Plan for new Michigan Democratic primary falters

[flashl]

Source: Reuters

DETROIT (Reuters) - Michigan Democratic Party leaders on Tuesday said a proposal to re-run the state's contested presidential primary in June, which could potentially benefit the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, was stalled and unlikely to be approved before a deadline this week.

Opposition from lawmakers backing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's campaign seemed certain to scuttle any proposal to hold a June 3 "do-over" Democratic primary in the Midwestern state.

"There are definitely not enough votes now to support the proposal," said Callie Collins, a spokeswoman for state Sen. Tupac Hunter, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan.

Democratic primaries held in Michigan and Florida in January were invalidated by the national party because both states disobeyed party directives and held their balloting earlier to have a greater say in the selection of candidates.

Reuters

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1823854920080318

[Demeter]

1. Why I Don't Believe This

Obama was not on the ballot, and therefore has no delegates accruing from the first false-start primary. Would he not therefore benefit from a proper chance to appeal to the state's Democrats?

[indimuse]

3. K&r!

K&r!

[DeSwiss]

8. Its funny....

...how "Democracy" becomes the issue concerning a re-vote for FL and MI now, but they weren't all that concerned about the concept of democracy when the rules for primaries were democratically voted upon. And that applies to both the states involved here and any candidate as well. They shouldn't have changed their primary dates in defiance of the rules, nor should any candidate have allowed their name to be placed on the ballot in those states who were clearly violating those rules. Any candidate doing so is just as bad as they are.

I agree with both FL and MI that the primary calender system we have now is screwy. Its always been that way. But it won't be, and it shouldn't be changed by the force of will of two states who chose to ignore the concept of majority democratic rule. This kind of action only serves to make the system screwier than it already is and weakens both the process and the national party. They're acting like spoiled children demanding that they be allowed to have their way. Someone must be the adult here because clearly these two states are not up to the task. And as we've seen from this past series of primaries, in a truly contested race, one never knows which state's primary may prove to be crucial to selecting the eventual candidate.

If re-voting is allowed, there is nothing to stop another state from doing precisely the same thing come another election cycle down the road. They've made their bed and must now lie in it. And if the Democrats from these states stay home come the GE, and their absence sends John McCain to the White House, well it won't be because of any "hanging chads" this time. We'll know exactly who to blame.

IMHO

[flashl]

4. IMHO, its about the states not the candidates. nt

[Zhade]

30. It does seem odd - he'd only GAIN from a do-over (from nothing to maybe a win).

Seating MI as-is would be blatant cheating to benefit the losing candidate, but a do-over sounds fine (except for the fact that they broke the rules in the first place).

More info needed, doesn't pass the smell test.

[indimuse]

2. K&r!

K&r!

[Tyler Durden]

5. As we see, certain people don't give a shit about Michigan.

K&R

[ajamo]

6. Michigan Democratic Leadership

Thank your Democratic Leader, he is the one who screwed up the whole thing. He going to tell the national party after the rules were agreed to that he has his own.
With a new election, who is to be the one to make sure, you know make sure honesty is put in place? Down south Ohio and Texas a great many Republicans crossed over and voted for Hillary because she has less chance in beating McCain than Obama.
Don't blame Obama blame should be placed on Hillary because she didn't live up to the rules of the National Party and left her name on the ticket.
My county the Democratic Party there didn't place in the news papers instruction on how to vote uncommitted because all of those officers were supporting Hillary.
No re vote, we voted once and no more needed.
No delegates should be seated at the Convention, they knew the rules. Not even the Super Delegates should be seated.
Rules are Rule abide by them, it's called democracy.

[Tyler Durden]

7. Keep it up.

Michigan doesn't exactly bleed "Blue." Obama Supporters had best remember that.

I don't hold that this is a "Good Thing," but as a Democratic Socialist, I must needs be pragmatic.

Then I also assume you're for not seating NH and IA? They also technically broke the rules.

Time to be pragmatic.

[Oreo]

9. 'Do-over is dead'

Source: Politico

The headline from MIRS, Michigan's Hotline:

Ding-Dong, Do-Over Primary Is Dead
"Time of death for the do-over Michigan primary? Call it at about 11 a.m. today."

A Lansing insider IMs to explain the latest development:

The Senate Dems just had a long caucus meeting following their long phone call with the Gang of Four , and the result is that no one moved. Votes aren't there. Thus, it will not go to a vote in the Senate. And barring some other last minute miracle that doesn't involve those four, the governor and Hillary traveling to Michigan, it is dead as a doornail.

UPDATE: State Sen. Tupac Hunter, an Obama supporter, confirms the outcome of today's meeting.

"The caucus has expressed again today that there is concern about the proposal and a great deal of unreadiness," he said, saying that sentiment is still "overwhelming."

"We informed the four great Democrats who have worked very hard to come up with a solution," he said. "It’s one of those things where you can agree to disagree. The question then becomes, What do we do now?"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

---

So now that Florida and Michigan won't have a revote where do we stand.

Check out some scenarios and their effects on the delegate race at 2008 Democratic Convention Watch

[jimnasium]

10. I predict lawsuits a-plenty are upcoming... n/m

[magellan]

11. FL and MI have been disenfranchised, that's where we stand

If only the Dems were so quick to hold BushCo to rules.

[Lerkfish]

14. unfortunately, they disenfranchised themselves, fwiw.

[Mountainman]

15. Seems to me they had a choice and chose to disenfranchise themselves.

In an effort to be more relevant they made themselves irrelevant.

[magellan]

20. Voters had a choice?

Not really. We're being punished for what the Repubs and some Dems in the FL legislature decided.

And I repeat, if only the Dems were so quick to hold Repubs to rules. THAT'S the icing on the cake.

[RantinRavin]

24. Some Dems ?

The vote was 118-0 in the House, and 37-2 in the Senate.

[magellan]

26. Okay, so they did it together

That doesn't matter, really. What matters is that voters had no say in it. Or don't you consider that disenfranchisement?

[Zhade]

32. The voters had no say? Did you lead any dissent on this when it was up for a vote?

How about since it passed, BEFORE it hurt Clinton's chances (which is when this previously non-issue became an issue)?

Voters had EVERY chance to protest this and get it stopped. That they didn't isn't our fault.

[magellan]

37. Oh right. Dissent has proved to be SO effective

...in changing the minds of our political leaders on so many matters of import. FYI, my rep is a Repub and my Senator is Nelson. Just whom was I supposed to appeal to with any hope of being heard when my experience with both is always a polite form letter telling me why they're going to do what they want?

You might also be interested to know that I support NONE of the candidates, so my interest in this isn't from bias. It's about FAIRNESS. If the Dems would just once hand the Repubs their heads the way they do their own when it comes to "breaking rules", I wouldn't be quite so ticked off over the hypocrisy.

[Zhade]

38. It should still be attempted, no?

I don't support either candidate myself, though I do oppose clinton. I also oppose cheating, which she's trying to do.

[Occulus]

40. As far as I'm aware, voters, at the time, didn't fully understand

why it was such a big deal, and didn't fully understand the implications.

I wouldn't blame the voters. Blame the leaders who set it all in motion in the first place.

[movonne]

28. Maybe the country would be in a better place if more people played

by the rules...

[magellan]

29. That's why there are consequences for breaking rules

For some, anyway.

[Zhade]

31. They VOTED to "disenfranchise" (it's not disenfranchisement) themselves!

NT!

[Lerkfish]

12. excuse my ignoranc, but to whom do they refer as the "gang of four"?

thanks.

[Mountainman]

13. I was reading in US News about the hatred between the two sides.

So I'm thinking that GP primaries is a bigger reflection on the nation then I thought. My hope is that they agree to run as a ticket or one agrees to drop out very soon.

We need to get to the debate on the national election not the Dem primary. This has gone on too long.

[PassingFair]

23. Our local dem club almost erupted into a Donnybrook when this subject...

came up.

Hillary supporters do NO LIKE TO BE
CALLED OUT or EVEN QUESTIONED in
public.

I can see why they don't do well
at caucuses.

[Zhade]

34. I've heard of Clintbots doing this everywhere.

Is it their desperation not to accept their candidate's loss that does it?

[Zhade]

33. Agreed, the losing candidate should drop out - she can't win at this point.

NT!

[IntravenousDemilo]

16. Tupac?

:eyes:

[PassingFair]

18. Would you be more comfortable with Tab? or Chad? or Biff?

:eyes:

[IntravenousDemilo]

22. No. That would be, if anything, worse.

I figured Mrs Shakur named her kid something that she'd made up out of her head, possibly while playing Scrabble: "Tupac? I bet nobody else will have that name." So really, it just seemed like "Tupac" was a one-off, like there was only one Tupac (or as he became known after being shot in the groin, One-Pac). Just like there's only one famous Barack -- that I know of.

[Zhade]

35. Wow, that's not ignorant at all.

There HAVE been more than two people named Tupac, though I'm not surprised you don't know this.

[IntravenousDemilo]

39. Well, name some others, then.

Enlighten me. As far as I can tell, when people talk about "Tupac", they generally mean one person.

[Tyler Durden]

19. Congratulations, Obama Camp.

Michigan Pissed Off may just be Michigan Lost to Obama.

True Party loyalists had better HOPE HRC gets the nomination. Obama is none too popular around here right now.

[Zhade]

36. She won't, and I doubt most MI residents are into electoral bullying as you are.

They'll likely grow the fuck up and vote against McLame, a few petulant assholes notwithstanding.

[RantinRavin]

17. I think I have a very easy solution to the Florida debate

On July 28 the State of Florida will be holding a primary election. Being as the Democratic Party National Convention is not until August 25th, why can they not just add this to the ballot ? There is already going to be an election so it shouldn't cost anything to add 1 party race to it.

[Bacchus39]

21. it would be open to all voters then, Republicans too

just an FYI.

[RantinRavin]

25. Not really

You can give Democrats one ballot, and everyone else a different ballot, just like they do in the Presidential primary. The ballots would be identical except the Democratic ballots would have the extra race on it.

[happyslug]

27. And Given that the Federal Courts has said you can change registration at any time..

And as long as the State rules are "Reasonable" i.e. permit such registration no more than 30 days prior to the date of the Election, a lot of Republicans can switch to Democratic to vote in the Democratic Primary. Such Republicans will lose they ability to vote in the GOP primary for local office, but given that most such elections least only one candidate, who is going to win that election anyway, many Republicans may opt for the Democratic Primary. All they have to do is change party registration st least 30 days before the election (And change back in the Fall if they want to).

What Obama wants is a Caucus, for his followers are more dedicated then the people who will vote for HRC. Thus a Caucus gives him an edge. Not a criticism just an observation, HRC would like the delegates as selected earlier in the Year, Obama wants a caucus. Given that the party is about equally divided between the two each are looking for that edge to get more delegates. HRC is keeping what he has already won, Obama in that he will win more delegates if a caucus is held.