Daily Kos

Michigan presidential primary STRUCK DOWN!

Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:08:14 AM PDT

Michigan's January 15 presidential primary has been thrown out, thanks to a lawsuit brought by activists, journalists, and a list vendor.

Michigan's January 15 presidential primary was passed as an in-your-face defiance of national party schedules and the traditional place of Iowa and New Hampshire.  It was also a creaky political compromise that included some dubious provisions.

Michigan is an open-primary state, but presidential primary voters must declare a party in order to have a valid preference that can count for delegate selection.  The compromise for the January 15 primary required voters to make that declaration, but also required election officials to keep it secret -- and then disclose those lists only to the Democratic and Republican state party chairs.

A lawsuit was brought against this; the plaintiffs argued that using public funds to create a list available only to party leadership was unconstitutional.  The plaintiffs included former Detroit Free Press political columnist Hugh McDiarmid, and Ingham County Commissioner and Democratic list vendor Mark Grebner.

Today, Ingham County Circuit Judge William Collette ruled that the plaintiffs are correct, and the private list provision is invalid.  Moreover, since the presidential primary law has a non-severability clause, meaning that the invalidity of any part makes the whole law invalid, the entire primary law has been struck down.

See the Detroit Detroit Free Press bulletin.

Tags: Recommended, michigan, primaries, voter lists (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 275 comments

    •  nice diary, Larry! (5+ / 0-)

      Have you decided whether you're going to run for another term as Clerk/Register of Deeds?

      Am I correct in my vague recollection that Michigan held caucuses rather than a primary in 2004?  I believe it may have been on the same day (February 7, 2004) as ours in Washington.

      The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

      by N in Seattle on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:13:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes to both! (4+ / 0-)

        Yes, I'm running for re-election, and I'm already raising money for that.

        Yes, Michigan held caucuses in 2004, but as I recall, they occurred right after Dean dropped out, so they were semi-irrelevant.  I don't have the 2004 caucus date handy.

        •  good to hear... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Neon Vincent

          When you get your 2008 campaign site up, be sure to let people know ... both here and on our good old email list (I look in over there every once in a while).

          As for 2004, I actually did remember it right.  Here's the CNN results page for 02/07/2004.  

          It was before Dean dropped out, but after his chances were gone.  Didn't stop me and most caucus attendees from my precinct and from my Legislative District from backing him.

          The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

          by N in Seattle on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:12:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the CNN link. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            N in Seattle

            Now that I read it, I recall that I voted for Dean, even though I was sure that Kerry would win the nomination by then, because 1) Dean represented my views on the war better than Kerry, 2) Dean is a doctor and would have been better informed on health care, and 3) I'm a big believer in the power of the Internet, and Dean was the first national politician to harness the net effectively.

            FWIW, I'm very happy that this primary legislation has been overturned.  That means I can switch my vote from Dodd back to Obama or Edwards, my first and second choices before this silly primary date was set.

            "Iraq: the bravest 1% fighting for the richest 1%." ~ An Unknown Kossack.

            by Neon Vincent on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:49:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No, (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          N in Seattle, Neon Vincent

          Dean won a number of delegates from Michigan. Wisconsin was later, and it was immediately after that that Dean dropped out.

          I remember because one of four delegates from the 6th CD was a Dean delegate, and the local leader of our Dean Meetup got to go.

      •  Yes, the Michigan Democratic Party... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        N in Seattle

        ...ran a virtual caucus in 2004.  I participated.  Participants had to register at the state party's website, confirm their identities (I forget exactly how), and then submit their vote electronically.  I rather liked that system.  I don't remember if there were also actual meetings in meatspace to go along with the electronic voting for those who had no Internet access.

        BTW, if Larry is running, I'll be able to vote for him, now that I've moved into his county.  I'll see for myself how good a job his department is doing when my fiancee and I apply for a marriage license. ;-)

        "Iraq: the bravest 1% fighting for the richest 1%." ~ An Unknown Kossack.

        by Neon Vincent on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:10:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  knowing Larry personally, ... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Neon Vincent

          ... I'm sure his office is well and efficiently run.  He wouldn't permit anything less.

          WRT the MI caucus, it was very, very different from Washington's.  For ours, attendance was required (except that proxies were allowed from those who couldn't attend for reasons of religion).  With the virtual approach, how could you carry out a "round two" to handle situations where candidates failed to receive the requisite 15% of the vote?

          The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

          by N in Seattle on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:18:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm glad to read that about Larry. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            N in Seattle

            I'll be sure to pass that on to my fiancee.

            As for the Michigan Caucus, I have no idea how the caucus (which really worked more like an online primary) dealt with the issue you raised.  Is the 15% requirement a national party rule?

            "Iraq: the bravest 1% fighting for the richest 1%." ~ An Unknown Kossack.

            by Neon Vincent on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:32:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Good News (35+ / 0-)

    That's good news.

    I'm a big fan of Howard Dean's 4 Early State Plan, with only IA, NH, NV, and SC getting to go before Feb 5th.

    MI and FL ought to play by the rules.  And with this news, it looks like at least MI will be forced to.

    •  just to let you know (4+ / 0-)

      wisconsin's primary is february 19.

      "War is good for business...invest your son" --unknown

      by stentor196 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:18:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So should NH..n/t (5+ / 0-)

      ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

      by dkmich on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:30:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is your state as childish as you sound? Probably (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JamesBrown4ever

        which is why I was hoping MI and FL would get their behinds handed to them.

        Grow up.  The fact that big states like FL and MI were trying to move up motivated IA and NH to try even more to guarantee they have the same impact.

        "If the election was last week, then that backwards-looking poll you're fixated on might be accurate."

        by framecop on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:40:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We're not all childish. (35+ / 0-)

          What we are is sick of watching our state die and wanted to get someone to finally pay attention to what is happening in our state.

          I AM for having a more fair primary calendar, but I was against the way Michigan had decided to go about forcing the change from the start.

          Things like this should be handled with care and finesse and Michigan didn't employ much of either in this situation.

          "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

          by MichiganGirl on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:47:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as a texan, i sympathise with you folks (6+ / 0-)

            i'm sick and tired of us not having a say, either.  sorry this has turned into such a mess for michiganders.

            John Cornyn is an asshole with shoes. Support Rick Noriega!

            by anna on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since it looks like we're back to a Feb. caucus (6+ / 0-)

              for this election, the only thing I am sorry about in this ordeal is the extra negative press it has gotten for Governor Granholm.

              Unlike the debate nationally over whether or not the Dems won not because they were liked, but because the repubs were so hated... There is really not much question that that IS the reason Governor Granholm won her reelection bid. Governor Granholm is pretty disliked, even among Dems... but everyone hated Dick DeVos (brother-in-law of Blackwater owner Erik Prince) more than they disliked Governor Granholm.

              The repubs are running my piece of shit Congressman Pete Hoekstra in 2010 and not many in Michigan know about his infinite misdeeds. I'm afraid that we'll lose the Governor's mansion in 2010 to a freaking lunatic because of the dumbass moves like this one that the MDP has made in the last few years.

              "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

              by MichiganGirl on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:06:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Clarification (5+ / 0-)

                When you say "dumbass moves like this one that the MDP has made in the last few years," I think it's worth emphasizing that it's really Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell who've been pushing this for years.  I suspect you know that, but for others, but I just wanted to make it clear to others.  

                The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                by DHinMI on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:18:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks. (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  dkmich, dreamghost

                  Once again, you're right.

                  I know they've been pushing for this for years, but I believe they had some piss poor timing on when they decided to put their feet down.

                  "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

                  by MichiganGirl on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:25:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  What is your take on their background motivation? (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  dreamghost

                  Why these moves, this election, now?

                  I just have never gotten this issue and though i vote there I don't live there so am not up on the details.  Levin's emails never answered those questions for me.

                  "Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America."

                  by lizah on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:39:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's Not Just Now (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    gsbadj, MichiganGirl

                    People in Michigan had the option of voting on January 2nd in 2004.  We had the "caucus" on February 3rd, but because we allowed absentee voting, Michigan voters could vote before anyone else.  They tried to push ahead in 2000, but other elements in the state party--iirc, the UAW and the Michigan Education Association among them--essentially said "no, we're not going to risk not being seated at the convention."  

                    As to why, well, there are a ton of good arguments for not letting NH and IA dominate the early voting.  But you need to add Levin's ability to get fixated on things.  For instance, recently he was going to introduce legislation or an amendment on something or other to overturn the zone vs meter method of cab fares in DC.  Why the hell should he be so fixated on something, from a national perspective, is so meaningless?  (Why he should exploit DC's vulnerability to the whims of Congress is another issue.)  I dunno, but it's consistent with his M.O.  It may be a valid point, but why he fixates on certain valid points, I can't answer it.    

                    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                    by DHinMI on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:52:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  How can you call anyone who posts online plans (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                MichiganGirl

                for the construction of nuclear weapons in Arabic  a "piece of shit"?

                Hey, have you heard about that kook fringe Lib site, Daily Kos?

                by greee on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:38:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  great sig line LOL n/t (0+ / 0-)

              "And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan

              by shaharazade on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:10:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  "Watching Our State Die" (6+ / 0-)

            This weekend I had close friends from home visiting me in DC.  One of the nights were were in a bar having a beer, and I asked them one of Trapper John's favorite bar questions:  "What conspiracy theory do you believe."  Michigan is just getting slaughtered right now, not just because of the auto industry--although that's obviously a huge problem--but also by other moves, like Pfizer--who had more employees in Michigan than in any other state--closing up their entire Ann Arbor research facility and eliminating or moving all their Michigan employees.  One of my friends mentioned this, and said her conspiracy theory was that corporate America was trying to so weaken Michigan that in another ten years or so the southwest could successfully divert water from the Great Lakes.  

            She was mostly joking.  But things are so bad in Michigan right now that it begins to sound plausible.  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by DHinMI on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:16:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're so right. (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Chicago Lulu, dreamghost

              It isn't just the auto industry that we're losing, it's all of our industry.

              Everything is packing up and moving away.

              Michigan's 2 big draws used to be:

              1. Manufacturing
              1. Tourism

              The manufacturers are all closing up shop and moving on and no one can afford vacations anymore.

              So where does that leave us? Not in a very good position, that's where.

              "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

              by MichiganGirl on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:22:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Saw a Think on Yahoo Yesterday... (6+ / 0-)

                ...about naming a new "Hockeytown USA" because Red Wings ticket sales are down.  That has nothing to do with lack of interest in hockey or the performance of the Wings (who are leading their conference and have the second best record in the NHL), it's entirely because fewer people can afford to attend the games.  

                For people not from Detroit, it may not stand out, but seeing that the Wings are having a hard time selling tickets is the best indicator I've seen about how bad things are.  The only think I can come up with as a good analogy would be if the Red Sox were having a hard time selling out Fenway.  If that was true, you'd know there was some serious problem.  

                The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                by DHinMI on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:35:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know my cousin and her husband (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  dreamghost, Neon Vincent

                  were thinking about selling their Red Wings season tickets because they can't really afford the 6 hour drive to Detroit like they could in years past... At first they tried to sell the tickets, but no one else could afford to buy them. So then they tried to give them away, but no one wanted them because no one else could afford the drive down either.  

                  Great tickets not far behind the goalie's box sit empty because no one can afford to use them. It's a sad, sad time for Michigan and Michiganders.

                  "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

                  by MichiganGirl on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:43:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  To further illustrate this point... (4+ / 0-)

                  ...in the '80's, when the Red Wings were consistently one of only five teams in the NHL to not make the playoffs each year, when local radio was mocking them as the "Dead Things"...they still sold out Joe Louis Arena.

                •  And, the most one can buy is four. (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  MichiganGirl

                  I wanted to buy FIVE hockey tickets (daughter, husband, and 3 sons) as a family Christmas gift.  Daughter said they had tried it last year and no can do.  Only four at a time.  Which means if you get a fifth, where is it seated?  How does one even split that up?  Stupid rule.

                  ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                  by dkmich on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:10:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Except, lake front property is selling. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                MichiganGirl

                We got three post cards from a realator identifying Lake Huron beach front properties they sold in like a month.  Don't ask me why.  We were surprised.

                ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                by dkmich on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:07:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Similar experience with my uncle from VA (0+ / 0-)

              He's a naval officer on leave and stopped by this past weekend for a visit.  He's from Michigan originally and asked what the deal is with the state's ecomony.  

              I told him that in my view there are several things.  Back in the 90's, while other states were nurturing high tech companies based on university research patents, Gov. Engler was chasing after new-old economy manufacturing plants.  NAFTA happened and the plants he did bring in started closing up.  Global Trade happened and the local tool & die shops now compete with,  and are forced to source their a percentage of work to China and Korea when they do win a contract from the automakers.  

              I hate to say it but there's also a real lack of entreprenurial spirit in Michigan aside from people starting landscaping and snow plowing businesses.  It also pains me to see our state university system serving as something akin to tradeschools - churning out nurses, teachers, and communications majors (nothing against these - but they don't create businesses they staff them).

              Michigan is begging the rest of the nation to move its business here.  What Michigan isn't doing is growing new and vibrant businesses from within because there isn't the spirit or new ideas.      

              •  Huh?? (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                dkmich

                The new plants are mostly fine, it's just that they can't make up for the old plants that have closed, and they were lured with so many tax breaks that they're not providing enough to offset the lost tax base.

                As for new economy stuff, Pfizer DID greatly expand it's Michigan operations, and then just wiped it all out.  Engler was an asshole and screwed the state for a long time to come, but they did put in to place the Life Science Corridor.  The problem is that they didn't fund it properly, and it's largely been a bust.

                And the state university system is outstanding.  I don't know where you're getting this notion that it's just a bunch of vocational training.  The state schools in Michigan are outstanding.  The problem, however, is that people get an excellent education at the state schools, and then do what many of my friends did, and indeed, what I eventually did--they leave.  There just hasn't been enough job growth in the state, people get tired of the gloomy, sun-less weather for 5 months of the year, they get tired in living in vast suburban sprawl, and they get tired of seeing so many of their friends leave.

                Before I left Michigan, I had a hell of a time finding bright, worldly, cosmopolitan and hip women I'd want to date.  It was as if those who were like that were either married by the time they were 25 or so, or they left the state.  Since I moved to DC, it's completely different, and I've heard the same thing from friends about Chicago, NYC, Austin, even places like Minneapolis and Columbus, OH.  The state is just losing it's critical mass of educated young people.  It's a tragedy, because there's so much that's wonderful about Michigan.  But if you're in your 20's or 30's, you start to wonder why the heck you'd chose to stay there if you didn't have to.  I reached a point in my life where I was no longer married, and didn't need to stay in the state because of anyone else, so I left.  It pains men to have left, but it's not because the university system isn't good--at least until the Republicans destroy it because they won't allow meaningful tax increases to make up for the gutting of state government done under Engler--it's because once you get out of the state university system, there's not a whole hell of a lot for you to do in Michigan.  

                The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                by DHinMI on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:10:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Know something? (17+ / 0-)

          Screw IA NH SC and so on.

          I'm a big state Dem tired of getting their lousy sloppy seconds.

          The two party system is bad, the electoral college is worse, but this inbred backwoods presidential focus group madness truly is teh suck. And it is in no way "childish" to point that out.

          •  fairness, my child (7+ / 3-)

            If we did not have a "focus group" of small states, then only candidates who could raise enough money to participate in a lot of big states at once, before most people even knew or cared what was happening, would be viable.  In practice this year that meant HRC, period.  What the focus group does is give more people and more viewpoints a chance.  All adults therefore support it.

            "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

            by ge0rge on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:05:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Focus group? (0+ / 0-)

              Hardly.  I don't know if you've paid much attention to the costs of running a race in these states, but it's prohibitive.  That's why Clinton and Obama have raised $86 million between them.  And with the encroachment of Big Media, these places that supposedly practice so-called "retail politics"...well, "retail" is the perfect word for it.  Certainly it isn't enlightening, or even informative politics...just another opportunity for the big names to sell their brand of lowest-common-denominator politics.  

              •  the cost of running in (0+ / 0-)

                NH, IA, NV, and SC
                is not "prohibitive" compared to the cost of running in all four of those *plus MI, FL, and
                everybody else who thinks they can get there*".
                4 small is clearly not prohibitive.
                4 small plus 4 big clearly would be.

                "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

                by ge0rge on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:58:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Size is only part of the issue (0+ / 0-)

                  and television has nothing to do with it.

                  Because Iowa, for example, has caucuses, the name of the game there is "organization".  Meaning, start cultivating all the top key powers within the Party, early, and constantly, for two years.  They are your only hope for winning.  Cultivating those people is not cheap.  

                  Neither is all the "organization" required to engage the networks of the powers in the Party.  Those are protracted expenses and the processes cannot be replaced by automation.  

            •  No need .. (0+ / 0-)

              All adults therefore support it.

              ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

              by dkmich on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:14:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You're damn skippy. (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            gsbadj, ChemBob, Do Tell, slowheels

            Screw all of the early states. I'm sick of my vote not counting.

            The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. -Benjamin Franklin

            by HairyTrueMan on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:05:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sick of Iowa collecting time & money for 3% turno (7+ / 0-)

            Add to that is the 95% white population.  Then the weighting of the delegates in unusual ways.

            I have talked to some of these Iowans, they want the game and enjoy the attention.  Really appreciate the money.  Thinking they owe a service to the country--not so much.

            Maybe they can and maybe they can't be bothered to show up.  they have no problems saying anything to poll people.

            •  the counterweight to the whiteness of Iowa (0+ / 0-)

              is the blackness of South Carolina.
              These people did know what they were doing.
              I am sick&tired of people stupider than the people who worked on it whining about it.

              "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

              by ge0rge on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:00:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Look in a mirror. (5+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Do Tell, PatsBard, dougymi, HairyTrueMan, Ismay

          Go back to where they were from the beginning and stop acting like a bunch of children?

          They had representatives at the DNC meeting when the schedule was set the first time.

          Just because they didn't like it, so what?  It's life, get over it.

          by framecop on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:31:13 PM EST

          You have surly, nasty, and personal comments littered throughout.  If you can't play well in groups, your mom will have to come pick you up and take you home.  

          ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

          by dkmich on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:58:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  FL and MI will hand YOUR behind to you (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          anna, slowheels, cybrestrike

          Since these two states are crucial to re-election--not fucking SC and IA.

          National Dems capitulate to everything the GOP and Bush wants, but they spit in the face of their own activists and needed swing voters--which is certain to come back and bite us.  

          Taking delegates is one thing, but for them to demand candidates not to campaign (but allow them to rape the state for as much cash as they want), and to take their names off the ballots in MI--that was just over the top!!

          Quinn Poll showed that 22% of independents in FL are less likely to vote Dem because of the fiasco, and another poll showed a similar result in MI.

          It's a broken system--and more states are going to keep moving up whether you like it or not (national primary soon).  Dean could have shown leadership and introduced a rotating regional primary--what he showed is his capacity to lose elections.

          The Seminole Democrat
          A blue voice calling from the deep red

          by SemDem on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:02:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rotating regional primaries... (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            dkmich, SemDem, Scubaval

            ... is the way to go.  You could randomly break the 50 states into 5 groups of 10.  If you're worried about small states, then create a mix of large and small states in each group.  And then have 5 primary dates, 2 weeks apart.

            There is NO reason that the blue-collar, maufacturing states of the Midwest and Northeast (or any other state for that matter) should be stuck, year after year, with having to vote for only those candidates that haven't dropped out after losing in the relatively more rural states of IA, NH and SC.

            Why should Michigan BOTHER to have a primary or caucus if the candidacy has been largely decided by the time it gets to vote?

            I agree that Michigan probably could have handled this in a better way but I am 100% behind rotating these primaries.

            "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

            by gsbadj on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:20:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  NH is guilty too (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dkmich, MichiganGirl

          It doesn't matter what motivated it.  The DNC was too chicken to make NH play by the adopted rules.  The rules said 2 caucuses followed by 2 primaries.  NH was only willing to be pre-empted by 1 caucus (Iowa) and moved itself ahead of Nevada.

          I would say that far from FL and MI's moves motivating NH, it was NH's cheating that left the door open for MI to argue that they could move.

          This happening in a state with a D governor is really stupid, though.  If she weren't already ineligible to run for President by virtue of having been born in Canada, this would be a good reason for Gov.Granholm to give up on becoming the 2nd woman President.

          "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

          by ge0rge on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:03:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not true (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Justus

            The primary commission recommended up to two caucuses to go between Iowa and NH. The DNC Rules Commitee voted to have one caucus between the two states.  There were indications that all other things being equal, the NH secretary of state would have not moved ahead of Nevada, because NH law only requires NH to go ahead of similar events (and a caucus is not a similar event). Unfortunately, when S.C. Republicans decided to go on the 19th (like Nevada), that triggered the NH SoS to say he would have to schedule no later than the 12th. Nevada chose to stay on the 19th when that happened, instead of moving. Before you accuse Nh of cheating, you should check your facts.

            •  NH didn't play by the rules. (0+ / 0-)

              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 SenatorDNC Committee Member

              ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

              by dkmich on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:24:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree with this (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          gsbadj, SemDem

          Obviously, being the state to vote first is a valuable thing.  Otherwise, no one would be fighting over it.

          No state should be simply granted the privilege of going first EVERY time.  How is that fair?  The only reason that these states were CHOSEN to be first is due to tradition.  And that isn't enough of a reason.  Some say that it is easier to campaign in these smaller states and it requires less money and helps smaller candidates.  Even if this is true, this is still not enough of a reason to justify their privileged status.

          If you think these reasons through in other scenarios, it is obvious that granting this first voting status to certain states is the wrong thing to do.

          I don't know what the answer is.  But there should be a way for states other than the traditional 4 to vote first in primaries.

          What is worse in all this is is penalizing the voters.  That is downright stupid.  Even republicans aren't stupid enough to do that.

          The FL democratic party is suing the national party to ensure that their delegates are seated and votes are counted.  I hope the national democratic party and IA , SC NV and NH gets their ass handed to them.

          And don't get me started on the candidates that agreed not to campaign in FL because of this.  Don't be calling me for money.  I won't give you a dime.

    •  Back In Line (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida, flubber

      Thank goodness for the judge sending them back in line.  

      No amount of Clinton-Hsu cash should be able to disrupt the process of electing our next President.

    •  Small State Crapola (6+ / 0-)

      Iowa- 2,980,085 people
           14.7% 65 and over
           94.9% White
           2.3% Black

      New Hampshire- 1,314,895 people
           12.5% 65 and over
           96.1% White
            1% Black

      These two states have priority WHY?!?
             

      Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Two Days per Bottle.

      by dhonig on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:22:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  < cues up "Fiddler on the Roof" soundtrack > (5+ / 0-)

        Tradition...

        John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:24:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tradition ? Wrongo. (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dkmich, gsbadj, Chairman Bob

          Tradition is the process of carrying forward the things which work, are valuable, and provide the basis of society continuing.

          Examples ? Oh, justice. Habeas Corpus, one person one vote, stuff like that. the Constitution is a wellspring of Tradition.

          Convention is the word you want, the doing of something because it's always been done that way; the ongoing application of a solution to a problem which no longer exists.

          NH and IA primaries are the vestigal speed traps of our political process.  They deserve a quick and painful death.

          .

          •  Small states allow a good process. (0+ / 0-)

            Campaigns can reach every county.  Reaching every county keeps drawing the interest of local voters. They become participants. This levels the playing field because it empowers and encourages the average citizen to listen to as many candidates as possible and to be active in the process. This process then receives attention from the rest of the nation, thereby slowing the rushing tide that is any campaign, and gives us a more thorough working knowledge, if we choose to grasp it, of what's going on.

            I come from California, and this state is so huge.  The intimacy afforded in the early states by a long campaign season with speed bumps is crucial to the process.

            I, for one, wish our primary hadn't been pushed up.  Let the smaller states have their moment in the sun. We can learn from the light shed from the races there.  
            The more time we have to make a decision, the better off we all are as a nation.

            I want everyone to have time to 'get up to speed' on the issues and to choose a candidate who most speaks to him or her.

            •  And then... (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              dkmich, slowheels, emmabrody

              ... when it's time for you to vote, but the field has already been narrowed down, when Richardson and Dodd and Kucinich and ... hell, let's say Edwards have all dropped out because they didn't win (or do as well as expected) in IA, SC or NH, haven't you been denied a voice in narrowing that field?  

              Why shouldn't YOU have your vote count toward narrowing the field as opposed to merely ratifying what these rural states have decided for you?

              They ought to rotate.

              "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

              by gsbadj on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:32:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Every county in Iowa and NH is just like (0+ / 0-)

              every other county in Iowa and NH.  So all white, retired, people care about agriculture.  Yeah, that represents America.

              ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

              by dkmich on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:26:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Because we may be small (0+ / 0-)

        But we are tough!

    •  Florida has the finest weather (0+ / 0-)

      during the early campaign season.

      Why trod through snow and slush?

    •  i say we do a primary/caucus lottery (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      SemDem, Owllwoman

      the head of each state's democratic party meets and picks a date out of a jar.  the date they get is that state's primary/caucus date.

      time to give those small states a kick in the nuts

      I got nuthin (-6.88, -6.15)

      by guyermo on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:30:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  FACT:Flubber is a NEOCON aristocrat (0+ / 0-)

      who wants nothing more than to maintain the aristoratic primary structure that results in FILTHY STINKING RICH IOWA FAMILY FARMERS raking in hundreds of billions of dollars of NOBID ETHANOL SUBSIDIES every 4 years

      •  Um, what? (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        countrycat, Justus

        Why are we suddenly shouting here?

        No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

        by jarhead5536 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:23:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because this has outraged me for weeks (0+ / 0-)

          DEMs are now the party of the rich and powerful(Iowa family farmers).  The poor are in Michigan(7.4% unemployment).  If you say you care about the poor, then you should campaign where they are not in Iowa country clubs.  This stinks to high heaven.

          •  so, I'm having a problem with this.... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Justus, jarhead5536

            DEMs are now the party of the rich and powerful(Iowa family farmers).

            There are a lot of problems with our agricultural system, but true family farmers aren't one of them.  I know families in Alabama who have a paper worth of close to a million dollars, yet struggle to pay the bills and rely on the free clinic for health care.  Why?  Because all their money is in land and equipment.  They can only break even by selling out to developers.

            The farm system is broken, but it's not the family farmers who are to blame, and your comment is really ugly and shows your ignorance of the realities of farm life.

            The poor in Michigan will not be helped if family farmers in Iowa go out of business.  If anything, they'll be hurt because then large agribusiness will further control our food production.

            Yes. There ARE progressive Democrats in Alabama. Visit with us at Left in Alabama

            by countrycat on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:22:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Shows your ignorance of MI. (0+ / 0-)

              We have lots of farms in mid MI.  Most are family owned. MI's economy however isn't as dependent on agra as Iowa's.   And, MI is a donor state.  We subsidize people who are too stupid to not let their cows poop on spinach and taint it with ecoli.  Or how about those extra peanut storage bins MI had to pay for with its Bill Clinton 7.5% unemployment rate.  

              ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

              by dkmich on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:32:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Speaking of ethanol, (0+ / 0-)

        it is driving up the price of corn.  Why the hell can't they use hemp, something nobody eats. Back on subject, it is the money.  It is always the money.

        ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

        by dkmich on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 02:29:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why do they get to go first? (0+ / 0-)

      Why should Iowa and New Hampshire have a greater voice in selecting our president than any other state?

      How did I live without him?

      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:07:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fantastic news! (32+ / 0-)

    I don't agree that New Hampshire and Iowa should be the primary gods that they are, but I also thought announcing the decision to change tradition a few months before the votes are cast was just a slap in the face.

    Now it's over and the MDP should declare it's intent now to change things in 2012... give the country time to get used to things not being the way they've always been.

    The whole "this is what we're doing and fuck you if you don't like it" attitude completely turned me off. This will be much better in the long run I think.

    "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

    by MichiganGirl on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:11:58 AM PDT

    •  Woot Woot!!! (18+ / 0-)

      I think this is great, and I'll tell you why.  The more early states a candidate has to campaign in, the more we will be stuck with the most funded with the best soundbites.  
      With a limited number of states going first, it allows candidates with less money to sit down with the same voters and the candidates with all the money.
      However, I have written a letter to the DNC in support of the early state order, with one exception:
      We rotate which two states go first every four years.  Please join me!  Here's to Michigan and Colorado going first in 2012!

      Montesquieu and Locke are rolling in their graves right now...

      by Mannabass on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:16:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thats a fair amount of bullshit (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        HeavyJ, dougymi, SilverOz

        Im sorry, but the truth is retail politics, which is what your talking about, doesn't work everywhere, and should just be declared dead (at least traditional retail politics).  Lets just embrace a national primary, and figure out how to make things retail on the web.

        •  a national primary is a dreadful idea (18+ / 0-)

          It would be just a name recognition/money establishment support primary.

          I live in Iowa. Retail politics is not dead.

          I also think caucuses, when possible, are preferable to primaries--they are the only genuine example (except for New England town meetings) of participatory democracy.

          •  Anyone with intelligence should agree with you. (2+ / 2-)

            Recommended by:
            jre2k8, flubber
            Hidden by:
            SemDem, Ismay

            "If the election was last week, then that backwards-looking poll you're fixated on might be accurate."

            by framecop on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:33:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Tell me how you get retail politics in NYC (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            BlueGenes

            or in Detroit, or any large metropolitian area.  What they actually get is rallies, which are great photo-ops, but suck for real communication with the candidates.  

            A national primary would have the benefit of undercutting the traditional media's push of the horse race.

            •  retail politics (7+ / 0-)

              is not just the candidate, its the community organizer, the precinct captain, the local organizations that should be the backbone of the party and also, ideally, political campaigns. This is possible in big cities and small.

              A horse race is GOOD--how does it benefit anyone to have a nomination determined soley by TV adds? With a race, we have time to deliberate, to consider, to actually make a rational decision. I only wish we could arrange it so that the race continues for all the primaries and caucuses--rather than having someone annointed right after NH or Feb 5.

              •  Horse races are never about issues (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Canadian Reader, jre2k8

                thats the problem.  The story becomes all about process.  Look at what we got this time - the one issue that has gotten a little play in the media has been Iraq (and thats because its just so fucking big).  Most of the stories concerning the horse race have been Hillary's cleavage, or Kuchinich and the UFO.  

                Furthermore, IMHO, I've always viewed retail politics as one thing - direct talk from the candidate to the people.  I don't view the collilition building as part of retial politics.  And you won't get those direct talks with the candidates, in a large metropolitian regions

                •  Why wouldn't you? (0+ / 0-)

                  What's to stop a candidate from doing just that?  There are more opportunities for one-on-one or small group interaction in a state that has more people than in a lesser populated one.

                  "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

                  by gsbadj on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:43:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The ROI of a rally is better (0+ / 0-)

                    to quote what I said below,

                    The return on investment (ROI) for a rally is much better than the ROI is for a direct talk.  If you have a meet the candidate house party, for most apartments/houses, you won't get more than, I wanna bet 25-35 people (I don't see how we'd fit more than that in my house, thats for certain).

                    But for a rally, your going to get a lot more people - 50-100, because of the nature of a rally.  In either the case of the rally, or in the case of a sit down meeting, you'll get people who go out talking, but your more likely to get more people from a rally event than a houseparty.  

                    Rallies aren't common in rural states, because there aren't many places where you can have enough people to realistaclly have a rally (the exception of course is major events, like a state fair - but they are exceptions).  But rallies can easily happen in cities, and so you'll see a lot of those, but no house parties.  

                    Real conversation and exchange of ideas only happens in a house party type setting, but you won't ever see those in big cities, again, because the ROI is seen as better for a rally.  

            •  What makes you think that? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              CeeusBeeus

              Having a national election hasn't undercut the media's pushing horse-race politics at all.

              The primary system as it is, I think, is acceptable because it allows low-budget and low-recognition candidates to compete, rather than just letting whoever has the money to buy a spot or ten during Heroes or Monday Night Football win.  An argument can (and perhaps should) be made for the early states to not always be Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC, but the principle that all the candidates don't have to have $millions war-chests is a good one.  And I say this as an Obama supporter.

              Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

              by mistersite on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:16:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That won't change with an RRP. (0+ / 0-)

                The really unfortante truth is that we are rapidly moving towards the time when the next election starts the day after the first election happened (IE, the 2012 election will start on Nov 9, 2008).

                And that is a fundemental problem, that frankly neither an RRP or national primary won't change.  

                What we really need is a way to exchange ideas and conversation directly with a candidate.  but an RRP doesn't do that, at least not for everyone.  We'd like to believe that, because it seems like things will be more local, but we are moving towards a point that local includes everyone in the nation, and potentially everyone on the global.  And a RRP won't address that point.  Thats why I say that the only way to see retail politics make a comeback is by using the internet.  It will allow for a real conversation.

            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

              And a candidate's ability to peform well at rallies isn't important for what reason?

              Rallies never occur in the general election campaign?

              Being able to talk to, convey messages to and persuade a group is a bad thing?

              "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

              by gsbadj on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:40:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Rallies aren't a bad thing, but (0+ / 0-)

                rallies aren't about having a conversation and exchanging ideas.  Rallies are about rallying the troops, and building the momentum.  

                When people talk about "retaining retail politics", they talk about exchange of ideas, and allowing new thoughts a chance at real debate.  

                Thats the point.  

          •  O great Iowan... (6+ / 0-)

            We bow before your wisdom in choosing presidential candidates without money/establishment support and big name recognition. Like Bob Dole and George W. Bush.

            •  Neither of those candidates (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              countrycat, FOS, Justus

              won the Iowa Republican caucuses.  

              •  Sorry, I meant the Iowa Republican Caucuses that (0+ / 0-)

                are held in Iowa. In the U.S. On planet Earth.

                2000- George W. Bush* (41%) Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)

                1996- Bob Dole* (26%) Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Maurice Taylor (1%)

                •  Very well (0+ / 0-)

                  I'll conceed (some) of the details, but not the larger point, especially since the figures you use are exceptions that prove the rule.  

                  First off, pluralities of 41% and 26% are only considered "victories" if one is a Republican, in which case they are properly called "mandates".  On the Democratic side the percentages are generally even lower and the results even less clear-cut.  John Kerry "won" with 33% of the "vote", when Edwards was a mere 2 points behind.  

                  Secondly, in the entire history of the Iowa caucuses (since 1976) how many times has the so-called "winner" of the Iowa caucuses gone on to the White House?  The answer is "twice", and even that is a qualified answer.  It includes your 41% "victor" from 2000.  It also includes the second-place finisher in 1976, Jimmy Carter, who was swamped in the vote totals by "Undecided".  In every other election in which a party's nomination is contested, winning the Iowa caucuses almost seems to doom one's presidential candidacy:  the trail to the White House is littered with IA caucus "victors" like George Bush (1980), Pat Robertson (1988), Richard Gephardt (1992) and John Kerry (2004).  Of that crowd, only Kerry even got the nomination.  

                  I'm not arguing that Iowa should go first, nor the merits of the choices that come out of these caucuses.  Caucuses are anything but a democratic exercise;  they are a sham mechanism used to preserve the clout and influence of party regulars over the rank-and-file.  All I'm saying is that your argument that Iowa caucus voters have more impact over the presidential selection process is not supported by fact.  

          •  A national primary is where we are headed (1+