Scoop on MI primary/caucus situation

[JNelson6563]

I also posted this at MichiganLiberal.

Yesterday the 4th Congressional District had it's quarterly meeting and Mark Brewer attended. First of all he informed us that the decision to decision to go with the primary is not carved in stone. As you all probably know the "first states" play down and dirty to keep their "first" status. If a candidate decides to remain on the ballot of any state that DARES to go before IA or NH they will pay a mighty price--hence the withdrawal of so many. Additionally, for any write-in votes to count for candidates who have taken their name of the MI ballot that candidate must agree two weeks prior to the primary to be a write-in candidate. This gives the "first states" enough time to still brutally punish those candidates so they still get screwed. Needless to say it is very unlikely that any withdrawn candidates will be agreeing to accept those write-in votes.

Mark explained that we can still go back to our original plans for a caucus and that all candidates would be on that ballot. He also explained that he is going around the state and getting feedback from as many as possible as to our choice; primary or caucus. Personally, though I am as sick of the "first states" crap as the next Michigander, I'd like to see us go back to the caucus so our Dem voters can vote for whoever they want. I will be writing to Mark to let him know of my final choice on this matter and I urge all of you to do the same. It is not too late to make the change back and, if enough of us call for it, it just may happen. I'd also like to add that I don't think it would hurt to share your view of the caucus/primary aituation with Governor Granholm since she will have some say in the matter as well.

Julie

[booksenkatz]

1. Thanks, Julie

I admit I haven't been following the procedures issue very much -- I can only juggle so many outrages at once, so this one caught me by surprise. My information about all of this is therefore sketchy and much of it based on gossip, so I appreciate any good information I can get.

I'll go with whichever procedure allows our votes to be counted; it's my understanding that our votes will not count if we go ahead with the early primary. Is this correct or incorrect? Would our votes be counted if we use the caucus format? Because if my vote isn't going to be counted, I won't vote (for the first time in my life).

I wrote to the Kucinich campaign when I first heard he wanted off our ballot (as it happens, his name will be on our ballot against his will) and asked if he wanted to be a write-in candidate, or if it would be offensive for him to win our state and then be forced into the uncomfortable position of having to accept tainted delegates. He was my first choice. I never heard back from the campaign, so I'm still in the dark. His name will be on our ballot, but he doesn't want it to be there, so I'm guessing he won't want my vote...???

And yes, I understand the inevitability of Clinton, but I still wanted my voice to be heard. The whole thing is a bloody shame.

Please educate me... thanks!

[JNelson6563]

2. I will do my best

Our votes will count if we go with the caucus.

When it comes to the national convention Mark Brewer tells me that it is up to the nominee who gets admitted to convention and who doesn't. While he makes clear there are no guarantees he is pretty certain no nominee will be foolish enough to bar MI delegates since tha race can't be won without us.

As far as Kucinich "not wanting to be on our ballot" that is simply to avoid the wrath of the "first states". Frankly, with as much of a chance that Dennis has of winning IA or NH, it seems kind of funny to me that he would worry about that.

This is what is driving most of our candidates to withdraw their names from a MI primary ballot-fear of the wrath of the first states.

Have I told you how much disdain I have for IA and NH lately? I dare not even begin to post about it....;-)

Still, it's not to late to avoid the Hillary coronation here in MI, even though many of the big-wigs are doing what they can to achieve that. Write Brewer and Granholm, let them know we want choices on our ballot, therefore we want to go with our original caucus plans.

Julie

[booksenkatz]

3. Thanks, I will

With my limited grasp of the issues surrounding the brouhaha over the primaries, I truly see both sides: rules ARE important, but at the same time, how the hell do we ever go about changing the rules if we don't protest? So I see both sides' basic arguments, but when all is said and done, why should we voters have to suffer and forfeit our votes? I've never understood the argument, "Because that's the way it's always been done." That's why I consider myself a Progressive, I suppose.

Hell, part of me almost wishes the Michigan delegates WOULD be rejected; it would be a sacrifice I'd be willing to make to ensure some outrage that may finally result in change, at last.

Tired of the status quo and very grateful for your info.

[SharonRB]

4. Thanks, Julie

I was at the 12th District/Macomb County Dems combined meeting on Thursday, where Mark spoke. Each group took a vote and it was unanimous in the room of over 100 people that we stick with the caucus plan. (It's actually sticking with the caucus, not going back to it, because currently our official plan is the caucus. We have not officially moved to the primary. The state exec committee has to vote and let the secretary of state know by November 14 whether we will participate in the primary or stick with the caucus.)

It's time that Jen, Carl and Debbie Dingell admit defeat. Their reasons for doing this were noble, but it backfired, and we look like idiots. We need to stick with the caucus and work for change for 2012. The best idea is a national primary, but the idea for rotating regional primaries is also a good one.

:hi:

[PassingFair]

6. I agree with everything but the "noble" part, Sharon....

Did you northish people take a vote, Julie.
Did you make a resolution to stay as a caucus?

[GreenEyedLefty]

5. Thanks, I was wondering what was up (eom)

[bain_sidhe]

7. it's meaningless either way

I've made my views known in several places, so I'm not going to repeat myself at length here. I'll just say I support sticking with the primary because, while that's meaningless as far as our vote counting, it might at least force a change in the Iowa/NH "primary god" status.

The caucus on February 9th would be just as meaningless, because the nominee will be decided by the Feb 5th states. The only "benefit" is to the candidates who pulled out, and I'm not inclined to reward them for slapping Michigan voters in the face just to pander to Iowa/NH.

They have said that they don't want our votes, so I intend to honor their wishes, whether we have the Jan 15th primary or the Feb 9th caucus.

[Oakland]

8. I agree with you.

I have no intentions of voting for any of them in a caucus, primary or general election.
Since Hillary has already been appointed, I think the best thing MI can do is send a
message to the Party loud and clear. We are tired of Iowa and NH picking our candidate.
We are tired of being a donor state. We are tired of Democrats passing trade bills and
increases to H-1B visas that do nothing but hurt middle/working class Americans.
IF MI does nothing but challenge the annointed states, it will be worth it. If
they don't want our delegates, I don't care.

[LisaM]

9. Well said!

I think I will call the headquarters of my candidate (Edwards) and see what they have to say.

[cyclezealot]

11. i am with you

A later caucus will give Michigan little clout. It's NH, IA, and on to California; non stoping poor old Michigan. Best way to make our feelings known is don't cave. I say empty delegate seats in Denver with not Michigan , Florida delegates is the best way to force change . NH Democrats are not high and mighty gods, bring em down to size.

[Strawman]

10. Any chance we could move to the 5th?

That would seem like the fairest compromise. Every state not Iowa or New Hampshire should just move to Super Tuesday in 2008 and force them to join a national primary in 2012.

Given the state of this State, I find this political posturing and brinksmanship on both sides to be totally irresponsible. On Feb. 9th or on Jan 15th (in a meaningless primary) we really have no vote, no voice. These non-campaign pledges to ignore Michigan made out of purely political calculations are appalling.

Voting in federal elections, even primary voting, is too important to be left to be managed by the states and state parties and consequently vulnerable to this horseshit political gamesmanship. Congress should just pass a law establishing a national primary and end this crap before 2012. If the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, we should be able to get 3/4 of the states to agree to an amendment that ends a monopoly held by 2 states. Cut the shit and let everyone have a meaningful vote in the primaries.

[cyclezealot]

12. hope this thread keeps us updated on the Mich situation.

googled the Free Press, all I read is Dean pleads with Mich to change it's plans. It would be convenient for him. I'd liked to have been at his Oakland County Fundraiser to say no thanks.

[specwar]

13. Coward candidates

Isn't that sad that candidates would let somebody/some entity, tell them whether or not they will put their name on a ballot. Why it is not the most purverse misuse of the political process I have ever heard, it is certainly one of the most cowardly acts they commit. I have an idea. The candidates who won't take a stand on something, most surely stand for nothing.

[PassingFair]

14. The candidates DID take a stand.

To follow party rules.

It's sad that Michigan REFUSED to let Kuchinich OFF of the ballot.
He meant to withdraw, and they WOULDN'T let him.

Might make Clinton LOOK bad.....

:puke:

[skipos]

15. I don't blame the candidates. IA and NH have them by the balls and there is nothing they can do

to change it our current IA-and-NH-pick-the-candidates system.