Michigan’s Jan. 15 Primary Draws Full Smackdown from DNC

[babylonsister]

Michigan’s Jan. 15 Primary Draws Full Smackdown from DNC
By Marie Horrigan, CQ Staff


Michigan Democrats, who have scheduled a Jan. 15 presidential primary in violation of scheduling rules set by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), have been officially stripped of their entire 156-member delegation to the party’s national convention in August.

Saturday marked the end of the 30-day grace period the Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws committee gave the Michigan Democratic Party to set up an alternative to the Jan. 15 primary, which was established by a recently enacted state law that passed in the Michigan legislature with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm . The DNC invoked a similar penalty on the Florida Democratic Party, which is going ahead with a Jan. 29 primary that also violates the national party’s scheduling rules.

Those rules set Feb. 5 as the threshold date for almost all states to begin holding their primaries and caucuses. The DNC provided exceptions only for two traditional presidential campaign kickoff events — the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3 and the New Hampshire primary Jan. 8 — and two other events moved up to add some demographic and regional diversity to the early stages of the nominating process: caucuses in Nevada that are scheduled for Jan. 19 and a South Carolina primary Jan. 26.

DNC officials — who originally approved a Feb. 9 caucus for Michigan Democrats before that event was superceded by the Jan. 15 primary law — stated early on that they would apply the maximum penalty of delegate revocation on any state that broke the Feb. 5 threshold without permission, and reiterated that position strongly and sternly. The national party also prevailed successfully upon its presidential candidates to eschew campaigning in states that broke the scheduling rules.

But the candidates had different interpretations of whether they were obligated to pull their names off Michigan’s primary ballot, which has produced a major imbalance. The only candidate among the Democratic front-runners whose name is on the Michigan ballot is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ; she is joined only by two longshots who are still bidding for votes — Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — and Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd , who quit the race after a poor performance in Iowa.

Illinois Sen. and Iowa caucus winner Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards , who ran narrowly ahead of Clinton to finish second in Iowa, both had their names removed from the ballot. So did New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson , who still is an active candidate, and Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. , who like Dodd dropped out after attracting little support in Iowa.

That essentially leaves Michigan Democrats who would prefer to support those candidates with only the option of voting “uncommitted.”

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002652131

[Cha]

1. Here we go again...

I understand that Dean did what he had to do soI'm glad that Obama and Edwards had their names removed from the ballot.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

2. This is insanity.

One primary, one day. Or hell, I'll take four regional primaries within a few weeks of each other.

Michigan is definitely a state that I want to be heard.

[ellacott]

3. I agree with you

[goldcanyonaz]

5. I agree with you as well.

[booksenkatz]

8. The state that's hurting the most.

We're hurting here in ways the rest of you in other states have yet to experience. This is a terrible shame that our voices won't count. While the rest of you enjoy your primaries, I'll be out marching for suffrage.

[Joe the Revelator]

10. Get control of your States Democratic Committee then

[MichiganVote]

14. You know that's a fine idea. How would you go about that in the space of several days?

[JNelson6563]

22. Sorry but we commoners don't count

You may have noticed who's at the top of the food chain here in the Dem party, not we little folk, no, but Clinton's good pal and fellow DLCer Governor Granholm.

You figure it out.

Julie

[WorseBeforeBetter]

11. 2008 Presidential Primary/Caucus Calendar

Since I wasn't really sure, I dug this up:

JANUARY 2008
• January 3: Iowa
• January 5: Wyoming (R)
• January 8: New Hampshire
• January 15: Michigan
• January 19: Nevada, South Carolina (R)
• January 26: South Carolina (D)
• January 29: Florida

FEBRUARY 2008
• February 1: Maine (R)
• February 5: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (D), Illinois, Kansas (D), Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
• February 9: Louisiana, Kansas (R)
• February 10: Maine (D)
• February 12: District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia
• February 19: Hawaii (D)*, Washington, Wisconsin

MARCH 2008
• March 4: Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
• March 8: Wyoming (D)
• March 11: Mississippi

APRIL 2008
• April 22: Pennsylvania

MAY 2008
• May 6: Indiana, North Carolina
• May 13: Nebraska, West Virginia
• May 20: Kentucky, Oregon
• May 27: Idaho (R)

JUNE 2008
• June 3: Montana, New Mexico (R), South Dakota

*Hawaii’s Republican Party is not technically holding a presidential primary or caucus. Delegates will be selected during a week-long period tentatively ending on February 7, but they will not be committed to any candidates as part of the vote.

~~

Pennsylvania is another state that needs to be heard early, and they're not until freakin' April. My state is on May 6 ... BFD. NC should be heard early as well, since it could very well swing blue or at least a very purplish-blue.

[calteacherguy]

4. Very good, they did the right thing.

Anything less under the circumstances would be unethical and give an unfair advantage to Clinton (because she is the only one on the ballot there).

[durtee librul]

15. No write in votes count in MI -

the best we can all do is vote uncommitted. Blah....this from a state which makes you declare what party you belong to before you vote.

Sorry, but if I want to vote, last I heard, voting was personal and if I decide to mix my vote among repubs (won't happen), indies and dems, that's MY choice....except in MI.

Sorry, but it is really a crappy place to live....been here for almost 10 years and am just counting the days until I can leave all the bad roads and bad attitudes behind and return to a saner state.

[JNelson6563]

21. Buh-Bye! Don't let the door hitcha

where the good lord splitcha! :hi:

[Snotcicles]

6. Clinton and Kucinich battle it out in Michigan Ha Ha. nt

[fadedrose]

7. What difference does it make?

Who cares when Michigan has its primary? What does it matter and to whom and why is there such a stupid rule to begin with?

We in Michigan are tired of having a late primary where our favorite candiate has already dropped out of the race (like Dean)?

Can anyone explain the rationale behind the rule?

I am going to vote uncommitted and hope most people in the state do the same.

Go Edwards!

[booksenkatz]

9. Uncommitted for Edwards at our house as well. NT

[yewberry]

18. What difference does it make and who cares?

Ask a candidate who doesn't have deep pockets. Ask Kucinich, Biden, or Dodd.

A candidate can run a campaign in NH for $800K, and Iowa costs more than that (did anyone notice that DK didn't even have an office in IA?) and then add in SC and NV. Candidates that show well in early primaries (regardless of which state) get more contributions and can afford to go on.

If you add in more early events (especially in large-market states like FL) candidates simply can't afford to campaign there. They face the choice of either spreading themselves too thin and making little impact across several states or focusing on a couple of states and risking votes in the other early states.

Having states try to leapfrog the way FL and MI have during the primary season hurts candidates and their campaigns, and THAT is why the parties tried to make sure that wouldn't happen. Starving less-funded campaigns is bad for everyone, and only makes the problem of having candidates have to drop out even worse for the rest of the country. If candidates were forced to try to compete in two additional states, not only would the less-funded fail in those two extra states, they'd have less to spend in the ones that they'd originally planned for.

I really do feel badly for the voters of FL and MI, but the state parties knew about the rules and the automatic sanctions when they chose to make self-important power grabs. They are the ones to blame for this mess.

[Adelante]

23. They knew the rules, because they voted for them

Then they tried to pull a fast one and break the rules they voted in. Good for Howard for standing strong. :thumbsup:

[Demeter]

12. The DLC (Hillary and Granholm) Duking It Out with the DNC (Howard Dean)

a most unseemly attempt by the Hillary to take the pot without having to campaign, methinks.

See, if Hillary's name is the only one on the ballot (aside from Kucinich and other wannabes), then she gets the votes of the unsophisticated who don't know better.

I'm torn between Kucinich as a spite vote and Uncommitted.

If Hillary thinks she can scoop the pot by magaminously seating the delegation as part of her coronation, she's got another think coming.

Personally, it's not improbable that the state goes for Kucinich, in which case she wouldn't seat them at all, if it's up to her.

There are no good solutions. I wonder if moving...but I'm committed to working the polls!

[MichiganVote]

16. Well I'm not lacking in sophistication and I am voting and I am not going to vote

as an uncommitted citizen. So whomever has the decency to buck the DNC and place their name on the ballot has the consideration of a vote from me. They all had the choice to show some mettle and consider the voters and so far only Clinton is available. Works for me.

Neither Washington or the DNC has done squat for Michigan.

[skipos]

13. I will be voting UNCOMMITED. nt

[madfloridian]

17. Well, I have no sympathy for either state.

I do agree with changing the primaries, but doing it in the middle of the primaries was just plain wrong.

The ones involved in both states were almost all chairs of Hillary's state campaigns. Three lawsuits were filed in Florida, two against Dean and one against the state. All were dismissed, only the one by the Tampa activist may be ongoing.

The only one supposed to benefit was the one leading both states, it was her.

Bill Nelson and Carl Levin, after they got themselves a lot of attention, filed a bill to have regional primaries.

Hey fine and good, but NOT in the middle of the primary, and NOT when you sent out press releases blaming the DNC. Florida even said not to donate to the DNC. Pretty rotten, and they get over $250,000, maybe closer to $350,000 from the DNC.

[Demeter]

19. Very Good Points!

I agree that the states and the Hillary supporters in those states engineered this fiasco, which is another good reason not to vote for her. I don't like bullies and abuse of power, and this smacks of both. I think we had enough of that from Bush and Cheney. If one intentionally starts off on a bad note, it isn't going to get better.

[JNelson6563]

20. Michigan will be seated

Doubt me? Take a look at any electoral map and just see how winnable the race is without us. For a long time it has been taken for granted MI will be blue. Guess what? It takes a lot of effort, MI is rather purple. Everyone running knows they NEED MI to win, whether you all realize it or not. No one with half a brain will risk alienating MI Dems and losing the state.

I'd wager serious money on this.

Julie

[madfloridian]

24. Florida leaders feel the same way, Julie.

And the delegates probably will be seated. And yes there needs to be primary change.

But what they did was just plain wrong, both states.

You should have seen the press in Florida a few days ago...feeling all left out and blaming the DNC all over again. They know better, but they won't back down and admit they were wrong.

It was just wrong of both states to do that.

[JNelson6563]

25. I agree, it was wrong

and we little people in the trenches are the ones who have to field the calls of inquiry from confused and/or frustrated voters. I am irritated beyond measure over this and there are certain persons of power in my state that I will never again do another thing for, no matter what.

To add to my own frustration and the confusion of many, our Rethug county clerk is advising inquiring Dems to just write in their choice. Oy.

Julie

[slick8790]

26. I think they'll be seated.

But only if one candidate has a lock on the nomination without them. The purpose of taking away their delegates was to take away their influence on the process. But once someone has enough to win without them, they'll be seated for the sake of Dem party unity before the election.