Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Michigan 'firehouse primary' nixed by Obama camp

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:43 AM
Original message
Michigan 'firehouse primary' nixed by Obama camp
What's this all about?

" As Michigan searches for a way to validate its delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the state party reports that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has nixed the idea of a new "firehouse primary.''

The Detroit Free Press reports today that Obama's campaign told the state's top party official that they wouldn't accept Gov. Jennifer Granholm's (pictured at right) idea of a party-sponsored primary.

Granholm, a Democrat, has suggested a "firehouse primary'' allowing Democrats to cast their ballots again sometime before June -- at a cost of about $10 million. But the Michigan party says that all parties -- the DNC as well as both of the candidates -- must agree to any solution.

Obama's campaign balked, according to Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer, who told the Free Press: "That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations... And we can't do anything without the agreement of both the campaigns.''

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. So , judging by what we have seen, it was HRC's camp that rejected this
using other news stories about the campaign as a judge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Let me get this straight.
The article quotes the Michigan Democratic Chairman as reporting that the Obama camp has rejected the proposition, while the Clinton team is attempting to arrange a re-vote. From those words you are able to extrapolate that "judging by what we have seen, it was HRC's camp that rejected this". And then you wonder why some Obama supporters are perceived to be delusional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Mark Brewer is a Clinton supporter - and the Obama campaign did not
give a yes or no about a new primary - the DFT is taking a Clinton campaign supporter's words as fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Exactly, just as it was the McClinton campaign that told Canada not to worry about NAFTA
and then blamed Obama for what Clinton had really done.

Josef Goebbels would be proud of the Monster McClinton!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. I thought it was established that Hillary Clinton is not a monster? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. She has said that a nuclear first strike against Iran in on the table
Anyone that advocates a nuclear first strike against any country is a monster that rivals Hitler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
55. dont forget HILLZILLA's love of cluster bombs either n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #41
92. As far as some of know..
she actually is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seybor Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
99. nice try, NAFTA-gate
The story about Clinton being the one to approach Canada has been debunked. This should be no surprise - the source wished to remain anonymous, even though s/he was supposed to be a journalist surrounded by other journalists who were covering an official who was speaking publicly. Should have been pretty safe to go on the record, and should have had - well - a room full of journalists also reporting on the story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. Brewer, Dingle, Stabenaw, Granholm, Levin are all Clinton supporters. The early primary
was a move to help her get the nomination. Originally, it was to thwart John Edwards with the union vote, however, its now hurt Obama.

The entire fiasco was contrived to benefit Clinton.

Mark Brewer is as bad as Wolfson and Penn. He will use this to try and sway opinion here in Michigan against Obama. Many in the dem party in michigan are about ready to kick the leadership to the curb after the primary mess. I don't believe one damn word that comes out of Brewer's mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
62. Just like in Florida...
The move to get her a win someway continues by her guys, Nelson, Wasserman Schultz, Hastings, Brown...and a whole bunch of lawsuits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. This s bad form by Ms Clintons surrogates
By failing to succeed to complete a sanctioned primary Michigan removed that as an option, can not have a second bite at it.
They can however have either a caucus or a convention to take a sanctioned vote.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm who is one of Ms Clinton's backers and an active surrogate who has been championing the seating of the unsanctioned vote from the failed primary raised the Firehouse Primary issue because most people do not understand it is in all actuality a caucus.

Then another of Ms Clinton's surrogates, Mark Brewer says, I have been informed that they will not accept a primary(knowing full well there can't be another primary) but they give the impression, that Mr Obama refused to have another vote which is not what his position is.

And finally you have Ms Clinton herself on the trail saying Mr Obama has refused to have another primary, but its actually a caucus so he has refused to have a caucus too because thats what a firehouse primary is so see he doesnt want to let them vote.

Of course she left out that a Firehouse Primary which is actual a caucus is also an unassembled caucus which has about as many rules as hey Im going to say the vote was this, ok caucus over.

Words do matter, when they are left out to change the outcome from the truth they are called lies.
When they are manpulated for convience rather than honesty, they are lies.

And when you use the processes to fool people who you believe you can manipulate by telling them lies you are called a LIAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fadedrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #45
98. this is so pitiful
they fooled us once and now they want to do it again - with DNC's money no less. Bastards.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. That was my first thought -nt-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #47
77. Me too. (see below) n/t
-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. What is a "Firehouse primary"? I do know HRC nixed Caucuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Firehouse Primary, sounds right up Obama's alley...
"firehouse primary" -- more expansive than a party caucus but not a full-blown affair like a traditional, state-financed primary. People would have to declare themselves Democrats in order to participate, and the contest would be run by the Democratic Party, not the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Actually - i'm pretty sure the way the Gov wants to set it will
Disenfranchise Independents and crossover voters that have already pledged support in the Dem Primary. I think it should remain open, according to the original acceptance rules, with the obvious exception... If you voted Puke in the original primary, you can't vote again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
28. Um your just a little off, but close....
A firehouse primary, by definition is operated by the party which means no federal laws or protections of rights govern its operation.

It is a rigged psuedocaucus that would disenfranchise nearly half of the voters it is supposed to be re-infranchising in that only party members can vote and no you can not change you current party affiliation, it goes by prior voting status.

A firehouse primary is also an unassembled caucus, which means the Chair ( at each location ) can make any rule to define a valid voter and whose vote counts. So once elected Chair if he or she decides that only people with green hair get to vote, then that is the rule and criteria, no vote to pass and a Chair at a completely different precinct can decide people with green hair dont get to vote and only people with Clinton tattoos can, then that is the rule and criteria

In addition and specifically to Michigan, Im not sure about florida, has previously limited Firehouse Primaries to chosen party members much like the Super delegates. In fact for all means and purposes the Super Delegate vote is a Firehouse Primary.

So lets see, why would someone be against it,

No voter protection
No consistency of criteria between precincts
No control or sanction of the Chairs abilities to manipulate the vote

And so on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. In other words, it's a caucus, but it doesn't have pretend mechanisms in place...
Gotcha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. Protections from manipulation of a Vote.......
With equal and opposite processes protecting the voter from The Chair and the Chair form the voter are not "pretend mechanisms"

They are the very basis for our country, and anyone, be they our current president or Candidates included who believe the rules do not apply to them or can not operate with in them are destined to fail.

I guess I can see those that are used to not believing in rules can not understand how to play by the rules can not win under the rules.

Kind of like playing baseball by football rules or even better playing football and saying first downs, field goals goalposts are pretend mechanism so dont matter.

People that dont follow rules fail at playing the game.

I wonder if that is why Ms Clinton just can't get the hang of Caucuses or Goalposts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #50
64. You have reports of the same sorts of manipulations in Obama's caucus wins.
The point of my post is that caucuses, current caucuses, are not immune from these practices. The only difference being that you can (in the case of MI, it is almost guaranteed), vote all day long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. No YOU have annectdotes, if there were manipulations they would have been reported and reviewed....
In fact to date there are 7 such cases and in each case, including Harlem, LA and the Caucus reporting manipulation of Texas they have all been manipulations against Mr Obama (in one case Mr Edwards) and resulted in more delegates added to his totals when the recont or recourse was repaired.
In fact just this week in California Mr Obama added 4 delgates and Ms Clinton lost 4 resulting in any gains she had early in the week being erased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. Again you are not from Michigan are you?
Where did you find your definition of Firehouse primaries that told you they get to vote all day long AND that that is how this would be handled.

The Governor of Michigan has proposed a closed Party leadership Firehouse primary where selected party chairs vote.

Who choses the party chairs The Governor and the head of the local DNC, seeing a pattern yet.

I agree with you in theory. That if this was an open unassembled caucus not limited by closed timeframes I would and I expect so would Mr Obama support that as a re-vote option.

That is not what has been proposed, that is not what is being discussed and that is not what you are defending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Do you have a link to his proposal in *this* instance?
I would find that proposal assinine and would agree with Obama not wanting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Interesting. Thanks for the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
48. BTW, the key point is that a firehouse primary is like a regular primary. You can arrive at any time
...and cast your ballot. It's basically ballots on pen and paper with oversight. It *is* like a caucus, but it's not in that *you can vote any time of the day*.

Obama *cannot win* when *everyone gets to vote*.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. The internet is not your friend.....
While that can be a point of "a" Firehouse primary, it is not and has not been the point of previous Michigan Firehouse Primaries.
In fact in some previous Michigan Primaries it was ONLY chosen Democratic leadership that were allowed to vote, much like the Super Delegates and as I said in another post the Super Delegate vote actually is for all means and purposes a Firehouse primary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #52
63. You think the MI party would tell the voters they can't vote?
Are you serious here? It'd be the same as the state primary, only on a caucus level, simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #63
72. I honor your tenacity but you are wrong......
The Firehouse Primary is not the same as state primary on a huge amount of levels and this confusion you are having is exactally what Ms Clintons surrogate Gov. Jennifer Granholm is counting on.

The firehouse primary is operated by the party not the state.
The lack of state regulation means there are no federal protections in place to protect a voters rights
Since the party operates the caucus only party members may vote.
Non members such as independents and republicans who have recently changed party affiliations since the last presidential election would not be allowed to vote, these are democrats that wont be able to vote, Im not talking about people walking in today and changing Im talking about people that became democrats as long as 2 years ago or better.

These are base level differences and mean less people will be able to participate then if it was a caucus.

Now in addition to those limits and changes, this particular firehouse primary as currently proposed would limit that further.

The proposal includes the Chair of each precinct being chosen by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.

The Chairs would then pick "Representatives" of each precinct and they would then conduct a vote to divide a precincts delegates. Anyone can be a representative but it is up to each Chair to decide how many and who to include.

Does that sound like its the same as an open primary.

Your defending the wrong thing and the Governor was counting on you not knowing the difference, that should make you very angry because that means they assume your to gullible to know better.

PS. Note I also could point out the inherent possibility of that process having a stacked deck since BOTH of the people choosing the Chairs are active and audible Clinton campaign surrogates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #72
87. Feel free to link me to the Governors proposal.
Until then I will consider your comments heresay.

Also, I see nothing wrong with keeping Republicans from voting in a Democratic primary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
53. Obama is afraid of a Dems only primary
He needs to count on unregistered voters and others to support him in the caucus setting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #53
60. It wont be a dems only election.......
and so you are saying you support your candidate only protecting the rights of her party?

Its ok to disenfranchise other voters they dont matter only democrats.

Thats good for you now, because it agrees with your need right now.

But is that a behavior you want to see in your leadership.

What happens when it becomes you not in the crowd being served.

Then will you defend her?

What happens when its you like all those other states and people of states that she has said dont matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #60
70. No but it will be a real election, with registered voters
Not a chaotic, easily rigged caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Um you do realize a fiehouse primary is a caucus.
and actually as caucuses go it is the single easiest caucus to rig and least stable caucus to oversight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #73
93. So why does Obama oppose it?
Normally, caucuses are the only elections he can win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why The Hell Would He Balk At That???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. He didn't - Mark Brewer - A super delegate supporting Hillary Clinton
said he heard the Obama campaign did. For whatever reason the Detroit Free Press reporter didn't find it necessary to ask the Obama campaign to confirm or to challenge Chairman Brewer's comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Oh Ok. I Know The Reasons Hadn't Been Supplied, But Didn't Know There Was Question As To The
validity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Haven't seen any press release by Obama questioning the validity of Chairman Brewer's claims *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
styersc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Or any press releases from Obama saying he will allow Mich
voters to be heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Obama: "The Rules say I can veto Michigan's plan and I will" "Rules are Rules!" *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. I'm the only one doing that - you'd think the reporter would have done so
seeing as Chairman Brewer isn't exactly an unbiased source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. Do you know anything about Firehouse primaries
There is no checks and balances to protect the sanctity of the Vote form manipulation by the Chair.

See this post for a little broader explanation.

Firehouse Failure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Doesn't Sound Any Worse Than Caucuses, But I Bet You Support Them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Agreed... reads pretty close to a caucus...
It must be either because he wants Rethugs to count, or because he doesn't want voters to question his presumptive nomination
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
54. Like a caucus?
Obama has been fine with those so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. does that mean democrat registered voters only? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Because he doesn't want the will of any voter to take this away from him at this point. *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. right, since the voters haven't had a say in this up to now
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. In Michigan, they haven't. Let all voters be heard. Why won't he now agree to a redo? *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Because the Governor doesn't want ALL voters to be heard.
Instead of just excluding those that voted republican already...She'll be excluding the independents and crossovers that voted or wanted to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Why is it so offensive to many here
that Democrats ought to be the ones to decide the Democratic nominee?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Especially after the Rush Limbaugh crap? *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #24
56. Which only benefitted Ms Clinton and is the only way she is still in this campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #56
66. And yet Obama gets more votes from Republicans
than Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #66
78. That is corrrect. in mixed precincts he does also get more independants.
But in republican strongholds, places that have historically never voted democrat ever like Clermont county in ohio, republicans in this last contest voted in democrat for Ms Clinton on a scale of two to one over every democrat vote counted in the county.

Clermont had roughly 12 000 democrats vote in the primary, over 22 000 republicans voted in the same democrat primary and they broke for Ms Clinton 70%

Nearly as many republicans voted democrat as voted in the republican primary in that county. Do you some how think she converted half the republicans over night?

No she got the hail mary Rush effect that propped her up. Remove just half of those heavy outliers, not all assuming she could attract crossover(even though we havent seen that in any other state with these numbers ) the ones that are obviously not votes for her campaign and she would not have come out with a lead, in fact it would have been very close to a dead bang tie. in both Ohio and Texas.

Im not trying to take away the "wins" because I dont believe they were "wins" in the first place but it is clear there is even more a question of how this helps the party, and more about her personally and less about the people the party represents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #56
74. Already been debunked. Rethugs for Obama 53/46 in Texas and higher elsewhere *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Source please
I can source mine. Please provide somewhere where i has been debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #75
81. CNN.COM exit polls for Texas. Check 'em out and report back with your whining
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 02:57 PM by lewis_in_fw
"Vote by Party ID"

Also check out Virginia and other open primaries.

Peace!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. Um exit polls are not votes other wise Mr Obama would be president
And Mr on Paul would be ruler of the world. Why dont you show me where the VOTEs show what your talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. So we should go based off of your conjecture, that Rethugs broke for Clinton over exit polls? HAHA!
Hilarious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. Exit polss are conjecture where you dont know the immediate criteria
Unlike election results which are clear numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
90. So you want to disenfranchise the independents & cross-overs that voted?
How is that fair to them?

As far as the whole rush story goes, it's a moot point, because republicans that voted in a republican contest aren't going to get to vote again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
38. Why should DEMOCRATS
be holding a Democratic primary and worry about Republicans and independents?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
80. This would also not let some democrats vote
You would have had to be a registered democrat in a previous presidential election AND cast a ballot in a previous presidential election to be included becasue it does not allow for conversion of party to count until it is used in a federal election.

So if you were a registered democrat and havent cast a ballot in previous elections but chose to vote in this years primary you would not be allowed to participate.

If you changed your affiliation from republican or independant to democrat in the time since the last presidential election you would not be allowed to participate.

So it not only limits "outside" votes it also limits Democrat votes and would likely result in less votes than a caucus would.

How can that be good in any form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #80
91. Because it excludes new and young voters that don't vote for HRC.
And the Governor is a HRC supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VotesForWomen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
83. that's about the size of it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. Strange--this article is rather lacking in information....
I'd like to know more about what the Obama campaign says on this...

But after the behavior of Granholm, Stabenow, and the other MI Clintonites--I'd be wary of of any of their proposals too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. "That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations"*NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. ....says a Super Delegate supporting Hillary Clinton.....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. At least he didn't make his own interpretation on the Obama campaign's intentions *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
68. It's the muslim comment, recycled & re-wrapped with a big bow"
and of course the press will run with it and say OBAMA DOES NOT WANT MICHIGAN TO VOTE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Yep, they fucked it up, now want to be granted a reprieve
Granholm and associates are knee-deep in it for their willful decision to break DNC rules, and now are putting the onus on Howard Dean and Obama to save their hides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
9. I suppose this would be an inappropriate time to comment on how smokin hot Granholm is.
So I'll behave.

















But you know I'm right.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. LOL
smokin like a warm steel trap on a cold morning.

Look out, Bucky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. Good viewpoint in comments section
Granholm's proposed "do-over" in Michigan is ridiculous. To hold a Democrat-only caucus doesn't take into account all of the Independents and Republicans who had to vote "Uncommitted" for Senator Obama on January 15th in the open primary. We support Senator Obama too. We weren't able to actually put a mark next to his name then, and now we get no chance at all? Do our votes not count? I would call that voter disenfranchisement.

Posted by: Shelley | March 8, 2008 11:18 AM

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. Nice link to a scathing "Obama quiz" from this site, too
I'm calling bullshit on this story. Let's wait and see what the truth really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
20. So Mark Brewer - a supporter of Hillary Clinton - told the media that the Obama campaign
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 12:06 PM by Debi
said no to a firehouse primary. Did the DFT think of asking Obama's campaign? Or is everything the Clinton campaign (and it's supporters) says taken at face value? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
27. They Shouldn't Get Anything, But The Clinton Camp Did Reject Caucuses
Because they don't know how to do grassroots-level organizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Because Caucuses disenfranchise voters... Why do caucuses always have lower attendance... Hmmmm.....
I caucused in Texas, and waited for 3 long hours to sign in. 2 Elderly people fell over while waiting in line.

Caucuses certainly favor a certain demographic and make it HARDER to vote. That's why attendance is always lower.

Why anyone would want this is beyond me....

PEACE,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
79. Because people want their politics to be very easy
It is unfortunate that there were long waits, I'd chalk that up to a state that didn't learn from the massive turnouts of the previous 35 or so states. I wish Wisconsin had a caucus, I'd be willing to leave work for a couple of hours to participate in Democracy for my candidate of choice, many would not apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
39. Why should the candidates have ANY say?
This should be between the state and the DNC.

The candidates shouldn't be allowed to accept or reject a plan... they just have to play by the rules established by the people in charge.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lewis_in_fw Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Thats what I was wondering as well. *NT*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. Agreed 100%. Neither candidate should have a say here. Firehouse primaries are the best way to go.
They're like caucuses in that there is a lot of oversight. They're like primaries in that you can vote any time of the day and not have your voice disenfranchised because you had to work or take your kid to the hospital.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. In 2004 we could vote in the caucus on the internet, by mail, or in person....n/t....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. Which is how it should be -- thanks for the info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. They are actually cucauses.....
With no oversight and no rules and no checks and balances to protect the vote.

They are specifically unassembled caucuses with absolutely no consistent rules thats why parties in 18 states have actively ruled them out as a means to take votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #58
65. You think that people showing up to the caucus would allow that to happen?
Seriously now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #65
89. Um they have no choice......
How exactally would you propose they do anything about it when there isn't any means to change it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatBozGuy Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
61. If thats the case then its a moot point
This should be between the state and the DNC.

The candidates shouldn't be allowed to accept or reject a plan... they just have to play by the rules established by the people in charge.


True, so the election is done in those states, the rules were followed, they failed to get a sanctioned vote.

Done, any going back is changing the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. If Hillary gets to nix a primary or caucus choice, so does Obama
that's fair.

Of course the idea that Hillary wants votes to count when she knew going in that they would not isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
76. This sounds awfully familiar.
I would not be surprised if it was Hillary's campaign that refused and then had a surrogate blame Obama for what Hillary, in fact, did.

Shades of the NAFTA lie.

Hillary's campaign tactics have been abominable.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thoughtcrime1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #76
82. I'll bet it is a lie
There is no reason why Obama would stand in the way of a reasonable solution to the problem created by Granholm and cronies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. Especially in Michigan where he will gain delegates, most likely.
Why would he oppose that?

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #76
94. Nuttiness
The article says that the Obama camp doesn't want a primary - and from that people are extrapolating that a.) actually it's Clinton's camp that doesn't want the primary, and b.) this is another reason to hate Hillary! That's pretty nutty.

Look at it this way: who benefits from a Michigan primary? Answer: Hillary Clinton. She won the Ohio primary overwhelmingly & the MI demographics are very similar. THAT's why the Obama camp doesn't want another primary. It's really pretty simple, but it's amazing the way people can twist & contort all reason & logic in order to create conspiracy theories in order to blame Clinton for everything. Sometimes Obama does hardball politics - he's not a saint. He's a politician in a close race & they'll fight to prevent Clinton from recapturing the delegate lead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. I hear ya, and I don't think Obama is a saint.
But Michigan is quite different from Ohio. Jesse Jackson won Michigan in 1988. I think Obama would pick up delegates there. The essay says someone heard from someone who is supposedly in the Obama camp, but it's not confirmed, mind you, that Obama doesn't want a re-vote in Michigan. Doesn't that sound a little fishy to you?

:shrug:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. Not really
Because it makes sense that Obama wouldn't want a new primary. A March poll showed Obama & Clinton exactly tied in Michigan, w/Clinton leading among registered Democrats. Clinton tends to do better in primaries anyway. And if this primary is limited to registered Dems, she would have a clear advantage over Obama. And MI has a lot of delegates - 156. If Clinton wins big there, that would give her a lead in delegates over Obama. There are a lot of valid reasons why Obama would oppose such a primary.


"Rasmussen Reports
Date: 3/6
Michigan
Added: 3/7/08

Hillary Clinton 41%
Barack Obama 41%
Unsure 18%

Quote:

Separate survey data shows that 62% of Democrats in Michigan favor a do-over while 24% are opposed. Republicans oppose the idea of a second primary by nearly identical margins.

Clinton leads by eight among Democrats while Obama leads by eight among others who would participate.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=39603&c...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. I see. You make a solid argument.
Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagsDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
100. Because he would lose any revote of both MI and FL
It wants those voters silenced because he can't win there. It's sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 26th 2014, 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC