Michigan DUers --- is Hillary going to get 156 free delegates?

Cross posted from Demconwatch 12/31/07



It's damn frustrating Obama and Edwards are not on the MI ballot. If it does happen that MI does send delegates; they will not be representative of the people's choice from a rather populous state.
The entire process seems patently unfair - albeit complicated.

Can anybody update this scenario?

Thanks :hi:

They won't recognize write ins.

Help a confused guy out here.

Sid

They made their choice--they won support in Iowa at the expense of the support of Michigan.

they saved the cost of not appearing on the ballot in Michigan, and used the funds in Iowa instead? If that's the case, how much does it cost to get your name on the ballot in MI?

Or is there something strategic that I'm missing.

Thanks in advance. This Canadian finds the whole primary process more than just a bit confusing :)

Sid

Edit: nevermind. did some more reading and I see that the 4 pulled their names as a protest of the MI Dem ctte moving up their primary date in violation of national party rules.

I have decided not to vote in the Michigan primary, and honestly do not even know why it is there. I support the DNC's opposition to these moved-up primaries, as expressed by such great people as Howard Dean and James Roosevelt, both of whom I respect greatly. Michigan is far too big a State to allow any close personal contact, and direct answers to questions at rallies, as Iowa did, and so everything would be decided by a huge barrage of these horrible, mean, lying ads; I have already gotten completely sick of a very vicious, anti-Clinton ad by that asshole creep Mitt Romney, (whose father was one of the biggest assholes ever to be Governor of Michigan). This then makes lobbyist money and "spin"-consultants even more influencial than ever, and cutting citizens and their concerns out even more.

As soon as some of the candidates started taking their names off the ballot here, supporting the National Democratic Party decision on this--but of course the Clinton machine only exploited it as a chance to violate the rules and pick up an advantage--it stopped being any kind of authentic vote at all. (My candidate, Chris Dodd, is now gone from the race anyway.)

I don't understand or support the moving-up of the primary dates, since they aren't small-State caucuses that might at least have some value on that count, they extend the campaign season even more painfully long, they increase, not decrease, the influence of big-money, and I don't know how this even changes the vote, or who people are supporting. The bizarre "cover story" that this helps get rid of the "horrible white devils" of Iowa and New Hampshire, is now even more exposed, so I really don't get it or support it at all. I support the DNC's opposition to all of this primary-jockeying. The Presidential campaigns are too long, too phony, already. I will wait for the real General election, when we have a candidate.