Michigan as a renegade or rogue state could be a good thing...

[tokenlib]

There are benefits to caucuses--but primaries are simpler for the masses--and I'd like to see a change. Michigan is a poster child for what is wrong because of NAFTA, the decline of manufacturing and the displacement of workers--so any attention our state gets would be an improvement. It might change the debate as well.

Honestly--I thought the primary leapfrogging was interesting--but not that big a deal. But this pledge by Clinton and the others to not campaign here--has got me thinking. Obviously, they just want someone to back down-- If we really have a primary in January--will they really ignore us?? Would the DNC really not seat our delegates?

Few people will go Republican or third party over any perceived snub as has been expressed in other threads in GD-P. But change is needed in the nominating process--and some of us might like the idea of being a rogue.

[GreenEyedLefty]

1. People are incredibly frustrated

and many don't take kindly to snubs, particularly given how badly we're hurting right now.

I'm not sure if it will change how people vote (I'll vote Republican when someone uses my cold dead hand to do so) but it may likely influence people who are independent or are registered Dems who lean conservative.

It seems to me there has to be a more fair process to these primaries, because I understand the frustration of the "last" states. I like the idea of randomizing, or perhaps even reversing the order on alternating years. <shrug>

[MichDem10]

2. Somewhat disagree...

I think the first four states is great for the nominating process. I think the changes need to come after the initial caucus / primaries.

I say this because there is a lot to be said for "retail" (face to face) politics. It allows voters to get face to face answers to their questions so they can get a better feel for the individual. Smaller states have several benefits in that campaigns can be built on grass root support instead of 30 second sound bites. The smaller states allow candidates the opportunity to spread their message without having to have the multi millions for advertising. Iowa relies more on creating an on the ground campaign rather than flooding air waves with the 30 second commercial.

If the larger states go first this will create a situation where the smaller / lesser known candidates will be squeezed out completely because they cannot afford any air time. The corporations will squeeze important discussion from the public.

I suggest rotating states after the initial four states. Or possibly rotating the four smaller states with other smaller states. But to move much larger states ahead of smaller will only give complete advantage to establishment backed candidates with their large sums of cash.

[noamnety]

3. Primarily White

Iowa: 94.9% white
New Hampshire: 96.1% white

USA: 80.2% white

------------------------
Florida: 80.4% white
Michigan: 81.3% white

[jf24]

6. Nevada and South Carolina

The DNC calendar addressed the need for diversity by adding Nevada and South Carolina as January events. Michigan applied to be one of the early states, along with 11 others. Michigan was not approved.

[Oakland]

8. So what?

Everybody needs to eat and earn a paycheck. The big
difference is people demographics, the big difference is
the economics of the states. Big ag has all the support
and representation it needs. Cows poop on spinach, bail em
out.. In the industrialized states on the other hand,
Slick Willie passed NAFTA and really screwed them over big time.
Bail out? Hell no. Couldn't even get an extention to the 26 weeks
of UI benefits everybody in Iowa got, too.

[jmp]

4. "but primaries are simpler for the masses"

Why should the people get to vote? Party insiders and "activists" should choose our leaders for us.

Just look at how well it works in China. :eyes:

[Ninga]

5. Aren't the media markets in Michigan and Florida really, really expensive?

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, a win in the early, smaller primarys gives a candidate a chance to raise more money in order to be able to
afford campaigning in the larger states.




What are your thoughts about possibily losing a candidate because he is priced out of the race by the big money candidates????

[jf24]

7. Save your season

Since Gov. Granholm signed the early primary, Michigan has lost two football games - Appalachian State, and now the Oregon Ducks. If you want to stop this losing streak, you will drop this idea.

[Oakland]

9. Double Standards

September 4, 2007

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 Debbie Dingell.
United States Senator DNC Committee Member

Enclosure

cc: Democratic presidential candidates
Members of the DNC

[Hidden Stillness]

10. Completely Confused

I am completely baffled by this whole situation and do not pretend to understand what is really going on here, assuming something other than what is apparent is going on here. I do not understand what the States that are now violating DNC rules are even trying to accomplish, and I think this only makes the whole election season even worse--it will now be even longer, with even more glib/dirty/evasive/slanderous commercial advertising, and even though the campaign will be even longer, it will now be so front-loaded with decided delegates that the winner and eventual candidate will be determined even earlier, cutting the American people even further out of the process and making it an even more "corporate-consultant-controlled" event.

There was a DNC meeting recently telecast on C-SPAN, about the issue of Florida violating National DNC rules and moving up its primary date, and I did not understand their attitude or intent at all. They seemed to be pretending that the Republican legislature had caused the problem, then took an attitude against Dean and the National Party for some reason, with great people like James Roosevelt trying to get the States to work cooperatively for the benefit of all, and they would not. The idea that States are moving their dates forward selfishly because Iowa and New Hampshire are "so white" is so bizarre and phony a remark, that I can only be suspicious of their real motives on this. I agree with the candidates who are now going to boycott those States, because I don't know what else they can do under the circumstances.

The whole system is falling apart, and I don't even understand what some of these people are trying to get at. Where is this whole "campaign season" going to end, other than with constant, non-stop fundraising for the corporate media and its air-time, and nothing but consultants and lobbyists operating their deals, and shutting us out? I do not even understand these States, and why they are undercutting the process.