8 Questions and Answers about the (Confusing) Michigan Primary

[babylonsister]

8 Questions and Answers about the (Confusing) Michigan Primary
By Marie Horrigan, CQ Staff

1. Why did Michigan change its primary date from Feb. 26 to Jan. 15?

Michigan’s legislature set the Jan. 15 primary deadline for the same reason any state front-loads its contest: to gain greater influence over the presidential nominating process. When she signed the bill in September that set the Jan. 15 primary, Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm said Michigan’s electorate “deserves a primary process that requires candidates to address the issues they will be held accountable for in the general election.”

“The January 15th primary in Michigan accomplishes precisely this goal,” she said.

2. What are the consequences of the new primary date?

Both national parties have said that states will be penalized for holding primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5. Democrats made exceptions for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to respect the historical early role of Iowa and New Hampshire and increase the geographical and demographic diversity by adding South Carolina and Nevada; meanwhile, Republicans give a pass to Iowa and Nevada, as their caucuses technically are not binding contests. As a consequence, both of Michigan’s delegations have been cut. The Republican National Committee cut Michigan’s GOP delegation to the Republican National Convention in half to 30 delegates. The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan Democrats of their entire 156-person delegation to the Democratic National Convention.

3. Why did Republicans only cut half of their party’s delegation, while the Democrats excluded them all?

Different parties, different rules. The Democratic National Committee’s rules stipulate that states not in compliance with the Feb. 5 cut-off date — like Michigan and Florida, which has scheduled its primary for Jan. 29 — will lose their entire delegations to the national convention while RNC rules call for the delegations of violating states (including New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, South Carolina and Florida) to be cut by 50 percent.

4. With no delegates, why should Democrats show up on Tuesday?

The Michigan Democratic Party is banking on the fact that the national party does not want a raucous fight over the credentialing of delegates to distract from the pageantry of the Democratic National Convention. They argue that their entire delegation will be seated in August at the convention in Denver, and that it is important for Democrats to vote in the primary because the delegate allocation will be determined based on the Jan. 15 vote.

5. What voting implications might there be on primary day?

Because the state’s primary is open — meaning that registered voters can choose either a Democratic or Republican ballot on Tuesday — Democrats who fear their vote will not carry weight at the national convention could decide to weigh in on the GOP primary instead. Mark Brewer, Michigan’s Democratic Party chair, said Wednesday that the state party calls on Democrats only to vote in their own party’s primary. “We’ve done nothing to encourage cross-over voting. As a matter of fact, we’ve explicitly discouraged it,” he said in news conference. Michigan’s senior Democratic senator, Carl Levin , said that although it was a possibility, he did not think Democrats would decide en masse to participate in the GOP primary. “I think there’s some reluctance on people who are Democrats to say, ‘Can I have a Republican ballot?’” Levin said.

6. What will happen after the primary, in terms of the impact on the nominations?

Depends on whom you ask. Officially, the Democratic National Committee says Michigan will not have any delegates at the convention, although the state party is expected to appeal to the DNC’s Credentialing Committee to seat its delegation. Republicans likewise expect their entire delegation to be seated, even though the national party cut their delegation by 50 percent. Neither state party has come up with an alternate plan if the national party holds firm on their penalties because they feel it is politically untenable for the national parties to cut the delegation of Michigan, which historically has been a swing state in presidential elections.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002654438

[skipos]

1. Im joining Conyers and voting UNCOMMITTED. Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden supporters should too!

Go uncommitted!

[Renew Deal]

4. Do you think Uncommitted will come out ahead?

Who do you think will win?

[skipos]

5. I doubt it, but if Hillary can't get a majority of the votes in a state

where she is the only frontrunner on ballot, I think that says something. I like the idea of sending that message with my vote.

[teleharmonium]

2. the other view on this

The other view I have heard, which piqued my interest, is that Dems should pick up a Republican ballot, and vote for Romney, or some other candidate who is not leading who you think would be the easiest to defeat in November.

If we can nudge the Reps further in the direction of having a brokered convention, while we avoid one (well, if we avoid one), it should help us, especially if our candidate is decided relatively soon and therefore has primary funds left over to just run positive, character defining ads about themselves, while the Reps keep hammering away at each other.

I really don't want us to go to a brokered convention, because I think it hobbles the candidate, to be perceived as the result of an inside deal rather than primary elections and caucuses.

I hope the party doesn't reverse itself on the Mich delegates, purely because to do so plays into negative characterization of us ("they won't even enforce their own rules, how can they enforce the country's ?"). It seems to me that the state party knew the significance of their decisions and should be prepared to live by them toward the goal of changing things for next time.

This is just one Ohioans opinion and I would be interested to see what some Michigan voters think.

[ZombieHorde]

3. and vote for Romney, or some other candidate who is not leading

I think that Romney is one of the leaders on the Republican side, better to go with Paul or Hunter.

[teleharmonium]

6. re Romney

Well, the idea is that you would be voting for a Rep that is viable enough to get some delegates (and therefore keep them out of the hands of the others prior to their convention, assuming he stays in the race that long), but is also not one of the more electable Reps. Romney is indeed leading in terms of delegates, but that's not likely to last long, and he polls way worse than McCain or 9iu11ani as far as general election matchups. Thompson would be another possibility in terms of mischief candidate, and maybe Radical Cleric Mike Fuckamee.

[tokenlib]

7. The media will report a win for Hillary, even after ignoring the Mi dems thus far..

So based on that I hope uncommitted gets a surge. Or if someone really needs to vote for someone, Kucinich is still on the ballot.

But because a win is a win, I would urge people to still vote in the dem primary. Unless they support Hillary...then they should vote for Huckabee :).