Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

nimh wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I am quite willing to vote a straight Republican ticket in general elections for the rest of my life if the Democrats disenfranchise me.

I dont think there's all that much chance of you doing anything else for the foreseeable future either which way.

I've only voted a straight Republican ticket once in my life so far.

I usually vote for some Republicans each time, but not a straight ticket.

Because apparently, Michigan has a bit of a track record in breaking the primary rules. At least, that's what one commenter on FiveThirtyEight.com says - but please correct me if he's wrong:

Quote:

Michigan has tried holding early, illegal primaries since at least 1980. Back then, Carter and Kennedy pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, which meant that the Mitten State was the only primary state won by Jerry Brown that year.

Same thing happened in 2000: Michigan tried holding early primaries, and both major candidates Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, leaving "uncommitted" and Lyndon LaRouche as the top vote-getters. Dismayed at this turn of events, the Michigan Dem leadership quickly organized a caucus, which Gore won.

They wanted to try it again in 2004, but then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe made Carl Levin back down. (Now, of course, Mac works for Hillary, so he's done a 180.)

When Michigan broke the rules AGAIN in 2008, Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and later Kucinich, all agreed to pull their names from the primary ballot in the state. Hillary, however, broke decades of precedent and chose to stay on the ballot.

oralloy wrote:

I've only voted a straight Republican ticket once in my life so far.

I usually vote for some Republicans each time, but not a straight ticket.

But you just said in the other thread that you only ever voted for a Democrat once -- Clinton in 1992?

Oh wait, sorry -- I understand. You mean you wont vote for any Democrat running for Senate, House, state senate, lieutenant governor, whatever -- school board, dog catcher -- anymore either.

Got it.

Dont quite see the logic -- I mean, you'll vote against Michigan Democrats because they pleaded to have their slate of delegates seated with full rights but were overruled by the national rules committee?

And when faced with the choice of two candidates for state Senate, for example, in 2020, you will vote for the Republican regardless of the individual candidates' qualifications and politics ... because the Michigan Democrats were seated with only half voting rights at this year's national convention because they broke the primary rules? Even though there's no practical effect either which way: even with full votes they wouldnt change the outcome?

Okay.

But how come you didnt already make that decision after the previous times this same thing happened? Because apparently, Michigan has a bit of a track record in breaking the primary rules. At least, that's what one commenter on FiveThirtyEight.com says - but please correct me if he's wrong:

Quote:

Michigan has tried holding early, illegal primaries since at least 1980. Back then, Carter and Kennedy pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, which meant that the Mitten State was the only primary state won by Jerry Brown that year.

Same thing happened in 2000: Michigan tried holding early primaries, and both major candidates Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, leaving "uncommitted" and Lyndon LaRouche as the top vote-getters. Dismayed at this turn of events, the Michigan Dem leadership quickly organized a caucus, which Gore won.

They wanted to try it again in 2004, but then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe made Carl Levin back down. (Now, of course, Mac works for Hillary, so he's done a 180.)

When Michigan broke the rules AGAIN in 2008, Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and later Kucinich, all agreed to pull their names from the primary ballot in the state. Hillary, however, broke decades of precedent and chose to stay on the ballot.

Just drama, nothing more.

One would think the anti-war stance of the Dems would be a bigger turnoff to warmongers then whether or not their vote counts for full or half in the nomination process...

Cycloptichorn

oralloy wrote:

nimh wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I am quite willing to vote a straight Republican ticket in general elections for the rest of my life if the Democrats disenfranchise me.

I dont think there's all that much chance of you doing anything else for the foreseeable future either which way.

I've only voted a straight Republican ticket once in my life so far.

I usually vote for some Republicans each time, but not a straight ticket.

I am curious. Who is the last Democrat you voted for?

((I am curious if "not-Republican" means Constitution party or worse))

Pretty much all of them have an anti-war stance.

Michigan in no way deserves or should go first in any primary process.

You want to shift out IA and NH and put in other SMALL states - which is how the process works - fine. But MI will never be one of the early ones.

Pretty much all of them have an anti-war stance.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pretty much all of them have an anti-war stance.

And if they don't they're not REAL Democrats, right?

Wait a second .... oralloy might have voted for more Democrats than you have, Cyclops. After all, you were a Republican until recently. (He voted for Clinton in 1992, and you've only voted for "not-Bush" in 2004.) And since he's been a Democrat longer than you, doesn't he get to trump you? If not, what are your qualifications for getting to decide who belongs to your newly adopted political party?

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pretty much all of them have an anti-war stance.

And if they don't they're not REAL Democrats, right?

Wait a second .... oralloy might have voted for more Democrats than you have, Cyclops. After all, you were a Republican until recently. (He voted for Clinton in 1992, and you've only voted for "not-Bush" in 2004.) And since he's been a Democrat longer than you, doesn't he get to trump you? If not, what are your qualifications for getting to decide who belongs to your newly adopted political party?

Those who most closely support the ideals and memes prevalent amongst members of said party.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pretty much all of them have an anti-war stance.

And if they don't they're not REAL Democrats, right?

Wait a second .... oralloy might have voted for more Democrats than you have, Cyclops. After all, you were a Republican until recently. (He voted for Clinton in 1992, and you've only voted for "not-Bush" in 2004.) And since he's been a Democrat longer than you, doesn't he get to trump you? If not, what are your qualifications for getting to decide who belongs to your newly adopted political party?

Those who most closely support the ideals and memes prevalent amongst members of said party.

Cycloptichorn

That's what BPB's been pointing out ... walk lock-step with the majority, or get out.

And this differs from Republicanism how?

I think that there are many issues where Dems disagree, but the general attitude towards aggressive, unprovoked warfare is decidedly a negative one amongst the vast majority of Democrats.

Cycloptichorn

Pretty much all of them have an anti-war stance.

Michigan in no way deserves or should go first in any primary process. It's greed. Plain and simple. You want to shift out IA and NH and put in other SMALL states - which is how the process works - fine. But MI will never be one of the early ones.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And this differs from Republicanism how?

I think that there are many issues where Dems disagree, but the general attitude towards aggressive, unprovoked warfare is decidedly a negative one amongst the vast majority of Democrats.

Cycloptichorn

Oh really? From WWI & WWII to Korea and Vietnam our involvements all started and nearly completed under Democrat presidents.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And this differs from Republicanism how?

I think that there are many issues where Dems disagree, but the general attitude towards aggressive, unprovoked warfare is decidedly a negative one amongst the vast majority of Democrats.

Cycloptichorn

Oh really? From WWI & WWII to Korea and Vietnam our involvements all started and nearly completed under Democrat presidents.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pretty much all of them have an anti-war stance.

Michigan in no way deserves or should go first in any primary process. It's greed. Plain and simple. You want to shift out IA and NH and put in other SMALL states - which is how the process works - fine. But MI will never be one of the early ones.

Cycloptichorn

What is it about "the process" that merits its permanancy or trumps the expressed desires of Michigan voters to do things in their state differently? On what basis do the hired functionaries of the Democrat National Committee demand the right to dictate to the Party in Michigan how it will conduct its own business within that state?

I believe your attitude here is illustrative of the authoritarian streak among many who label themselves as "progressives" that turns so many others off. self-styled "progressives" tend to be for progress as they define it and indifferent to the desires of those who have another view.

Michigan has no real argument as to WHY they want to move there date up, other then to increase their influence and power and money brought in to the state.

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.

http://www.carllevin.com/news/2008/03/19/new-york-times-op-ed-why-michigan-is-fighting

So, NH broke the rule and now MI - who has a long history of rule-breaking on this issue - thinks that gives them the green light to do so also?

Nope.