Say Yes to Michigan... Please
Michigan -- my state. The Great Lakes. Motown. The polite yet brutally honest people. We are a hearty people, I tell my wife when she complains about the winter weather.
Our political environment can be rather funky. We have a Canadian Democratic female governor. Senator Levin is ours, Senator Stabenow, too. We've voted against Bush every chance we got, even in the 2000 Republican primary when we thought McCain was a straight talker and not a lying hypocrite.
We also have the DeVos family, powerful Republicans who made their money off the scheme known as Amway. Betsy DeVos, 2004 Bush-Cheny "Pioneer" and all-around uber-Republican, is the sister of Erik Prince of Holland, Mich. Prince is the founder of Blackwater USA.
Gerald Ford also came from Michigan, but he was a moderate Democrat compared to those people.
We gave the country Michael Moore and Ted Nugent.
So, the question of our Democratic primary is a complex one.
In January, in crappy winter weather, we went out to vote. The results:
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 328,151 - 55.3%
Uncommitted - 237,762 - 40.0
Dennis J. Kucinich - 21,708 - 3.7
Christopher J. Dodd - 3,853 - 0.6
Mike Gravel - 2,363 - 0.4
Some names were missing on the ballot. Also, there was no campaigning.
Yes, we were bad. We wanted an early primary so we, a large state going through rough times with a population of 10,095,643 hard working folks, could have an impact.
We're sorry. It'll never happen again.
So... could we have a do-over?
The funny thing is, 40%, 237,762 people, bothered to come out into the snow to vote for "Uncomitted." There was an effort at the time, strictly via web and word of mouth, to get Obama supporters to vote for Mr. U. The thinking was that if the delegates were seated then the uncomitted would maybe go to the Obama side. This cockamaimie plan managed to motivate 40%, back in the time when Obama was still an underdog.
Governor Granholm, when asked if she'd support a do-over, said "No." Rather bluntly dismissed it. Turns out she's a Clinton supporter, also.
I can see the point in not spending more state funds on another primary -- we are broke. Would there be any way to get the party to fund a primary or caucus?
I put this all out there because I hear rumblings about getting my state to matter again. Because I feel like John Travolta, all "Boy In The Plastic Bubble" like. This is the first time I really wanted to do something to choose the Democratic candidate. I can put my hand against the plastic, and you can put yours up on the other side, but can we really touch?
Our political environment can be rather funky. We have a Canadian Democratic female governor. Senator Levin is ours, Senator Stabenow, too. We've voted against Bush every chance we got, even in the 2000 Republican primary when we thought McCain was a straight talker and not a lying hypocrite.
We also have the DeVos family, powerful Republicans who made their money off the scheme known as Amway. Betsy DeVos, 2004 Bush-Cheny "Pioneer" and all-around uber-Republican, is the sister of Erik Prince of Holland, Mich. Prince is the founder of Blackwater USA.
Gerald Ford also came from Michigan, but he was a moderate Democrat compared to those people.
We gave the country Michael Moore and Ted Nugent.
So, the question of our Democratic primary is a complex one.
In January, in crappy winter weather, we went out to vote. The results:
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 328,151 - 55.3%
Uncommitted - 237,762 - 40.0
Dennis J. Kucinich - 21,708 - 3.7
Christopher J. Dodd - 3,853 - 0.6
Mike Gravel - 2,363 - 0.4
Some names were missing on the ballot. Also, there was no campaigning.
Yes, we were bad. We wanted an early primary so we, a large state going through rough times with a population of 10,095,643 hard working folks, could have an impact.
We're sorry. It'll never happen again.
So... could we have a do-over?
The funny thing is, 40%, 237,762 people, bothered to come out into the snow to vote for "Uncomitted." There was an effort at the time, strictly via web and word of mouth, to get Obama supporters to vote for Mr. U. The thinking was that if the delegates were seated then the uncomitted would maybe go to the Obama side. This cockamaimie plan managed to motivate 40%, back in the time when Obama was still an underdog.
Governor Granholm, when asked if she'd support a do-over, said "No." Rather bluntly dismissed it. Turns out she's a Clinton supporter, also.
I can see the point in not spending more state funds on another primary -- we are broke. Would there be any way to get the party to fund a primary or caucus?
I put this all out there because I hear rumblings about getting my state to matter again. Because I feel like John Travolta, all "Boy In The Plastic Bubble" like. This is the first time I really wanted to do something to choose the Democratic candidate. I can put my hand against the plastic, and you can put yours up on the other side, but can we really touch?
Advertisement
I think a lot more "uncomitted" people would've voted if they thought their votes would be counted. I addressed a similar point with my post about Florida.
The votes aren't fair because the voters who thought their votes wouldn't count are exactly the voters who would tend to vote against Hillary. Hence, there's a definite selection bias at work here. (Of course, there's always a selection bias at work at the polls. This one, however, is due to decisions made by the states and the DNC.)
March 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a do-over in both states would be worth the costs to the party. it's been great having the candidates campaign all over, and we need to have them do the real retail politics in FL and MI that have been done in so many other places.
March 6, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Dean won't allow the current vote to count. That's good news for Obama.
I'm all in favor of a recount, maybe the DNC and Michigan could split costs?
March 6, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you let the votes in both states count giving Obama the Uncomitted delegates in MI he is still in the lead and would win anyway.
March 7, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
i ended up in the ron paul camp since that vote counted a little, but would have voted for obama.
i would like to see a re-vote, but think all the delegates (including supers) should be 1/2 votes.
March 6, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sucks.
The DNC made a big mistake. Part of the no campaign pledge should have been to require that candidates remove their names from the ballot. Or the states should have lost 1/2 their delegates.
Let them both caucus - it's cheap.
March 6, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 6, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Michigan vote wasn't one. It wasn't a vote, there will BE no "re-vote", because there wasn't a VOTE to begin with.
The best the Michigan caucus could have been called is a straw poll, a rough estimate of how many would have voted for whom, with a large portion abstaining because they thought it wouldn't matter.
To seat delegates from Michigan as-is would induce a riot at the convention and make a mockery of any attempt to democratically elect a Democratic nominee.
Al Giordano at The Field says it better than I can...
http://208.122.14.138/thefield/?p=847
The man is F'ing brilliant. Objective, unemotional, cold and calculating. I love it.
March 6, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the do-overs happen, I'd bet Obama would take Michigan, Clinton would get Florida. Especially if they're caucuses. Would they come out even? Dunno.
The winner would be the party. It's a choice between having two states of motivated fired-up Democratic voters and volunteers, or having two states of people who will feel like they've been screwed over and just don't matter.
March 7, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
you got SCREWED by the people in your own state, not by anybody outside Michigan's border
Stop blaming the DNC and Howard Dean, and fix your own problems
don't come whining to us
we all got together, made some rules, AND EVERYBODY AGREED with those rules
now the rules are suddenly no good ???
March 7, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/181841/8676/104/470777
they say it is a go if 4 parties can agree to it
mdp, dnc, obama and clinton
they want to do a caucus which will cost $1million
Hillary will probably refuse. I hear Obama is willing to do a primary in Michigan.
March 7, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
BG -
I must say as a 'stop crying over f'in yourselves' camper - your post managed to make me see a glimmer of your arg (other than the orth we'll need them in Nov. crowd).
But seriously, shouldn't you MI & FL guys take it out on your state's Dem apparatus & not the entire party? Just askin' - the gambit timed out in the 4th qtr - that is s'thing every voter gets as fair ball.
Do-overs were silly when we were 8 and moreso now as adults.
The honorable move is for both states' voters & apparatchiks to admit an f'up - and still show up in Nov. Dont'cha think?
March 7, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will primaries in Michigan and Florida tell us anything we don't already know? By now, we can just take the demographics and run them through a computer model and allocate the delegates and the popular vote. I'm comfortable letting the super delegates do that. I'm not worried about either candidate energizing Michigan and Florida in the Fall.
March 7, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Clinton would win Michigan. This state didn't do so hot during the Bill Clinton years. The general message I'm hearing here is "no more Clintons." And McCain is sure to put on his moderate "maverick" act here here by Labor Day.
That Survey USA poll (www.surveyusa.com) found that now, Obama would beat McCain, but Clinton would not, in Michigan. I don't think any campaigning by Clinton would change that outcome.
March 7, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeeze, didn't know I was cryin' and whinin' and blamin' again. Must be because I'm a _____-supporter.
Both national and state parties have screwed this up, and continue to screw this up. But the facts are: If the delegates from January are seated, at least half the Michigan dem supporters are going to see that as the result of an unfair election. And if none are seated and there's no do-over, all the dem supporters will be dispirited. But if there is a do-over, voters will be fired-up, excited, feel part of the game again. It is a certain benefit to the party. It could help make clear which candidate is the nominee, and get the party out of it's SNAFU orientation.
For the first time in my life, after voting dem but declaring myself an independent, I went down to the local Democratic HQ in 2006 to work the phones. At times it seemed a futile effort to rid the country of the Bush Republican scourge, but I had to do something. It's going to be hard to generate any enthusiasm if, when faced with a hypocritical, lobbyist-loving, right-wing religious-freak-courting, Bush-supporting senior who'd hated by his own conservative wing of his party, they screw it up again just because they can't get together on some actions that might UNITE the party. It's going to be impossible to be enthusiastic for this race if my state is told to stay in the corner like a disobedient child.
Gosh, such a sulky whine....
March 7, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink