Holy Crap. MIchigan set to move move primary to Jan 15th

[Perky]

Michigan could hold a statewide primary on Jan 15, if a deal reached this morning by top Republicans and Democrats in the state passes muster with state legislators.

Michigan political sources say that Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Sen. Carl Levin are very close to a deal with House Speaker Andy Dillon (D) and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R). It's not clear whether the state parties are on board, yet, but if the legislature decides to pass a bill changing the primary date, and then Gov. Granholm signs it, there's not much dissidents can do.

As of earlier this week, the prospects for a deal looked dim. The legislature has deadlocked on a bill that would move the official primary date -- Feb. 26 -- much earlier. Both state parties have drafted contingency plans in the event that the legislature and the governor don't agree on an earlier primary. The Dems would probably hold a caucus and the Republicans would probably hold a convention.

What would a Jan. 15 primary mean for the rest of the primary calendar?

One possibility is that the DNC and virtually every other interest in the party gangs up on Michigan and pressures candidates not to compete there. The Republican National Committee has some leverage, but not nearly enough.

Also: If the political world takes Michigan seriously, Iowa might be forced to look at a December date again (despite Gov. Chet Culver's protestations to the contrary) because New Hampshire's Secretary of State would be pressed to set the state's primary in early January.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/a_january_15_michigan_primary.php

[bluedeminredstate]

1. That would suck all around

if NH moved their primary to early January. That way Hillary would be declared winner of everything by the media and any choice in the matter would be gone.

[Justyce]

2. Please forgive my ignorance on this, but

why don't they hold them all the same day? This seems unfair, like holding the presidential election different days.

[TheFarseer]

3. because that way, big money would win every time

All you would have to do it saturate all the big markets with expensive advertising. The way it is now, lesser known candidates have a chance to identify with voters in individual states. I wish we could have a system to have primaries later on in the year and rotate which states will be first. This is just madness. By 2012, we're going to have primaries the day after the 2010 elections.

[Justyce]

5. Thanks for the insight! nt

[RB TexLa]

6. And the people of Iowa and New Hampshire will tell you that rural whites

understand their unique role in choosing the nominees every four years. Guess, we don't need any urban or minority voters making those kind of decisions.

[noamnety]

7. Have the lesser known candidates ever won a primary?

My memory of primaries doesn't go back all that far, but I was under the impression big money wins anyway.

[TheFarseer]

13. wouldn't Bill Clinton be an example?

I was not of voting age at the time, so I'm sure others know more about this than I do, but he wasn't well known before '92, I don't believe.

[noamnety]

14. He lost both the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries

I was looking for someone unknown who came out ahead in the first primaries.

We always hear that it gives someone without the big money a potential lead - I was wondering if that's just theory, or there is an actual example of it happening.

[glowing]

4. I think the primaries need to be on one day--countrywide... its the

only fair way for all the states. They should be equally important to the federal govt.

[Perky]

8. I think the current process may be as best we can do

but the leapfrogging and state laws in Iowa and NH on being first is just silly.

The reason I think it is best is because in theory with a one national primary is that if you have three strong candidates no one would ever get to a majority.


The other problem is that the primary systems for all its flaws gives the nation a vetting process that takes weeks. If you can navigate the gauntlet it proves you are successful in every part of the country.

The other problem with a national primary is that it would tend very much to promote those with the largest bankrolls which is not necessarily the strongest candidate.



One idea I like is to have the parties have nominating conventions at the beginning of the primary process where people with broad appeal within the party are placed in nomination. Then Have a primary season for the top three candidates. then have a ratifying convention to kick off the platform and the Fall campaign.


Now I am sure that would seem oligarchical and undemocratic,,,,but it would seem better than an national primary where people like Kucinich would simply be ignored more than they already are.

[Liberal Veteran]

9. It seems obvious that NH and Iowa have damaged the primary process.

Their insistence on being first is ridiculous and arrogant.

The best thing to do would be to have 6 days scattered around throughout the election year (Let's say 4 states the first date, 6 the next date, 10 on the remaining dates) and have them chosen the year before in a lottery system.

It's kinda silly that two states think they have the RIGHT to always have a huge say in the primary.

[madfloridian]

10. Ok, ask yourselves....why were late primaries in big states ok last primary?

And not this time.

:shrug:

Everybody has opinions, and many of us here in Florida have one right now. It was fine wonderful great that we did not have a primary until March 9 in 04.

Thus our vote for Dean meant nothing, since he dropped out in February.

But the state party was just thinking it was a wonderful thing to have a late primary.

So ask yourself what the difference is...why are the biggie states so anxious to move up?

The answers might surprise you.

[Perky]

11. I thin the answer is that

Dems are tires of a process that picks inferior nominees incapable of winning more than 22 states.

[madfloridian]

12. Why did they just get tired?

That is my question.

The process in Florida was actually instigated in part by the Democrats. They had a 100% vote to move it up and then blamed the national party for rules made by a committee appointed by McAuliffe and voted on by 447 members. But they blamed Dean when they broke the rules, and he didn't because he doesn't have the power to break those rules.

[Odin2005]

15. This moving up the primary BS is getty absurd.

I like the idea given above of a lottery-type system in order to mix up the schedule so 2 rural WASPish states aren't always first. Also, the results of the various primaries shouldn't be released until ALL he primaries are over. I am sick an tired of Iowa and New Hampshire being the king makers every fucking election cycle.

[tom_paine]

16. This is CRAZY! Michigan on Jan 15th? Little cold and stormy maybe?

Maybe a nice blizzard to suppress voter turnout 90%?

:wtf:

[terrya]

17. This just proves that our election cycle is too fucking long.

January primaries. Iowa looking at a December primary.

There's no excuse for this. Hell, Canada elects its leader in 35 days, for fuck's sake.