When New Hamsphire pledged they would hold their primary on one date and Michigan said they would keep their Primary date in February as a result, it made no difference to Howard Dean and the DNC when New Hampshire moved their date up because of the addition of South Carolina and Nevada.

What fair is fair, if Howard Dean is not going to enforce any rules or regualtions.

What's more important than the specific dates of the primaries is the order that they're held in. The first five primaries (I think that's the right number) are schedule in order. The particular dates they hold their primaries on don't really matter so long as that order is preserved. Florida and Michigan aren't being punished so much for changing the date, but rather for changing the order.

I think the worst part of this whole primary, the candidates aside, is that it shows the Democratic Party's leadership show a fundamental lack of direction and an inability to manage an administration.

It is hard to make the case that your candidates are strong when you struggle to figure out whether you should count votes in certain states for the actions of the State Democratic Party decisions.

Even worse: this is becoming a Democratic trait - take forever to choose a nominee and then don't exercise control over the process. It's no wonder that they are hemorrhaging Party members.

I think that's actually one of the major criticism Obama has for the political establishment. This is not a problem with the candidate. As you pointed out, it is a problem with the leadership. In fact, Obama has done a stellar job managing the administration of his campaign: getting more votes, delegates, states and money than what was, six months ago, the presumptive democratic nominee is quite a feat and one of the main reasons for that is his high level of organization.

Again, the struggle over which votes should count is a leadership problem, not a candidate problem. When Clinton didn't sweep super tuesday, she began positioning to try and bring FL and MI back into the process, after both candidates had already agreed both would be stripped of their delegates. Trying to play by the rules does not demonstrate "struggling" to figure out which votes should count.

Unfortunately, Dean's hands are pretty much tied now. If the leadership were, say, to get firmly behind Obama, there are a lot of Clinton supporters that would cry foul. We have to let this play out until there is a clear and definite winner, and then work on getting people behind the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be. As a staunch Obama supporter, I would still vote for Hillary in a minute over McCain. On the bright side, consider that turnout in the Democratic primaries so far is over twice as much as in the GOP. Obama has something like 13m votes, Hillary has something like 12.5m and the total votes in the GOP is a little more than 12m McCain won the nomination with just over 5m votes. If this is any indicator of the general election, the Dems should win whoever the nominee is.

I don't think the Democrats will win the election with Obama as their nominee. He would drive most of the swing voters to John McCain. I think this is where the Clinton argument is strongest: There is a lack of excitement for Obama outside of the Democratic Party.

Obama can get the Democratic nomination, but he seems similar to Dukakis (who I was too young to really know about personally), Gore and Kerry - a great campaign raising tons of money and beating established figures in the Democratic Party which can't win against a Republican candidate.

Are there any national polls to suggest that Senator Clinton does better than Senator Obama with swing voters?

If there is, I would be very surprised.

Perhaps all this negative campaigning is turning off swing voters for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

If you'll remember, swing voters were largely breaking for Senator Obama earlier in the primary season, before things got ugly.

Swing voters and independents were one of the main reasons Obama won Iowa. This is one of the stronger arguments against Clinton: she and her supporters make statements but they aren't grounded in facts. Further, the national poll averages still show Obama beating McCain in the general, while McCain still beats Hillary. This is despite the single worst press month yet for Obama.

That horse is out of the barn, run. The Michigan and Florida Democratic parties played chicken and lost. People who play chicken really can't complain about rules violations. Whoever died died and that's that.

Jack:

Have you looked at the Ramussen Poll and do you know the history of this Dean led debacle??? Here is why it counts that those delegates be seated:

"Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats in the state believe the results from the original primary should count. Forty-one percent (41%) disagree.

If the state’s delegates are not seated at the convention, 16% of Democrats, and 25% of unaffiliated voters say they are less likely to vote for the Democratic nominee. "

Do you really want to not seat Michigan? Guess who the leaners are? Florida and Michigan.

"Democrats leading in states with 190 Electoral College Votes while Republicans are favored in states with 189 Votes. State with 121 Votes are “leaners,” and states with 38 Votes are Toss-Ups."

McCain is viewed favorably by 55% of the state’s voters. Obama earns positive reviews from 50%, Clinton from 47%. The Republican hopeful leads both Democrats among unaffiliated voters and also benefits from solid Republican support.

The argument is with Howard Dean and a few others (Donna Brazile) of the DNC who fumbled the matter with New Hampshire in holding them to their initial agreed upon date when South Carolina and Nevada were added early. Michigan and Florida both agreed to hold their dates if New Hampshire did not move up theirs. I do not see Howie punishing New Hamphire for moving their promary date up without the DNC's permission.

A quick review of why Michigan moved up its primary date:

In 2000, Representative Dingell and Senator Carl Levin went to the DNC to discuss moving up the date for the Michigan Primary. Both were promised by the DNC, the issue would be addressed. In 2003, Carl Levin threatened to move up the date of the Michigan Primary to coincide with the New Hampshire Primary. Carl was talked out of it by the Democratic National Committee and he relented. Both Dingell and Levin were promised a commission would be established to review adding states to the earlier part of the campaign. Out of the commission study and in 2007, came a Nevada Caucus and a South Carolina Primary. While not happy, Michigan agreed to keep their February 9th date as long as New Hampshire and Iowa did not move their dates up. When New Hampshire moved their primary date up, the Michigan legislature moved its date to January 15th.

As Rep. John Dingell stated:

"We tried to stay within the rules"

"We tried. But Iowa and New Hampshire have a hold on the whole thing. What you have with Florida and Michigan are two states who've said, Enough is enough!"

*************************

I am not sure what games are played at the DNC level; but, it is apparent that the DNC chose ignoring Michigan over everything else both now and in the past. Governor Granholm endorsed the "primary revote" and the Democrat controlled House did follow suit in Michigan. As expected, the Republican controlled Senate in Michigan has ajourned without taking up the matter of a "primary revote." It has done so in the hopes of creating Michigan into a swing state for McCain. The lever to swing the state Republican, which the Republicans will use, is Obama’s opposition to a "primary revote" in Michigan and the earlier elected delegates. What most people do not understand is the split in Michigan politics. There is a strong grass roots for Republicanism outside of Ann Arbor and Detroit, one which has kept the House of Representatives 50% Dem and 50% Repub in Washington.

What about a privately funded "primary revote?" Why not? The cries of buying an election are silly at best. The primary election is run by the state and falls under all state voting laws. The same issues that exist in a state run national election would exist in a state run primary election. The chances of vote fraud are what they are in either case. Funding of the election has no impact on validity or legality. The real issue is not to allow Michigan to be come a swing state for McCain and pushing him over the top for the Presidency.

Obama has reconciled with white America for a Reverend who has shown a vehement dislike of whites and Jews. Many have called Wright's comments racist; when in large part, they skirt the issue of racism. By dismissing Wright from his campaign and disavowing his statements, Obama has eliminated a future issue in the run for the presidency. The same as Kerry ignoring Detroit in 2004, Obama is making a similar, much publicized, and potentially more costly mistake of turning his back on the State of Michigan. A state which has had the highest unemployment rate in the country, is the only state that never came out of recession for 8 years, has one of the highest concentrations of Afro-Americans outside of the South, has a high concentration of those living in poverty, has a nation (US) that continuously ignores its major city needing federal aid for reconstruction, and is one of two states losing population (3%) because of the economy. Yet Michigan is a state that still has voted Democrat in the last 4 elections while the other states in question have split. Michigan is looking for a candidate that will pay attention to its issues beyond corn fed beef, ethanol, and rocks. Why should New Hampshire and Iowa have candidates spend months in their states before their primaries talking about issues with them that have no bearing on the rest of the country?

It may be that Obama believes he can win the national election without the State of Michigan. I tend to believe the election will be close for either Democrat Candidate against McCain. I also believe the split in Michigan is close enough that it can be a swing state. Furthermore, no Democrat has won the national election without all of the large states that Clinton has accunulated.

It would be smart for Obama to reconsider his stance on Michigan. No one forced Obama to remove his name from the ballot except for those watching in New Hampshire and Iowa. Not even the DNC asked candidates to remove their names from the ballot. The removal was voluntary on their part. If voters voted undecided, they cast their ballots for Obama/Edwards (who has since dropped out) and this was well known.

Why Michigan challenged 'rules'

Political leaders in Michigan and elsewhere have long questioned the stranglehold Iowa and New Hampshire have on the presidential nominating process. In most election years, the candidates seem to spend more time in those two states than in all the others put together. The early states usually pick the party nominees, leaving the large majority of states with little influence in this critical national decision.

This year looks different: We're seeing one of the most inclusive nominating contests ever, with voters in every state having a real say in the outcome. But 2008 is the exception that proves the rule: The system remains deeply flawed. The story behind the Democratic National Committee's decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates shows why.

Back in 2004, Michigan Democrats considered taking the Iowa-New Hampshire issue to the party's national convention, but we agreed instead to the creation of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling to examine the process. After a year of study and public hearings, the commission expressed "serious concerns that Iowa and New Hampshire are not fully reflective of the Democratic electorate or the national electorate generally — and therefore do not place Democratic candidates before a representative range of voters in the critical early weeks of the process."

A crucial change was recommended:

• That additional states join Iowa and New Hampshire in holding early primaries and caucuses,
• and that New Hampshire's primary be the third or fourth contest.

In 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a rule providing that four states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina — could hold their presidential primary or caucus in January, with the rest of the states following. The rule dictated that the early states hold their contests in a specific order — with New Hampshire coming third — and no earlier than designated dates between Jan. 14 and Jan. 29.

While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not selected for one of the four early contests, we appreciated the new rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating process and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire lock. We announced that we would abide by the new calendar provided that other states did the same.

But last August, the New Hampshire secretary of state indicated he was going to schedule his state's primary before the date specified, clearly defying the sequence and timing the party had set. Michigan Democratic leaders repeatedly asked the Democratic National Committee if it intended to penalize New Hampshire for this violation, but the committee refused to act.

Rather than allow this broken system to persist, we challenged it by deciding to apportion our delegates according to the results of a primary scheduled by the Michigan Legislature for Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. It gave New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. But Michigan and Florida, which had also moved up the date of its primary, were denied waivers. When Howard Dean, the party chairman, says that states should not be allowed to violate the rules, he ignores the fact that when the committee itself decided not to follow the rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present impasse.

Under pressure from New Hampshire and the other early states, the Democratic presidential candidates did not campaign in Michigan or Florida. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and three other candidates withdrew their names from the Michigan primary ballot. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and three others did not. The committee has so far refused to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations to the national convention.

Together with other Michigan Democrats, we are working to make sure our state's voters are not disenfranchised by unfair enforcement of the rules. We are looking for a practical, secure and fair way to redo our primary vote. It is in everyone's interest that the Michigan and Florida delegates be seated without a convention floor fight. But we are ready to take our strong case to the convention if need be.

We have not endorsed any presidential candidate; we only want to ensure that the Michigan delegates are seated at the convention and that the nominating process is reformed for future elections. Fairness and rationality in our nominating process are far too important to sweep under the rug for yet another election cycle.

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin

D-Detroit

Debbie Dingell

Member, Democratic National Committee

March 23, 2008

sosjtb12:

You are precisely correct and New Hampshire moved there date while Michigan had an agreement with Howard Dean and the DNC that New Hampshire would not do so with the addition of Nevada and South Carolina to the primary list. That Deam would not enforce the rules with New Hampshire is what set off the issues with Michigan and Florida.

run, if the Michigan voters go GOP, they deserve exactly what they get. This has nothing to do with the chicken game they (the party muckitymucks) played and everything to do with whether or not Michigan voters have an ounce of sense. That is in serious doubt as I stated in Dood's thread over in culture box.

I should have added that polls regarding what will happen in the general election at this point are meaningless except as efforts to manipulate the nomination process.

Jack:

For the last 4 elections, Michigan has voted what????? Democratic in spite of the near equal mix of Republicans and Denocrats.

Why is it so difficult to admit that Howard Dean, Donna Brazile and the DNC screwed things up to the point of where their actions have placed the National Election in jeopardy? Why is it so difficult to admit that we did not deserve the snub Dean and Kerry gave Detroit in 2004? Why is it so difficult to admit that this country does not exist on Corn Fed Beef and Corn from Iowa and Rocks from New Hampshire? Why is it difficult to understand that candidates should not be spending months in preparation for two primary/caucuses in states that are not, not reflective of the national problems of this nation and its economic woes? Why is it difficult to understand that in spite of the shrinking manufacturing base, Manufacturing and Michigan Manufacturing pays more txes than any other base in the nation?

The DNC can risk losing Florida and Michigan (44 delegates) because they screwed up? You know as well as anything, the issues are about religion, guns, capital punishment, and who is kissing their ass. Right now, they do not perceive the Dems being their saviors.