Its On! Like Donkey Kong! MI Caucus likely

[BlueJackalope]

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

A member of the DNC's Rules And Bylaws Committee--the committee that stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates for moving their primaries before February 5th--told me that Michigan plans to get out of its uncounted delegate problem by announcing a new caucus in the next few days.

"They want to play. They know how to do caucuses," the DNC source said. "That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary."

Michigan Democrats had originally planned on caucuses after the legally permissible Feb. 5 date, but then went along with top elected Democrats, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who pushed for an early primary.

Hillary Clinton won that Jan. 15 primary, but was the only major candidate on the ballot. Barack Obama and John Edwards had removed their names, although Obama supporters in the state urged voters to choose “uncommitted” over Clinton. Forty percent of the voters that day did just that, compared to 55 percent who voted for
--S.V. Date

[BlueJackalope]

If this is for realz I'm guessing FLA will find a way to do something similar. I'm also guess BO will take MI and Hillary will take FLA and things will stay about the same.

[Machfive]

May I be the first to say: FUCK MICHIGAN.

Jesus, are we trying to beat Ohio out in stupidity? At least there's still Florida.

[Ben Sones]

What's wrong with Michigan holding a new caucus? I think they should do that, so that their voters have an opportunity to make their voices heard. Florida should do the same.

[BlueJackalope]

May I be the first to say: FUCK MICHIGAN.

Jesus, are we trying to beat Ohio out in stupidity? At least there's still Florida.

Listen, I've been to Florida, Ohio sir, does not out-stupid Florida.

[Daagar]

What's wrong with Michigan holding a new caucus? I think they should do that, so that their voters have an opportunity to make their voices heard. Florida should do the same.

No. The rules was you tamper with your primary date, you lose your delegate seating. Everyone agreed. End of story. By caving in, the elections in 2012 will be sheer insanity, with everyone pushing their primary dates back to 2009 knowing that they can just get a "do-over" later. I don't want a 3 year campaign season.

[Rimbo]

caucus != primary

[Ben Sones]

Why would states do that, exactly? Holding a primary isn't cheap, as Florida discovered, and if the results are just going to be thrown out anyway, then where is the incentive? The only reason Florida did it this time is because they thought the DNC was bluffing. I'll bet you cash money that they won't do that again, though.

[Nathan Phoenix]

Who's going to be paying for this caucus is what I want to know. Michigan is hurting enough already. I'd honestly rather we get screwed out of the democratic process entirely to hopefully provoke a regime change at the state government level.

[Machfive]

Michigan should not be able to get a do-over. We made our decision, and it fucked us over. We should have to pay the price, and if that means that Michigan gets passed over at the convention, then so be it.

[Sidd_Budd]

I agree with both Lokust & Machfive. Michigan party leaders took a risk with moving up the primary, & were punished for it by the national committees. Have some freakin' integrity and accept the consequences, rather than trying some legalistic caucus do-over that will provide precedent for freaky crazy circus-like state delegate selection methods come 2012. By that time, there's likely to be some reality show involved in picking some of California's delegates.

[AaronSofaer]

By that time, there's likely to be some reality show involved in picking some of California's delegates.


Awesome idea.

[Jason McCullough]

No. The rules was you tamper with your primary date, you lose your delegate seating. Everyone agreed. End of story. By caving in, the elections in 2012 will be sheer insanity, with everyone pushing their primary dates back to 2009 knowing that they can just get a "do-over" later. I don't want a 3 year campaign season.

Kind of like how replacing Torricelli resulted in an orgy or replacing candidates at the last minute? I distinctly remember hearing lots of otherwise reasonable people say that.

It'll be amusing to see the breakdown on yes vs. no related to favored candidate.

[Lum]

What's wrong with Michigan holding a new caucus? I think they should do that, so that their voters have an opportunity to make their voices heard. Florida should do the same.

Yeah, agreed, even though Clinton will probably take the Florida caucuses. It's the only fair response to this situation.

[ydejin]

I agree with both Lokust & Machfive. Michigan party leaders took a risk with moving up the primary, & were punished for it by the national committees. Have some freakin' integrity and accept the consequences, rather than trying some legalistic caucus do-over that will provide precedent for freaky crazy circus-like state delegate selection methods come 2012. By that time, there's likely to be some reality show involved in picking some of California's delegates.
Howard Dean has been saying all along that he would be happy to let the Michigan and Florida Democrats redo their vote within their original guidelines -- holding them on or after February 5th. In fact from the start he's been encouraging them to have some kind of do-over in order to re-enfranchise them. This isn't some new offer now that the race is tight and it might make a difference. The idea of a do-over is something which has been on the table from the start.

Previously Michigan and Florida were complaining that they didn't have any money for a revote, not that the option hadn't been presented to them. I think what's different now is that Michigan and Florida see that they might make a difference and are more willing to spend the time and money to revote. In Florida's case it's probably also in large part because the Republican Governor and Legislature see dragging the Democratic Primary on is good for McCain.

I don't see how allowing them to re-vote following the rules which they were originally given (vote on or after February 5th) lacks integrity. In fact I would argue that it is the most ethical solution.

[triggercut]

Here's the thing:

Michigan Democrats have traditionally caucused during primary season. This year was the first year they were ever going to do a democratic primary, and moved themselves up the calendar in a fit of hubris to announce their importance.

And they got burned. It was actually state leaders like Governor Granholm who pushed for the change to a primary and an earlier date; there were a lot of democrats in the state party apparatus telling her that the DNC wasn't gonna like it...

...and they didn't.

So. Those democrats (and there are a lot of them) are furious, and especially furious at Gov. Granholm. "If they'd just left our caucus like we were supposed to do it..." Now those Democrats have been given the Governor's blessing to pursue this, and I'm finding it tough to blame them for wanting to do what they've always done before.

[MyNameIsWill]

Both FL and MI should have a caucus.

[Nathan Phoenix]

Paid for by who?

[triggercut]

Caucuses are *much* less inexpensive than elections/primaries. To do a statewide election, it'll typically cost 80-90% more than just a caucus.

Caucuses are cheap--that's (one of the reasons) why so many states do them.

[Nathan Phoenix]

I'm just saying, michigan is doing worse than almost every state in the nation economically. It hurt us a lot to put on the primary which a lot of people wanted to have canceled entirely due to the state being censured over it. So at this point that 80-90% more than what is typically spent on that point of the democratic process has been spent already.

[Daagar]

Hillary has already stated that a caucus isn't good enough (likely because she tends to lose them). I stand by not letting them redo anything, caucus or otherwise. Prevent states from trying to do silly hijinks in 2012.

[Machfive]

You know, everyone outside of Michigan who's calling for a new Michigan primary/caucus - Go fuck yourself. Michigan's economy has been in the shitter for years and no one has done us any favors, and now all of a sudden all these non-Michiganders are telling us what we should be doing politically.

Bugger off.

[Lum]

So you'd rather... not have your vote count?

OK.

[NowhereDan]

Well, if you think about it, their votes did count in a way - they voted for short-sighted state party officials who decided it would be a swell idea to go ahead with holding an early primary despite being told exactly what was going to happen if they did. The voters didn't know it at the time, but they were voting to not vote in this primary. The people responsible for this debacle are the people that those states put in charge.

[Funkula]

I think I see where you're coming from on this, but I think it's a bit harsh to hold the voters responsible. I don't think "likelihood of getting into a confrontation with party leaders over primary dates/methods" is on most people's radar when voting.

[NowhereDan]

It's the same thing as holding people who voted for Bush responsible for the crap he's pulled. When you vote for someone, you're voting for the person you think has not only the best policies, but the best judgment.

[Jason McCullough]

The average Democratic primary or caucus voter doesn't have the slightest idea who their local party officials are, or how they get picked. It's the hardest of the hardcore that handles that. So I think it's a bit churlish to blame anyone but the party officials.

[Funkula]

Not really, Dan. Most of the crap Bush has pulled has been ideologically motivated, which is the sort of thing that people (ideally) make their voting decisions based on. Shit like this is purely procedural, and as such it's not on anybody's radar.

[NowhereDan]

The gubernatorial elections are only handled by the hardest of hard core, and aren't on people's radar? The governors of both Michigan and Florida signed off on these early primaries.

[Sarkus]

The gubernatorial elections are only handled by the hardest of hard core, and aren't on people's radar? The governors of both Michigan and Florida signed off on these early primaries.

As did the state legislatures, almost unanimously.

Both states have elected officials who decided to ignore the DNC policy, knowing this was a possible outcome. If the people of those states are mad they aren't having the impact they'd like, then they need to blame their state elected officials, not the DNC.

Somebody proposed that the delegates from each state be split 50/50 and seated that way. As such they get a say in the final choice but it doesn't end up advantaging either candidate directly. Seems like a reasonable solution if they can't get their own acts together and have a later vote that is fair to both candidates.

[Jason McCullough]

Picking the date for the elections is not something the average primary voter knows about, no. It's a bit silly to blame them; it's not like "hey, let's dick around with our primary date" was on the ballot explicitly or implicitly at any point.

[NowhereDan]

Like I said, the voters didn't know it at the time, but they were voting for some people with poor judgment. The consequence of those votes is their disenfranchisement in this primary. If they want to blame anyone for it, it should be their elected officials, not the DNC. And if they want to take action, they should make sure to vote for a Democratic challenger who will have respect for the rules in the future.

[JeffL]

Well, Granholm has royally screwed Michigan. I lived there for quite a few years, and there was never the complete financial collapse that has occurred since she took over, even when the car companies started having their woes. My friends talk about services being shut down, the colleges are having major problems, etc. This is just another example (although my desire to attack her may result in my putting more of this on her than deserved.)

[Machfive]

The Michigan economy can't be blamed on Granholm. It was sputtering before she came into office, and it's not like the governor can do much to help the fact the heart of the state's economy is being hammered by market realities.

Anyone who believes otherwise, well, I have to question their ability to see reality through their partisan-colored glasses.

[JeffL]

The Michigan economy can't be blamed on Granholm. It was sputtering before she came into office, and it's not like the governor can do much to help the fact the heart of the state's economy is being hammered by market realities.

Anyone who believes otherwise, well, I have to question their ability to see reality through their partisan-colored glasses.

I see you live in MI so you've got a good perspective (I lived in the Saginaw/Bay City area) - do you really believe that the dramatic crash has nothing to do with her? Nothing to do with the way she has managed the spending in the face of the economy? My opinion has nothing to do with partisan anything, BTW. My son is in construction in MI - the license, annual, his small company had to pay was $100. After Granholm came in, that jumped up to $1000 per year, along with all kinds of other state increases, which is causing them to consider moving out of state. I know of other businesses that have decided not to move into MI since Granholm came in because of her policies and new taxes on businesses that do just the opposite of what MI needs, which is attracting jobs. State spending has gone WAY up at the same time.

[Sarkus]

I see you live in MI so you've got a good perspective (I lived in the Saginaw/Bay City area) - do you really believe that the dramatic crash has nothing to do with her? Nothing to do with the way she has managed the spending in the face of the economy? My opinion has nothing to do with partisan anything, BTW. My son is in construction in MI - the license, annual, his small company had to pay was $100. After Granholm came in, that jumped up to $1000 per year, along with all kinds of other state increases, which is causing them to consider moving out of state. I know of other businesses that have decided not to move into MI since Granholm came in because of her policies and new taxes on businesses that do just the opposite of what MI needs, which is attracting jobs. State spending has gone WAY up at the same time.

It's obviously a "catch-22" situation as to what you do when the economy is tanking and it illustrates the differences between the two major parties. Granholm appears to be following the traditional approach of trying to provide needed public services and using taxes to do that. A Republican would have done things to attract new businesses, but public services would have suffered unless or until money is borrowed or the incentives began to pay off in the form of higher existing tax revenues. Of course, the ideal would be a mix of the two approaches, but it sounds like Granholm is traditional democrat all the way.

[Machfive]

Jeff - It's an unfortunate side effect of what can only be described as a "perfect storm" of shit that basically conspired over the last 20 years to land Michigan in the state it's in now.

I could elaborate, but I don't feel like being particularily long-winded.

Needless to say the environment has become slightly more hostile to businesses and residents due to a myriad of tax increases (real ones, and fee increases like your son and many others have witnessed).

That was about the only option because no one, Republicans included, wanted to be the one to make the severe cuts to spending that would've been necessary to balance the budget.

The thing a lot of people outside of Michigan forget is that our legislature is mostly Republican, so while Granholm probably (I can't recall any specific examples) vetoed her share of spending cuts, the budget that she ultimately signed had to have gotten a significant number of Republican signatures.

If I had to point fingers at whom is most responsible for Michigan's current situation, I'd first look at former Governor Engler, then at the Big 3, then at UAW.

[Sarkus]

The thing a lot of people outside of Michigan forget is that our legislature is mostly Republican, so while Granholm probably (I can't recall any specific examples) vetoed her share of spending cuts, the budget that she ultimately signed had to have gotten a significant number of Republican signatures.


I'm not in or from Michigan, but that seems somewhat misleading. According to Wikipedia, the Michigan house is 58-52 Democratic and the senate 21-17 Republican. That obviously limits the Democrats from doing everything they want, but with a Democratic governor and house they are generally going to get their way, even if they have to compromise to some degree.

I'm not saying it's easy for Granholm, but it's not a "mostly Republican" legislature either.

[Machfive]

I'm not in or from Michigan, but that seems somewhat misleading. According to Wikipedia, the Michigan house is 58-52 Democratic and the senate 21-17 Republican. That obviously limits the Democrats from doing everything they want, but with a Democratic governor and house they are generally going to get their way, even if they have to compromise to some degree.

I'm not saying it's easy for Granholm, but it's not a "mostly Republican" legislature either.

That's only for the most recent years though. My memory is as of 2004 (or possibly even 2006), Republicans controlled both houses. My girlfriend concurs, but she can't be sure either. And damned if any of my google searches are turning up a year-by-year split of dems/republicans.

[Sarkus]

That's only for the most recent years though. My memory is as of 2004 (or possibly even 2006), Republicans controlled both houses. My girlfriend concurs, but she can't be sure either. And damned if any of my google searches are turning up a year-by-year split of dems/republicans.

Yeah, it appears they held both houses until 2006. It's interesting that it's only been recently that the big tax increases have been enacted.

[Machfive]

No, it's not interesting, it's shitty.

There've been budget deficits every year since 2000. Michigan has had to contend with decreased tax revenue and increased spending every single year that Granholm's been in office. It's a fucking miracle that we didn't see any tax increases till 2006; but there were increases in "hidden taxes," IE the fees that Jeff's son has seen.

Every year after 2000, fees went up, and deficits arose, and Granholm managed to avoid an out-and-out tax increase until 2006, when the deficits became insurmountable.

I blame prison costs and teacher's pensions spiralling out of control, coupled with the decreased tax revenue from the single-state recession we've been suffering through since 2000.