Voting "Uncommitted" in Michigan (instead of Ron Paul)

In early December, I wrote this diary detailing my strategy in voting for Ron Paul in Michigan.  I reasoned that, because Michigan's primary is open (but only the Republican side will count, after The Party(tm) stripped the Democratic side), I have the choice of either (1) not voting, (2) voting in a worthless Democratic primary, or (3) voting in a Republican primary where I could make a difference in who our opponent will be in 2008.  And voting for Ron Paul would piss off the Republican Party the most, because the more money he earns, and the more primary votes he wins, the more the Republicans have to spend out of their (weak) war chest to shut him up, counter his ads, and treat him seriously.  Helping Republicans lose money is a very valuable tool this election, and would certainly be a better strategy than staying home.

However.

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the possibility of what I termed the Worst Case Scenario -- that is, if Obama and Hillary are close, and the Clintons and other sympathetic Clinton supporters force the DNC to go back on their "Michigan won't count" rule and seat the delegates anyway.  Since Hillary Clinton is the only serious candidate on the Michigan ballot, that's essentially just a huge windfall of un-Democratic, fake votes.

Yes, so far, the DNC has stood absolutely firm in not counting Michigan's delegates, no matter who they vote for.  The DNC pressured each of the candidates to not campaign here, and remove their names from the ballot, and everyone promised to do that.... but then Hillary changed her mind and stayed on.  Clearly, a state in which voters were not even allowed to vote for Obama (or Edwards or Richardson or anyone other than Hillary) is equivalent to the old Iraqi ballots to "reelect" Saddam Hussein.  But who wants to bet that Senator Clinton would do everything in her power to force these invalid votes into her column if (and only if) they help her "win".

I stated a few days ago that Senator Clinton needs to say, on record, unambiguously and as Shermanesque as possible, that she will not challenge the Michigan delegate ban under any circumstances, and not accept delegate votes from Michigan under any circumstances.  If she won't commit to this statement, she is patently unqualified to run in the Democratic primary to begin with, as she would be advocating the strategy of stealing an election.  I spent the last day or so trying to get an answer from the Clinton campaign, and no one will commit to this statement that I've talked to so far.  Which is terrifying.  

Therefore, I have changed my mind about the strategic advantage of voting for Ron Paul.  It is now the clear strategic advantage, if you're in Michigan, to vote "uncommitted".  Voting "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary allows the delegates to be freed up to support who they like, should the convention prove a close one.  

Yes, most Michigan Democrats I know still plan on staying home, or voting in the Republican primary, but I hope the word gets out in time that there is a better option.  Voting uncommitted isn't the same as not voting -- it's stopping Hillary Clinton from the potential of hijacking an election with invalid delgates (should the final totals be close).  And that in and of itself is even more valuable than assuring Ron Paul keeps being a pest.

•  Tips for Uncommitted!

  (Well, unless you're a Hillary Clinton fan and want to vote for her, of course -- but since there's only 3-4 of you on this blog, I didn't bother addressing that possibility, hehe.)

  by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:11:02 PM PDT

  •  this hillary supporter is glad you are uncommited

    i'm glad you are voting uncommitted even though i'm a Hillary supporter.  I think it is bad form to interfere with another political party's process.  I'm disgusted when republicans try to interfere with our elections.  

    Plus, the repugs are so screwed up this year, I don't think they need our help to remain that way.  

    p.s. there are 7 hillary supporters on this blog.  i'm the handsome one.  

    by arogue7 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM PDT

    •  Heh! :)

      That too -- it's not like there's a big concern that they've got it together over there.  :)

      by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM PDT

  •  I voted Uncommitted by absentee ballot

    by ScottyUrb on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:56:04 PM PDT

•  Why don't you vote for Romney

  If you want to effect the GOP Primary in a meaningful way and give us an opponent we can beat silly.

  by zed on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM PDT

  •  Why is "Romney" the easiest candidate?

    I bet Huckabee would be easier, don't you?

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:21:51 PM PDT

•  Michigan Will Count

  There is absolutely 0.000+ chance that Michigan's primary votes won't count towards choosing the Democratic nominee. If that were to happen, then millions in Michgan (and elsewhere in sympathy) would vote Republican in the general just to attack an obviously insane Democratic Party.

  So your entire strategy seems mooted.

  by DocGonzo on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM PDT

  •  The DNC has been adamant that they won't count

    It would be unacceptable if they changed their mind on this after the fact, because (1) it's invalid with only one candidate, and (2) you can't tell a state full of people that a primary won't count, and then later say "ha ha it does count guess you should have voted, huh?"

    Think about that.  Seriously.  What if in 2004 the State of Ohio said, in the month before the election, "sorry everyone, but we're not going to count toward the election this year".  Over and over again, every day on the news, etc.  So nearly everyone stayed home, because they were told their votes weren't going to count.  And then after the election, they said "we changed our minds -- it counts after all -- Bush wins!"  

    If the DNC proved to be that much of an emeny of free Democratic elections, I'd resign from the Party that day.

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:17:31 PM PDT

    •  Further, the DNC will NEVER do ANYTHING to upset

      Iowa or New Hampshire in the foreseeable future.

      by Uniter on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

    •  It'll Be a Regular Election

      Again, there is no chance that Michigan will be run as anything but a regular primary election, with all qualifying candidates, and counting towards the nomination.

      However, if I'm wrong, the backlash I described as the deterrent to your scenario will still be in effect. In which case there is no way to predict what the general election will be like for the Democratic candidate, with millions of angry voters hating just the Democratic Party.

      by DocGonzo on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM PDT

      •  Well, what do you mean?

        ...there is no chance that Michigan will be run as anything but a regular primary election, with all qualifying candidates, and counting towards the nomination.

        What are you talking about?  Edwards isn't on the Michigan ballot.  Obama isn't on the Michigan ballot.  Richardson isn't on the Michigan ballot.  I HAVE my ballot already!  The only person on it is Hillary.  Therefore, it is NOT NOT NOT a valid ballot, and should NOT count toward the convention!!

        by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:30:42 PM PDT

•  Question olease

  My absentee ballot lies on my kitchen table here in Michigan and I haven't marked it since I've been told it won't count anyways.

  I resoned that marking my ballot for McCain would be the best couurse of action since I despise Romney and if Romney loses Michigan he will likely be done in terms of the nomination.  Why wouldn't that make sense?

  by Robs Rant on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:30:26 PM PDT

  •  I don't know. :(

    Ordinarily, I'd agree with you that voting in the Republican primary is strategically preferable to not voting at all (which is what the Democratic ballot is supposed to be).  But it depends, I suppose, on whether you would be comfortable with a Hillary Clinton victory, should Michigan's primary votes be reinstated, and they all go to her by default.  

    So I think if you're an Obama or Edwards supporter, it probably makes more strategic sense to vote "uncommitted", since then there's at least the possibility that Michigan votes, if the DNC goes back on their word, could help them.  If you're a Clinton supporter, it obviously makes more strategic sense to vote for her.  :)  If you'd be equally okay with Hillary, Edwards, or Obama, then I suppose toying with the Republican side is fine!

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:34:31 PM PDT

•  I agree with your analysis

  If I vote in the "primary" I will vote uncommitted as opposed to voting in the publican primary for rp. While I'd like to see saul anuzis' head explode if rp did well, I just don't see that happening. I have a feeling that many MI Democrats will vote for mccain, just as they (and I) did in 2000.  rp just won't get any support. I thought he would do well in NH, as that sort of libertarian thought fits that state (or so goes the conventional wisdom) and if he doesn't do well there, his support in Michigan will be negligible and anuzis' head will remain intact.

  Now the question is whether or not I will vote at all. I'll decide that on the weekend.  I'd also like to stick a thumb in the MDP's eye by refusing to vote in their farce.

  Do you think mccain will see any Democratic support?  If he does, as he did in 2000, that will blow romney and huck out of the water. I personally think huck will win it, by getting nearly 100% of the W. Michigan fundies, while mccain splits the Detroit area with mitten. Democratic support for mccain changes that completely.

  by dougymi on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:43:18 PM PDT

  •  That's a tough one.

    I know a lot of people who would have considered voting for McCain over Gore in 2000, but I don't think any of those generally Democratic-leaning friends would support McCain this time.  He just seems a little too old and out of it these days.  I think his real time to shine was 2000.  

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM PDT

    •  well the reason I did it in 2000

      was that the Gore race was pretty much decided by the time of the primary and I hate john engler with a passion pretty much unequaled by any hatred short of bush and cheney.  I really wanted to mess with engler's notion of a bush firewall here. IT WASN'T because I liked mccain. I'm not alone in that, either, as I've been told IRL and online that others did the same thing for the same reason.  

      That dynamic isn't there this time, of course. That's why I wonder if there's any support for mccain among Democrats.  There shouldn't be, as he's clearly a threat to a Democratic win in November, but stranger things have happened and mitten is a deeply unpopular figure here among Democrats. mitten also has the wingnut leadership support and college pub support, which translates to the same kind of animus that led to mccain's win in 2000.

      by dougymi on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:54:29 PM PDT

•  If we vote uncommitted

  how do we go about trying to influence the uncommitted delegate who will represent us?

  by FerrisValyn on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM PDT

  •  Buy them things Democrats like :)

    You know, like S&M gear and lube, abortion provider coupons, a pair of scissors with little shoes attached (for cutting and running), the usual.

    (hehe kidding! kidding!)

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

  •  from Michigan Liberal site

    http://www.michiganliberal.com/...

    scroll down through the discussion and find this comment:

    ... is to join the Michigan Democratic Party by Feb. 28, then go to the March 29 Democratic Congressional District Convention. Find out from your local party where it will be. Find out if someone is planning to run for that slot as an Obama supporter. If not, recruit someone, or run yourself! You must register ahead of time with MDP as a delegate candidate.

    At the CD convention, the people will break up into groups depending on which candidate they support. So the Hillary supporters will be in the Hillary group. The exception will be that there will be a mix of folks in the Uncommitted group.

    So you will need to get as many Obama supporters (who are also party members) there as you can. In many places, there will be Edwards supporters who are union members showing up in an organized fashion. So many Uncommitted delegates may actually go to Edwards, assuming he is still in it by March 29.

    Lots can change by then. As of now, this is your best bet.
    by: memiller @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:01:31 AM CST

    by cfk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM PDT

•  I'd go with Huckabee

  I think the Huck will be the real monkey wrench in the GOP coalition. No, I don't want him as my president. But I root for him to stir up a shit storm in the Republican primaries.

  The neo-cons and Wall Street fiscal cons tolerate the religious fundies out of necessity. Without the religious right, the Republicans cannot win a presidential election.

  Recently, Rush Limbaugh ridiculed Huck's supporters as "bible thumpers." Wow, what an insulting term to use against members of a big-tent political coalition. I'm an atheist, but I don't use demeaning terms for religious people.

  Sooner or later, the Evangelicals will realize that Exxon, Walmart and Citibank would cheerfully abort a million babies if it would gain them a 1% tax reduction. Maybe then the fundies will begin to think for themselves, and stop taking marching orders from their TV preacher gurus like Dobson, Robertson and the like.

  Eventually, they will realize that these corporatists don't care one way or another about gay marriage. And they are pro illegal immigration as long as it helps drive down labor costs.

  Ron Paul can be written off easily as an ultra rightist who happens to oppose the war (Aryan Nations opposes the war too). Huck is on track to win South Carolina, Florida, and is competitive nationally. Ron Paul won't win anything.

  Not only that, but Huck pardoned Keith Richards for a pot bust.

  by DennisMorrison on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:57:04 PM PDT

•  with Dodd gone

  I will vote Uncommitted.  There are other issues on my ballot such as millage things to vote for, too.

  Write in votes for Obama or Edwards will not count nor be seen by anyone.

  from Michigan Liberal discussion:

  http://www.michiganliberal.com/...

  michmark answers:

  Write-in is not an option. The only way  you can ever write-in a candidates name legitimately in Michigan is if said candidates has filed to run as a write-in. The deadline for doing so was yesterday. Writing in would not be a good strategy. Voting uncommitted is the best way to support Obama. Uncommitted votes will go to either Obama or Edwards most likely.  

  memiller says:

  Again, if you write-in, that vote will never be seen by a single pair of human eyes, never tabulated, recorded, or reported...

  by cfk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM PDT

  •  I wish they had registered as write-in candidates

    :(

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM PDT

•  Linked your diary, cartwrightdale

      See Michigan Liberal, Vote "uncommitted", not for racist Ron Paul (or hope-less Hill), where I link and draw on your diary.

      Great work!

  by David Boyle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:18:52 PM PDT

  •  Hey thanks!

    I haven't been linked on Michigan Liberal since my old Stop Devos commercials.  :)  hehe.

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:31:58 PM PDT

•  In Michigan, I will

  vote "Senator Clinton"

  by bonesy on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM PDT