home

Obama Rejects "Firehouse Primary" In Michigan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM EST
Tags: Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Democratic state party chair in Michigan says the Barack Obama campaign has rejected the idea of a "firehouse primary." The proposal would have included:

Polls would be open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate. The voter must be a citizen who turns 18 by the November election and declares himself or herself a Democrat for the day.

On Obama's rejection:

Obama's campaign doesn't like the idea, said Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. "That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations," said Brewer, who said he thinks a do-over primary has serious financial and logistical problems.

Update [2008-3-8 11:48:12 by Big Tent Democrat]: Just as significant is the fact that Carville announces that Clinton camp will raise 15MM for new primaries and challenges Obama camp to do same:

Meanwhile, James Carville, a Democratic operative and Clinton supporter, said on CNN that he had been calling deep-pocket Democrats and pledged to come up with $15 million to help pay for primaries in Michigan and Florida. He challenged Obama supporter David Wilhelm, a former DNC chairman, to match it.

"I'll guarantee $15 million and have the Obama people put up $15 million," Carville said. "And let's go to the polls come June 7. I've got fund-raisers that are lined up ready to go. I think the Democratic Party is going to look absolutely absurd if they don't have primaries and let these people in Florida and Michigan vote."

< Obama Rules Out Being VP Candidate? | Donna Brazile Damaging The Dem Party Again >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Rejects "Firehouse Primary" In Michigan | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    Rock and a hard place for Obama. If the DNC and the MI Dem Party hold it, he can not boycott it.

    What about a mail-in primary? He gonna reject that too.

    Obama is in deep doo doo now.

    And here come the Clinton forces (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    Meanwhile, James Carville, a Democratic operative and Clinton supporter, said on CNN that he had been calling deep-pocket Democrats and pledged to come up with $15 million to help pay for primaries in Michigan and Florida. He challenged Obama supporter David Wilhelm, a former DNC chairman, to match it.

    "I'll guarantee $15 million and have the Obama people put up $15 million," Carville said. "And let's go to the polls come June 7. I've got fund-raisers that are lined up ready to go. I think the Democratic Party is going to look absolutely absurd if they don't have primaries and let these people in Florida and Michigan vote."

    Brilliant. Well played by the Clinton campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    ball is now in his campaign's court, with the Clinton folks on the side of "enfranchisement". He now either "bends" or "stands against voting", is the way this plays.

    Stupidly played by the Obama folks.

    [ Parent ]

    Tough spot for them (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:49:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It is (none / 0) (#29)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:01:33 AM EST
    they'd have been better off IMO pushing enthusiastically for a new vote and getting their MI campaign going.

    This just makes them look afraid of MI voters. The more I think about it, the more I think whoever came up with this answer to the problem should be kicked.

    [ Parent ]

    he looks bad and all about himself (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    i agree that both things today are brilliant plays by clinton. the we will pay for it ... the votes of the people must be heard [ which i believe she truly believes btw] .. no way a dem wins in nov without fl  and he looks like a spoiled brat.....
    and the no to vp shared ticket thing... again i get the 'premature' spin but i have always believed he is all about ambition and ego and would always reject vp and again clinton LOOKS willing and positive and that SHE is looking forward at whats best for dems....
    she has winningmoves here.... :}

    [ Parent ]
    Look, of course it is about ego (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    Nobody would run for president if they didn't have big ego.

    The difference here is that Obama makes statements like "I wouldn't be running for president if I didn't think I could do the job"

    Without any executive experience, minimal experience at the federal level, a lack of understanding how Washington works (outside of a classroom), etc...it really does hit home the message that for him it is COMPLETELY about ego...how can anyone with his resume/CV actually believe they are the unique individual to run the United States? Either they are loony, or they are so completely engrossed in themselves that they actually believe it...

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by rilkefan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    is an extraordinarily gifted person with a rich if unconventional background and a terrific narrative and a lot of excellently designed policies and a bunch of first-rate advisors.  He's not uniquely qualified to be president, but come on, he's qualified.

    [ Parent ]
    have you not seen the clip (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    of Obama stating, emphatically, that he is not qualified to be president and would not even think about running for the job?

    Was he lying then or is he lying now?

    [ Parent ]

    Either one...doesn't matter (none / 0) (#92)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:01:51 PM EST
    "I was for it before I was against it" :)

    But seriously, it doesn't matter. With his lack of experience, he is running a campaign that is based completely on how much he thinks of himself...

    Like he says, if he didn't think he could do the job, he wouldn't be running...well he thinks he can do the job...his own adviser says he doesn't have the bona fides to be CiC...so what is he basing his surety on? His faith in himself...great...thanks for that...thats what I vote for my president on...how secure he is in his own ability (cough...BUSH...cough)

    [ Parent ]

    Nah, it wasn't a lie -- (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:51:54 PM EST
    he just, well, flip-flopped.

    [ Parent ]
    Not my definition of qualified. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    a lot of excellently designed policies and a bunch of first-rate advisors.

    I guess this is all subjective, but I for one don't think that he has excellently designed policies -- if we even know what they are -- we've already seen two of his advisors privately advocate for positions that are the opposite of what Obama has publicly claimed.

    And as for his advisors ... Goolsbee, Power, Rice ... not my definition of first-rate, but like I said, it's clearly a subjective call.


    [ Parent ]

    Maybe I'm getting too paranoid (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    but I think it would be interesting to see if there is any movement by Obama organizers in Michigan to be pre-emptively preparing for an eventual primary/caucus so that they aren't caught short when Obama eventually caves - and there's no way he doesn't.

    I think Obama is going to regret ever describing a decision he made as "boneheaded" as that one wrod may have forever branded him - it's being attached to every stupid decision and lapse of judgment he makes, to the point where it may be the first thing that pops into people's heads when his name is mentioned.

    [ Parent ]

    But why won't Hillary release her (none / 0) (#38)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    tax returns?

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:10:32 AM EST
    See, I knew someone would see through the smoke and ask the really important questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Because (none / 0) (#43)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:08:51 AM EST
    Its a fishing expedition? She has better things to do? Its a weak attack by Obama campaign and they don't mind them sticking to this "argument?"

    [ Parent ]
    It was snark. I should have tagged it as such (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    Snark sensor malfunctioned this morning, its out in the shop.

    [ Parent ]
    He's a fool (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    if he doesn't take a do-over. They'll very likely wind up seated as-is otherwise, and he looks really bad refusing.

    He's not going to win this fight. Not this way.

    I guess he wants the delegates to seem (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:49:33 AM EST
    illegitimate or something. If he loses in a do-over, he can't claim that. I agree with BTD that the Clinton campaign is winning the PR battle over MI and FL. Now, if only some fair analysts and writers would inform the people. So far, they all seem to follow the "they broke the rules and shouldn't count" line.

    [ Parent ]
    I don;t think so (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    The line I see is "something has to be done."

    I think Clinton has dominated this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that's true on the blogs (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    but most real world people I discuss this stuff with think something has to be done about it, and I think the press has largely gone that direction since Tuesday, too (with some notable pundit exceptions).

    Getting to the end of this thing and arguing that X wins because of what most people seem IMO to see as a petty technicality is not a strong position, and most attentive folks I've talked to recognize that we're playing with fire if we leave FL and MI out of the process entirely.

    That's all anecdotal, of course, but it also seems to be the direction the larger conversation is going. The Clinton campaign has played this one well.

    [ Parent ]

    Common sense tells people the rule was stupid (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:08:12 PM EST
    and a do-over is a fair way to un-do the injustice. If the tables were turned and Obama was behind, his people would be all about breaking these rules, and I admit Clinton would be for keeping the status quo.   But to any man on the street this is blatantly unfair and yet another example of Dems shooting themselves in the foot and looking ridiculous.  I work in a heavily Republican office, and believe me, they are laughing at us.

    It is highly ironic that Obama, campaigning explicitly on his supposed abilities to bring people together and find common ground, refuses to get involved in fixing this.  If he can't get Democrats to agree on an equitable solution here, or even be the high minded 'better man' and just let the FL and MI results stand, how is he going to negotiate with Republicans for a health care plan?  Good thing he would have Clinton in the senate to get it done.  

    Some 50 state strategy he's got there -  he is prepared to write off FL and MI in the primaries, and the GE. Good luck with that.

    [ Parent ]

    That's good. My political friends are all (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    on blogs and related to me. Where I live, I can't have those conversations or I'd have to move.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    As I tried to argue last night, Obama is now taking the 48 state strategy and it hurts his credibility. He prefers a caucus in both states or nothing at all because otherwise he may get to the convention trailing in the Popular Vote. And the Popular Vote is "the will of the people"

    My Take On It Too (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    He only wants caucuses and is holding out for them. Hillary supporters in MI and Fl should start flooding the local papers with LTE on how Obama does not want their votes to count.

    BTW the move by Clinton's folks on fund raisers to pay for PRIMARIES was brilliant IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    That's a good frame (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Iphie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    Kos and the like have been trying to portray Clinton as believing that only some states matter (i.e., the ones she wins) and that Obama wants every state to matter -- Obama's "48 state strategy" is a nice answer to that.

    [ Parent ]
    Coming back to bite ya? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    Remember when Kos Front-paged and  encouraged Obama voters to cross over to vote for Rommney?

    and any eligible voter who hadn't voted in the state's Jan. 15 Republican primary could participate
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:50:45 AM EST
    But I don't remember many people actually doing it.  Did they?

    [ Parent ]
    Both Edwards and Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    said they did, but who knows?

    [ Parent ]
    Do you think many of them did it? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    ...or was it just grandstanding? I could never tell. I thought it was kind of funny at the time.

    [ Parent ]
    Mostly grandstanding (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    Kos is a very big blog but in truth it is minute in relation to the population of the country.

    Let's say there are 20,000 active readers that take Kos seriously, a very optimistic number.  Assuming that they are geographically proportional  that means about 600 of them would be from Michigan.  Of those it is unlikely that even half of them would be willing to spend time going to a poll and voting for a Republican.  So that is 300 voters.  Even if you make Kos incredibly popular and say there are 100,000 active readers you are still looking at only about 1500 voters out of about 1-1.5 million likely voters.

    So, yeah, mostly grandstanding.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:11:02 AM EST
    The effect of this would be teensy. Even the biggest blogs, especially when narrowed to any given area of the country, represent an absolutely speck-sized portion of the population.

    [ Parent ]
    HA! (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    I hadn't thought of that.

    Kos's post on that annoyed the (*%#)! out of me, so I wouldn't be sorry to see it come back to bite the few people who followed his lead on it.

    [ Parent ]

    yup they did (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    the 'be a dem for the day' was a widespread campaign the bo forces used. a lot of repubs used it as reported throughout the repub blogosphere. and there were a lot of personal stories there by cross over voters. msm spins this that he is winning repubs over but that is the optimistic spin... they were strongly pushing this in repub land because they feel very strongly he will be squashed in the general. repubs want bo as the nom and they have been doing this cross over voting throughout the process.
    one of the reasons i am so upset is that the repub strategy is woring and if he is the nom he will be crushed. i have seen the table of contents of the 33 page pdf all about chapter by chapter ways to squash bo.  it is tragic.

    but on topic... i think BO has heard so much crazy positive that i think he really believes that HE is the ONE and things will coelesce around him. i think his ego is over inflated at this point


    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#44)
    by wasabi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:09:08 AM EST
    About 870K republicans voted in their primary.  That was considered a low turnout.  So let's say a low turnout is 25%.  That leaves about 2.6M Republicans who are eligible to vote in the new Democratic re-do.
    Thoughts?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, saw that last night on CNN. (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:51:45 AM EST
    Carville not only crushed Wilhelm (imo) during their 'debate' but I thought this strategy was brilliant, just brilliant.  

    When Wilhelm acted like this wasn't an official offer, Wolf stepped in and said it sounds like it was.  Then told the two of them to continue talking during the commercial, which Carville agreed to and Wilhelm just looked completely blind sighted.

    Carville also made the case that this whole thing is un-American--to think we can't count people's votes because there's not enough money?  Especially as we encourage/force democracy around the world...  

    Yep, Carville made an outstanding (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by brodie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    suggestion on Wolf's show -- given the huge amounts both camps have raised so far, it would be no problem for each to ask their supporters to pony up $15 mill each to have do-over primaries in those 2 crucial states.

    Wilhelm initially was cold to the offer and weaseled that it really should be up to the DNC and the parties of the two states to decide it.  JC would have none of it and noted how this would quickly solve the major hurdle these very same entities have raised, namely $$ and asking taxpayers to fund yet another vote.

    By the end of the exchange, DW clearly was moving slightly to JC's eminently reasonable offer -- probably because it was so obviously spot-on that Wilhelm was too embarrassed to struggle too hard too long against it.  At that point, Wolf noted how it seemed the two parties looked to have something concrete to discuss behind the scenes.

    Great moves here by the Clinton camp.  Difficult position they put TeamObama in -- how to refuse such a sensible and effective solution.

    [ Parent ]

    Is there a YouTube of that? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Found a transcript (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    Transcript

    I will keep looking for video. I'd like to see it as well, but the transcript is definitely worth a looksie.

    [ Parent ]

    Voter suppression! Voter suppression! (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    Oh, the ignominy!  Oh, the humanity!

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    Pretty clear who the PR battle benefits IMO.

    The folks on the blogs who have the mildly nutty idea that Obama can win a MI revote may be woken up by this.

    Obama can win anything (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    if you give him time.  Why, by 2016, he might even be president!

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    My same thought every time I hear his people talk about how they "closed the gap."  Except not enought to actually win...

    [ Parent ]
    right (none / 0) (#82)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    kind of like saying, "but I got to second base!"

    [ Parent ]
    It's Zeno's paradox (none / 0) (#103)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM EST
    By that example, even an invalid can outrun the space shuttle if they get a tiny head start. :-P

    [ Parent ]
    There seem to be (none / 0) (#76)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    a stunning number of people on the blogs who think that one can merely draw a straight line from the trendline of the last couple of data points on a poll to see "where things will be in a week".

    Really, the near-daily mangling of statistics that's been going on on the blogs has been one of the funniest things I've ever seen. If I were less of a slacker, I'd start my own blog just to give out the "specious statistical argument of the day" award.

    [ Parent ]

    I would donate (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:02:07 AM EST
    for new primaries. I'm supprised the DNC is NOT putting out a call for donations for new primaries. Dean just doesn't get it!... ot he does NOT want to get it!... not sure which one.

    You are not REALLY surprised are you? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Considering that (none / 0) (#80)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    the DNC is running out of money... Dean and Donna are tearing apart the Dem party... I guess I'm not really surprised.


    [ Parent ]
    Rick, I'm shocked, (none / 0) (#83)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    SHOCKED, to find gambling going on in your casino.

    [ Parent ]
    I think they should solicit small donors (none / 0) (#47)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:10:43 AM EST
    on the internet in addition talking to the moneyed folks.  I would definitely donate. How great for the party (and for Clinton) to say they got X donations for these FL and MI?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by rilkefan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:07:25 AM EST
    MI polls even last I saw.  And, ok, say Obama loses by 5%, he's not going to lose a lot of delegates relatively speaking.  Doesn't he need to bull ahead avoiding the appearance of fear, and doesn't that strategy win for him combined with the implicit threat his supporters won't accept him losing?

    This is NOT about the Delegates for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    this is about losing the POPULAR VOTE...

    MI and FL being seated will remove the argument BO is pushing to the SDs right now...that he will be ahead in both counts (excluding MI and FL).

    He terrified of losing the POPULAR VOTE, not the "Pledged" delegates

    [ Parent ]

    Ah Ha!!! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    Someone else sees where the Obama bug lies. All the blog talk of the only way Clinton can win is stealing it with Super Delegates, and going against the will of the people, goes right down the toilet if Clinton wins the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#96)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    the effort is not about qualifying the delegates...its an attempt to marginalize he voters...because the delegates don't count, he voters don't count.

    Obama has one beneficial course of action. Fight tooth and nail against a re-vote. He wants to use the conditions NOW to convince SDs NOW. If the credentials committee seats the delegates he has already made up the difference in SDs...OR...he can argue the legitimacy of the seating because of the original stripping of the delegates.

    His worst case scenarios come about by either changing the ruling now, or re voting...he has to keep both from happening at least until the convention

    The bad PR here for Obama doesn't matter in the long run...its here and now...people will have moved on by the time PA comes around, and he'll just try to stay competitive enough to keep HRC from winning to many delegates...

    [ Parent ]

    Have you seen a SUSA poll on the state? (none / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    I've only seen a Rasmussen.

    My understanding is Michigan is very Ohio.  

    [ Parent ]

    It is (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    But I could certainly see Obama getting within 5% as a best-case type of scenario.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#53)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:13:10 AM EST
    And honestly I see this differently: Sen Obama really has to pull off one win in a major state to quiet the whole "he can't win big states." I know FL looks tough, but I would think with PA being pretty hard he may want a shot at FL or MI. Winning either may really help the cause of him locking up the nomination.


    [ Parent ]
    I don't like those terms either. It should be (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    open to only those who were eligible to vote on the original date and did not vote in the Republican primary. Maybe I misunderstand.

    Obama is messing up here. These votes are going to count if only in the Super D's minds. They must think they'd lose Michigan again.

    Wants a caucus like Iowa (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    This is posturing.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#35)
    by vigkat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    He is not going to agree unless it is a caucus, but as you point out, if the primary plan being proposed is adopted, Obama has little choice in the matter. Brilliant Catch-22 set up.  The question is, however, whether the proposed plan can be adopted without Obama's agreement.  

    [ Parent ]
    Duh, I read it again and it does exclude (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:44:16 AM EST
    the Republican primary voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously BTD-- (none / 0) (#6)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    what is he thinking!?!  Is this his GE strategy?  Is it possible that he really thinks he can carry enough red states to win without the big blue/purple ones he's already lost?

    I'm baffled at this...

    Trying to negotiate for caucuses (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    Iowa style.

    Not gonna happen.

    The key part of the article is the Carville quote.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh my (none / 0) (#14)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    things move quickly, don't they?

    Before we pass judgment (none / 0) (#27)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    perhaps we can find a little bit more corroboration than one Michigan Party representative telling that he "heard" that Obama opposes this?

    I don't care much for the hours that the poll would be open.  10 to 4?  What about absentees?  

    I'm fine with the notion of a primary, the point is to select the nominee that the voters want and if Obama can't win because of Florida and Michigan defeating him in an equitable primary he shouldn't be the nominee.  But I don't care much for a 6 hour window.

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:01:51 AM EST
    He's the Dem party chair.  I doubt he's talking out of turn.

    [ Parent ]
    Except if you are in ostrich mode (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:02:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Or too busy doing the "monster" mash (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:13:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Picture this (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    Hillary rally.

    Warm up speaker informs people about the monster statement.  

    Mask wearing Goul comes out, trots around a bit.  Mask comes off!   It's Hillary!

    I've already gotten a 'Monster' fundraising email from the campaign.

    She needs to get as much mileage from this as possible.

    [ Parent ]

    And the (none / 0) (#99)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    music would be "The Monster Mash"?

    Or is no one else except me old enough to remember that one?

    [ Parent ]

    It was a graveyard smash, Marge! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    Hmmm, who knew then that it might be a proverbial political graveyard?

    Btw, thanks -- not -- as now I can't get that obnoxious tune outa my head.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    That would be the Chairman of the MI Dem Party (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    You know, the guy talking to all the parties involved?

    Sheesh Flyerhawk.

    Deal with it.

    [ Parent ]

    I have no illusions (none / 0) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    about Obama's motivations.  I also understand that his primary concern is setting up a favorable solution for himself as with Clinton.

    But this is hearsay based on we don't know what.

    How bout we at least wait to hear what the Obama camp says about this before saying that he wants to disenfranchise voters?

    [ Parent ]

    Hearsay? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    Nonsense. This is the person empowered to negotiate with the candidates.

    It is a FIRST PERSON account. Stop being foolish.

    [ Parent ]

    Truth be told (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:22:20 AM EST
    I misread the quote.  

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think his dilemma is how to win the revote (none / 0) (#112)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    given the demographics, of course he would prefer a caucus.The implication is that he does not want all the voters to vote, just the ones who would vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why do you support caucuses? (none / 0) (#40)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    Their "window" is even smaller. I haven't seen much yowling about franchisement issues from Obama's supporters before. Perhaps I'm wrong. Please correct my misperception.

    [ Parent ]
    I neither support or oppose (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:10:58 AM EST
    caucuses.  They are what they are.  They may be a 4 letter word here, believe it or not, they do serve a purpose and have some value.  They are actually very good party building operations because they excite voters and get them involved.  

    If they are only going to have a 6 hour window for elections, at the very least, it should be scheduled to cross over standard shift schedules.  So instead of 10-4 it should be 2-8 or 7-1.  But the better solution is to keep the polls open all day.  The incremental increase in cost is marginal.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the honest reply (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    However, I know of no proof that caucuses build the party, and what I've seen from texas and elsewhere they may have a tendency to actually alienate the majority of voters. It also lends to a potential for extremism due to the smaller sample of voters determining the outcome leading to a result that does not reflect the actual wishes of the voters. Add in the bizaare process of delegate selection leading to even further reducing the importance of actual voter wishes, and they are a script for chicanery, bullying, and voter suppression that is amply proved by what happened in the large states.
       I do know that there is large voter resentment in Washington state over the state Democratic party's decision to ignore the voter expressed wishes for a primary. How does that build the party?

    [ Parent ]
    How do you know all these things? (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    While everything you said may be true how exactly do you know they are true?  

    Caucuses are selected for a reason.  They don't work very well in large states, such as Texas, but in smaller states they actually aren't too bad.  

    You think Iowans have any interest in dumping their caucus system?

    [ Parent ]

    they work well... (none / 0) (#88)
    by wasabi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    With low turnout, but NOT with heavy turnout.  At least they didn;t in Texas.

    [ Parent ]
    So they work well (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:50:42 PM EST
    in years when they don't matter.

    (That doesn't mean they work well, as I know you know -- we're really saying that whether they work well wasn't a question when no one cared about the results, but Iowans got an excuse to get out of the house in cabin-fever season.)

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#91)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    What proof do you offer that caucuses build the party? I know of none.

    Second, I doubt very much that locking other voters out of caucuses by slamming doors on them, no matter which campaign is guilty of it, builds the party. Nor does general rowdiness to the degree that police have to be called to establish order build the party. the chicanery and bullying that has gone on at sites in texas is well documented. don't believe me? Google it.

    Third, the huge percentage difference in results in Washington state between caucus and primary is telling. Obama won the primary by a huge percentage close to thirty percent, but squeaked out the primary by under 5%. Over 20% swing in results. To say caucuses are representative is just silly.

    Finally, the extremist argument is a statistical one. With smaller samples a nonrepresentative result has greater probability, especially when the conditions leading to that smaller sample is selective for a nonrepresentative sample.

    Now, give me some proof that caucuses actually build the party.

    [ Parent ]

    you are looking (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:24:57 PM EST
    at this year's primary as typical of most primaries when, in fact, it is an anomaly.  

    Look at the past 40 years of primaries.

    2004 - no contest
    2000 - no contest
    1996 - no contest
    1992 - very little contest
    1988 - a little contest until Donna Rice
    1984 - contested
    1980 - no contest
    1976 - very little contest
    1972 - contested
    1968 - heavily contested

    Most primaries aren't contested. 70% were decided, for the most part, by Super Tuesday.

    It would be difficult for me to provide proof that caucuses build the party other than to point to numerous states holding caucuses for precisely that reason.  

    As I said I don't have a horse in this race.  While I'm glad that Obama has reaped a benefit from the caucuses I don't think that makes them good, or bad for that matter.  Qualifying the merits of a caucus should not be based on the results of a particular race.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    Are you talking about the New Jersey primary or something?  Obviously 2004 was a contested primary.

    You can make the argument that caucuses are better when the election doesn't count.  But as this year demonstrates, when the election does count, you get a really really big mess.  The tradeoff is rather poor.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny about memories (none / 0) (#101)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    I've got false memories telling me about contested primaries in 76 & 80 & 88.

    I thought I met several Democratic candidates at the Democratic midterm convention in 1974.  

    And my memory of 1980 was that it was a pretty bitter fight between Carter & Kennedy in 1980.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    every primary is contested at the beginning.  I thought that was fairly obvious.

    [ Parent ]
    Gosh (none / 0) (#107)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:13:17 PM EST
    I'm fairly certain most people can see a difference between 1996 and 2004.  Your categories are just plain weird.

    [ Parent ]
    So (none / 0) (#109)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    in order to show caucuses build the party you eliminate the results of Washington state, Texas, this whole election this cycle, any contested primary, and rely on contests that are boring, dull, already determined, or the statement of state officials who offer no proof and also may have other motivations like reduced expenses.
      Why the pretense then that caucuses reflect in any way the will of the people? If the argument from Obama is that we don't give a rip what the people want, we just want to win,legitimacy be just not important, then it might make sense. However that would not be politically wise.

    [ Parent ]
    Check out the WY thread (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    BTD has made some excellent points about how caucuses are unfairly biased against larger states.

    [ Parent ]
    The reason is: Caucuses cost less (nt) (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:47:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    flyer (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    in all seriousness, can you tell me how caucuses are good party building?  I understand what you are saying about exciting voters, but as primary turnout numbers are much, much higher than caucus number.  Washington state is a good example of this.  Three times as many primary voters showed up as did caucusers and the results were much tighter--and the primary voters, for the most part, knew that their votes did not count.

    [ Parent ]
    Because (none / 0) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    most primaries are not contested.  The candidate is usually decided by late Feb or early March after SuperTuesday.

    I didn't say that caucus better represent the will of the people.  I said that they help build the party.  This is especially true in primaries that are not contested.

    I live in NJ. This is the first time in my 20 years of voting where the NJ primary mattered at all and the first time I have voted in a primary.   If your state doesn't really matter a caucus can at least get people to come out and participate and the more people that participate the better for the Party.

    Washington State is simply screwed up.  There is no other way to describe it.  The state legislator and state Dem Party need to fix their process, and I suspect they will.  However that doesn't speak to the efficacy of caucuses as party builders.

    [ Parent ]

    See, that's why I think this is a theory (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    yet to be proved.  I keep seeing (and hearing Donna "Bleh" Brazile spout) this, but I just happen to know, too, that caucus participation has been negligible to the point of silly for many years.  I.e., long only in the hundreds in many states.

    So it seems that only in recent months are we seeing massive turnouts at caucuses.  And thus, how do we know and how could anyone possibly even have tested this theory to come up with this pronunciamento that caucuses are party-building?

    We won't know for years if this is so -- unless you have, and I have missed, the evidence of this.

    (And for that matter, I've read many accounts of people going to caucuses and being so disgusted by the chaos and other problems this year that they say they're never going back.)

    [ Parent ]

    On the hours, I agree with you (none / 0) (#97)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    Shift workers will not be able to vote unless they have a liberal absentee rule.

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't that one of Hillary's ideas (none / 0) (#102)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    To have a national holiday for major election days?

    [ Parent ]
    Honoring the Democratic Party Rules? (none / 0) (#50)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    Perhaps this is an example of ignoring the Democratic Party and its wish to negotiate a fair solution to MI and FL. The crisis management style of Carville in attempting to suck the Obama camp into raising 15 million to hold primaries seems pretty transparent. Clinton has stated that the Democratic Party deserves to lose to McCain unless it nominates her. Providing ammunition to help Hilary try to gain more delegates is an interesting attempt..I predict the Clinton solution will go nowhere.

    Ha!! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What the? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    Can you back up anything you said there with facts? Like:

    "The crisis management style of Carville in attempting to suck the Obama camp into raising 15 million to hold primaries seems pretty transparent." Not even sure what this means.

    "Clinton has stated that the Democratic Party deserves to lose to McCain unless it nominates her. " Missed that one, source please?

    [ Parent ]

    "We don't need no steeking sources!" (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tree on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
     These kinds of posts are only valuable for learning what the low-level Obama talking points are at the moment.

    [ Parent ]
    Providing solutions is not (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:54:03 PM EST
    "crisis management."  Carville and the Clintons are not offering problems, they're offering solutions.

    And gosh, from all the claims of the Obama camp this year, it can raise $15 million in a few hours.

    So just what is the problem -- the "crisis" in the Obama camp?  Please let us know when you get the next Obamamemo with this answer, 1jane.

    [ Parent ]

    uWhat difference does it make (none / 0) (#66)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:33:52 AM EST
    what Obama "likes"? Isn't it up to the state? Unless Dean and Brazile's bias is the real problem.

    This stand of Obama's reminds me of his tactic of getting his primary competitors off the ballot in Illinois. Perhaps Clinton should raise that.

    Not really (none / 0) (#70)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    Whatever solution would have to be approved by both campaigns. It would look fishy to force one side or another to accept something they didn't like.

    Don't hold your breath for the DNC to take the lead on this one.

    [ Parent ]

    While I prefer a firehouse caucus to the (none / 0) (#69)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    'regular' kind--I am concerned with these limited hours, basically people can't go before or after work.  

    Also, am I to understand that once you sign in you can leave--many elderly can't stay, nor can mothers, etc.  Can people vote absentee?  

    It's seem to me that (none / 0) (#71)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:39:01 AM EST
    caucuses are only chosen, especially in small/er states because they are way cheaper--that's all.

    The other wrinkle in this (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    is that the FL Secretary of State is saying it will take 90 days to get ready for a new primary.  I don't think so, but that is what he is saying.  And they have 15 counties in FL that are in the process of changing to a voting machine with a paper trail. (link):

    Another contest in Florida could cost as much as $20 million, said Sterling Ivey, spokesman for the Florida Department of State. He said Florida would need at least 90 days from the time a decision is made to set up any new election.
    Vote By Mail (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Coral Gables on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    It will almost assuredly be a Vote by Mail and the state won't even be running it. It will be run by the FL Dem Party.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:47:10 AM EST
    he'll have to do it faster. Sorry, he does not get 90 days.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably 70 days though (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There are legal requirements (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:04:00 PM EST
    for providing sufficient advance notice of any election -- in hundreds of town newspapers an the like -- in addition to hiring, training, etc., not to mention all the paperwork and invoices through lots of agencies at every level to pay the costs. And those costs actually are often borne by counties or municipalities, not states.  Just the funding transfers alone could take many weeks and mean many more workhours needed by public employees at all levels as well as adjusting local budgets.

    I come from a nearby state with, so I hear from Michiganders -- similar rules to theirs such as  laws on public notices, public records, etc., sadly not as common in many states.

    Not that it's insoluble; this could be a way of alerting the legislature, governor, etc., that they may have to take fast action for waivers of laws and alerting municipalities to be ready, too.  In sum, election officials may have points about this that ought not be cavalierly dismissed.  I think I would like to know the practicalities before dismissing what Michigan says.

    [ Parent ]

    Timing (none / 0) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:55:24 AM EST
    The states are to hold their caucus/primary before June 7.  That's the reason to come up with a plan now.  If one of the campaigns stall, it will be too late to develop a plan to seat the delegates.  It will be left up to a credentialing committee.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama stalling for caucus -- mail-in $5 per state? (none / 0) (#127)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:48:44 AM EST
    The best theory I've heard is that Obama is stalling till it WILL be too late to print ballots, and there will be no choice but a caucus. Or that he'd rather see no re-do at all, just let the