Michigan will matter

I'll go with a prediction that Clinton does not sweep the first two contests, in Iowa and New Hampshire. They are both very close, and it seems more likely that either Edwards or Obama take home a win in either state, or both. The next contest after New Hampshire on the 8th is Michigan on the 15th.

For some reason I never got to the bottom of, Obama & Edwards both made the bone-headed idea of dropping out of the Michigan primary-- why, does anyone know?

So instead, for Michigan:

The four 2008 Democratic nominees are Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. Additional nominees Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson have removed themselves from the Michigan primary ballot, cited throughout the media as calling the state's primary a "beauty contest" without the delegate significance of the other 48 primary elections.
Those not on the ballot will have to wind up seeing their support either go to one of the candidates on the ballot, or get their support elsewhere:
Democratic voters will also have the option of voting for "Uncommitted," as is suggested for those favoring Biden, Edwards, Obama or Richardson, or a "Write-in" candidate.

The net effect of the DNC's banning Michigan's 156 delegates from participating in next summer's presidential nomination process will be a penalty that is not enforced:

"I don't think it'll affect much of anything. All of the nominees said they'd seat delegates. We'll have delegates in August. (The exclusion) is not expected to be enforced," DeRoche said, noting it would reflect poorly on the candidates during the presidential election in November if they were not to allow the votes of two states as sizable as Michigan and Florida during the primary process.
Yes, it would be a disaster. Since all the candidates are apparently already on the record for allowing Michigan's delegates to the convention, that makes the Jan 15th contest there much more than a "beauty contest" as there are going to be 156 delegates that are chosen.

If either Obama or Edwards wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, their campaign choosing to skip out of Michigan will be looked back on as the most stupid strategic move of the election. Instead of having the opportunity to put Clinton away, not only will they be letting Clinton claim a win, but we'll also see the contest shift from 'who won' each state to 'who has the most delegates' for the nomination-- very favorable to Clinton.

Tags: Michigan primary (all tags)



Re: Michigan will matter

Unless "uncommitted" wins the primary or comes in a close second.  I think the media will highlight just who Hillary "beat" and it will just not matter.

by Vox Populi 2007-12-28 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Clinton will be called the "winner" that is all that matters.

I have said this before.  In Jan. if nothing else she wins Fl, Mi, and Nv.

Plenty to carry her to super tues.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-28 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

dp, I haven't conceded IA or NH. I am sure HRC hasn't conceded them either. I think Jerome ate too much turkey and dressing on Christmas!

by lonnette33 2007-12-28 04:21PM | 0 recs
Nor have I

Not by a longshot

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-28 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Do you want to take away your wrongful troll rating earlier?

by Progressive America 2007-12-28 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I don't wrongfully troll rate. Show me where I wrongfully troll rated. I troll rate what should have been troll rated. However, I have been wrongfully troll rated plenty of times.

by lonnette33 2007-12-28 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Here, this is clearly troll rating abuse:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/12/28/ 14923/007/15#15

by Progressive America 2007-12-28 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Actually, I meant to give you a 2 not a 0. Sorry!

by lonnette33 2007-12-29 01:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I would not have troll rated that comment. Read my comments and rating before commenting and accusing me. I meant to give it a 2. Why in the f am I explaining it to you. I'm not troll rater. Do some f-ing research.  Matter of fact, kiss my ass!

by lonnette33 2007-12-29 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

lonnette, I have to agree with Progressive America in this instance.  I personally don't think that post was troll-rate worthy, not even a 1.  

by georgep 2007-12-28 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I think something must have happened when I rated it. I remember reading the comment and wanting to give it a 2, not a 0. It was a great comment. I wouldn't have troll rated that comment.

by lonnette33 2007-12-29 01:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I thought it was something like that, lonette.  I caught myself one time wanting to give a 2 and accidentally giving a 0 instead.  I saw the mistake and quickly changed it before I would get yelled at for an errant rating.  :-)

by georgep 2007-12-29 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Thanks georgep. I'm just in a bad mood today. I've put up some bad comments today. Men troubles.

by lonnette33 2007-12-29 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Sorry to hear that.  Hope it is better now after he got a good talking to.  :-)

by georgep 2007-12-30 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I agree. doesn't seem particularly troll rating worthy. I actually think it was a compliment about Clinton. A lot of Clinton supporters gave it a 2

by world dictator 2007-12-29 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Nope, didn't even put on a pound :)

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Oops. I forgot you are a vegetarian! LOL! I think I read that somewhere.

by lonnette33 2007-12-28 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

If Obama or Edwards wins Iowa it WILL BE because they withdrew from the Michigan primary.  Iowans wouldve punished Hillary for her decision to stay on the ballot in Michigan.

by allmiview 2007-12-28 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

What are you talking about?

by lonnette33 2007-12-28 04:24PM | 0 recs

What was troll-worthy in that comment?

by antiHyde 2007-12-29 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Dumb ass, I would not have troll rated that comment. Read my comments before commenting. I meant to give it a 2. Why in the f am I explaining it to you. I'm not troll rater. Do some f-ing research.  Matter of fact, kiss my ass!

by lonnette33 2007-12-29 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Dumb ass-ette, I was questioning the troll rating of YOUR comment.

by antiHyde 2007-12-29 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

antiHyde, that comment was supposed to be directed to Progressive not you. Sorry!

by lonnette33 2007-12-30 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Correction noted and epithet withdrawn. Please be careful with the indenting. I'd still like to know what someone (Progressive?) found troll-worthy in your post.

by antiHyde 2007-12-30 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF?

Disregard antiHyde, this comment was suppose to go under a post Jerome put up last night! Sorry. I will copy comment over there.

by lonnette33 2007-12-29 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

IF she gets beat in Iowa and NH, she won't win NV.

by desmoulins 2007-12-28 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter


by NvDem 2007-12-28 07:58PM | 0 recs
Bingo bango

A win is a win.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-28 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Bingo bango

Yes, I totally agree.  A win against no competitors is definitely a win.  A huge victory.  Just like her two senate runs.

by Vox Populi 2007-12-28 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re:Remember Alan Keyes???

Is Vox an Obama supporter? That's news to me.

I believe that Vox, like myself, happens to support the only candidate to have won a tough Senate race.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re:Remember Alan Keyes???

Actually my candidate is the one who defeated a Republican incumbent in a red state running on a populist platform.  His name is John Edwards.

by Vox Populi 2007-12-28 07:20PM | 0 recs
Edwards could have stayed on in Michigan

... and just not campaigned there, like Clinton.  The fact is he pandered.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-29 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards could have stayed on in Michigan

The fact is he followed the DNC rules.  You know, the rules of that party he happens to belong to.

by Vox Populi 2007-12-29 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards could have stayed on in Michigan

Wrong.  There is no DNC rule that asks candidates to take their name off the ballot in either Michigan or Florida. That is why Edwards is still on the Florida ballot.  Are you suggesting he is breaking DNC rules by doing so?

by georgep 2007-12-29 12:32PM | 0 recs
Beep. False.

The rules do not require you to do anything.  The DNC simply asked for a pledge from candidates not to CAMPAIGN in the states that skipped ahead.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-29 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

If Hillary loses Iowa and New Hampshire the press will abandon her. Right now she still has a few friends in the MSM.  But after a double loss reporters will be reluctant to carry the Clinton water.

by aiko 2007-12-28 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

MSM stands for Main Stream Media.

by Goobergunch 2007-12-28 08:31PM | 0 recs
They abandoned her long ago

They can't help themselves.  Thay have attacked her non stop since Nov.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-29 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I thought it had been pretty credibly reported that Obama's campaign was behind the idea to boycott Michigan in order to deny Hillary a meaningful victory in a state where no one could campaign.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Yep. Obama contacted all the other campaigns and organized the ambush of Clinton. They all pulled their names two hours before the deadline, leaving her alone on the ballot.

by hwc 2007-12-28 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Why would they assume that Clinton would win Michigan?  It has huge unemployment, a large African-American population and strong union ties. That's hardly a Clinton strong-hold vs Edwards & Obama.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Because she was way ahead in the polls and no one could campaign there, I wager.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 05:49PM | 0 recs
very low probability that Michigan will matter

The core of the Obama strategy since the beginning has been laser like focus on the four sanctioned early states- in allocated money (to field and advertising) and Obama's own time.  They have bet that the momentum created by doing well in these states will be enough to carry the day across the country in post 1/26 contests.

They know that Clinton is the default choice (as you still can see in the national polls).  Their judgment was that they could not overcome this default strength without pouring resources into the State to campaign (they would have loved to do a 50,000 person rally in Ann Arbor at the Big House).  They also have judged that the probability of the delegate differential from Michigan (Clinton will not get all the delegates from Michigan) making a decisive difference in the final delegate count is very low.

With these judgments (which of course are all debatable), the only thing remaining that they can control is to delegitimize a Clinton "victory" in Michigan by taking his name off the ballot.  It allows the media (and the campaign) to create the storyline that Michigan was uncontested and therefore meaningless- severely diminishing any real momentum that would carry over to Nevada and South Carolina.  

If Obama wins New Hampshire (his real firewall State and the State that is likely to effectively knock Edwards out of the race- just like four years ago), I suspect that they will make it well known that all Obama supporters should go the polls and vote uncommitted.  This will probably not be enough to deny Clinton a plurality but it will reduce the delegate spread when they are seated in Denver.    

by mboehm 2007-12-28 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

At this point, a Democrat will be lucky to win MI.   The only ads running here are Romney and Ron Paul.  The only signs I see are for Ron Paul.  The Romney ads pound on a one state recession (which it really has been, thanks to that dumb shit Bill Clinton and NAFTA) and tax cuts.  Like there's even any revenue in a state with no jobs, no housing market, and a negative population growth.  The MI Dem. Party is the biggest pro establishment, status quo party in the world.   Anything they can do to support Hillary will be what they do. The Dems here treat NAFTA Bill as if he is some sort of a Democrat.   Our Gov. and Lt. Gov. endorsed Hillary 20 seconds after she announced.  

Our Governor is one of those kumbayah Democrats who keeps negotiating and getting her ass handed to her (like Reid and Pelosi) by the Republican Senate despite the House being Dem.  The Gov. has little real support.  She won re-election IMO because she wasn't DeVos.

We also have right to work on the ballot, which should bring out the wingnuts in droves.  If right to work passes in MI, the Dems can write this state off.

Why did Edwards and Obama pull out of MI?  Because they were sucking up to Iowa and NH.  MI pushed that issue, and they aren't done yet.  This is simply round one.  The industrialized states like MI are sick and tired of having no say in what the hell this country does.  Ag lets cows poop on their spinach and poison the population, they get a bail out.  MI sits on a 7% plus unemployment rate for almost 8 years, and we get fuck em!  Instead, we get lectures on crappy cars, crappy auto execs, and how we need improved CAFE standards in lieu of a real pursuit for alternative fuels.  Obama came into MI, once, to speak to the Detroit something or other and basically told everyone to fuck off.

Michigan may very well elect a Republican in 08.  Everybody is pissed off at everybody in this town.  Between Bush, Granholm, Clintons, and cross over voters pissed off about the primary, I wouldn't be surprised in Ron Paul doesn't win in this state.

by dkmich 2007-12-29 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Don't forget all the religious crazies in your farm country. Huckabee may be a force.

However, I object to your phrase,"sucking up to Iowa and NH". There are national rules and Michigan violated them. Following the rules is not "sucking up".

I'm in Illinois and I share your resentment at always being irrelevant to the nomination process. It's hard to think of two less representative states than Iowa and New Hampshire. Illinois and Massachusetts would be more representative of their regions.  

by antiHyde 2007-12-29 07:46AM | 0 recs
Double Standards
Governor Howard Dean, M.D. Chairman, Democratic National Committee Democratic Party Headquarters 430 South Capitol St., SE Washington, DC 20004 Dear Governor Dean, America has many strengths. Two of its greatest are our strong democratic traditions, and the rich diversity of our people. We Democrats take pride in the fact that, of the two major parties, we best represent this diversity. It is therefore hard to understand how one of our most important democratic processes -- the nomination of our candidates for the presidency -- has been unduly dominated by two states, neither of which is particularly reflective of this diversity. New Hampshire and Iowa have had a hugely disproportionate impact on our presidential nominating process, with more access to candidates and visits from candidates than probably all the other states combined during the primary and caucus season. Other states, including Michigan, have issues critically important to them. These states would like candidates seeking their support to understand and address these issues, and urged the DNC to make the process more democratic and thereby more reflective of our diversity. The DNC approached this issue cautiously and with due diligence. A Commission representing diverse party constituents was appointed to make recommendations. The Commission then held a series of comprehensive public hearings. Ultimately, the Commission recommended a modest change in the traditional schedule, which New Hampshire opposed. It recommended that two caucuses be held, then two primaries, and then the "window" for the rest of the states would open. On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows: at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008; at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19; at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29. The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to select their delegates after the opening of the "window" on February 5, 2008. Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four "pre-window" states, announced we would abide by the DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar. On August 9, New Hampshire's Secretary of State, with the support of the state's Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19. One of New Hampshire's purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC's rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire's transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar. Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently. But when the Florida legislature changed the date of the Florida primary to a date before the window opened, you promptly determined to punish Florida Democrats by threatening to not seat their delegates if they abided by their legislature's decision. You still maintained public silence about the New Hampshire Secretary of State's decision to violate the DNC rules, a decision, again, which was supported by New Hampshire Democrats. In the past, New Hampshire maintained its discriminatory privilege and dominating role because our party would not take them on and because of the gun that New Hampshire holds to candidates' heads, insisting that they pledge not to campaign in any state that encroaches on their primary. Our national party began the process of taking that gun away from the heads of our candidates when we changed the sequence and put New Hampshire third instead of second in the period prior to the opening of the window. The battle that we fought was over the sequence of the primaries and caucuses. New Hampshire either pushing ahead of its assigned position or increasing the distance between its primary and the opening of the window for the rest of the states violates the purpose of the rule. It was a hard won, albeit partial, victory, allowing our party to better reflect the diversity of America and to begin to inject some fairness in a process for states whose role had been diminished election after election by the dominance of two states. Michigan Democrats are determined to fight to maintain that victory. We object to your continued silence in the face of New Hampshire's stated intent to violate the DNC rules. As Chairman of the Democratic Party, you had the obligation to state your intent to apply the rule to New Hampshire Democrats when its Secretary of State announced his intention to move the New Hampshire primary prior to January 19. Selective enforcement of our rules undermines the progress achieved -- to open the process potentially for all states. We have not seen any public statement from the DNC following New Hampshire's announcement on August 9 that they would move their primary before January 19 in clear violation of the DNC rules. Your silence in the face of New Hampshire's action is a stunning contrast to the DNC's reaction to Florida. In the face of New Hampshire's decision to violate the DNC rules and your silence concerning that decision, and given our strong feelings about the need to reform our nominating process to make it fairer, Michigan's Democratic leadership decided to elect our delegates on January 15, 2008, the date the Michigan legislature set for the Michigan primary. (See attached statement.) Someone has to take on New Hampshire's transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position. Hopefully the DNC will, and you will, promptly urge our candidates to stop campaigning in New Hampshire because of the New Hampshire's expressed intent to violate the DNC rules. New Hampshire's gun remains at our candidates' heads and they fear the repercussions to their campaigns in New Hampshire if they don't sign the New Hampshire pledge -- dramatic proof, if any more were needed, of the disproportionate impact of the New Hampshire primary. Maybe Florida will join us if we have to take our case for the seating of our delegates to the Democratic convention in Denver. And maybe Nevada will insist on maintaining the number two position assigned to it. Maybe one or more of our Democratic candidates will join us. In any event, there cannot be one set of rules for New Hampshire and one set for every other state. We are determined that Michigan not be bound by rules that are not effectively enforced against other states. Sincerely, Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell
by dkmich 2007-12-29 09:42AM | 0 recs
Spin, spin, spin, spinning away...

i am so dizzy...

Jerome, do dont really believe that a candidate woho would win the delegate count without the FL and MI delegate will seat either of them if he would lose WITH them, right?

The Florida and Michigan primaries ARE meaningless and the media will treat them as such. Nobody cares for the russian elections. Why? Because everybody knows that Putin and his party wins. Why should we care for Michigian and Florida now?

And on the day president Bush showed his utter disdain for the constitition, separation of powers and rule of law, I certainly dont sympathize with a certain junior senator from the east coast, who has shown that she is willing to put herself above party rules, above a DNC ruling, above longstanding tradition to win it. Nothing new here. We all know: She is in it to win it. At all costs. Whether the democratic party and brand survives or not is irrelevant to her.

by MarcTGFG 2007-12-28 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin, spin, spin, spinning away...

What a horrible post.  

" I certainly dont sympathize with a certain junior senator from the east coast, who has shown that she is willing to put herself above party rules, above a DNC ruling, above longstanding tradition to win it. Nothing new here. We all know: She is in it to win it. At all costs. Whether the democratic party and brand survives or not is irrelevant to her."

How HAS SHE SHOWN THAT SHE IS WILLING TO PUT HERSELF ABOVE PARTY RULES?  ABOVE A DNC RULING?   You make absolutely no sense at all.  Nada, zilch, zip.  The DNC rules did not state that the candidates can't or should not be on the ballot in those two states.  Why would you pretend that that is somehow in the rules and that being on the ballot breakes DNC rules?  And, why do YOU think Obama and Edwards have remained on the FLORIDA ballot?  According to you, they are thus breaking DNC rules and are willing to put themselves above party rules.

 I don't mind "illogical," but do you really have to make it so blatantly obvious?

by georgep 2007-12-28 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin, spin, spin, spinning away...

georgie, georgie, georgie,

the standing rule of the democratic party is that NO other state than Iowa, NH, NV and SC is allowed to hold a primary OR caucus before february 5th.

Anyone actively participating in such primary or caucus is in clear violation of party rules.

It is clearly spelled out, that any delegates from such unlawful caucuses or primaries shall not be seated at the nominating convention.

Need help reading the rules? Youre welcome.

I dont support any candidate participating either in the Florida or Michigan primaries. If Edwards and others actively campaign in Florida I will not hesitate to criticize them.

Fl and MI can try their little revolution after this cycle.

by MarcTGFG 2007-12-28 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin, spin, spin, spinning away...

The party rules only apply to the states holding the primaries not candidates. This is why the democratic party of  Iowa and NH were forced to come up with the early state pledged which banned campaigning in FL or MI. The pledge DOES NOT require that you take your name off of the ballot. If it did require such a thing, don't you think Edwards, Obama or another candidate would have attacked Clinton over this?

by world dictator 2007-12-29 12:30AM | 0 recs

Wow.  How often does this have to be explained?  The issue is about BEING ON THE BALLOT, not about campaigning actively in a state.  If having a name on a ballot were to break DNC's rules, then why would you not contend that Edwards and Obama are breaking those rules by remaining on the Florida ballot?  

by georgep 2007-12-29 12:37PM | 0 recs
I have to agree with you

I thought the idea was for the candidates to show IA and NH they respected those states' first in the nation status when they withdrew from the MI ballot, but I never thought that was a great idea. No one in Iowa cares who is or is not on the MI ballot.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-28 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Well, someone cares, by which I mean the state party officials who made the candidates pledge not to campaign in Michigan.  The party establishment obviously has a big stake in maintaining the prestige of Iowa - just as the Democratic Party establishment in Michigan would like to make their state more prestigious in the primary process.

But I know you meant that rank-and-file voters don't care, which certainly seems consistent with what common sense would tell me.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

That's a different matter all together. Not campaigning in Michigan or Florida was a move they all had to make. No one asked that they withdraw their name from the ballot, and Clinton isn't going to get punished for it either.

It will be treated as a political gambit by Obama & Edwards to pull out of MI for no reason at all (or a even lamer one that they were afraid of Clinton there), and a stupid one at that too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Don't be naive. The "four-state" pledge was a scheme approved by Howard Dean and the other candidates to dilute the impact of two states where Clinton had a dominant lead.

by hwc 2007-12-28 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Every time I've asked you for evidence, you've failed to respond, so I have to call bullshit on you at this point.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Look it up for yourself. Dean mailed a letter to the candidates asking them to respect the sanctity of the four early states. The letter went out a day or two before "the four state pledge".

The party rules didn't call for the candidates boycotting Florida and Michigan. In fact, the party rules didn't even call for stripping those states of all their delegates. The party rules called for a 50% penalty, just like the Republicans.

by hwc 2007-12-28 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

If that's all you've got, I'm not surprised you've been uninterested in presenting the evidence on any previous occasion.  It's a plot by Howard Dean to deny Hillary the nomination!  Ridiculous.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Don't be naive. The move by Michigan and Florida to jump up ahead of the Feb 5 date that was set by the party and applies to all states except the designated early four, and which all other states adhered to, was driven by Clinton supporters in those states, hoping to give her a fallback if she got beat in IA and NH.

by desmoulins 2007-12-28 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

I don't know about Florida, but in Michigan it was mostly Republicans driving the bus on this one.  Also, Carl Levin has been working for a long time to make Michigan more influential in the party process,  well before Hillary was a candidate.  Does Levin even support Hillary?

by Steve M 2007-12-28 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

The bus in Florida was also driven by Republicans in the State Congress and by our Republican governor, so it appears desmoulins could not be more wrong with his assertion.

by georgep 2007-12-28 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you


by desmoulins 2007-12-28 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Granholm signed it, but it was the Republican state Supreme Court that upheld it down party minds.  A terrible decision, as the move really is unconstitutional.  (Using state money for party activities)

by RepublicanWatch 2007-12-28 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

People I've spoken to from Michigan say it was Granholm's allies who pushed for it to be a primary not a caucus and for it to be on Jan 15 to Feb 5.

I know that sounds like bs and it could be way off base but I trust the folks who told me that.

by desmoulins 2007-12-28 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Has Clinton or Dodd lost so much as one Iowa Caucus voter because they are on the Michigan ballot??  Has Obama or Edwards gained one vote in Iowa because of this?

by howardpark 2007-12-28 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to agree with you

Actually, at the time I got the feeling it had more to do with NH than with Iowa, that and the fact that Hillary was considered a hands-down favorite to win Michigan.   Bill Gardener was threatening a Dec 2007 primary date for NH, which would have placed it  before Iowa and would have seriously crimped strategies for both Obama and Edwards to use Iowa momentum for a win in NH.  Only after it became certain that NH could place its primary on the 8th of Jan without fear that Michigan would try to move to the same date did Gardener finally set the date.  I got the feeling that the pullout was aimed at trying to appease Gardener about Michigan not being a "similar" primary because all the candidates weren't on the ballot.  Just my theory of the whole thing.

by katerina 2007-12-28 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I really would like to know how it ended up that only Clinton & Dodd, so I read, are on the Michigan ballot.  It's crazy that Obama & Edwards will not be on the ballot.  It sets up the potential of a Credentials Committee or Convention Floor fight.  It is the worst mistake of the campaign by Obama & Edwards.  The DNC, bless thier souls, makes rules.  State legislatures, in contrast, make laws.  The only way out is that if Hillary wins the nomination (without Michigan as the margin) that they will seat the delegates chosen in thier Jan. 15 process.  If Obama or Edwards win with room to spare, they will seat the Hillary delegates as by that time it will just be a big party in Denver.  In the unlikely scenaro that Michigan is the margin it will be a huge fight.  Not seating any delegates from a state like Michigan is absolutely unthinkable and would have implications into November.  

Does anyone know, does the Michigan primary actually select individual delegates who will then seek credentials from the DNC or does it just select delegates based on the proportion of votes but not individuals?  Or is it something else?

by howardpark 2007-12-28 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

It ended up that way because the Obama campaign organized an ambush. All of the other campaigns agreed to wait to the last minute (two hours before the deadline) and withdraw their names from the Michigan ballot. They purposely left Clinton in the dark.

by hwc 2007-12-28 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

That is just absurd.  Obama & Edwards organized an "ambush" but they end up off the ballot??? That is like a mugging where the mugger gives the victim a wallet.

Clinton IS ON THE BALLOT in Michigan with only Chris Dodd as an opponent, a clear win for her.  How did the others get manuvered off the ballot?  It's real hard to win if you are not on the ballot.  Somehow this happened in a state with a huge African-American base.  

by howardpark 2007-12-28 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

They took themselves off the ballot Howard, ceding the state to Clinton. It seemed very odd back in early Oct when it was done, but now, with NH being a week before MI, it seems they lost their mind for a moment.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I know they took themselves off, like you I've just never heard the real story and there was something that happened in the back room on this one that nobody is talking about just yet.

by howardpark 2007-12-28 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Oh yea, you're right.  I've never heard either, but I think there might have been an assumption that MI was going to be in the middle of IA & NH, rather than just after, when the mistake was made.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I just told you. Obama's campaign organized an ambush to leave Clinton as the only one on the ballot, giving them a club to use against her in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The campaigns talked about their conversations, instigated by Obama. They admitted that the last hour removal of their names from the ballot was orchestrated and that they intentionally left the Clinton campaign out of the loop.

This is not a big secret.

by hwc 2007-12-28 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

But lets say for a moment, O and E had agreed to recognize Michigan as a legit primary despite the DNC rules. Don't you think every other FEb 5 state would have simply jumped up to Jan 15?

by desmoulins 2007-12-28 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

The point is that, since no one could campaign in Michigan, there was no way for anyone to overcome Hillary's early polling lead.  So if her win is a done deal regardless, better not to play at all and thus try to make it a non-event.

I mean, this was all reported in the media.  It's not just a bunch of tinfoil Hillary supporters talking amongst themselves here.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

But that seems to go counter to what we are always hearing in regards to most other state polls and also national polls:  Once Obama (or Edwards) win Iowa and New Hampshire, the polls in all these other states and also national polls will automatically turn for that winner.  So, therefore, Michigan, Nevada, Florida, California polls will be following and strongly support that early winner.  Thus, there was no point to get off the Michigan ballot if the idea is that, say, Obama wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, then sees his polling fortunes in states like Michigan and Florida turn golden with Clinton having no way to do anything to stop it (due to her inability to campaign there.)

by georgep 2007-12-28 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Actually, it's been decided by the courts that the parties have rights to make their own rules and that's the law. Political parties are not in the Constitution and thus voting rights are not protected in primaries.

by Progressive America 2007-12-28 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

The fact is that Michigan will have a primary and Hillary Clinton & Chris Dodd will be on the ballot.  That is the law in Michigan as passed by the legislature.  The law results in action.  Party rules are, just, party rules -- always subject to political considerations.  Sure, legally, the DNC can act as if the primary never happened and not seat any delegates from Michigan.  In practice, that just is not going to happen, never, no way.  Michigan is too big and too much of a swing state to be disenfranchised.  The law always trumps party rules.  

by howardpark 2007-12-28 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Exactly.  The same applies to Florida.  All delegates WILL be seated.  This is MUCH bigger than what the DNC happens to want.  This is about the fate of the Democratic party at and past the Nov. 2008 election.   The party can't afford a pi$$ing contest in Florida and Michigan in any way, so right after the primaries/caucuses are done, the delegates will count, and Florida and Michigan will be fully incorporated.   Anything else is just hogwash (and seems like wishful thinking.)  

by georgep 2007-12-28 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I agree the delegates will be seated, unless Edwards or Obama were to only win not counting Michigan. Then they will not be counted. But this is a very unlikely situation, so my guess is that all delegates will be seated.

Michigan will be meaningless to the media since there are no candidates.

by Progressive America 2007-12-28 05:17PM | 0 recs
no way!

You don't fully understand. It's not just Michigan, but also Florida. There is no way that Obama or Edwards could take home a win only by keeping MI &  FL off the floor.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: no way!

I seriously doubt this thing is going to be that close. But we'll see later.

The main thing right now to know is that the media is not going to care about Michigan, since Edwards and Obama can't win it anyway.

by Progressive America 2007-12-28 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: no way!

And I live in Florida. I know very well the situation here.

by Progressive America 2007-12-28 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

MI has never played an important role in the primaries and the added "disqualification" by the DNC will make any win meaningless.  A win in NV or SC would be much more helpful for HRC if she loses IA and NH.

For the Republicans, MI is important because it was only penalized half its delegates and Romney has roots in the state (his father was Governor).  A loss there could be devastating for his campaign without wins in NH or IA.

BTW, CQ Politics have put together a highly informative history of the primaries.  I strongly recommend reading them and seeing how historically, there are multiple paths to the nomination for both early state winner and losers.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?pa rm1=5&docID=news-000002649356

by rationalj 2007-12-28 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

The desperation in the Clinton camp is just palpable.

I guess you didn't bother to read this:

"Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States," New York Times, September 2, 2007.

PORTSMOUTH, N.H., Sept. 1 -- Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/pol itics/02dems.html?fta=y

Now that it looks like the "inevitable" candidate can't win a legitimate primary or caucus, her supporters set about trumping up a fake "win" in contests that she and the other candidates have pledged not to campaign in.

Desperate indeed.

by dmc2 2007-12-28 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Another one who can't follow the discussion and oozes "logic problems."   This is NOT about CAMPAIGNING.  This is about being on the ballot.   Are you aware that Obama and Edwards have removed themselves from the Michigan ballot, but remain on the Florida ballot?  Does that not seem like hypocrisy to you?  If the mantra is "principle" or some greater sense that the DNC should be supported, why remain on the Florida ballot, then?

by georgep 2007-12-28 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Ah, lol, his head will explode from the confusion once he sees Obama campaigning in Florida after New Hampshire.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Yes, my head will explode if Obama campaigns in Florida after pledging not to. We'll see what happens, but I would be surprised and quite disappointed indeed.

by dmc2 2007-12-28 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

It doesn't matter who's on the ballot and who's not if it's a primary where no delegates are at stake and all of the candidates have pledged not to campaign. They took their names off the ballot out of respect for Iowa and New Hampshire. What's so hard to understand about that?

by dmc2 2007-12-28 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Then why not in Florida?  Does the respect for the DNC not extend to that state?  Strange reasoning.

by georgep 2007-12-29 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I personally think she'll sweep the first two contests, and the rest will become acadamic.  However, in the event that does not occur, any win in any state leading up to Florida will have a devastating effect on Obama and Edwards, because it ices the national polls (as split early states have a habit of doing) and makes Florida almost certainly a big win for her.  Tat would give Clinton a major advantage going into Feb. 5 (those 20 states polled by themselves largely  mirror national polling we have seen.)   If Clinton wins Florida, she will be tough to beat for Feb. 5.    

Now, Obama and Edwards made a huge blunder in regards to Michigan, as consequently there is no earthly reason and justification they would remove themselves from Michigan, but not from Florida.   If it is out of principle or solidarity with the DNC (even though the rules don't ask for a removal from the ballot,) then a Florida removal would have had to logically occur.  At this point they look cowardly for having pulled in the sails in Michigan.  If they both remain on the Florida ballot, but not Michigan, they come across as picking the states based on which one they believe to have somewhat of a chance with.  Should they remove themselves from Florida NOW, after all this time has passed post-Michigan removal, they would look hypocritical to the extreme, as if they were hedging their bets to see how Florida polling develops through the end of December and into early January before making their moves in regards to Florida.     They both botched this big time, and if they lose in the end to Clinton, this silly behavior in regards to Michigan and Florida will be part of the reason behind it.  

by georgep 2007-12-28 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

two words: wishful thinking

by MarcTGFG 2007-12-28 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

It won't matter much, because the Dem turnout will be miniscule. Every engaged Democrat I know, myself included, is voting in the GOP race, either for McCain if our chosen Dem does poorly in IA and NH or Romney if our chosen Dem does well.

by ThinkingDem 2007-12-28 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

It doesn't matter what the turnout is, what matters is the delegates. And no matter what, Clinton will be able to say she has a win and the lead in delegates, even if she lost NH & IA.

That's not spin, I'm not a Clinton supporter, it's just the cold hard facts.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 05:09PM | 0 recs
not only that

but right after the NH primary, this could give the media the "Hillary comeback" narrative they may be looking for at that point.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-28 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

You had me fooled, BIG time

by OreoBlue 2007-12-28 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Why?... If Edwards wins NH and Iowa(or even if Obama does) ... won't you see people fleeing HRC?  And if Edwards does one those two ... won't you see him pick up more Union support?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-12-28 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

The problem for Edwards, or even Obama, is that FL and MI compose of states that hold a signficiant bloc of Clinton's base, highly supportive voters, who arent the flaky voters who change their minds because of "momentum." I also think voters of those states are going to be less likely to vote for a candidate who basically pushed for their disenfranchisement. (You can argue the actual facts of this if you want but my point is that its the perception that matters)

by world dictator 2007-12-29 12:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

According the the above, all the candidates have already agreed that the delegates will be seated. And besides, there's no way in hell that someone is going to win the nomination by keeping Florida & Michigan's delegates off the floor at the DNC convention. You have to be very naive to believe that could happen.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

If it were necessary, it would be done. But it's very unlikely this will happen.

by Progressive America 2007-12-28 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

It's very hard to imagine that happening, but it's also very hard to imagine anyone voluntarily LOSING the Presidential nomination by agreeing to seat those delegates.

Frankly, the scenario you describe would hardly be a harsh result compared to some of the historical shenanigans that have gone on at conventions.  So I dunno.  Lots of people got their nominations in very sketchy ways.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

It's too open a process now to compare it to some previous shenanigans. Besides, if the above scenario in the post plays out, I'll predict that Obama and Edwards are making plans, if they haven't already, for campaigning in Florida by the second week in January.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-28 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I think it's a bit much to treat it as a foregone conclusion that any of our candidates would be guaranteed to surrender the Democratic nomination rather than take a PR hit.

by Steve M 2007-12-28 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

Jerome, I think YOU are very naive in thinking that any candidate who would become the democratic nominee for president with the Mi and Fl delegate would forego that once-in-a-lifetime opportynity by seating their delegate. Very naive indeed.

Sorry to say. But personal ambition almost always trumps other motives.

by MarcTGFG 2007-12-28 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I bet you can't wait until next week?

by bruh21 2007-12-28 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

I do and have thought it was a mistake for Obama to skip Michigan.  His strategy has always depended on momentum from early state victories.  If he has this, then Michigan would become competitive no matter how large a lead Clinton may have held 6 months prior.  If he doesn't, then Michigan wouldn't matter because his campaign would pretty much be out of luck.  

by Ryan Anderson 2007-12-28 06:35PM | 0 recs
A Superficial Treatment

Sure, Michigan's improper primary, and what it will mean, is an interesting subject. But Jerome's post is very superficial (and slanted toward Clinton) in its treatment.

Jerome tells us he never got to the bottom of why Biden, Obama, and Edwards took their names off the ballot of this improper primary (Kucinich tried but failed). The implication here, I suppose, is to simply suggest there could be NO reason. Has Jerome forgotten? (Google is your friend.)  

They took their names off of the ballot of this improper primary because like the party that you belong to, the Democratic Party, which had fixed the primary/caucus schedule after long drawn out meetings and deliberations, they wanted to discourage individual states from selfishly leapfrogging ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. Michigan tried to undo the hard work that your party put into this.

For those who can actually recall what happened (or google towards the truth), it is plain that there was a long drawn out struggle, with an indefinite outcome, to discourage states like Michigan from shattering the set schedule.

For several months, it appeared that Michigan would NOT ultimately be allowed to do this. A lawsuit ensued to stop the primary, and lower courts ruled that the primary would NOT take place. Then, in a surprise (4-3) decision, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that the hobbled, improper primary could go forward.  Needless to say, that decision could have gone the other way!

As for the improper primary that remains, it is going to have a lot of problems, including the fact that Republicans can vote as Democrats and visa versa...and for the first time in Michigan (IIRC), parties will be given lists of which ballot you asked for.  That private information will NOT be available to the public, but it will be available to the Democratic and Republican parties. (What?) Absentee balloting and overseas balloting is also all messed up, and there will be disenfranchisement as a result.

Also, just so that others can put this in their next post about Michigan, Hillary Clinton is already on record as saying that the improper primary in Michigan "is not going to count for anything." She said this in order to assure New Hampshire voters that she respects them and the importance of NH going first. Of course, I realize that she may well attempt to do a 180 on this statement, and we can probably wager about whether the MSM is going to let her get away with it. (I think her 180 turn is likely.)

Some Hillary partisans above seem to want to claim that Hillary was misled into staying on the ballot.  That is revisionist baloney.  If you take her at her word, she wanted to stay on the Michigan ballot because she was worried about what Michigan might think if she was off the ballot.

In reality, I suspect her campaign felt that a Michigan primary is exactly what THEY wanted before a New Hampshire primary. She and her campaign felt that she benefits from name-ID wholesale politics, and that her opponents benefit from retail, get to know the candidate well style politics. She and her campaign were correct in this assessment. The state polls certainly bear this out.

As for seating or not seating the delegates, the Democratic Party which controls the Democratic Party convention has already ruled that they will not be seated, which is a fancy way of saying that their delegates will not count toward determining who the nominee will be. That ruling stands. So, as is likely, when the MSM begins publishing delegate totals for Edwards, Obama, and Hillary before and after February 5, Michigan's delegates will NOT be in that mix.  

It is only when you assume that the nomination will be wrapped up before February 5, or immediately after February 5, that you can then say: who cares about Michigan's delegates, and who cares about which way they vote...because all the other candidates will have conceded defeat to the one remaining candidate.  Under those specific circumstances, I would suppose that a Michigan  delegation will certainly be allowed to attend the convention...and sit down there too! Be seated.

On the other hand, if the nomination is NOT wrapped up immediately after February 5, then Michigan's delegates will continue to remain irrelevant...regardless of whether ultimately... they are allowed to sit down at a convention. And that irrelevance, in a contested, delegate total counting battle is significant.

Bottom line:  Michigan's delegates will not be allowed to play any role in determining who our nominee is.  They will likely, eventually, be spectators...after the fact.

Lastly, a far more interesting diary would speculate on the possibility that "Uncommitted" might beat Hillary Clinton in the improper primary in Michigan. ;)

by Demo37 2007-12-28 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: A Superficial Treatment

Your contortion falls apart:

They took their names off of the ballot of this improper primary because like the party that you belong to, the Democratic Party, which had fixed the primary/caucus schedule after long drawn out meetings and deliberations, they wanted to discourage individual states from selfishly leapfrogging ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. Michigan tried to undo the hard work that your party put into this.

And so why did they remain on Florida?

The simple fact is that it benefits Clinton, greatly.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-12-29 06:01AM | 0 recs
Michigan MIGHT NOT matter

I suspect the assumption by all of the campaigns was that there would be a clear leader by the Convention (very likely). In which case, allowing the Michigan & Florida delegates is a gratuitous move. But....

If the Delegate count is close enough (exclude MI & FL), leading to a brokered convention,  Michigan (and Florida) probably won't be seated until after the brokering is done (and we have a nominee). They'll be pissed, but it will be done.  That's Politics 101.

Being seated just in time for the closing gavel of the convention is not a benefit. But, the winning campaign keeps it promise.

Then we hopefully go on the clobber the Wingers.

by NvDem 2007-12-28 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan MIGHT NOT matter

Except for those people in MI who are pissed off enough to vote against the Dems because of a weak Gov. who appears to have done little to nothing and the failure of Dems in DC to change anything. IMO, MI could very well go Republican in 08.

by dkmich 2007-12-29 03:33AM | 0 recs
Thoughts from Michigan

I can't claim to be an expert on much of anything, but I will offer my read of the situation in Michigan-- both how we got in this mess, and what the final result will be.

My state has wanted to be an early state for a while, and offered a proposal to reform the system that the DNC rejected, choosing instead to move up Nevada and limit it to IA, NH, NV, and SC in January. Michigan said that was fine, but if anyone else moved into January, we would to. Florida moved up, and various forces in the state got together to move us up to January 15.

I oppose the primary, and would much rather see us go back to our original caucus. It'll cost the state a lot of money we don't have, and it hands over enormous and valuable voter lists to the MDP and MI GOP, free of charge. Like I said, our state has budget problems, and we're giving stuff away for free?

But while all of that is important, it's not relevant right now.

All the candidates pledged not to campaign in Michigan because we broke the rules, and Hillary Clinton, as frontrunner, had the natural advantage. Obama and Edwards couldn't spend resources to change that. Instead, they made the best politically out of a bad situation. They created a new situation where they could, conceivably, spin it to reduce the damage. That is, "It's a meaningless beauty contest."

At least, that's how it seemed at the time, regardless of whether it was a good idea.

Now, what happens on January 15? It all depends on what the media narrative. (After all, that's what matters. Howard Dean in 2004 and Bill Clinton in 1992 did about the same in New Hampshire, but one was a come-back kid and one was a loser. It's all spin.)

If Clinton doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire, the next chance to regain momentum is Nevada. But a Clinton win there will be overshadowed by what happens in the Republican South Carolina primary (that's my prediction, anyway). Obama or Edwards could still be riding a positive media narrative going into Michigan.

Clinton will win Michigan, that's a given. But Obama/Edwards/whoever will do his best to spin it as a weak showing by Clinton. Something like, "Look, in a race between Clinton and the fringe candidates, she only got 60 percent! And Uncommitted got 10 percent!" or something like that. It's not about making Clinton lose, it's about making her look weaker going into South Carolina.

Will that kind of spin work? I don't know. But if someone like Barack Obama is looking like a winner on January 14, I'm guessing that the media will be pretty receptive to whatever his surrogates say.

Michigan's delegates, regardless of whether they're seated, simply won't matter. It's all about perceived momentum, and no one will be counting delegates until February 5. If someone other than Clinton comes out of Iowa and New Hampshire looking strong, it comes down to who can spin the media best. And the media likes the "X Candidate has momentum!" story.

Of course, I could be wrong about all of this. I'm no expert. Jerome's a seasoned professional, and I'm just some lowly blogger.

by Fitzy 2007-12-28 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: If the Michigan delegates will be counted...

This post has a whole lot of confusion in it

1. How did the Clinton's force every candidate to agree to seat the delegates of FL and MI? You're accusing the Clinton's of rigging the race by making other campaigns do things?

2. Clinton isn't defying the Dem party decision, EVERY candidate is agreeing to seat the delegates.

3.How is Clinton acting like Lieberman did in CT? No one made Edwards and Obama drop their names off the ballot. EVEN THE DEM PARTY OF IOWA AND NH DID NOT CALL FOR THIS. This is a dumb move that backfired on them.

4. Consider that no one forced them to drop themselves from the ballot, I see no reason why Obama and Edwards should be allowed back on the ballot.

by world dictator 2007-12-29 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan will matter

The best explaination I've heard for why FL and MI will matter, is that with the press covering the republican primaries for those states,especially FL, they will naturally discuss the democratic side of the primary.

by world dictator 2007-12-29 12:51AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads