Senator Threatens to Make Michigan First...

[SaveElmer]

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) threatened "to hold Michigan’s presidential nominating contest on the same day as the New Hampshire primary in order to end New Hampshire’s 'cockamamie' first-in-the nation role," The Politico reports.

"While Michigan recently passed a law saying it would hold its primary on Jan. 15 -- causing New Hampshire to say it would go no later than Jan. 8 -- Levin said Michigan Democrats now could hold a caucus and move up to the same day as New Hampshire."

Meanwhile, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner continues to say he is "prepared to keep New Hampshire first and once again raised the possibility he could hold the primary in December of this year... Gardner has the ability to beat other states to the punch because, over the years, he has learned how to hold his primaries very quickly."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/10/24/senator_threatens_to_make_michigan_first.html

[youthere]

1. Which means Iowans could be caucusing over Turkey and Stuffing!

[Debi]

4. Rurallib is Iowa's Nostradamus!

:hi:

Shall I chill some for you?

[youthere]

6. Yep..give me a cranberry Jello-O shooter for a chaser.

[madfloridian]

2. And he's blaming NH.

I absolutely love how Florida and Michigan leaders are so lily white in motives and just keep on suing the DNC and attacking the first four states and threatening to sue those states as well.

It is getting hilarious now.

[Debi]

5. *sigh*

I wonder how much more of this the candidates will tolerate before pulling out of some states. Bet they'd like to know what the hell is going on. x(

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Why wait? Why not have Michigan's primary right before Thanksgiving.

Let Michigan now be recognized as the national kingmaker state.

[madfloridian]

7. Then Florida will have theirs at Halloween.

:rofl:

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Trick or treat . . . .

[CyberPieHole]

8. Why is New Hampshire "first in the nation"?

Has it always been that way? Why can't states take turns, being "first"? I should think that the states with the biggest populations should go first since they are probably more reflective of the greater population. What got the states fighting in the first place? Do they always fight like this? Is this an anomaly?

[Romulox]

12. Look at the billions in farm subsidies and the ZERO in subsidies to manufacturers...

Going first means big $$$ for any state, and I don't mean in convention hotel rooms. So it's "free trade" if you produce cars (Michigan) but massive government subsidies if you produce corn (Iowa). No coincidence...

[CyberPieHole]

15. Money makes the world go round...

kinda makes me sick.

[Debi]

13. Welcome to DU CyberPieHole

If you go back into some of the posts about the calendar you'll find all the answers you need (I suggest reading madfloridian's journal entries).

:hi:

Glad to have you here.

[CyberPieHole]

14. Hello Debi, thank you for the kind welcome...

and thank you for the information. I will go back and read madfloridian's journal. I really don't know much about the whole "calendar" thing.:hi:

[Romulox]

16. deleted

edit: nevermind

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Big states going first means big money candidates always win

IMO we need to spread the calendar and we can have it so big states and small states both have influence. As recently as 1992, California and New York did have a say in the process, choosing between Clinton and Jerry Brown. Yes the earlier states got to eliminate Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, and Tom Harkin but California and New York were still important.

[hedgehog]

21. And I think the era of the Big Money candidate is fading fast .

Hasn't anybody noticed that the top threee all have enough money to go all the way? I'm not sure where Kucinich, Biden and Dodd stand. At a certain point, the money becomes useless. There is only so much advertising that can be bought. We'd all be better off this year if the priamaries had been spaced out instead of bunched up.

[Romulox]

24. Hillary and Obama (the top money getters) lead in Ia and NH. Big money wins there, too. nt

[cobalt1999]

10. Good.

I hope the primary process gets totally screwed up this year. Maybe, just maybe, they'll work out a solution for 2012 that won't have the committee selected favorite states always going first.

Burn this crappy process favoring the holy states of Iowa/NH to the ground baby!

[Romulox]

11. Thank you for fighting for us, Senator Levin. The Party Machine is corrupt. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

17. I'll admit, Florida and Michigan may have successfully ended the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire

But in the process they may be helping to cost us the 2008 election.

[cobalt1999]

19. Actually, this is probably the safest year to mutiny

Remember the states are also violating Republican rules too. 2008 is a slam dunk win, it's now or never.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. First of all, 2008 is not a slam dunk

That's the kind of thinking that gave us Poppy over Dukakis in 1988. Secondly, a safe year to mutiny would be one when Democrats have an incumbent President running for re-election. That way the Republicans get saddled with the mess and Democrats don't have to deal with it. The nominee will be the incumbent Democratic President who can make extremely vague statements about the issue but remain uninvolved because he/she doesn't have to worry about appeasing any one state to get the nomination.

[cobalt1999]

22. Disagree.

The big money is on the democrats this year, the republicans are following a disastrous and unpopular president, the dollar is tanking, the economy is facing recession, the deficit is enormous, the war is unpopular, people have come around on the concept of global warming, the republicans have a weak field...sorry, slam dunk.

I never thought that about 1988 in the least. I did think so about 1976 and 1996 though.

[RebelSansCause]

23. this primary system is the most

ridiculous thing ever. obama came to new york, and i don't know why. why do they even bother? apparently iowa counts for the most. well how come you live in iowa you get to meet the candidates. i would absolutley laugh my ass off if hillary clinton knocked on my apartment door. would be one of the most hilarious things ever. the problem is of course the size of the country. but why don't we instead have maybe 8-10 states all go at once, and those 8-10 will rotate every 4 years. and they all show a good breakdown between them. somehow, i do not believe an iowa democrat is equated to a new york democrat. call me biased. or whatever. but this is inanity.