Thanks to Lisabobs Michigan

[Beavah]

Yah, I just wanted to do a shout-out to thank Michigan (and Florida) for all da entertainment we've all been havin' watchin' the Democratic party self-destruct over whether to count da ballots... in an election with only one person's name on the ballot.

 

I remember some months back when Lisa'bob described this mess for the first time, I got a wry chuckle out of it and figured it didn't matter. But now I think it's da best show on TV. I especially love all the Gore v. Bush references and "count every vote" spin. Tell us, Lisa'bob, is Hillary really tryin' to steal half of the "uncommitted" delegates (da votes that refused to check her name on the ballot)?

 

I sorta figured us Republicans were toast this year. But da Dems seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Great citizenship topic for scouts, too!

 

B

 

[Lisabob]

Tell us, Lisa'bob, is Hillary really tryin' to steal half of the "uncommitted" delegates (da votes that refused to check her name on the ballot)?

 

Yes.

 

Again let me recommend to all what has become one of my favorite books, "Deliver the Vote" It is a well-written, entertaining, and absorbing history of voting fraud from the colonial period right up to modern day. If the author should happen to publish a second edition, I'm certain MI and FL will merit a chapter.

 

But get your kicks while they last Beavah, because by next week Clinton will be out, at least as the presidential candidate (she may still be the VP if she can just get Bill to lay low for her/their own good). And I kinda think even the most disgruntled of us Dems up here in MI will come back into the fold once this infighting is over with.

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Lets see if I have this correct:

 

Florida and Michigam were told by the Democratic National Committee if they had their Primaries at a time other than when the National Committee said they should be, then the results would not count. Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan and he did not campaign in Michigan.

 

So now Michigan and Florida want their votes counted? I would say fine, have a re-vote funded by the states Democratic party and BTW, anyone who had anything to do in having an early primary is suspended from party business for 10 years. How can you go against your National Organization? And then have the National Organization cave in? What if the BSA would have allowed the Philadelphia Council to allow Gays and Atheists to keep their building? What would the comments have been? Selling out principles? The mind explodes with posibilities.

 

I am still a little unsteady on the concept of the superdelegates, its sorta of a ruse of "of course every vote counts, just some votes count more than others" so that the party can select a candidate that can "win" in November, I thought thats what the Primaries were for, to count votes and select a candidate.

 

So, Michigan and Florida want in, how can they then ever say anything about respecting the rule of law when they themselves cant follow their own organizations rules?

 

BTW, Has Pat Paulsen declared yet? He looks better every week

[GernBlansten]

I personally would like to see Florida get a two election time out for giving us the past 8 years. Sit back, observe, learn, correct, and maybe in 2016 we'll let you play again.

[scoutingagain]

Well you can probably blame Florida for the first four years, I don't know about the last four years.

 

I will admit the Democrats have made for good entertainment.

 

I have to admit though I don't get the whole primary thing. Sure MI and FL probably flubbed by scheduling their primaries too early. But if everyone says the races are over, whats the point in having some states run primaries in late May or early June?

 

It will be interesting to see if Hillary is interested in the VP slot. I think she might be interested, but while there might have been a role as an advisor of some sort if she was President, I don't see much cache for Bill as an advisor to the VP.

 

SA

[evmori]

I'm voting for my cat!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Pat Paulsen's dead; I suppose he could still run for Chicago mayor, though.

 

OGE, the MI/FL primary was a combination of the Democratic party rules not to count primary results in states that try to leapfrog ahead of IA/NH, and the legislatures of MI/FL, which is how they decided what date to have primaries (at least state-run, state-financed ones). The Republicans don't have such a rule, and I don't think it would make a difference in McCain's nomination given their winner-take-all delegate assignment. As for superdelegates, political parties aren't government entities and they could, if they wanted to, have an unelected Emperor appoint the party nominee. Both parties now have the presidential candidate select the VP candidate, but decades ago the VP was another vote.

 

And the cradle of liberty council DID try to announce that they weren't going to follow BSA policy to try and keep UW allocations, and the national BSA threatened to kick them all out and appoint a new board, so they probably won't try that to keep their HQ.

[OldGreyEagle]

What was it that Will Rogers said about his party affiliation?

 

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

 

The more things change, the more they remain the same

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Merlyn, I understand that Politcal Parties can use any method they want to nominate whomever they want to run for any office. I just was surprised that the Democratic Party, the Party of "every vote counts" the Party that fights for the rights of the "disenfranchised voter" has a system that could "disenfranchise" the entire primary process when it has been the winner of the primary process that has produced the candidate since when? The 1968 Convention? I mean, thats why there were protests, to protest that the parties nominee was selected in the "cigar smoke filled backroom" so the Primary system was adopted. They can of course change the process at any time, but to change it in the midst of a campaign doesnt seem to smart.

 

If the primaries are to be "Beauty Contests" to allow the powers that be to see who does well in educated states, blue collar states, etc, then fine, but call it what it is and dont give out delegates and have a magic number of delegates to reach to "clinch" a nomination if another group, the superdelegates could reverse the entire process. The way its sits now, it slooks like the voice of the people is heard, but whether or not its followed depends on how the people "in the know" feel.

 

BTW, in the 1960 election JFK owed his presidency to the Catholics of the City of Chicago, especially the residents of Resurrection Cemetery who arose from the dead and voted early, and often

[anarchist]

gosh,

 

First, Can we hear everyone say "Forida and Michigan were right!"

 

The great Democratic Party, home of "let every vote count!", refuses to allow States to choose primary dates which would make their votes important to the candidate selection process. Choosing instead to protect a very non-democratic caucus event and a pretty non-representative new england state's monopoly on being "first"...

 

Then because they (democratic demi-gods) don't like a real horse race ...all the grand pooh-bahs in the party blather on and on about how Hilary should pull out even before West Va., N.C., Kentucky and Others got their chance to be heard...(bet they are wishing for the old cigar smoke filled back rooms right about now). Their lack of wanting to hear from all their voters is almost "Putin-esque".

 

The blatantly undemocratic strangle hold the Democratic central committee (like good comrades all, I'm sure)exercises on when states can and can not hold primary elections is obscene. At the very least, those states "going first" should be rotated each presidential election cycle to allow each state a shot at beinging relevant.

 

And by the way, lest we forget (or gloss over it), Obama (he who's wife is only now (and once) proud of her country)had his name removed from the Michigan ballot because he wanted to remain the darling of the liberal left...really showed guts and backbone, now didn't he? Only the democrats could find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this election cycle!

 

gosh, I love to watch political suicide...

Anarchist

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, my point was that the MI/FL situation is not just due to the Democratic rules, but to the legislatures of these states that voted to change the dates. I don't think the DNC realized what could happen when they made the rule. Remember (well, from history class) when the VP was whoever came in second for president? The president's VP was his chief political opponent. I guess it looked good on paper.

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, so it was the state legislature that changed the dates of the primaries? Boy, I missed that, that is different. What is the predominant make up of the legislators for each state? Democrats or Republicans? Well both sides conspired to disenfranchise their populace. Just as an aside, merlyn, you were quick to point out to me that a political party can use any means it wants to select a candidate, so the legislatures in changing their primary date were trying to control a private entity, could that be consrued as govenmental intrusion into the private sector?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I doubt that; the states were just deciding when they would have their primaries, but the political parties can have their own (at their own expense). There was some talk of doing that, but I don't think they could get the Clinton camp, the Obama camp, and the DNC to come to an agreement on how to re-run those states. I think there was some grumbling on whether the party affiliation of the MI/FL houses had anything to do with it, but I think there were a nontrivial number of Democrats in those states who wanted to move their state dates.

 

Of course, this all harkens back to states moving their primaries ahead so their voters have some influence on who gets nominated.

[Lisabob]

Yes, it was the state legislature that changed the primary date. The national parties (BOTH of them) warned/threatened states not to put their primaries or caucuses or whatevers before January 15th. Some did anyway (MI and FL). The potential consequence was

indeed spelled out up front, but I don't believe anyone really thought the parties would stick to their word and apply the consequence. And in most presidential election years it would be a moot point because usually by early March it is crystal clear who the party's nominee will be anyway.

 

Had that been the case this year, MI and FL could have either hung their heads and apologized, thus likely getting their seats restored on the basis of whoever "won" the votes (assuming Hillary would be the nominee) because those "none of the above" votes wouldn't have mattered. Or they could have quietly had a re-do to make it official and again, it wouldn't have impacted the outcome.

 

There were numerous deals in the offing to re-do the election here in MI (and I think in FL too) but, because in April the race was still so extraordinarily close, a deal could not be reached that was acceptable to both candidates and to the state.

 

To make it worse, the state pays for the primary. Having already done so one time, being in a state with the highest unemployment rate and one of the weakest economies in the country right now, and having part of the state legislature controlled by the opposing party, there was little to no chance of the state agreeing to pay twice. And outside financing, which was briefly discussed, would only materialize if both Obama and Clinton could agree on the rules for any re-do, which of course they could not.

 

In the case of the Republican party, I believe the original threat was to reduce the # of delegates by half for states who violated the rule against early primaries. However, with the party unifying behind McCain and no further challengers, I think I recall that the national party recanted and is now planning to seat the full delegations from MI and FL to the Republican convention. Someone can correct me if you have more current info - I admit I haven't followed the twists and turns of that one as closely.

 

What kills me about this are two things. First, the architect of the early primary in MI has gone on record saying what a great idea it was and how well it worked out! Second, if we had just left our little primary in late Feb/early March where it has always been, we'd have been in a far more influential position that we ended up in, by holding it early.

 

I think the only good thing that could possibly come from this would be that maybe both parties will sit down and take a closer look at how we do primaries and caucuses nationwide. There has been a lot of rumbling for change for a decade now, and perhaps FL and MI will be catalysts for something to actually happen between now and 2012. (But I'm not holding my breath!)

 

 

[Apache Bob]

My only real problem with this election is that the news people started this thing over three years ago. I'm not sure that what we hear is about is about the people running for office and their views or what the channel news people want dream up and give their pet theories about.

From what I understand the people running do really make their views known its just not reported. The news people are working on different VP's and not the issues.