Breaking: Michigan caucus likely

[maddogesq]

This was posted in the LBN forum.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/06/breaking-michigan-caucus-likely-says-dnc-rules-committee-member.aspx

As a leaning Obama kinda guy, I hope this favors him based on the 40 percent "Uncommitted" vote in January. However, I will again say this crap should have never happened in the first place...Mr. Brewer.

Can I get an OY VEY?

[iamthebandfanman]

1. i hope not.

no offense.

[maddogesq]

6. None taken. Like I said...

we should have never come to this in the first place. The way to go after this election is to start a push for either a) a national primary, or b) a set of floating regional primaries. Then again, the mainstaream media bullshit machine would never go for that.

[skipos]

7. Only celebrity candidates with tons of money could compete in a national primary

People complain about candidates like Biden and Kucinich not having a chance now, but they would have less of a chance in a national primary. Clinton and Giuliani would destroyed everyone else in a national primary.

We need to rotate the states every cycle, imo.

[maddogesq]

8. That is indeed a good argument for choice b.

I have no opionion on which is better; a national or a floating regional thing. Yes, I think it is BS that IA and NH go first every time, as they represent our interests here as much as Haagen=Dazs represents a staple of weight loss. However, there is a better solution, and our state party leadership did a bad bad thing and basically dissed a lot of folks that came out in this too long of a winter we are having.

[PassingFair]

22. I am in compete agreement with you.

You are truly a wise person!

:P

[cyclezealot]

24. Lesser monied candidates are not denied their day

by New Hampshire; but by the national media. Without media reform, there will be little chance of real democracy for all regardless of which state goes first. After all , remember it New Hampshire and Iowa cost Clinton and Obama jointly 100 million dollars. And we think New Hampshire democracy on the cheap. I don't think so. And who did they give us. Clinton and Obama. The candidates who had an in with corporate donors.

[cyclezealot]

14. Proud of what Michigan has done.

The problem is how the media and big donor money games the system so only their chosen candidates gets heard. Take away the right of the media to control the dialogue. We need a national primary and demand free air time , since the media only rents the airwaves from us. Reaon for a National primary with free access to all certified candidates. Say, Oregon / Washington could go before are at the same time as Iowa, New Hampshire. Think it would have been a race between Obama or Clinton. Who goes first , games the results to favor the preferences of the non urban states and eliminates people such as Edwards. I have had enough. If some other states limits my choice of candidates, I take it personally.

[cyclezealot]

23. me too.

If I can't vote for the full slate of candidates as given to voters in the First States; then my vote is less valuable. New Hampshire should not eliminate my choices. Who is to say, those eliminated by New Hampshire voters would be the same as the choices made by other states. Who are they to limit my choices. Particularily when those given to us are lousy choices, quite possibly leading the party to a November defeat.

[GigiMommy]

2. You're so right.

This never should have come to this. I STILL blame Brewer, Debbie Dingall, Granholm, Cheeks-Kilpatrick and the rest of them. One would have to ask, what's in it for them?

[PassingFair]

9. You know....I STILL think that Mark Brewer spoke strongly AGAINST

this whole debacle....

then had to be the one to get in front and
SELL it to us.

I feel bad for the guy, but it's a tough job.

I don't have solid evidence of this, just
here-say and deduction.

[SharonRB]

10. I think you're right, in fairness to Mark

I may be pissed at him for a whole host of things, but he did try to do the right thing in this case and wasn't for this debacle from the beginning. I believe he was an Edwards supporter, but I'm not sure. He went around the state to find out what the people wanted, but was forced to back this mess and be the public face of it.

It wasn't his idea, but he had to get on board with it.

[PassingFair]

11. Hi Sharon!

:hi:

Can you imagine how much that must have SUCKED?
And I think MY job is stressful! LOL

Well, if it went down as I imagined it did,
he is vindicated now. For what it's worth...

All I know is that he, as "Chairmaster" or whatever
his title is, paved the way for an honest selection
of DNC Chairman, whether it netted him the result he
wanted or not....

Remember Levin's aide being the ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM
IN FAVOR of the early primary at that district meeting?

I hope everything is OK-by-you....
Did you go to Ohio?

[SharonRB]

12. Nope -- didn't go to Ohio

That district meeting was a farce -- 100% of the people in that room voted against the primary, as did the majority of the people around the state. And we still got stuck with it.

I'm going to Take Back America week after next. Lord knows I could use a few days away. I'm really looking forward to it.

:hi:

[SharonRB]

3. Woo hoo!

This is great news and what I've been saying we need to do all along. Our caucus is so different than those in other states. Hopefully Hills will go along with it.

[MichiganVote]

4. Nope. Sorry can't agree. Caucuses leave out the elderly or infirm.

Never have been in favor of them.

[SharonRB]

5. Not the way we do caucuses here == they are very inclusive

You can vote online or absentee as well as at a caucus site on the day of the caucus. Also, at the caucus site you vote just like you would at a normal election on a secret ballot -- there are just fewer locations. The fact that you can vote via no-reason absentee makes it more accessible than a regular election.

[Strawman]

13. Agreed

Voting online in the 2004 caucus was incredibly easy. The absence of a paper trail with online votes is somewhat troubling, but given the logistics of redoing this in a short time frame, I can live with it in this case.

[russ1943]

15. do- over?

There is an August 5, 2008 Primary already in place. Denver will host the 2008 Democratic National Convention Monday, August 25 to Thursday, August 28.

Can someone answer?

If the consensus is to have a do-over; what additional expense is there to adding remaining Democratic presidential contenders to our already planned (and paid for) primary earlier in August?

[russ1943]

16. DO OVER

Peter Luke's column in Sun GR Press makes the same suggestion "How about Aug 5th." I posted previously (I got my paper after posting). But then he summarily dismisses the idea saying "Alas, it won't happen".
Huh?
The national nominating window shuts June 10.
So what!
To now declare an arbitrary deadline sacrosanct is, under these unique circumstances, silly.

Might not mean anything anyway. If polls can believed, we all know how accurate they are, a Rasmussen poll shows likely voters split evenly tween HC & BO at 41%.

[maddogesq]

17. I hadn't heard about that idea yet. However...

Howard Dean was on the Judas George ABC This Week show this morning (sorry, I call him that for his antics back in the Clinton years), and he said something about this nominating had to be done by June 10. Then I heard Sen. Levin talk about a "mail-in" kind of caucus thing. I am not sure why Dr. Dean brought this June 10 thing up, as I was doing stuff while the tube was one and didn't pay as much attention as I usually do.

[TahitiNut]

18. Convention seating? Speaker scheduling?

That last primaries are currently Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota on June 3rd.

Perhaps the party insiders have committed to some scheduling that's presumptive of the final results of the primaries.

[maddogesq]

20. Sounds right.

I will say that Carl Levin sounded clear in his statements. Dr. Dean did a good job as well. This is still just nuts!

[cyclezealot]

25. ah lets piz them off again.

how about a June 17 caucus.

[ajamo]

21. Re-Do

Mark Bewer is the Michigan Democratic Chair. This is the person to blame. He did it, just like he never answered my letter of advise of a problem in the County Chartered Democratic Party. Yes, I belong paid up to 2010. No redo's. Seat the Delegate and split their votes 50/50 and the Super delegates the same.
Clinton should have removed her name, but wanted to pull a fast one.
Uncommitted vote was not advertised by the County Party where I belong, but it was I who wrote it in the paper. Why because all those party officers were supporting Clinton, and didn't want the rest to know about the don't write in a candidate, nor of the uncommitted vote.
Drop the whole thing, our leading people screwed the voters up. However don't let this stop your vote in November, remember we want our country back where it used to be. With Honesty with Democracy included.

[MichiganVote]

19. Mark Brewer on To The Point - Video

http://video.woodtv.com/?video_id=10913