Discuss Detroit » Archives - January 2008 » Metro Times' News Hits column on MI primaries « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 1753
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

News Hits has an interesting take on how to face the primary challenge.

All that's left
The primary implosion's silver lining

Earlier this year we were sitting around a table with seven people talking politics. It was the aftermath of a funeral for a co-worker's mom, and, unlike the News Hits crew, the folks sitting around us weren't all flaming lefties. Nearly all of them, though, when asked about the presidential candidates, said they liked Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic U.S. representative from Ohio. But in almost the same breath, these same people expressed the view that Kucinich didn't have a chance.

We found it interesting that a somewhat random group of people could both embrace a candidate and yet, despite seeing that others felt the same, could also write that candidate off as being a lost cause. This was still early in the game, but already the front-runners had been identified. And by the time the debates began, Kucinich was already being shoved to the margins, receiving a fraction of the attention given to candidates leading in the polls.

Whenever it comes time to make endorsements, we here at Metro Times often find ourselves engaged in a vigorous debate: Do we go with the candidate who most closely holds the policies and positions we embrace — which, it often seems, is a candidate who has little chance of winning — or do we compromise and give our stamp of approval to a candidate that we might not wholly embrace, but at least seems to have a chance of being elected?

It is a debate that has merit on both sides: One is driven primarily by ideals, the other more pragmatic.

Because of the hopelessly messed-up nature of this year's Democratic primary, Metro Times isn't making an endorsement this time out. Two of the three candidates given a realistic chance at winning the nomination — former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois — took their names off the ballot after the national party objected to Michigan moving its primary date forward. And, as punishment for that maverick move, the national party has decided that Michigan delegates to the national convention won't have a say in selecting the Democratic candidate.

But that doesn't mean Tuesday's vote has to be a meaningless one for Michigan Democrats or, for that matter, progressives of all stripes (Greens, are you listening?). ...

The rest at
http://www.metrotimes.com/edit orial/story.asp?id=12305
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 6101
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 5:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I wonder just what will happen at that convention... will the Michigan delegation be excluded from the convention floor? Or will they just be excluded from a vote? It could get very messy. Ditto for Florida.

I don't think that powerful congressional committee chairmen (and likely delegates) Dingell, Conyers and Levin will take kindly to not getting a say (or voting their vote)... especially Dingell, dean of the House, and Michigan's most powerful congressman, and one person that few people inside the beltway like to mess with.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd

Post Number: 1758
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Democratic Party was nuts about anybody "throwing their vote away" on Nader. But, when it comes to the throwing the state of Michigan's votes away, well ...
Top of pageBottom of page

Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth

Post Number: 312
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 5:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

They'll seat the delegates. They can count just as well as anyone else, and they know (or they better) that the Dems can't take the White House without taking Michigan.

If they insist on following through with their threat, they will as good as hand the WH to the Republicans for another 4 years. Although , I never underestimate my party's ability to lose an election.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 3215
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 5:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's what'll happen this summer:

After the typical smoke-filled back room meetings, both parties will issues press releases stating that for the "good of the party", or words to that effect, that all the delegates from Michigan & Florida will be seated, so that they can concentrate on the pressing matter at hand, placing their candidate in office and defeating the "other" party's candidate (after they issue a long diatribe comparing them to something just short of the Anti-Christ).
Top of pageBottom of page

Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert

Post Number: 78
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 8:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I expect that some way or other delegates from Michigan will be seated, but I see no reason that it would make much difference as far as who would win the state in the general election.

It isn't as if it would suddenly be in the interest of the Democratic party hierarchy to have a Republican president, and I know of no evidence that normal voters care about that kind of stuff.
In fact, it is doubtful that normal voters will even be aware of it--if they even hear about it in July, it will be a hazy memory by November.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 3363
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 8:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think you're seriously underestimating Michigan voters, Mwilbert. The perceived slights by the Democrats have come up on a lot of the boards I read - everything from refusing the Detroit debate to not seating the delegates to not campaigning here to even watching the DNC try to spin it back on the state Dem leaders instead of acknowledging the issue they raised. I don't think it will be forgotten.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth

Post Number: 313
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 2:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I expect that some way or other delegates from Michigan will be seated, but I see no reason that it would make much difference as far as who would win the state in the general election. "

I disagree, but time will tell won't it? =)
I think the difference it has the potential to make is that if enough Democrats (like myself) DO remember the slight, and if the right Republican wins the nomination, then enough Democrats could potentially cross party lines and swing the state to the Republicans.
Plus, if I recall correctly, no Democrat has won the WH without carrying Michigan. At least that is what I recall reading recently.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ladyinabag
Member
Username: Ladyinabag

Post Number: 358
Registered: 03-2007
Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 6:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems like it all matters who has the most money....or if the ones who are really running things want you to win or not. I really think that "they" are backing McCain. Why then would a candidate like Obama not be listed in the Michigan primary where you know that he would have won here. It's all too suspicious to me. These candidates "do what they are told".
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 3219
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 7:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If you're ticked about Obama not being on the ballot, get ticked at this guy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 3375
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 8:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"no Democrat has won the WH without carrying Michigan"

not true - in the 1900s alone: Carter, Truman, both of Wilson's terms, and even FDR's third term - Michigan went against all of them

(Message edited by lilpup on January 27, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2708
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 11:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Democratic Party was nuts about anybody "throwing their vote away" on Nader. But, when it comes to the throwing the state of Michigan's votes away, well ...


The Democratic Party didn't throw away Michigan's votes. Michigan threw away its own.
quote:

They can count just as well as anyone else, and they know (or they better) that the Dems can't take the White House without taking Michigan.


Yes, everyone in the DNC can count. They know it's better to piss off 2 states than to piss off 48.
quote:

Here's what'll happen this summer:

After the typical smoke-filled back room meetings, both parties will issues press releases stating that for the "good of the party", or words to that effect, that all the delegates from Michigan & Florida will be seated...


And right after that release, delegates from the other 48 states will remind everyone that they still get a vote. At which point, the aforementioned press release will be rescinded; Michigan and Florida will be screwed.
quote:

I think the difference it has the potential to make is that if enough Democrats (like myself) DO remember the slight...


Who slighted whom?

Michigan's delegation voted in favor of the rules, only to turned around and break them.

(Message edited by fnemecek on January 27, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Lefty2
Member
Username: Lefty2

Post Number: 1020
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 12:00 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Now, Billary wants to count delegates in Michigan.
Is the Dem party going to cave in post de facto, we will see their backbone then.
Again we have the the choice of worst of two evil scenarios.
Michigan can have POWER at the convention and only at the convention if they WAIT until the primaries are settled. NOT before.
If Michigan is to have a say in how this race turns out, the only way is to wait until they need delegates and then beg for votes and promise major money etc. in turn for votes.
I hate to say it but it is the way it works.

Hillary is begging for the delegates now because she is desperate. See how desperate she gets at the Convention.

Things can change very quickly.
Top of pageBottom of page

D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc

Post Number: 159
Registered: 12-2007
Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 12:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lefty...She isn't Desperate...The front runner decides if the delegates are seated, so if she is ahead going into the convention, of course she'll want them seated. Do you think Obama or Edwards would do any different? It's called politics.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 3220
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 7:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's operating under the impression that she'll still be the front runner this summer.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.