an effective Democratic party.

Anyway, what I would suggest is seating ALL of Michigan's delegates but splitting them 69-59 in Hillary's favor. This would maintain the illusion that Michigan's vote counted without allowing it to affect the actual nomination. The state legislature has already voted on and approved this solution. This means Obama would be the Democratic nominee and would have the support of the state of Michigan in the GE.

As a side, I would also like to see the state's super delegates lose their votes or at least see them halved. They're the ones who caused this problem, they should be the ones to suffer.

Hopefully the other 48 states will learn a lesson from this not to try using power tactics to bully the party or swing elections.

Thanks for trying to clear up MI.. because I was still somewhat confused by all of the behind the scenes power brokering.

I would have no problem agreeing to the 59/69 split, if Obama is still the nominee.

From the Detroit News...

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080523/POLITICS01/805230380

Dems' delegate fight intensifies

Clinton aides ratchet up rhetoric on seating Michigan, Florida at Democrats' convention.

Gordon Trowbridge / Detroit News Washington Bureau

DETROIT -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign kept up its tough talk on behalf of Michigan and Florida on Thursday, demanding full recognition of the states' disputed January primaries and to ensure that Michigan's uncommitted delegates don't go to her opponent, Barack Obama.

While campaign aides pressed their case on the disputed delegates, former President Clinton was in Detroit, speaking to a small group of donors and supporters at downtown's Opus One restaurant. The campaign -- deeply in debt, according to its most recent disclosure report -- did not release any details of the attendance or money raised at the event. Tickets were $500 and $1,000, though some attendees were previous donors.

The focus, for those donors and the campaign, continued to be Michigan and Florida, where Clinton is now denied delegates from the rule-breaking primaries she won. Harold Ickes, a top Clinton aide, told reporters that the campaign will seek full seating of delegations from Michigan and Florida at a key rules committee meeting of the national party May 31 in Washington.

Ickes also said the campaign opposes awarding Michigan's 55 uncommitted delegates to Obama. Most proposals to end the dispute would give Obama the uncommitted delegates -- even though he voluntarily took his name off the Jan. 15 ballot.

<more>

We need to get this problem taken care of and ratcheting up the rhetoric won't serve that purpose. All this continued fighting just creates bitterness between the two factions that will be very hard to assuage before the GE, even if Hillary is put on the ticket.

As a fellow Michigander--I trust we will be represented-- But Granholm, Stabenow and those who created this mess and tried to skew it for Hillary deserve to be spanked and punished.

Honestly, the economy is so bad here that the Michigan Democratic Party needs to get its shit together...we need to get moving forward and stop looking back ASAP

Granholm has been a major disappointment to me, although still better than DeVos would have been. Rarely does she even mount a token resistance to the bullshit the repubs push on the state.

As for stabenow, I can't even vote for her now after she supported the Military Commissions Act stripping Habeas Corpus rights from us. I sent her an email protesting it and she had the gall to reply with this:



She can't even understand that I'm not afraid of bush* having the power to strip us of our rights, I'm afraid of ANYONE having that power. :mad:

I voted green in that election.

And Stabenow lost a lot of us with her support for Bankruptcy reform--and totally brain dead reaction to our anger over the issue. She tried to BS us that the legislation would not hurt people who really needed help---we knew better.

But Stabenow is from a part of Michigan where Dems suck up to the NRA and right-to-life...

Too bad he got himself mixed up in all of this as well. It's really beneath his stature as a senior statesman.

If people in that state don't realize that the election was in no way democratic and should not be counted. That's that political bullshit. If they are going to vote for McCain over an issue like this, then let them,
and let's get this armageddon on for this country.

We know damned well it wasn't Democratic but we also know it wasn't our fault. ALL sides have a chance to come together and give Michigan a feel good moment of caring while still ensuring that the state doesn't overturn the results of those states that abided by the rules.

You can rant about it all and how every citizen of Michigan deserves to be strung up and gutted, but that won't give you a Democrat in the white house come 2009, will it? Maybe a little compassion and understanding would be in order?

there's just no way of saying, we are going to arbitrarily assign "uncommitted" votes. There was no REAL democratic primary election in Michigan. Michigan is just going to have to take the L on that one. If the people want to derail Obama over that, then they deserve (McCain) what they get.

"Purists" who can only see things from their own point of view has ruined our chances at the white house before. I hope we don't let that happen again.

to call out the utter bullshit of reneging on something like this, regardless if it is a "compromise" or not. It wasn't democratic, in fact it was ANTI-democratic the way the proceedings happened, and if the political leadership in Michigan want to
retain some since of integrity, they will acknowledge that and take the L.

As to the rest of your commenting, it's idotic and divisive.

When's the last time you checked your bridge for billy-goats? :silly:

So why not let them decide?

It'll probably shake out the same way you suggest, but the voters have more direct control.

It is bad enough we didn't get to vote for our preferred candidate (we were told write-ins would be tossed out), but to have our express will overturned would be the end of the Democratic party in Michigan.

There's already a lot of anger here.

And I can't believe there are so many people involved in our political system who would be willing to steer an election in the direction of their preferred candidate, as opposed to the true will of the people. What's happening is so basically unfair and unethical and so many people can't see that or just don't care. At the Dem level - nonetheless. Our electoral system may be rotted to the core. Your solution sucks, but it's the most viable, given the situation.

They all suck and there's nothing any of us can do to change that now, all because a few power grubbers needed to play games with our vote.

I'm as angry with our state Dems as I can get without giving up and voting Green, right now. :mad:

But yeah, we need to just divvy up the delegates in a way that doesn't affect the outcome and move forward.

Also, you write "Hopefully the other 48 states will learn a lesson from this not to try using power tactics to bully the party or swing elections.

But if all of the delegates are seated you HAVE gotten away with it.

The whole purpose of this power play was to choose the next president. By seating the delegates in a way that in no way affects the outcome of the election, they lose all the power they were trying to gain. However, if you don't seat the delegates you give the repubs a massive edge in the election.

To be very blunt, both Hillary and Obama played politics with Michigan just as our state party tried to play politics with them. Obama won and Michigan's power brokers will suffer because of it, but only if we get him into office come November.

It's time everyone swallowed their pride and started working together for our own good.

It legitimizes breaking the rules (perhaps encouraging others to do the same in 2011).

And by arbitrarily designating delegates, you makes the voters choice (as limited as it was) irrelevant.


Unfortunately, the situation is FUBAR.

Our vote was irrelevant before we even showed up at the polls. We knew that. The situation is fucked but we have to make the best of it that we can. The best way is to seat the delegates as a show of unity but make sure that they don't tilt the election.

By doing this we remove all the power the local Dems wanted so they get nothing for all their troubles but ridicule. They lost and were humiliated - good. However, if you do the same thing to the entire state by not seating our delegates, we lose to McCain in November.

What's more important to you, revenge or Democratic policies? The answer to that will say a lot.

Just pointing out that regardless of how this plays out, somebody is gonna get screwed. Including Democratic policies.

(well, I guess you already know that)

It seems to me that this is a fairly large hole that needs to be closed. There needs to be specific punishments and ways for states to work with the parties to move their dates around if they like.

the problem is the Clinton campaign is pushing for a full seating of Florida and Michigan and is very unlikely to take any compromise. As long as they have this issue, they can make an excuse to stay in the race. Giving the issue up pretty much forces her to drop out. Giving the Michigan super delegate no vote would be a good move (they should do this with Florida as well), but I can't see this happening. I have a feeling the DNC is going to reinstate the super delegate from both states.

I think what we're seeing from her camp right now is posturing. Harold Ickes is a hardball political player and he wants to have the strongest hand possible leading up to the negotiations. However, he does not have the strength Obama has and will have to compromise.

That's not to say DUers and others shouldn't be shouting the Clinton camp down whenever possible. That's all part of the politics at play as well.

This is just there latest power trip.

Do you really think they would win this battle and get out of the RACE?


Hell no!

:hide:

We wouldn't know what to do! :D

It baffles me why we have to take their trash. Canada is big enough to have their own landfills--LOL!!

Enough said?

health care would be great!

should be the way to resolve it. Clinton will not agree to anything reasonable. She seeks to keep Obama from receiving any delegate support from Michigan.

like everyone else in MI, i've put some thought into how this could be best resolved, and short of a re-vote, there is no acceptable resolution. it's such a silly, stupid state of affairs. i really can't wait to see what they do. no matter what it is, it's going to piss off a lot of people. i do believe that MI will remain blue in the GE, in any event.

i think the lesson learned is the opposite of your conclusion though. ideally the DNC will get the message that other states should get a chance at going first.

But not by breaking the back of the DNC. If that happens there is no effective Democratic party.

was decided Dean agreed that the order of the primaries needed to change but that they would be unable to implement anything until 2012 as they were focusing on the 2006 midterms.

I don't have a link, but I'm pretty sure my memory is correct.

If you can find a link to it, I'd love to read it.

That would also lend credence to the argument that this was all completely unnecessary.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm remembering correctly.

Congratulation!! I think that would make sense.

I'm so disappointed in Carl Levin over this situation. He totally got into the pig trough with Stabenow and Granholm.

The state party seems to approve the 69-59 split. Obama agrees. Hillary is the only one that disagrees with this solution. Hopefully the RBC votes on this solution and approves it.

There were other ways to help Clinton, if the MI dems wanted to. They could have done like we did in IL to help Obama... they could have moved their primary to February 5th. Of course, I know why they didn't. Obama was gaining in momentum and popularity. They had to move their primary as early as possible to take advantage of the name recognition factor.

With all the Dems on her side, she could have probably made a very good showing in MI without all the trickery if the machine was behind her, which it was. Oh well... We'll see what happens on the 31st.

And they hold the power in Michigan Democratic politics.

Here are Obama's

Rep. John Conyers (MI)
DNC Lauren Wolfe (MI)
DNC Robert Ficano (MI)
DNC Eric Coleman (MI)
DNC Virgie Rollins (MI)

Here are Clinton's

Gov. Jennifer Granholm (MI)
Hon. John Cherry (MI)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Rep. Sander Levin (MI)
DNC Joel Ferguson (MI)
Rep. Dale Kildee (MI)
Rep. John Dingell (MI)

The SDs for Obama are mostly Detroit or the immediate area while the Clinton SDs are the statewide power brokers.

I already know who not to vote for..and Stabenow has been voting with Bush and the repugs so she is at the top of my list..

Thank you. Thats the key bit.

That's what will cause all of these clowns to lose power on a national level. The rest is just icing. :)

You broke it, you pay for it. I wish they had not done so, but I am hard pressed to want to completely exclude the whole state for what the clowns at the top did. I wish that the Clinton camp had been willing to work out a compromise that would have allowed everyone to vote. But I would feel justice to be minimally satisfied with nukeing the SD votes for the state.

Losing that power would be the best thing, and it would show them that they can not pull this kind of thing again, and get away with it.

The other one is to FUCK us.

I think the delegates should be split 50/50.

The "primary" was completely invalid.

Many dems crossed over to mess
with the 'pukes primary, and how many
THOUSANDS "wrote in" their votes?

:hi:

The automatic punishment would have seated all elected delegates, but each vote would count as only half a vote. That is how delegates for Democrats Abroad work. It might be how they work for territories like American Samoa and Puerto Rico though I am not certain.

And the super delegates from Michigan would get no vote whatsoever.

If the RBC decides to implement this minimum penalty, the same punishment implemented by the Republic Party against Michigan and Florida, then Obama has already won more than half the total elected delegates. So it will change nothing.

If they decided to seat Michigan and Florida without any punishment -- pretty much guaranteeing chaos during the next primary -- Obama would need to win 45% of the remaining delegates to garner that majority. Given that he is expected to win considerably more than 50% of the remaining delegates, I would say there is little possible MI/FL could turn the general election.

That was the political calculation he made. Hillary should get her 55%.

But, I'm almost sure you wouldn't feel the same if the tables were turned. I'll tell you what. I'll let your ideas go unchallenged if you promise to stop BS'ing people with the "we want every vote to count" mantra that you've been playing. Just call it what it is, a chance to get a free ride and disenfranchise the other 45% of voters so your candidate has a chance.

That is the very essence of democracy to count those votes. There may or may not be sanctions that affect the allocation of those votes and delegates according to the DNC rules.

How do votes go to someone who CHOSE to take his name off the ballot??? This is the opposite of democracy.

The poor thing would be so hurt if her desires didn't count more than that of a few hundred thousand voters.

We should all be watching out for Hillary. I should have realized that. :eyes:

She got the votes.

Obama took his name off - how do you get votes when you take your name off the ballot? It makes no sense. It was HIS choice.

There really should be a penalty to pay for them disenfranchising voters. That has been the stickiest part of this entire fiasco for me. The fact that voters, like yourself, have to pay for the decisions of a handful of representatives from the party. It's much easier for them to play with your votes, knowing that their own still counts for something. Perhaps if their own votes were disregarded in the same way, it would give them pause to consider their actions a little more thoroughly before acting.

As an aside, I'm really sorry about your fiasco. I hope we find a way to make the vote of the people heard that is fair to both candidates.