Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Breaking: Michigan caucus likely

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 07:22 PM
Original message
Breaking: Michigan caucus likely
This was posted in the LBN forum.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/0...

As a leaning Obama kinda guy, I hope this favors him based on the 40 percent "Uncommitted" vote in January. However, I will again say this crap should have never happened in the first place...Mr. Brewer.

Can I get an OY VEY?

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. i hope not.
no offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. None taken. Like I said...
we should have never come to this in the first place. The way to go after this election is to start a push for either a) a national primary, or b) a set of floating regional primaries. Then again, the mainstaream media bullshit machine would never go for that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Only celebrity candidates with tons of money could compete in a national primary
People complain about candidates like Biden and Kucinich not having a chance now, but they would have less of a chance in a national primary. Clinton and Giuliani would destroyed everyone else in a national primary.

We need to rotate the states every cycle, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. That is indeed a good argument for choice b.
Edited on Thu Mar-06-08 10:41 PM by maddogesq
I have no opionion on which is better; a national or a floating regional thing. Yes, I think it is BS that IA and NH go first every time, as they represent our interests here as much as Haagen=Dazs represents a staple of weight loss. However, there is a better solution, and our state party leadership did a bad bad thing and basically dissed a lot of folks that came out in this too long of a winter we are having.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. I am in compete agreement with you.
You are truly a wise person!

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
24.  Lesser monied candidates are not denied their day
by New Hampshire; but by the national media. Without media reform, there will be little chance of real democracy for all regardless of which state goes first. After all , remember it New Hampshire and Iowa cost Clinton and Obama jointly 100 million dollars. And we think New Hampshire democracy on the cheap. I don't think so. And who did they give us. Clinton and Obama. The candidates who had an in with corporate donors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Proud of what Michigan has done.
The problem is how the media and big donor money games the system so only their chosen candidates gets heard. Take away the right of the media to control the dialogue. We need a national primary and demand free air time , since the media only rents the airwaves from us. Reaon for a National primary with free access to all certified candidates. Say, Oregon / Washington could go before are at the same time as Iowa, New Hampshire. Think it would have been a race between Obama or Clinton. Who goes first , games the results to favor the preferences of the non urban states and eliminates people such as Edwards. I have had enough. If some other states limits my choice of candidates, I take it personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. me too.
If I can't vote for the full slate of candidates as given to voters in the First States; then my vote is less valuable. New Hampshire should not eliminate my choices. Who is to say, those eliminated by New Hampshire voters would be the same as the choices made by other states. Who are they to limit my choices. Particularily when those given to us are lousy choices, quite possibly leading the party to a November defeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
GigiMommy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. You're so right.
This never should have come to this. I STILL blame Brewer, Debbie Dingall, Granholm, Cheeks-Kilpatrick and the rest of them. One would have to ask, what's in it for them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. You know....I STILL think that Mark Brewer spoke strongly AGAINST
this whole debacle....

then had to be the one to get in front and
SELL it to us.

I feel bad for the guy, but it's a tough job.

I don't have solid evidence of this, just
here-say and deduction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I think you're right, in fairness to Mark
I may be pissed at him for a whole host of things, but he did try to do the right thing in this case and wasn't for this debacle from the beginning. I believe he was an Edwards supporter, but I'm not sure. He went around the state to find out what the people wanted, but was forced to back this mess and be the public face of it.

It wasn't his idea, but he had to get on board with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Hi Sharon!
:hi:

Can you imagine how much that must have SUCKED?
And I think MY job is stressful! LOL

Well, if it went down as I imagined it did,
he is vindicated now. For what it's worth...

All I know is that he, as "Chairmaster" or whatever
his title is, paved the way for an honest selection
of DNC Chairman, whether it netted him the result he
wanted or not....

Remember Levin's aide being the ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM
IN FAVOR of the early primary at that district meeting?

I hope everything is OK-by-you....
Did you go to Ohio?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Nope -- didn't go to Ohio
That district meeting was a farce -- 100% of the people in that room voted against the primary, as did the majority of the people around the state. And we still got stuck with it.

I'm going to Take Back America week after next. Lord knows I could use a few days away. I'm really looking forward to it.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Woo hoo!
This is great news and what I've been saying we need to do all along. Our caucus is so different than those in other states. Hopefully Hills will go along with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nope. Sorry can't agree. Caucuses leave out the elderly or infirm.
Never have been in favor of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-06-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not the way we do caucuses here == they are very inclusive
You can vote online or absentee as well as at a caucus site on the day of the caucus. Also, at the caucus site you vote just like you would at a normal election on a secret ballot -- there are just fewer locations. The fact that you can vote via no-reason absentee makes it more accessible than a regular election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Agreed
Voting online in the 2004 caucus was incredibly easy. The absence of a paper trail with online votes is somewhat troubling, but given the logistics of redoing this in a short time frame, I can live with it in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. do- over?
There is an August 5, 2008 Primary already in place. Denver will host the 2008 Democratic National Convention Monday, August 25 to Thursday, August 28.

Can someone answer?

If the consensus is to have a do-over; what additional expense is there to adding remaining Democratic presidential contenders to our already planned (and paid for) primary earlier in August?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
russ1943 Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. DO OVER
Peter Luke's column in Sun GR Press makes the same suggestion "How about Aug 5th." I posted previously (I got my paper after posting). But then he summarily dismisses the idea saying "Alas, it won't happen".
Huh?
The national nominating window shuts June 10.
So what!
To now declare an arbitrary deadline sacrosanct is, under these unique circumstances, silly.

Might not mean anything anyway. If polls can believed, we all know how accurate they are, a Rasmussen poll shows likely voters split evenly tween HC & BO at 41%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I hadn't heard about that idea yet. However...
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 07:49 PM by maddogesq
Howard Dean was on the Judas George ABC This Week show this morning (sorry, I call him that for his antics back in the Clinton years), and he said something about this nominating had to be done by June 10. Then I heard Sen. Levin talk about a "mail-in" kind of caucus thing. I am not sure why Dr. Dean brought this June 10 thing up, as I was doing stuff while the tube was one and didn't pay as much attention as I usually do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Convention seating? Speaker scheduling?
That last primaries are currently Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota on June 3rd.

Perhaps the party insiders have committed to some scheduling that's presumptive of the final results of the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddogesq Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Sounds right.
I will say that Carl Levin sounded clear in his statements. Dr. Dean did a good job as well. This is still just nuts!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-22-08 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. ah lets piz them off again.
how about a June 17 caucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ajamo Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-21-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. Re-Do
Mark Bewer is the Michigan Democratic Chair. This is the person to blame. He did it, just like he never answered my letter of advise of a problem in the County Chartered Democratic Party. Yes, I belong paid up to 2010. No redo's. Seat the Delegate and split their votes 50/50 and the Super delegates the same.
Clinton should have removed her name, but wanted to pull a fast one.
Uncommitted vote was not advertised by the County Party where I belong, but it was I who wrote it in the paper. Why because all those party officers were supporting Clinton, and didn't want the rest to know about the don't write in a candidate, nor of the uncommitted vote.
Drop the whole thing, our leading people screwed the voters up. However don't let this stop your vote in November, remember we want our country back where it used to be. With Honesty with Democracy included.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. Mark Brewer on To The Point - Video
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Sat Dec 20th 2014, 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan 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