Skip to main content

Let me answer some feedback on the Mitt for Michigan campaign we've started here.

1.) This isn't a pro-Romney effort. We're not saying, "Romney is the best of their lot". Now granted, Romney is pretty much anything to everyone, the guy has no core principles, and he'll sell out his kids (the way he's selling out their inheritance) in a heartbeat if it meant a few more votes. His record makes that clear. So who knows what he believes? I doubt he himself knows. But that's irrelevant to this effort.

We're also not saying, "Romney is the best candidate to run against". He probably is, but any "electability" argument is fraught with danger. So we're not supporting Romney because he polls shittiest of all the Republican candidates in head-to-head matchups. Those numbers could quickly change.

Nope, we're pushing Romney because at the end of the day, Romney is spending a lot of money on ads trashing his fellow Republicans. We want more of that money spent trashing his fellow Republicans. We want an unsettled field with Republicans fragmented and fighting. We want the theocons (Huckabee), the neocons (McCain), and the corportate cons (Romney) to maintain viable top-tier candidates in the race for as long as possible, since it fuels their civil war. Heck, if we truly hit the jackpot, we might even get a brokered GOP convention.

To summarize, this isn't a vote for Romney. It's a vote for "clusterfuck".

And by sowing doubts about the validity of any theoretical Romney victory (especially a close one), we also pollute his victory. So even if Romney wins, he loses.

2.) The Democratic race is irrelevant. I hate to say it to Michigan Democrats, but your governor miscalculated and now the Democratic race means zero. The anti-Hillary Clinton camp thinks if they can keep her under 50 percent by voting "undeclared" that they'll notch some sort of victory. No one will care. You can't even say, "more than half of Democrats don't want her!" since less than half of Democrats wanted her in Iowa or New Hampshire. The reality is that less than half of Democrats want any of our candidates right now in the three-way race. I wish it wasn't the case. And if the primary had been placed on Feb. 5, it would've mattered. But it wasn't. So now the only story that will emerge from Michigan will be the Republican results, and that's the only place Democrats can materially affect the race.

To summarize, this is about letting Democrats actually materially impact this race.

3.) You can't bring a spork to a gun battle. There are some concerned that this is "dirty tricks" and that we shouldn't "stoop to their level". This is perhaps the key difference between traditional liberals and movement progressives. The former believe that politics is a high-minded debate about ideas, the latter have seen movement conservatives use every tool at their disposal to steal power and cling to it. The problem is, politics matter, and so does the winner of elections. You can't bring a spork to a gun fight, because like Florida 2000, we lose every time. And while some may feel proud their personal ethics weren't compromised and that we "took the high road" through the recount battle, how many thousands of soldiers and Iraqis wish that Democrats had fought a little harder for Gore's victory?

There is one major difference between movement progressives and conservatives -- we won't cross the line into illegal behavior. But as long as we operate within legal boundaries, all's fair in politics. The stakes matter too much to unilaterally disarm.

4.) Open primaries are stupid. Should we be meddling in their primary? To be honest, open primaries like this Michigan one are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't a Democrat, they shouldn't get to decide my party's nominee. If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee. So if this little campaign adds impetus for closing primaries, so much the better. But as long as the law allows crossover voting, there is nothing wrong with picking up the ballot you think best helps YOUR candidate.

In this case, the best way to help the Democrats if you are a Democrat isn't to pick up the Democratic ballot, it's picking up the Republican one and voting for chaos and war within their caucus.

Update: Are you on facebook? Join the Democrats for Mitt group.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I want Mitt to be the Rethug candidate because (12+ / 0-)

    Mittens is easy to beat. the man has been on every side of every issue. Also, the evangelical wing of the REpubs think that Mormonism is a cult. they will stay home.

      •  Also, Michigan's economy is in the ditch... (13+ / 0-)

        ...worse off than almost any other state.  Mitt Romney's Michigan campaign is predicated on economic issues, and if independents flock to his campaign as Kos is proposing, the post-election frame will be that the "GOP is attentive to Michigan voters" economic woes, and that is why turnout was so high for Romney, etc.  This is a bad, bad, idea.

        Clinton '08 // Putting People First

        by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:34:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kos sez non-Repubs shouldn't decide Repub nominee (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          keepinon, vets74

          To quote Kos:

          "If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee."


          Clinton '08 // Putting People First

          by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:36:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  forgetting (4+ / 0-)

            That the statement is predicated on states having a closed primary.  The fact that it is open, as a natural consequence, allows those who are not members of the party to decide the victor.

          •  I never knew... (5+ / 0-)

            ...that one's reason to vote should be couched in such narrow parameters.  The voting booth is there for an individual to vote based on what is in their heads and a right to exercise their franchise.  Who or what one's vote is or should be about isn't defined in any laws I know about.  The only one I know of is a right to exercise your franchise.  The reasons behind your motivation to vote is your own. If one decided to vote "strategically" (whatever that means) then by all means they have that right.

            Now, yesterday, (or was it the day before?) I popped off about me doing the same thing if I lived in Michigan.  Then after thinking about it I realized that under no circumstances could I ever, and I mean EVER vote for a Republican.  When Bill Nelson was running for re-election here in Florida against Katherine Harris I felt trapped.  Nelson is at best the perverbial DINO.  So I opted for a write in vote for Democrat Betty Castor who ran against Mel Martinez.  Bill Nelson will never get my vote.


            Truman's Conscience

            •  This is "precious" beyond practicality. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amitxjoshi, gsenski

              Voting is ONLY about winning elections.

              That is all that matters in terms of real-world impact.

              Voting for a candidate with no chance of winning makes no impact, whatsoever.

              Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

              by vets74 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If that's so... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...voters in over thirty states shouldn't bother voting for president at all because they're solid red or blue states.

                Voting is about a whole lot of things beyond winning elections.

                For example, for third parties in most states it's about maintaining or establishing the ballot lines that the two major parties want to prevent us from having.

                This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

                by GreenSooner on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:27:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  crap (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  that's wrong--voters in those "over thirty states" don't know it ahead of time.  You can expect it, but your act of voting is part of the determination.

                  In Michigan this year, Democrats' votes in their own primary are known ahead of time to be useless.

          •  Failed... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman, BlueInARedState

   reading comp. Go back and try again.  You're taking the quote out of context.

          •  hey, (0+ / 0-)

            I think a summary of this post/scheme would simply be:

            Another scheme to derail Hillary Clinton!

            (as I said downthread)

            Never, ever understimate your adversary!!

            Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

            by ghost2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:23:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  We are agents of KAOS (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I get to be Siegfried; watch out Maxwell Smart and Agent 99, here we come....

            fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

            by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:56:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Either that (0+ / 0-)

          Or we end up looking like the dirty crooks Kos is trying us to be.  The press, (i.e. FOX) hates Democrats and the idea of a cell of seditious online terrorists plotting to throw the Presidential race into chaos is just what we DON'T need.

          Just because Republicans seem to get away with this shit doesn't mean that 1. we will or 2. we should.

        •  Not for Michigan.... (0+ / 0-)

          I'm crossing over, and I'm voting for Romney.  If he brings attention to the mess trade has helped to make of MI, I'm all for it.

          •  I live in Michigan too. Convince me, dk... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marjo, dkmich

            Convince me to go against every fiber in my being and vote for a Republican.
            I don't care what KOS says, he doesn't live here, and could probably give a rat's ass about Michigan.
            But you and I live here.
            Convince me, and if you do, I'll vote for that POS, Mitt.
            I'll be able to pick up the conversation about 5:30 p.m., if you can write something for me.  I'll be on the road 'till then.

            The nose of a mob is its imagination. By this, at any time, it can be quietly led. Edgar Allan Poe

            by WSComn on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:37:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My best shot.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              1.)  There is no one on the Dem ballot I want to vote for.  If I vote uncommitted and the delegates get seated, they will do with my vote as they please.  It could go to Hillary or to Obama.  I don't believe there is a dime's worth of difference between the two of them.  Neither of them have ever met a trade deal they wouldn't vote for.  If I could get my vote to Edwards, I would; but I can't.  If Michigander's don't make trade the number one priority in picking a President, who else will?  I really don't care whether Obama or Hillary or the first anything...  This isn't about personality, it is about the economy stupid.

              2.)  Cross-over voters (Republican and Independent) elected my party's nominee in Iowa and NH, while "real" Dems across the country are being denied a voice and a vote in the Democratic Party's nominee.   So, if Republicans and Independents can steal my vote, I think it is only fair and appropriate to steal Republican votes in Michigan.  Besides, Iowa and NH are not "special", and I am pissed the DNC backed them - again.

              3.)  The data base for the Michigan primary is being paid for with my tax dollar, but it is private property belonging to the parties.  Anybody accessing this information is subject to jail and a fine.  If I register and vote in the Republican primary, they will inaccurately list me in the data base as a Republican.  This will cause the Republican Party to waste time and money to GOTV me.  Every dime I make they waste is one less dime they have to use.

              4.)  Michigan deservers its day in court.  Although Romney is indifferent, he is the only Republican who even has a clue where Michigan is on a map let alone what's been going on in this state.  McCain and the others are all talking national issues because they are clueless and indifferent to what Bill Clinton, the Democrats, and the Republicans have done to this state.  In Iowa a cow poops on spinach; and its bail out deals everywhere.   For seven long years, our state has been paying for NAFTA and the floodgate it opened for every WTO/-free- bad trade deal that the DC Dems couldn't resist.  So maybe if Romney wins, the media might casually mention for one days coverage that Romney won because the economy is Michigan (& Ohio) has been destroyed. If you really want to see what trade did to Michigan, Ohio, California and several other states, you really need to read this. So while cow poop gets billions, the trade impacted states have gotten shit, not a dime.  When Bush condescended to talk to the big 3 of manufacturing, they asked for national health care.  He laughed.  When Obama came to Detroit, he had the fucking audacity to lecture automotive manufacturing for protectionism.  He totally disregarded and disrespected people all over the country who are dealing with this corporate boondoggle.  Its like blaming and laughing at Katrina victims.  Michigan/manufacturing deserves one day in the national news.


              I think that's it.  

              •  Ok, I've read your reply a few times now. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                And I can't thank you enough for taking the time to help me with this.  This reply is a lot of effort for just one stranger who is lost in the high weeds at the moment, and the stranger truly appreciates it.
                I agree with your 1st point completely.
                Your 2nd point cannot be proven as true, but for reasons that also convince me it cannot also be proven as false.  No one really knows.  Would someone waste a vote in such a way, especially when you are voting in a state where it actually matters?  Maybe so, maybe not so.  But your last sentence of the paragraph:  Besides, Iowa and NH are not "special", and I am pissed the DNC backed them - again. I totally agree with that!  Special my ass!!  Let's rotate the states every primary cycle.  If we can hold the superbowl in a different city every year we can certainly do that every 4 years.  Yecch!
                Your 3rd took me a couple of reads to figure out where you were going with this, but I think I get it now.  You're not registering by name, but by voting republican you are creating numbers that indicate, falsely, there are a lot more voters in MI friendly to the Rethug cause than there actually are.  They waste spend more $$ here, so on and so on.  Plus their polling numbers will tank out as well.  Did I get that even remotly right?
                The 4th paragraph is pretty brutal, but I have to agree with it.  Others may not, but for the last 20 years I've seen our state assaulted and raped by all manner of politician, Dem, Repub or otherwise.  It's like it has been a free for all.  Someone's gotta be the worst, and Engler sold us out for the chance at a Bush cabinet post or some such thing.  Thank god he crashed and burned on delivering the state to W.  It could've been You're dooin a hell of a job, Johnnie!  He would've been much worse than Brownie.  It's scary, though.  Sometimes I wonder, what on earth did we (Michigan) ever do to deserve this and their scorn?  I'll never know, I guess.
                But to conclude, I just wish I could have voted for Edwards once this year.  Looks like it won't happen, and that's a shame.  A fine man with a great vision for our nation.  
                Thanks again for your reply.  It was very helpful.  I really don't know what I'll do until I'm in that booth with the ballot in front of me and I go to make my mark.  
                Maybe I'll write a diary about it, lol.

                The nose of a mob is its imagination. By this, at any time, it can be quietly led. Edgar Allan Poe

                by WSComn on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 06:55:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I voted absentee. They know where (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  I live and which ballot they sent me.

                  I don't think there was a plot for them to crossover and vote in our primary.  I think Independents and Republicans voted for a Dem in IA and NH, and as a consequence had more say in who the Dem nominee is than a loyal Dem in MI will ever have.

                  Good luck.

          •  By the way...there was an article in the MI paper (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            today, that said about equal numbers of Repubs have been crossing over to vote Dem, as the reverse (~15% of absentee ballots so far, in roughly equal numbers for both parties...)...they could not see why the Repubs would do this, unless it was that they were so disgusted w/ the Repub. party, they were doing a protest vote, or switching over, etc...

            •  How Would They Know Who Was Crossing Over (0+ / 0-)

              There is no party registration in  Michigan.  

              How would Clerks know that people were crossing over?

              MI paper? What MI paper published the story?

              Are you sure you understood the article?

              It's true that Clerks in MI have had to send back some apps because there was no party ballot selection on the original. But, there would be no way that Clerks could determine crossover.

        •  Bad idea But For A Different Reason (0+ / 0-)

          This really isn't a very good idea.

          Although the primary is open ballot selection will be recorded.  With one slightly different circumstance this was not done in the past.

          Each party will use the information to update voter databases.

          We need to identify our people for GOTV efforts.  The way the primaries are going for Democrats we will need a huge GOTV to have any hope of beating the Republicans, no matter who they nominate.

          Only once in my lifetime has Michigan required party registration and that was for the primaries in 1992.  I registered Republican to do as Kos today suggests.  I voted for Buchanon to embarrass HW Bush. Afterward I felt dirty and then began to receive fund raising appeals from Republicans.  It took me years to get off their mailing lists.  The whole experience still bothers me.

          I do agree very strongly with Kos' point number 4.

          Independents have no right to muck up choosing a party's nominee.

          Allowing a group of gullible, easily suckered people who lack the passion to go on record, stand up for and identify with a party should not be given a say in the party's business.

          Michigan, should have party registration and primaries should be CLOSED.

          Nominating candidates should be left to the people who care enough to know the issues, policy proposals and agendas of prospective candidates.

          I've often felt that bringing the non-committed, the least informed, the least interested into that part of the process is like using democracy against itself.

      •  A bad idea yesterday (25+ / 0-)

        did not become a better idea today, Kos, no matter how many points you make.

        And again, I refer you to the Uncommitted effort underway in Michigan.

        And wonder if Sean is right? If we help this guy win?

        We can't have it both ways here. If it isn't right when Republicans do it, it isn't right for us, either.

        "...the Edwards folks do not endorse Brittany's crotch."

        by Pager on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary wants those Michigan delegates, too. (5+ / 0-)

          There's no telling what will happen in Denver, given the way this race is going.   I completely disagree with Kos' statement that the Democratic primary doesn't mean anything.  It's insulting to Michigan Dems.

          Clinton '08 // Putting People First

          by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They broke the rules knowingly (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            x, Builderman, Brian82, daryln, va dare

            So it's not an insult, it's proper and just. The democratic primary there is meaningless.

            •  Can't the DNC allow Michigan delegates... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rick, meowmissy

     vote at the convention, later on?  Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought there was a lot of ambiguity at the moment as to what would happen with the Democratic delegates for Michigan.  Thus, the weird anti-HRC movement for voting "other."

              Clinton '08 // Putting People First

              by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:59:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Doing that means the DNC has no teeth/guts (0+ / 0-)

                Which means that the primary "race to be first" front-loading madness starts all over again.

                Besides, it's not as if the Republicans aren't punishing the wayward states, either.  They're just not taking away all the delegates, only half of them.

              •  I asked about this yesterday (0+ / 0-)

                and have still to see any definitive information which resolves it.  But, admittedly, I may have missed a post which answers the question.

                I've done some Googling today and still cannot come up with a clear answer as to what the DNC rules are.  I have sent the DNC a request for clarification but as of yet received no reply.

                In the meantime, does anyone here actually know what the official rules for seating or not seating at the convention would be – as distinguished from speculating on what "moral" forces might be in play at that time?

                •  Offical delegations (0+ / 0-)

                  Can't help you with written rules, but the bottom line is that the convention can seat whoever they want. There were the Freedom Democrats challenging segregated southern delegations in 1964, several challenges in 1972 (Humphrey fighting Californias winner-take-all primary, IIRC there was a non-Daley Illinois delegation that was seated) and in the end it came down to the convention ruling on the credentials challenges.

                  If I were a non-Hillary supporter in MI or FL, I would be working to get myself elected a state convention delegate.  Even without DNC sanction, what's to stop the state convention from electing a delegate slate as a countermeasure to Clinton putting forth her MI/FL slates and trying to get them seated.

                •  Try this (0+ / 0-)

                  link, see if this helps:


                  Interesting to note, there is a jump link for challenges, but no text.  

            •  Broke the rules? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marjo, keepinon

              There is such a thing as civil disobedience, and it's practiced when the rules or the laws ain't right.

              The state of Michigan made the primary change, not the Democratic Party in Michigan or the voters in Michigan, and ya know what? That's their prerogative under the constitution. It isn't the place of the DNC to penalize the voters of a state, or candidates, when the state does something the party doesn't like. The Democratic Party isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

              The Republicans didn't do it. Think it will have an effect on the General Election? I DO. How many electoral votes in Michigan and Florida?

              •  Primaries are party selections. That is the (0+ / 0-)

                difference. There are court cases going on right now challenging excessive state meddling in what is inherently a political party's internal selection process.

                Expecting pure free enterprise to serve a population is like expecting a garden to feed a family by simply throwing out bags of seed on the ground. (Me)

                by pelagicray on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:12:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  As a Michigan Dem... (7+ / 0-)

            Saying our primary is meaningless at this point isn't an insult.

            The insult was Edwards and Obama pulling their names.

            Or even more insulting, Kucinich trying to pull his name, failing and now campaigning here.

            "Ever get the feeling you're in the wrong alternate universe?"

            by Siberian on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:56:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL, seriously? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoenix Woman, vets74

              Won't he be too busy recounting votes in NH?

            •  Indeed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

               as an Edwards supporter, I am in complete agreement. It was a foolish move by him to pull out of Michigan.

            •  Yes, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

              This scheme, along with the 'uncomitted' push is a backhanded way to reduce the momentum (she will get a small positive amount of press after) by her opponents.

              First they remove their names to pander to Iowa and do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING they can to stop her.  Now, they try to patch the original manauver by coming up with more clever schemes.  

              Oh, the joy of this game! Too bad it's not a game.

              Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

              by ghost2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Names pulled (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The candidates were pressured to do that.

              Hillary Clinton is the only one who had the national name recognition that allowed her to stay on the ballot. She could afford to risk offending the party in Iowa and New Hampshire. Not so for the others.

              Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel refused to buckle to the pressure. As for Kucinich, he probably decided, belatedly, to try to join the "uncommitted" campaign, and wasn't able to.

              So, being on the ballot, he decided to campaign.

              Originally, I though it was a splendid idea for Kucinich to try to channel the anger about disenfranchisement into a win over Clinton. But, the reality is, that Edwards and Obama already have enough support to beat her with the "uncommitted" campaign if they join forces.

              A win by "uncommitted" allows those delegates to split for their preferences anyway.

            •  Blaming The Wrong People (0+ / 0-)

              Moving up the Michigan primary was the work of locals on behalf of the Clintons.  It was not specifically and only Granholm, as someone else suggested.

              The Clinton camp wanted to front load as many primaries as possible to secure the nomination while she still had a huge national lead.

              That was the thinking when all of this came about.  Remember that Clinton's nomination seemed inevitable so her campaign wanted a quick kill.

              Pretty plain the DNC saw what was going on.

              So when the DNC went ape and pulled the plug, Obama and Edwards gladly pulled out.  Pretty easy to see why.

              This may also be what happened in Florida.

              Too cute by half, eh.

              I'm a dues paying Michigan Democrat and I'm pissed.  I'm also not happy, nor should anyone else be happy with this whole super delegate crap.

              So that makes me pissed at the state party leadership that moved the primary to benefit one candidate and the DNC for the whole super delegate business.

              Talk about insuring the status quo.  The endorsements we see flying around the last couple of days really give away who the two establishment candidates are as if there's ever been any doubt.

              I'll support whoever the Democratic nominee is for 2008. I believe that everyone one else should do the same.  

              The shenanigans are the smallest of small potatos compared with the state of the nation.  Internicine squabbles should not get in the way of the goal to get our nation turned in the right direction and hopefully as well to stop our decline.

              This election isn't going to be as easy as so many people seem to think.

              After it's over us little folks (hopefully with real organizational help from great liberal bloggers) have got to get the DNC to think beyond the power struggles of individual politicians, knock some heads together, find a way to knee cap as large a number of consultants as possible and organize to really run what is actually a collection of state parties.  

              Us little folks have to get more involved in our local and state parties to try to make them  operate as real organizations beholden to no corrosive private power centers of any type.

              Issues must be identified and reasonably consistent positions must be adopted by the party in light of its own rank and file and what's right for the nation.

              Begin by issuing a restraining order on the James Carville types and the Robert Rubin types.  Don't let 'em get within talking distance of any Democrats.

              And oh yes, forbid Bill Richardson from acting on or talking about anything except foreign affairs.  On domestic matters, put a cork in his mouth and it would be unwise to let him show his face anywhere near the Great Lakes.  

          •  The Democratic (0+ / 0-)

               primary in Michigan doesn't mean anything anymore. There is only one serious candidate on the ballot, and as of right now, there are no delegates to be won. It's a beauty contest, nothing more. Michigan Democrats should be insulted that their governor so screwed up what was a good stance.

        •  IMO (17+ / 0-)

          This is an idiotic idea. Please, Michigan Dems, do NOT participate in this effort. Vote for one of the Dem candidates on the ballot or vote uncommitted.

          If you like Hillary, vote for her.

          If you like Kucinich, vote for him.

          If you like Obama or Edwards, vote "uncommitted."

        •  Agreed (9+ / 0-)

          A "Hillary loses to Uncommitted," headline the next day would reshape the debate. It may be Edwards' best hope, and it'd certainly be helpful to Obama. The Uncommitted movement is a brain child of the netroots and has gotten major media traction in Michigan. Carl Levin, Bart Stupak, John Coyners, etc, are all publicly urging uncommitted votes. There are 527s that formed for Uncommitted. And people are canvassing for Uncommitted.

          Uncommitted is a way of effecting the Democratic Primary. Kos is just undermining a grass roots effort here. An Uncommitted victory would be a triumph for the party's grass roots!

          •  Uncommitted winning (5+ / 0-)

            would just be seen as an Obama victory (which I'm OK with).

            The Democratic primary in Michigan can mean something.  I encourage Democrats in Michigan to make it so.

          •  Guys, (0+ / 0-)

            Hate to be a spoiler, but versus an actual candidate with a real ground team, Uncommitted isn't going to win.

            However, to sway 5% of the republican vote we need about 60,000 michigan dems. Given the way this race is polling, we really could find that many.

            Once again: This is not about Mitt Romney. This is about making sure that, with three major republican primaries completed, the republicans have three different winners and continue to run attack ads on each other and possibly end up with a brokered convention, which forces them to maintain their right wing rhetoric for an extra six months. If 4 of their candidates end up with at least 10-20% of the delegates, the three factions will tear each other to pieces. An encouraging development on this front was Fred Thompsons performance in the debate, as may think it suggests that he stick it out for several more contests, picking up delegates and tightening races. Mitt Romney losing michigan would mean he may have to exit the race. Thats basically losing his 30 million dollars in attack adds and the response ads bought against him

            thechosenone021- What you know will probably kill you

            by thechosenone021 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:25:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  voting for uncommitted is a waste of time (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Builderman, daryln, gsenski
          Regardless of what is said, they are not going to be seated at the convension so that they can vote for pres -- period.  I have no problem voting for the person best suited to mess up their process.  If i lived in Florida, i would vote for 9u11ani.  5 primaries -- 4 winners:  this defines a mess.

          Born in Oklahoma Raised in Ohio Escaped to Meechigan!!!

          by MI Sooner on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:07:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You say that now (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rick, mcfly, cartwrightdale

            but if you don't think the Clinton campaign will try to sneak those delegates in the back door if she wins Michigan, you've got another thing coming.

            •  and if she doesn't win... (0+ / 0-)

              She won't, and there will be no impetus to do so.  This argument makes no sense.

              The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

              by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:22:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, let's break this down. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marjo, keepinon

                If the delegates don't get seated, none of this matters.

                If the delegates do get seated, she will get a number of delegates proportional to her performance in the primary vote.  Thus, every vote for "uncommitted" takes an ill-gotten delegate away from Senator Clinton (well, not one-for-one, but you get my point).

                It's like Pascal's wager.  If you think Senator Clinton is our worst candidate, you have nothing to lose by voting "uncommitted," but you gamble a great deal by voting in the GOP primary.  Proponents of Clinton's campaign face a similar choice.

                •  Not if you think that she's our worst (0+ / 0-)

                  but could still win the White House.  Then it's just a cirular firing squad that serves as an embarrassment in the general, should she win. Besides, if the nomination comes down to that few delegates, there will be extreme pressure for them to NOT be seated, since that was the deal everyone agreed to and it would be devastating for the party to get into such a controvery at that stage in the campaign.  Assuming that the Michigan delegates are distributed proportionally, how much would that really cost her, anyway?  Would dropping 5% cost her 1 delegate?  More?

                  The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

                  by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:09:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It matters even if they don't get seated (0+ / 0-)

                  because it's not just about delegates, but about how the result will shape opinion in other states via the press coverage. "Uncommitted beats Hillary in MI" would give Obama momentum, just like "Obama beats Hillary in IA".

          •  You'd have to be (0+ / 0-)

            You'd have to be registered republican to vote for 911. We have closed primaries here.

        •  We cannot take (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RW, gsenski

             moral stands anymore. They are absurd and offer little in return. Why shouldn't we? Not only do they corrupt our system, they get away with it. Sometimes, you gotta fight fire with fire.

            It's just like the morally righteous who got furious at the idea that Democrats should redraw Congressional districts wherever possible to counter DeLay's efforts. It's not wrong. It's how you stay in the game.

            I encourage all Michigan Kossacks to vote for Romney. Not only will that hold off'll stop a surging McCain. And McCain is a far more dangerous GOP nominee to us than Romney is.

        •  I have to agree... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marjo, Pager

          I had actually planned all along to vote Repub. in Michigan, for the candidate most likely to STOP he is one of the candidates who scares me the most (very good looking, articulate, supported by people like Hannity I think, and probably Limbaugh, if he was the nominee, he'd likely make Michigan competitive once again in November...which would be a disaster...)...

          My Father (who can remember Mitt's father as Gov in MI) has been a strong Romney supportor for months now (chanting "Romney, Romney" to me for months as well), and I think he could become a dark horse, and actually be dangerous if he becomes the nominee...maybe I am totally wrong about this, and Romney would be a total disaster in the general, but I decided that I could not take the risk, and so I ended up voting "Uncommitted" by absentee ballot today....

          I understand Kos' points about keeping the GOP race wide open and in complete disarray, but I would hate to accidentally help someone become the Republican nominee by mistake, who somehow goes on to win in November...

          And am afraid the "be careful what you wish for" could really come back to bite us....

          My Mother (a Dem) is most likely going to vote to BLOCK Romney on Tuesday, as she thinks perhaps he's the biggest threat in November as well (aside from maybe McCain?)...(looks like my conservative sister might end up voting for Huckabee...)

        •  What is this "isn't right" stuff? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          All's fair in politics, so long as it's legal.

          The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

          by Superribbie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You can say that about any candidate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gsenski, R Rhino from CT4

        so what's the difference?  All this does is postpone their ability to choose a candidate. Its not as if handing Mittney a win in Michigan is gonna push him over the edge and hand him the nomination.

      •  Listen to AL GORE! (12+ / 0-)

        Let me tell you something.

        In the course of campaign 2000, an interviewer (could have been Letterman) asked Gore whom he prefered to win the GOP primary.  The implication was George Bush, because he was deemed to be weak and also dim.  Al Gore's answer???

        He replied that during 1984 GOP primary he had wished Reagan to win the GOP primary (he had thougt to himself if only...).  From what happened later, he learned to never understimate his adversary.

        I am quoting above from memory.  Geroge W Bush is a two term president.  Those who thought that would happen, raise your hands!

        I am not saying that the scheme described in this stroy  will have a zero chance of helping democratic chances in 2008.  I am saying that it will have only a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.  Obviously, it's not zero, but a crapshoot nonetheless.

        Something only people in blogsphere could come up with.

        Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

        by ghost2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:47:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This argument would make sense if (9+ / 0-)

          we were trying to sway all the Republican primary races.  But we aren't.  Just the Michigan one to keep chaos alive within the Republican party.  It doesn't make Mittney the frontrunner, it just creates a 3 way tie for frontrunner.

        •  Your memory is correct except it was the 1980 (5+ / 0-)

          race - by 1984 everyone who ever thought Reagan would be a poor contender and rooted for him to be Carter's opponent was really super sorry.  Reagan beat Mondale in 1984 in every single state except Minnesota I believe.

          Last night a friend who is a Democrat actually said she was open to voting for Romney.  People are fools to think that he has no chance.  For God's sake, the guy won the Governor's Mansion in Massachusetts.  

          •  again, we don't want Mitt to win the nomination (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            we are not "wishing for it".  we just want them to spend as much money as possible tearing each other down as far as possible.  the actual nomination is for republicans to wish for...not us, and on that I agree with Gore.

            •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anna shane

              It's also a clever way to remove as many democrats as possible from the final democratic tally.  So the following things would happen:

              1. Lots and lots of democrats will vote in GOP race.
              1. Lots and lots of democrats will vote as 'uncommitted' [they would be the only motivated bunch on the democratic side]
              1. Hillary will not get as many votes b/c her voters think it's a forgone conclusion, or they follow plan 1 and 2 above.
              1. Results will be a large 'uncommitted' tally, and a 'small' percentage for Hillary Clinton.
              1. Chris Matthews will blow his head describing how again this proves that no one likes her.

              Move on, nothing to see here.  It's just netroots having fun!

              Yeah, right.  (I wasn't born yesterday!)

              Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

              by ghost2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:33:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If uncommitted won (0+ / 0-)

                I think tweety would have an orgasm on air. That guy is a total weirdo. But that might be worth it alone--great political implication of Michigan vote aside.

                •  I think they should vote for (0+ / 0-)

                  the best one on their ballot. If it's only Hillary, how can that be blamed on her?  What happened to Obama's fifty state strategy, and his hope? Hillary is showing hope, by running in the race.  

                  •  Interesting twist, but (0+ / 0-)

                    part of the deal from the DNC was that candidates were not allowed to campaign there.  So, at the time, Clinton had a huge lead and Edwards/Obama couldn't do anything there to change that.  So, why stay on the ballot and take a near-certain loss.  Turns out, a lot has changed since then and the race could be a little more interesting even though no one has spent any time or money there.

      •  i agree with sean (13+ / 0-)

        With respect, I oppose this effort. In my opinion, Romney and Rudy, as the candidates of the Republican capital establishment, are those who pose the most danger to this country. I therefore want them knocked out of the race as quickly as possible. If other candidates win in Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida, I believe it will so cripple both men's campaigns that neither will prevail as the nominee. But if a gaggle of gamester Democrats prevents Romney's loss in his own home state, it will revivify his campaign. I think that's dangerous. The Republican Noise Machine will not credit Dems with manufacturing his victory. They will describe it instead as a "Romney resurgance" . . . and off he'll go.

        There are degrees even in wrongness. I lived through 1968, 2000, and 2004, so no presidential race is "a sure thing" to me. A Republican could easily enter the Oval Office in January 2009. If one does, I don't want to be even partially responsible for that Republican being someone who supports torture and Guantanamo Bay, as does Romney and Rudy, as opposed to a Republican who does not, like Huckabee or McCain.

        •  Agreed !!!! Good Analysis.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          keepinon, blueness

          from someone who ended up voting uncommitted today via absentee (I was originally going to vote for Huckabee or McCain, to PURPOSEFULLY BLOCK ROMNEY, as I really see him as being extremely dangerous when all is said and done...better to get rid of him now...)

      •  wrong? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        Nothing is guarenteed but remember ONE of the Rethugs is going to nominated, like it or not, so might as well keep alive a useful one like Mitt.

        Voting in Michigan in their primary isn't like giving money. It's not a big deal and it is a good idea.

      •  Riffing off my diary about the Mitt-igan topic, (7+ / 0-)

            Why Kos should withdraw his support for Romney in Michigan,

        Re 1: Voting for Romney is, voting for Romney...

        Re 2: The Dem primary is not completely irrelevant, especially if Hillary is seen as a winner,

        Re 3: Ethics are nice and we could have won in Florida by urging the vote counters not to succumb to the "Brooks Brothers riot", not by doing our own Brooks Brother riot, maybe,

        Re 4: Mucking with the Repubs may muck with the Repubs (if it succeeds...but it might make Mitt the President), but it may not help your chosen candidate, e.g., Obama.

            Nice to see all the discussion, at least!

      •  Why stay out? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoenix Woman

           the Democratic primary is meaningless, and a Romney victory only further pollutes the Republican side. Why on Earth not? Sounds like a helluva plan to me.

      •  McCain is the only GOPer who can beat any Dem (0+ / 0-)

        Now that Rudy's done, McCain's the only Republican left who can beat any of the Democrats.  That's why the media loves him so much.

        We must blunt his momentum.

        For months now, Rasmussen's head-to-head national polling has shown that:

        1. Hillary's the weakest of the Dems in the general; Obama's a bit stronger, and Edwards is the strongest.
        1. McCain and Giuliani do the best in the general; in most of the head-to-heads, they both beat Hillary by nearly double digits, edge Obama or are edged by him, and are beaten by Edwards by nearly double digits.  
        1. Romney gets his clock cleaned by even Hillary in the general.

        Taking this all into account, we either stop McCain, or we stop Hillary.  If McCain wins, we cannot let Hillary win the Democratic nomination or it's "I, John Sidney McCain III, do solemnly swear" around this time next year.

        •  I think the more McCain talks the more people (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sean Robertson, mcfly, myrealname

          will come to realize that he has lost it.  His "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" remark that he thought was funny was really disgusting.  Now his new "in Iraq for 100 years" is just another example.  Please let him talk.  Geesh, anyone who listened to his speech after the New Hampshire primary must know he is senile.

          •  Do it. (0+ / 0-)

            McCain was never very smart. That's his problem.  Also, he's married to the military and still wants to win the Vietnam War.  He's always looking for an enemy to prove we can win something.  I think some Republicans or Independents leaning Republican crossed over and voted for Hillary in N.H.  They wanted to stop Obama now.  Put Obama up against McCain in anything related to speaking or thinking and I think we know the GOP doesn't want Obama, or for that matter, Edwards.  They want Hillary.

            If it's not illegal and we can mess up the GOP field of candidates and not hurt ourselves, do it.  If McCain runs he will flood tv with ads about his heroism in Vietnam.  Also, the media love him.  If we don't want a war in Iran, the time to mess up the GOP is now.  

          •  The media's propping up McCain (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Just like they have Bush for the past eight years.

            They won't stop until he's lost the nomination.

            Plus, he does better against the Dems in national polling than anyone besides Rudy (who is himself done).

      •  My uncle is an evangelical (0+ / 0-)

        and he has flat out said he will never vote for Mitt due to his religion.


      •  Then we're wrong, so what? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Politics is a game of odds.  The best odds of ensuring a Democratic victory occur by prolonging any GOP internecine warfare, as Markos argues.  I also think that the best odds of ensuring a Democratic victory occur if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee, a point which Markos disclaims.

        The frogurt is also cursed. -8.25, -6.51

        by Superribbie on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:31:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  and if the MSM see this won't they be forced (4+ / 0-)

      to talk about how the thugs have used this tactic in the past

      and it would make the talking heads EXXXXPlode!

      wouldn't you love to hear Rush talking about how Dems picked the nominee?

      Oh how I wish I lived in Michigan!

    •  Remember, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That is what we thought about C+ Augustus. And look where that got us..

      Duh, Gee Tennesse

      by CEMan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Diary is linked on Fox news site... (5+ / 0-)

      ...just found this on a google news page. Fox news is reporting this diary here.

    •  don't underestimate Mitt (5+ / 0-)

      In MA we all thought he had no chance. Then he won.  He is a skilled "politician".  The Party will close ranks - they always do.  The media will fall for his phony frames about "successful businessman", "he saved the Olympics", he was a "bipartisan Governor of MA".  All of those are untrue but the media will not care.

    •  I do not support this effort n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick, Berkeley Vox, ramjet
    •  Malkin headlines this story today (0+ / 0-)

      because she's got, you know, nothing else to say, and because she's, you know, a moron.

      fouls, excesses and immoderate behavior are scored ZERO at Over the Line, Smokey!

      by seesdifferent on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But Kos said this (0+ / 0-)

      And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us.

      Why would Kos think this when, in every other opinion he's offered on the Dem race, it's clear he believes that stringing out the nomination process and making the candidates fight for it is good for our party?

      He hasn't, like so many others, advocated for an Edwards pullout. He seemed absolutely thrilled  with the New Hampshire results, saying:

      How exciting! No coronation this year. The candidates are going to have to earn their victory the old fashioned way -- one vote at a time.

      And yet he somehow feels that guiding the Republicans  onto the same "exciting," "no coronation" path will spell chaos for their party. I don't know what to say about it except that it's weird and demonstrably contradictory.

      Personally, I happen to agree with Kos that months of mudslinging and money burning don't help a party's eventual nominee. It's just that Kos doesn't seem to agree with himself.

      Does he know something we don't? Or is he as confused as the rest of us?

      Democrats: For the health, prosperity and security of every single American.

      by alysheba on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fox News.... (0+ / 0-)

      Did a story on this effort around lunchtime today.


      Kos.  The rationale behind open primaries applies where a district is lopsided to one party.  I live in one where Repugs outnumber Dems 3 to 1.  In the primaries for the U.S. Representative, whoever wins the Republican primary will win the seat.  It makes sense to allow the Dems to vote in the Repub primary if they choose, so they can have some say who represents them.  I crossed over four years ago to support a whackjob over a very dangerous whackjob, and I appreciated the opportunity.  It really makes sense on the local level, at least.

  •  Sorry, still a bad idea. (23+ / 0-)

    Let's vote for our candidates, and leave them to theirs.

    One conversation in the real world beats one thousand diaries on the rec list.

    by haruki on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM PST

  •  I still think you're wrong, Kos (18+ / 0-)

    A bigger margin for Hillary in MI will be a news event.  And I also don't support the idea of voting for whoever you might think is the weakest Republican - what if you end up being wrong in the end?

    •  Totally unprincipled, too. (10+ / 0-)

      Democrats have more integrity than this, I hope.

      Clinton '08 // Putting People First

      by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  For once I agree with you (5+ / 0-)

        If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

        by Paleo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:47:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton People Should Embrace This (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          baltimoremom, gsenski

          It will lower the number of non-commited votes on the Democratic side and make Sen. Clinton's totals look more impressive.

          They do not lament over the past, they yearn not for what is to come, they maintain themselves in the present, thus their complexion is serene. -- the Buddha

          by GW Chimpzilla on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:07:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is how the cons got where they are today... (3+ / 0-)

        They have more integrity for now.  Going back to Kos's statements above...

        There is one major difference between movement progressives and conservatives -- we won't cross the line into illegal behavior.

        Not yet anyhow.  This kind of thinking though is precisely what leads people down the path of destruction.  When people put winning the game above a focus on good governance and policy, they lose site of what the movement was about in the first place.  People come into power who know how to fight to win, and they begin to build up a power structure based on winning at any cost.  Then the bribes start.  Then K-street projects start.  And then one day you wake up, realize the movement is dead, and your party is a burning cinder like the Republicans are today.

        This is the one thing about Kos' position and the DailyKos in general that I see that bothers me.  I'm all for getting involved in the Democratic party and trying to remake it from within.  But I think this focus on winning elections that seems to assume the end result will somehow end up as good governance is dangerous in the long run.

        Disclaimer: I support Obama. I may contain hope and could become fired up and ready to go at anytime.

        by sterno on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:52:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's perfectly legit (5+ / 0-)

        for Dems to vote in the republican primary in hanky panky, no voter caging, no phone jamming.  Are you saying people should only vote for the candidate they want to win in November?

        But people voted for Nader who knew he wouldn't win, people voted for Kucinich who knew he wouldn't win, my parents once voted for Dr. Spock in an election because they didn't like either candidate.

        Voting for reasons other than wanting the person to win is common practice.

      •  Why don't you ask James Carville (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The Clintons love that pinnacle of integrity.

      •  This isn't about integrity. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's about stepping up and doing something to affect the political process in the only manner available.  

        There are some times when you have to swallow your "integrity" and actually work to help the cause.  If your desire to stay above the metaphorical fray prevents you from taking every legal step available to help move this country forward, then you're exactly the kind of effete, latte drinking liberal that always gets railed against.

        Let's get our hands dirty and actually fix this country.

        Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. Time to pony up and do the right thing.

        by Capt America on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:06:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with being scrappy and tough... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BigOkie, tiredntexas

          ...but the bad press Dems would get for "election meddling" wouldn't help our cause, IMO.  2008 should be a tough but principled march for Dems.  This is our year.

          Clinton '08 // Putting People First

          by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:09:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And here we go again. (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, but our side of the discussion in this country has been too worried about appearances for too long.  It's a double standard that we're holding ourselves too, out of fear that somebody else might get offended.

            My grandfather, himself a dyed in the wool Republican used to say "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'".  As much as I hate to say it, and as much as I disagree with the lengths the Republicans have gone to to win races in the last decade, there's some truth to that.

            I'm not saying we break any laws.  For God's sake, don't break any laws.  Keep the Republicans as the party of crooks.  Let's just use the system that's in place.

            Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. Time to pony up and do the right thing.

            by Capt America on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Of course if we had closed primaries, Hillary (9+ / 0-)

    would already have locked up the nomination.  I am in the beware of meddling camp.  I do not think we should be trying to game the other side's primaries, as there are too many problems that can come back to bite us later.

  •  WWRD? What Would Republicans Do? (4+ / 0-)

    Does anyone doubt they'd run a full-fledged 527-funded GOTV effort on the ground?

    I can live with doubt and uncertainty. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. -- Richard Feynman

    by Jimdotz on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:33:25 AM PST

  •  Great Idea (9+ / 0-)

    Take advantage of that open primary.

    You better believe the GOP would have no problem screwing with our candidates any way they could.

  •  Mittney 2008!!! (7+ / 0-)

    Woohooo!!!  Anything that extends the internal conservative chaos on right-wing radio.  I've never had so much fun listening to it.

  •  Open primaries are WHAT? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mystic, discocarp

    Allowing the most extreme (left or right) segment of the voters to pick the candidate is what is stupid. We're going to need independants to help us win the white house so we might as well let them have some say in who our nominee is going to be. In fact in CA we have the best of both worlds (for democrats) - the republicans have a closed primary so they'll be choosing the most extreme conservative but the democrats have an open primary so we'll be choosing someone with more popular appeal.

    conscietious objector in the battle of the sexes

    by plymouth on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM PST

  •  for years and years, hundreds of Onions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigOkie, David Boyle, Clem Yeobright

    I've been searching for an example of ironic voting. This is it. Please do it; among other things, it will help my book project along nicely.

  •  #3 (0+ / 0-)

    #3 is why I'm an indie. Your words are hollow.

  •  Shorter post: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    markw, anna shane

    Another interesting approach to derailing Hillary Clinton.  

    Whatever else happens, this campaign is going to be textbook.  

    She showed in New Hampshire that she can singlehandedly take on the Media, the blogsphere, a two vs. one gang up, and STILL win!!  I am amazing proud of this woman.

    Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

    by ghost2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM PST

  •  No One's Voting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, Far and Wide

    This is a stupid crusade. The Michigan primary, if it indeed stays Clinton-only with no delegates counting towards nomination, is such a total travesty that it can't lead to anything good. At best, no Democrats will turn out to vote for anyone, as the Democratic Party has totally disenfranchised them in the feud between the state Party and the national. At worst, they'll turn out, see the insane ballot, and hate on the Democratic Party.

    And then, in the general election, they'll vote against the Democrat in simple revenge. Others will vote that way in sympathy, too, when they hear. Not just in Michigan. I wouldn't be surprised to see outrage over this idiotic disenfranchisement hand Republicans hundreds of thousands of votes.

    And if you're also promoting Democrats to vote Romney now, you're just encouraging them to do it again in November.

    This "Democrats for Romney" campaign is the depths of idiocy. Stop compounding the official Democratic suicide campaign with your private one.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM PST

  •  Re: traditional liberals vs. movement progressive (9+ / 0-)

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Thos who do not want to run with the big dogs should just stay on the porch.

  •  Quesiton abotu primaries (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mystic, discocarp

    What about independents? Should independents get to vote in either if they choose or should independents be required to sit out primaries altogether and simply take what's handed to them in the GE?

    I'm talking people with no party affiliation at all.

    "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

    by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM PST

    •  As I've been told around here (0+ / 0-)

      As I've been told around here, I should shut up and let the dems pick their candidate. Then I should shutup and vote for that candidate whether or not I like him/her.

    •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

      If a person cares enough about who is nominated for a particular party they should join that party.

      Otherwise, you are saying 'I don't care enough to work for a particular party or donate to it but I want to have a say in who they choose'

      •  Cool (0+ / 0-)

        you're telling me to go to the other party.

        That's how I feel about it, any way.

        I was a member of the party. I left it in 2005 in disgust.

        "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

        by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:19:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so what's the problem? (0+ / 0-)

          You don't like the party, so why do you want to vote in Democratic primaries?  I don't understand why you think you should be entitled to do so.  

          The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

          by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I want the liberty to choose which primary I vote (0+ / 0-)


            But if I'm not welcome to vote in the Democratic Primary, which would eb my first choice, I'm fine with walking over to the other side of the aisle if that's where you really want me to go.

            It's tougher to change that side of the aisle, but I can't do much to change this side of the aisle any way.

            "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

            by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:43:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the point is to prevent gaming the system (0+ / 0-)

              It's not about squelching your personal vote, it's about about making it difficult for strategic, partisan voters from tying the hands of the opposing party.  If you can propose a solution that does not involve closed primaries, I'm sure you'd find a receptive audience.  

              The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

              by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Like I said, no problem (0+ / 0-)

                Don;'t expect me to vote for any Democrats.

                Just saying...

                "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

                by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  ok (0+ / 0-)

                  sorry we couldn't bend over backwards to accommodate you.

                  The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

                  by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:59:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not a problem (0+ / 0-)

                    You're just telling me to take a long hard look at every candidate on the ballot and not simply vote a straight Democratic ballot like I did in 2006.

                    Pretty simple answer. Thanks.

                    "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

                    by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:07:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't know what you expect (0+ / 0-)

                      I told you the reason that people prefer closed primaries.  You interpreted that as some sort of affront and offered no constructive solutions.  But hey, if it causes you to vote with an open mind, I'm glad to have played a role.

                      The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

                      by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:13:51 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Correct. (0+ / 0-)

                      You should take a look at every candidate on the ballot.  If you become a Democrat then you get the bonus of voting in the primaries, having a say in which candidate gets the nomination.  Otherwise, just wait and see who WE nominate and decide between that person and the person THEY nominate.

    •  Only registered Democrats (0+ / 0-)

      Only registered Democrats should get to vote in party primaries. Independent/decline to state should not be allowed to vote in either party's primary.

      If you want a voice in choosing the Democratic candidate, join the party. It isn't like you have to get a tatoo on your forehead or anything.

      8/29 changed everything Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10

      by wsexson on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:47:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fine (0+ / 0-)

        If that's how Democrats feel abnout my independent vote, I think I'll just walk on over to the other side of the aisle.

        In California, Republicans tell independents exactly what you are saying, you must be a registered Republican to participate in our primary. The Democrats welcome the independent to their primary. so independents still have a choice to participate in at least one set of primaries. I wonder how much good that does teh Democratic Party in California.

        In NJew Hampshire, Republcians must vote in the GOP primary and Democrats must vote in the Democratic primary, but independents get to choose which one they wnat.

        I;'ll stay indepnedent, but your attitude does indicate to me I will ahve to, after the primaries, carefully consider which candidate I will vote for. And as an independent, I'll not take party affiliation into account. Especially since the party I felt most attracted to has demonstrated it doesn't want anything to do with me.

        "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

        by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:52:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hauzzahs! to everything you said (0+ / 0-)

    although I reserve the right to call you a bigot in the future based on something someone who make think like you may have said about someone I don't know...because that is the DKos way!

    To Dare is to Do!...Tottenham Hotspur slogan

    by randyhauser on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM PST

  •  No mere spork have I! (13+ / 0-)

    No, for I come to do battle with a geeky titanium spork!

    Titanium Spork

    Bring it on!

    •  ....and I say.,.. (0+ / 0-)

      It's about "tine" we gave the GOP a big case of heartburn by muddying their waters.  

      After all, they've used everything from caging, to having their "register to vote" people sign up new voters and then dump all the Democratic registrants, to trying to scare off minority voters from voting at all or telling them election day is on another day or their polling place has moved, to trying to force ID systems which disenfranchise Democrats primarily when there is not sign of any rampant voter fraud anywhere, push polling by phone, phone bank jamming, if the suggestion is we LEGALLY help foment a little turmoil by urging Michigan Democrats to LEGALLY vote for Romney in the GOP primary, then I say....

      I have absolutely no qualms about doing so.

      Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

      by dweb8231 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Again, an AMEN from Me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, Joes Steven

    Totally right on all counts.

    Shameless Suck-Up DTH

  •  Just joined the Facebook version (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Point #4 (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with this diary overall, but disagree with the idea that only party member should be able to nominate.  I have not seen much to indicate that crossover votes have ever made much of a difference and the increase in the number of voters in the last two primaries indicates to me that the Democrats have benefited from the open primaries.  As an independent, I would usually be able to vote in the primary I choose, but I just do not buy the last arguement.  

  •  My biggest problem with this (2+ / 0-)

    is that he is clearly No. 2 on the list of "don't do a thing to possibly help this man become president" candidates, behind Giuliani.

    I thought when D'amato took the GOP nomination in 1980 that Holtzman would skate to victory.

    I thought when Ev Mecham upset Burton Barr in the GOP primary that Arizona would keep the governor's mansion.

    I thought there was no way in bloody hell that Mister Shrub could be taken seriously as a presidential candidate.

    I'm all for GOP clusterfuck, but worry in the end that it will be the Dems and the US that are fucked.

    Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

    by textus on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:38:12 AM PST

  •  Should I Blush Over How Much I Love This? (9+ / 0-)

    I realized, reading this, that I am a movement progressive. I tried being a yellow dog Democrat. But many of my votes bought me R-lite.

    The former believe that politics is a high-minded debate about ideas, the latter have seen movement conservatives use every tool at their disposal to steal power and cling to it. The problem is, politics matter, and so does the winner of elections. You can't bring a spork to a gun fight, because like Florida 2000, we lose every time. And while some may feel proud their personal ethics weren't compromised and that we "took the high road" through the recount battle, how many thousands of soldiers and Iraqis wish that Democrats had fought a little harder for Gore's victory?

    Those people are dead because we did not fight on the ground in FL. Let's not repeat this.

  •  Open Primaries are NOT stupid (5+ / 0-)

    Why should I be required to declare my intention to any party? Why should I have any loyalty whatsoever to the democratic or republican party?

    When it comes to a primary, you should be able to vote for whichever candidate you want as far as I'm concerned. Hell, I wish you could vote in both primaries.

    •  Primaries (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick, Phoenix Woman, OH 09 Dem

      are intended so you can vote for your party's candidate.  If you are not part of the party (or any party), then you get to wait until the general election to vote.

      "A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

      by ramjet on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Government run primaries (in general) are silly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It doesn't make sense to have the government perform the function of a political party (selecting a candidate).   Let the parties organize their own primaries, do their own counting, and make their own rules, and be done with it.

      As it stands, there's a mish-mash of strange rules and gamesmanship that takes place without any cogent and reasonable overseeing authority.  (That's why we see the running-forward of primaries and so on.)

      Moreover, it irks me, as a taxpayer, to be subsidizing the election machines of the major parties by paying for the running of their primaries.

      While Iowa and New Hampshire are reasonable choices for early primaries, it's absurd to think that these individual states should have sovereign authority about which order primaries take place in on a national scale.  (Why should the rest of the nation care about New Hampshire or Iowa state law?)

    •  The various parties each pick candidates (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      R Rhino from CT4

      from which the entire electorate will make a choice.

      You should join with whomever you choose and participate in selecting a candidate.

      Open primaries are landmines.  

      Kos has already pointed out how the Rs chose Wallace as MI's D candidate in 72 - that can happen any time there is an open primary.

      You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

      by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:50:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too bad "None of the Above" isn't on the ballot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe

    The Goldberg Principle - "You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words."

    by myiq2xu on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM PST

  •  Recommended at (3+ / 0-)

    To summarize, this isn't a vote for Romney. It's a vote for "clusterfuck".

    if, of course, I could recommend front-page stories.

    Personally, I like open primaries - it gives me something to do at the start of the year. But, whatever.

    I will point out the Democratic primary in California is open, while the Republican one is not - so the best antidote for them doing this to the Democrats in California is to make sure they still have a race to fight out other words, do it to them first in Michigan.

    But hey, that's just my 1 1/2 cent Canadian.

  •  Open Primaries (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    Not every state has registration by party, such as Washington. Perhaps in those states party caucuses work best.

  •  Stupid idea (8+ / 0-)

    Yes, let's keep Romney in the race.  A loss in Michigan finishes him.  But let's keep him going.  A win puts him right back in the mix.  And since he has successfully pandered himself into being the right-wing establishment's favorite candidate, he still could win the nomination.  And then, since Republicans have won most of the presidential contests the last 40 years, maybe he'll win in November.  Then everyone can say:


    End this nonsense once and for all.

    If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

    by Paleo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:40:30 AM PST

    •  You spend a lot of time worrying about axes (2+ / 0-)

      falling and your being blamed for it, don't you?

      Come into the water above your ankles - you might like it!

      You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

      by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:51:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since 1980 (and 2004 renewed the effect) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        a lot of liberals (obviously not all) seem to have internalized the idea that no matter what we do, it's always bad news for us, it'll backfire, and we can never win (yes, that's an exaggeration, but not by much).

        Regime change begins at home: Vote Democratic. (Economic: -7.88 Social: -6.31)

        by R Rhino from CT4 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:00:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excellent analysis. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          R Rhino from CT4

          I feel that way often.

          Who predicted the Rs would take Kerry's great strength, his decorated service in Viet Nam, and make it a liability?

          Who could have predicted that Americans would ridicule a man's wounds because the projectile was a quarter inch to one side or the other of being fatal?

          But, know what? It makes me meaner, not meeker!

          You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

          by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:08:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why does a loss in Michigan finish him? (0+ / 0-)

      I've seen a few people assert that, but I don't understand why.  Romney is winning the delegate race right now.  He has 24 to 2nd place Huck's 18.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:07:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why (0+ / 0-)

        He can't win a state in his back yard.  Then he loses the state where his father was governor.  Where's he going to win if he can't win these states?

        If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

        by Paleo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 05:08:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ewww..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Far and Wide

    and he'll sell out his kids (the way he's selling out their inheritance)

    Selling out their inheritance???? Is this the level of puerile argument Mr. Moulitsas has descended to? I hate Romney with as much passion as anyone else here - for many reasons, but none more well encapsulated than his wanting to double down on Gitmo - but this is such an imbecilic argument! His kids were guaranteed their inheritance when they were born? I guess you must be cursing Paris Hilton's grandfather for selling out her and her sister's inheritance to charity also, no? And what about Bill and Melinda Gates - how dare they squander all their daughter's inheritance on education, health, and third world causes!

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by Suvro on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM PST

  •  So basically (5+ / 0-)

    "The Ends Justify the Means."

    Not saying that it's right or wrong in this particular endeavor, but that's the message I'm getting.

    Politics is the deliberation of one's moral enterprise.

    by Omen on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:41:39 AM PST

  •  Kos turned me into a Concerned Troll! (8+ / 0-)

    and I don't know if I will get better.

    This type of behavior is something I don't want to associate with. It's exactly the same kind of destructive behavior we've seen from the right for decades. I don't care how easy it is. I don't care how stupid the system is. I don't care if the right has used this tactic on Democrats.

  •  Vote Dodd, to stop Telco immuity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hopeully, Michigan's Senators get a ssage.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
    Court certified Marijuana Expert

    by ben masel on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM PST

  •  This is no sin. (7+ / 0-)

    Go forth and meddle, legally.

    I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

    by labradog on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM PST

  •  If I had a vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sagebrush Bob

    I would vote for Allan Keyes.

    Because if anything, I want his crazy message given more attention in the media and tied around the neck of the Republican Party.

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -- Thomas Jefferson [-4.25, -5.33]

    by GTPinNJ on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:43:05 AM PST

  •  I can't believe you had to explain all that -- (6+ / 0-)

    Lefties are supposed to be the smart ones.

  •  Michigan's Mitt shenanigans! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle
  •  the very sad thing for those of us in MI (5+ / 0-)

    ...we desperately could use the nation's attention turned our way.  Our economy is one of the worst in the country.

    We deserved to have our problems heard and highlighted just as much as any other state.

    No one is standing up for us and now we don't even have the luxury of being pandered to for a few weeks.

  •  Marty McFly needed no gun to beat Mad Dog Tannen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Democrats are the hero of the story.

  •  I agree..... but (0+ / 0-)

    Ok, I agree with this theory.  I went to law school in Michigan and have urged many people I know there to vote for Romney.  I think that Kos is correct about the "clusterfuck" that will ensue with 5 different possible candidates winning the first 5 different states.  However, the more I think about it, the more I think that this "clusterfuck" effect will benefit Rudy.  Doesn't this play into his strategy?  And, IMO, he is the strongest general election adversary.  So maybe this is not such a good idea.  Any thoughts?

  •  Still disagree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Boyle, Far and Wide

    You can get bloody fighting and not stoop to their level.  You can help to change this flawed open primary.  You can find out who is organizing these republicans to vote in the Dem Primary and out them in a most unflattering way to hurt their base.  You can fight and win with a spork in a knife battle.  Some examples of this are leaders like Ghandi, MLK, etc.  In the end, when you win like this, everyone on the fence joins your side and sometimes even when you loose the battle you win.

    •  The GOP must learn that acts have... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dragoneyes, gsenski


      If people had actually read Kos' earlier diary, and processed it (instead of immediately going into Ignore Info I Don't Like mode), they'd know that the Republicans have constantly gamed the MI Democratic primaries.  Constantly.

      Want to make them stop?  Make them know that the Dems can fight back.  Otherwise, ban open primaries.

      Because if the Michigan Dems do as the purity people here suggest -- refuse to either close the primaries or crossover to keep McCain from winning them -- then the message we send to the Republicans is this:

      "Hi, we're stupid.  We're going to let you game our primaries and we not only won't do a thing to stop you, we won't even fight back.  Thank you sir, may we have another?"

      •  I did not say "don't fight back" (0+ / 0-)

        I did not even say, "don't fight back in a brutal ugly way".  I am all for letting them have it in the most brutal ugly way possible.  I did say, "don't check your ethics at the door.".  There is a difference.

    •  I just...I... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You can find out who is organizing these republicans to vote in the Dem Primary and out them in a most unflattering way to hurt their base.

      This just says everything about all of you guys who don't support this don't understand it, the Repubicans, the dynamic, what "fighting" is, how politics really works.  It's no wonder we never win.  Ghandi and MLK would totally approve of this approach.  It's non-violent, it's legal and it's effective.
      This conversation is just getting me so frustrated.  Guys, how can our team win when you guys don't understand good play calling when you see it?

      •  What? (0+ / 0-)

        I have read Ghandi's Biograph and have never heard of him doing anything this ethically challenged.  He won though the will of numbers that would not be broken.  Site an example.

        •  "Ethically Challenged" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Dan667, how is this ethically challenged? It's non-violent, it's legal and it's effective. If the GOP doesn't want Michigan voters to vote in their primary they would close it.  Given that is the case on what ethical grounds does the GOP have any right to dictate on what terms someone votes for the candidates?  MLK and Gandhi consistently broke the law to get at injustice (for instance when Gandhi went to the sea to make salt) and used their enemies tactics against them, even to the point of putting their own people in serious jeapordy.  Many seriously questioned their moral standing for doing so.  You may have read about Gandhi, but clearly you didn't learn his lessons.

          •  interesting comments (0+ / 0-)

            But the intent of Ghandi's march was to prevent inequality (they disobeyed the salt law to futher their goal for british independence).  This is about sticking it to the republicans.  A protest is different than a dirty trick.  If everyone went and voted a write down for obama in the rep primary I would support that.  I understand the priniciple of Ghandi (and MLK) just fine, we just have different views on what they are.

  •  Kos (10+ / 0-)

    you didn't address the main objection.

    Voting 'uncommitted' in the Democratic primary denies delegates to the Clinton campaign.  And those delegates could come into play, despite the DNC's current position.  

    If you do not support Clinton's campaign, a far better use of your vote than a Romney vote, is a vote for 'uncommitted'.  

    And even if you like Clinton, it hardly seems fair for her to win all the delegates from Michigan because she didn't go along with the other candidates in taking her name off the ballot.

    •  I thought that the delegates (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a wolf raised by boys

      weren't being counted from Michigan and Florida.  Am I incorrect, yet again?

      My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  they (7+ / 0-)

        are not supposed to be counted, but if it comes down to a convention fight, there will be a brawl over whether to seat those delegates.

        •  I believe there might be (5+ / 0-)

          a brawl, but the bottom line is, Edwards and Obama withdrew from Michigan believing the delegates would not be counted.  It would be a catastrophic mistake to seat those delegates.

          My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  they (0+ / 0-)

            will be seated.  The only way they will not be seated is if they actually matter AND Obama (or Edwards) can prevent them from being seated.

            •  Do you have confirmation (0+ / 0-)

              of this assertion?

              My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

              by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Off the top of my head (0+ / 0-)

                I don't have a link, but people in the know are on the record as saying that both the Michigan and Florida delegates will eventually be seated.  But that is premised on the nomination being in the bag for some single candidate.  If the nomination is up for grabs, then it will mean a fight.

                And, of course, it pales in significance, but the delegates do more than vote for the nominee, they also work on the platform.

                •  This is potentialy (0+ / 0-)

                  very big and would change everything but how comes not even a whisper is coming from anywhere else. The Michigan primary is now a beauty contest and little more on our side of the fence at least.

                  The end game is the presidency not the nomination

                  by stevej on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:41:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Too many hypotheticals (0+ / 0-)

          This position is terribly flawed because it's based on assumptions that may very well not come to pass.  Plus, what would ensure that those delegates go to the right candidates?

          The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

          by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            vote for Romney campaign isn't based on too many hypotheticals?

            •  No. (0+ / 0-)

              There will be an actual winner in the Republican primary for Michigan, not "well...MAYBE the delegates will be counted after all...and MAYBE they'll go to my preferred candidate although there's no guarantee that they'll do so...and MAYBE that will be enough to tip the balance of delegates in that candidate's favor...and MAYBE there won't be a Democratic civil war when the party changes the ground rules mid-course, and suddenly delegates with no accountability throw the nomination to a candidate other than Clinton."

              The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

              by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:58:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think... (0+ / 0-)

              you could fairly argue that Kos is basing his suggestion on a dynamic that ALREADY exists and that a Mitt win would merely continue, whereas the delegate thing seems less certain.  Also, the chances that HRC will get less than 50% of the vote versus "uncommitted" seems very unlikely at this stage.  So, to recap: If we vote "uncommitted" we may effect where the delegates are placed, but this is less likely AND we miss out on a ripe opportunity to f-up the GOP primary.  I think it's a matter of which collective set of hypotheticals is most sure to have a positive outcome.  I would also add that the Dems hoisting Mitt and stirring the GOP ant nest would play very well nation-wide to a LOT of people who hate Chuckles McSmirksalot and his party and will take sincere pleasure in our little prank.  While the narrative around the "uncommitted" vote mostly looks negative, esp. if HRC wins the nomination. Anyway, you get the general direction I'm going in....

      •  Don't know about Fla, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a wolf raised by boys

        but right now the party has said that Michigan is denied the right to have voting delegates at the convention.

        More funny hats and buttons left for me.

        "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

        by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:49:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  you are correct as of right now, but (0+ / 0-)

        the DNC will almost certainly change their mind and seat the delegates later if:

        (1) the candidate who wins those delegates is comfortably in the lead by the time of the convention and those delegates make no difference, or

        (2) the person who wins those delegates is way behind by the time of the convention and those delegates make no difference.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:57:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In either scenario (0+ / 0-)

          Michigan Democratic votes will be essentially worthless.  I agree with your analysis, which is why the "uncommitted" movement makes no sense to me.

          The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

          by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:59:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is to keep Hillary from claiming a victory (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            in a primary where she is basically uncontested.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:05:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  isn't that a bit juvenile? (0+ / 0-)

              Voting "uncommitted" just to bruise a candidate's ego?  You're assuming she'll get some sort of bounce from an uncontested primary.  Were she to crow about such a "victory," it would only leave her vulnerable to attacks by the other candidates.

              Assuming that she were to be the Democratic nominee, is that something you want out there in the general?

              The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

              by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's to keep (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rick, TrueBlueMajority

                Senator Clinton from winning on the virtue of this tainted primary.  If she wins Michigan, and the delegate count gets close at the convention, she may try to force the DNC to seat the Michigan delegates (and, of all the candidates, she definitely has the most pull with the party leadership) and secure the nomination in an undemocratic fashion.  This would kill party morale and hamstring Clinton coming out of the gate.

                If uncommitted beats Clinton, we all but eliminate the risk of that scenario.  I'd rather take care of my house before I start worrying about what the other guy is doing.

                •  Were the delegates to play ANY role in the nom... (0+ / 0-)

                  pro or con, all hell would break loose.  People seem to assume that the "unconfirmed" delegates would vote in accordance with the will of MI voters (which was never expressed, since they didn't actually vote for an identified candidate).  How would that be fair?  If they threw their votes to Obama, would that be fair?  How do they know the "uncommitted" voters intended to vote for Obama?  How would they know if "uncommitted" voters voted for Edwards?  What if some voters intended to vote for Obama, and some for Edwards?  What if Hillary actually would have won a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes?  

                  A vote for "uncommitted" is a vote for the nomination to be decided by an undemocratic wildcard thrown into the mix at the Democratic Convention.

                  The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

                  by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:38:55 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The other option in that hypothetical (0+ / 0-)

                    is to let Sen. Clinton win more delegates.

                    Assuming the Michigan delegates will get seated, voting in the GOP primary effectively increases Clinton's delegate take (assuming you weren't going to vote for Clinton anyway).  Thus, by voting "uncommitted", you are potentially decreasing her delegate count.

                    As a voter who feels that Clinton is our worst candidate, I'd rather her have potentially less delegates than certainly more.

                    (The real solution to all of this is to just not seat the Michigan delegates, but that is predicated on the DNC having a backbone, which I have long since learned not to depend on.)

                    •  Let's run with that for just one moment... (0+ / 0-)

                      How many delegates are we talking, here?  Suppose Clinton goes from 65% of the vote down to 55%, or even 45%.  How many delegates is that?  

                      The nomination will not come down to a handful of delegates.  If it did, and MI were seated, everyone would be screaming bloody murder three months before the election.  It would be completely unfair to all parties (even Clinton - she would not be in a position to campaign and thereby increase her vote totals).  The MI delegates will only be seated if the nomination's in the bag, if then.

                      The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

                      by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:21:04 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  she will claim a bounce (0+ / 0-)

                look at the mileage Romney is getting out of winning meaningless Wyoming.

                Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:30:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  what bounce? (0+ / 0-)

                  Where are the polls showing Wyoming boosting Romney?

                  The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

                  by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  not to bruise her ego, to slow her campaign n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:30:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  You're Right (0+ / 0-)

        No, you're right.  Although, I think there is a chance they could be reinstated or some weird thing.

      •  But an Uncommitted Victory (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Or even a close margin influences the debate. Imagine the headlines of, "Clinton loses to None of the Above in Michigan."

        Last poll: Clinton 45, Uncommitted 30. Taken before Uncommitted's campaign started in earnest.

        •  Imagine she beats "uncommitted" in a close race (0+ / 0-)

          Couldn't she turn around and say, "I just beat my two closest competitors combined"?  I don't see how a close loss benefits the other candidates at all.  

          The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

          by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:17:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Her own campaign chair in Michigan (0+ / 0-)

            Says that anything less than 60% is a "black eye." Also, the media expects her to win because she is the only one on the ballot. The media writes stories when unexpected things happen. Uncommitted winning would be unexpected. And a good day for the prefix "un" I suppose.  

            •  They'll revise expectations. (0+ / 0-)

              Sure, less than 60% is a black eye when you're not running against anyone, but now there's a spirited movement against her.  She'll spin it as a victory, were that to be the case.  The media will incorporate that narrative, too.

              The closer the vote becomes, the more likely a Clinton MI victory will appear to be a legitimate victory.

              The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

              by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Stop spreading this myth... (4+ / 0-)

      Uncommitted delegates are just that.  Uncommitted.

      They can vote for Hillary.
      They can vote for Dodd.
      They can vote for whoever they feel like at the nomination they are not a vote for 'Anyone but Hillary'.

      They could very well end up breaking for Hillary in the end.

      Essentially your saying "I'll let someone else pick for me."

      You might as well not be voting.

      At least with Mitt I'll know where my vote is going.

      And unlike I suspect 80% of the people in this thread, I actually live in MI.

      "Ever get the feeling you're in the wrong alternate universe?"

      by Siberian on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  At first I was a bit (4+ / 0-)

    squeamish -- probably because once raised Catholic, guilt is imbedded in your genes.

    Then I thought about how many English royals I've lived through over the past almost 700 years and said, hey, I think this guy is on to something.  Lots of those guys used swords, maces, arrows and later gunpowder.  

    There's a time to take the high road, and there's a time to get into the trenches and get a little dirty.  The more Romney can spend down his war chest and pay for negative ads, the more I like it.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM PST

  •  Kos, I'm afraid I disagree. (4+ / 0-)

    Let's not encourage him.  I do like your idea of pushing him to spend more of his money on nasty ads, because it just shows more people who he is and I would hope it would rebound against him in the end.  But I don't want to do anything to help him even in a non-serious way.  I guess it just falls into the be-careful-what-you-wish-for category.  Some angels might not be paying quite enough attention somewhere and not realize that you were just kidding.  

    No, no to Romney.  Vote for McCain.  At least we could live with him.

    Huckabee would be an entertaining choice, but he should probably be encouraged to apply his talents to late-night television.  Or the pulpit.

  •  This is one of the few times I agree with Kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, kimg, gsenski

    "It's a vote for "clusterfuck"."
    Well said!!

    I am very much in agreement about open primaries. BUt, IMHO, I think all primaries, as currently practiced, are STOOPID!! They are nothing more than grand money laundering schemes.

    There has to be a more equitable way to pick candidates.

    Duh, Gee Tennesse

    by CEMan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:45:32 AM PST

  •  Excellent Idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, gsenski

    Voting for Romney in Michigan is a brilliant idea. He has connections there, so it would be a nice gesture.. plus he is so totally devoid of any personal principals when it comes to being a politician... that in an ironic way,, if he thought he could actually win as a Democrat, he would run as one, so let him win as one.

  •  I predict a typical 3-Day lag (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, Joes Steven

    before this story hits the corporate media. And then it'll be a storm of faux outrage at such tactics from the GOoPers and the talking heads on TV.

    I gotta go with kos on this one. I've voted in GOP primaries before down here in Georgia when our party's nominee was sewn up. Lets face it, whatever is bad for the Republic party is good for America. So it's our patriotic duty to f' with their process.

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM PST

  •  if we want to cause chaos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liberte, Sagebrush Bob, twinpeaks

    why aren't we encouraging people to vote for Thompson?

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM PST

  •  Primary raiders: be careful what you wish for (8+ / 0-)

    Half a century ago, Wisconsin Democrats decided to raid the Republican senate primary by voting for whom they considered the least-electable candidate. His name: Joe McCarthy.

    "What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies?"--Frank Rich.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM PST

    •  Again (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, Spathiphyllum

      Who is voting for someone they consider "least electable"? That has nothing to do with this discussion.

      •  Well, you referred to Willard as "the worst" (0+ / 0-)

        One would think that "unelectable" is one element of being "the worst".

        "What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies?"--Frank Rich.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:10:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not speaking for Kos, but (0+ / 0-)

          I think he meant the worst situation, not the worst candidate. And the worst situation would be having multiple frontrunners, each of whom have won a state, all throwing their money and mud at one another. Huck wins IA, McCain wins NH, Romney wins MI and their campaign is thrown into utter chaos, with a down and dirty fight to the nomination. Huck or McCain wins in MI, their poll numbers go up in SC, they win there too, and the race is over. Far better for someone else to win, thus fracturing the momentum and stretching the fight on towards infinitum.

          This is made all the merrier by the fact that the GOP frontrunners actually disagree on big issues of policy, and many of their supporters can't vote for "the other guy," while in our race, a lot of it has to do with style and generational conflict versus actual policy differences.

          •  Point well taken (0+ / 0-)

            I'd like to see the Republican cat fight last all the way to the convention.

            It's too bad the Republicans don't allocate delegates on a proportional basis. That would all but guarantee at least four candidates, none of them close to a majority, when the GOP convention opens.

            "What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies?"--Frank Rich.

            by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Anything that blocks McCain is good (0+ / 0-)

        Of all the GOPers, McCain and Rudy (who's now shot in the primaries) have the best chances in the general.  National polling has shown that for months now.  He beats Hillary with eases, and dead-heats Obama; the only one he doesn't either beat or tie is Edwards, who beats him by nearly two-digit margins.

        Romney, on the other hand, loses conclusively even to Hillary.

  •  Uh oh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marjo, David Boyle, Sagebrush Bob

    Thom Hartman on Air America just called attention to this thread! He was not in favor of it though the called the discussion 'interesting'.

  •  If #3 isn't an endorsment of Clinton vs Obama... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I don't know what is. In fact its pretty much the only reason to support Clinton.

    Win first, ask questions later.

    What did you do with the cash Joe?

    by roguetrader2000 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM PST

  •  Neocons, theocons, and CEOcons. (7+ / 0-)

    I like CEOcon better than "corporate con" myself.

  •  Just vote for Hillary! (0+ / 0-)

    Michigan voters have a great Democratic candidate who cared enough to get on the ballot. Those voters should recognize this and cast a ballot for Sen. Clinton.

  •  All right, you've got me. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, kimg, TampaCPA, liberte, gsenski

    Mitt For Michigan!

    I admit it, your plan is a good one.

    by kate mckinnon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:48:56 AM PST

  •  The primary system is ridiculous. Result: this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, TampaCPA, liberte

    At this point, the only thing the primary system measures is the relative ability of candidates to most skillfully screw with the primary system. Screwing with the system is morally a-okay -- EVERYONE is screwing with it, as hard as they can, because that is the only way to interface with it. Even things we take for granted -- most obviously, putting disproportionate emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire -- should be considered screwing with the system.

    This plan is awesome. I wish I could vote in Michigan.

  •  Why am I not a "movement progressive" (5+ / 0-)

    if I reject this ridiculous idea?

    I agree on the "spork" issue when it comes to strong messaging, infrustructure, echo-chambers, etc.

    But engaging in spoiler balloting, when every elections political scientist will tell you it has had no historical statistical basis?  Theres no evidence it ever happens.

    And further that the support for this could be so small as to render its statistical effect meaningless - causing the parties involved to have essentially wasted their vote on a lark, rather than voting their issues and conscience?

    Tell me again why this is a good idea? And how it is possibly feasible to attain your desired result?

    Our vote is our most precious right; arent we really fighting to ensure that?

  •  KOS, It's the economy stupid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, baltimoremom, David Boyle

    Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to recent developments but the economy is going to be the number one issue in November.

    Americans are going to choose between a Democrat and a Republican who is percieved the most capable to handle the economic issues that face everyday working men and women. An empty promise of hope or a desire to stick it to the establishment will have nothing to do with the final results.

    It is entirely a pocketbook election from here on out.

    And on that front Romney will have a distinct advantage over Edwards or Obama. You don't need to help him win the nomination. He may very well win it on his own.

    OT, only Hillary Clinton, being identified with the record breaking era of peace and prosperity of last Democrat administration, is in any position to overcome the built in advantage Romney has.

  •  So young yet so brilliant. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, OutOfManyOne, liberte, twinpeaks, gsenski

    C'mere kos.  I got another big grandma kiss for that forehead.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM PST

  •  Not feeling it (4+ / 0-)

    I say punt on this idea. If a Mitt win in Minesota garners additional joementum for Mitt, and it would, and our beloved media continues to focus on the horse race and not on positions/records, it could very well be a piece in the puzzle that gets him back in the race.

    Plus, El Rushbo has repeatedly lambasted both McCain and the Huckster.  Which leaves Mitt??  The GOP machinery is going to be lining up behind Romney big time. I suspect Luntz's fake focus group was an indicator. We dont need to do Romney any favors.

  •  I'm conflicted, which almost never happens! (0+ / 0-)

    I hate open primaries, so the question is whether I should express that hatred by subverting them.  I don't live in Michigan so I guess I don't need to have an opinion on this.  But at the end of the day, if Kos thinks it's a good idea I would be willing to give it a go...and also at that proverbial end of the day, since I would be more than willing to swift-boat the Republican nominee (and I'm on record as saying Huckabee should be institutionalized and Republican talk-show hosts should be taunted until they get apoplexy), I guess voting in the other party's primary in an open-primary state would be a pretty modest transgression.

    "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM PST

    •  Letting Kos make up your mind (0+ / 0-)

      But at the end of the day, if Kos thinks it's a good idea I would be willing to give it a go...

      Whatever you decide about this, please don't decide to go along with it just because one person (even Kos) says it's a good idea.

      We don't need to be sheep-le around here. There's already too many like that in this country (especially on the Rethug side).

      Just because I spend time in "Blogostan" doesn't mean that I gave up my citizenship in the real world.

      by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a candidate choice, it's a tactic! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And I'm happy to defer to a tactician about tactics, when I don't have a strong inclination either way.  Believe me, I'm not even voting for the same candidate as Kos :)

        "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

        by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:45:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We should be able to think for ourselves (0+ / 0-)

          Our decisions in life are not limited to picking a candidate.

          Just because I spend time in "Blogostan" doesn't mean that I gave up my citizenship in the real world.

          by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If a decision is relatively trivial, then.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

   makes sense not to spend too much time thinking about it, and it's perfectly sensible to defer to the opinion of someone whom you trust.  I would trust the judgment of the person next to me in the supermarket aisle about whether a brand of clam chowder is delicious, but I wouldn't trust them about what heart surgeon I should use.  This is the clam chowder part, with the advantage that the person next to me has been a chowder aficionado for several years.

            "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

            by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Good Idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liberte, twinpeaks

    This was a good idea yesterday and is a better idea today.  Yuck-a-bee, and the drag-queen from NY who helped make 9/11 happen are both losing ground and that means the McCain machine could roll over all of them shortly if we don't do something.  

    The sooner they start their kiss-and-make-up session the more money and volunteers they will have to go after our dem in the general election.

  •  Absolutely agree; 100% n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, twinpeaks
  •  Sample ad - "I'm in NAMBLA, and I support Mitt!" (5+ / 0-)

    Maybe we can phone bank it, too.

    Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

    by Barry in MIA on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:55:24 AM PST

  •  Chaos and war (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bklynarch, twinpeaks

    is the RepubLicken way.  We are only giving them what they like.  Mitt might win another one for the "Gipper."

  •  Oh, I love this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, twinpeaks

    If I were in Michigan, I'd vote for Romney in a heartbeat.

    It's a great conspiracy: and with the advantage of being only partly theoretical...  Mmmph.

    It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you.

    by Jaime Frontero on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:56:21 AM PST

  •  this is the most FUCKED UP IDEA ever. (6+ / 0-)
  •  You're so wrong--Vote Uncommitted! (10+ / 0-)

    Latest poll (beginning of the month): Clinton 45 Uncommitted 28.

    Uncommitted is running a real campaign. John Coyners and his wife are taking out ads. Bart Stupak is telling the UP to vote for Uncommitted. And Carl Levin is making noise in the paper saying he'll vote for uncommitted.

    Grass roots activists are phone banking and canvassing for Uncommitted. The idea to vote for Uncommitted started on the Michigan netroots and has blossomed from there.

    Meanwhile, Clinton signed a pledge to not campaign in the state.

    It is pretty unlikely, but a "Clinton loses to none of the above," headline would be very good for both Obama and Edwards. It might be Edwards' last chance to stay relevant in the election.

    If a Democrat supports Edwards or Obama, the only candidate is uncommitted.

    And yes, the delegates don't count.; But the way it'd influence the debate. All kos is doing here is undermining the efforts of Michigan grassroots activists that support Edwards and Obama, and for some reason supporting Romney. If Clinton gets the nomination, even Romney can win. Which is why those of us that support other candidates and live in Michigan  should vote for Uncommitted.


  •  Quit picking on sporks. (0+ / 0-)

    What have they ever done to you? And look, they're made of titanium and stuff!

    Seriously, I despise the idea that anyone can manipulate open primary results; but when in Rome...

    It's the only way they'll learn. ;-)

    And I'm an Indy, which means I would have to give up primary voting in Texas - but I'm willing to give that up if it means restoring integrity to the system.

    -6.88 -6.31

    "They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have me doubts about you." -- Garrett Fort

    by Spathiphyllum on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM PST

    •  Oh...and let's hope that if primaries do close... (0+ / 0-) open primary states, they don't pull this crap:

      Officially, Texas has closed primaries. But in practice, any registered voter may vote in the primary of any single party, as long as they have not voted in the primary of another party. Texas's primaries are closed in a less direct way: once a registered voter has in effect declared his or her party affiliation by voting for the nominees in a party's primary, that person cannot participate in the proceedings (for instance, a runoff primary or convention) of another party.

      We get manipulated to death under the guise of being a closed primary.

      -6.88 -6.31

      "They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have me doubts about you." -- Garrett Fort

      by Spathiphyllum on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know about this (5+ / 0-)

    I have pretty serious reservations about Kos' suggestion.  I'm all for being willing to get tough, but not dirty.  This seems a little too sneaky to me and I wouldn't want Republicans turning this around on us.  In Berger v. US, the Supreme Court said that a prosecutor should strike hard blows, but not foul ones.  Leaving aside the question of what the Justice Dept is up to today, this is good advice generally, and I think this trends towards the "foul" side of things.  

  •  Very bad idea -- hurts Obama and Edwards (6+ / 0-)

    There definitely will be a fight to get the Michigan delegates seated.  There is a chance that the Michigan Democratic Party might ultimately cut a deal and and get all or some of its delegates.  

    If the Obama and Edwards folks vote for Uncommitted, it would significantly increase the chance that this potential Michigan delegate slate would go to the convention uncommitted instead of in the Hillary column.

    If you care at all about Obama or Edwards, please vote Uncommitted.

  •  I'll tell you why this is an excellent idea... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crisitunity, twinpeaks
    1.  On MSNBC, Tweety will not know how to spin it, and his head will fucking explode.  And then MSNBC will hire Bobby Riggs, and none would be the wiser.


    1.  Bill Bennett will try and spin it, his head will explode, and then he will go gamble with the proceeds from his Morals book while holding his head, which will be mewling, through the char and the gore, "Double down on eights and aaaaaces" like something from The Re-Animator.
    1.  Keith Olbermann will have a field day.  A veritable day in the field, and it will all be attributable to you, yes you, the happy kossack.
    1.  You can get to vote Republican for once in your life, letting you harmlessly enjoy the dark side.  
    1.  You can never get enough of the phrase "Mittmentum."  
    1.  McCain and Huckabee's heads will explode simultaneously on a split-screen, and Jeff Greenfield will be forced to draw contrived historical analogies between the 1883 presidential contest, polling statistics, and the movie Scanners.
    1.  Because, to quote Billie Holliday, sometimes it feels so good to be bad.  
  •  Kos, please put up a tip jar! (0+ / 0-)

    I mean, I can't rec, can't tip. All I could do was email my niece in Michigan. She wasn't going to vote, but now she might (haven't heard back from her yet).

  •  CONFUSION TO THE ENEMY! (0+ / 0-)


    Rubus Eradicandus Est.

    by Randomfactor on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM PST

  •  MI made this mess, live with it. (3+ / 0-)

    The whole "rigging" of the Michigan Democratic Primary to "uncommitted" or "Romney" is truly a gross distortion of the whole Primary process. I can't say it enough that this whole line of commentary makes me sick to my stomach when I hear it. The whole state screwed up and the politician's that pushed so hard for them to move up their primary should be held severely accountable for it. But to try and dissuade voters from voting for Hillary or pushing them to vote for Romney or Uncommitted to somehow swing the Delegate count or give the GOP more heartburn is totally irresponsible!

    Michagan voters should understand, "they made this mess, so live with it!" But don't drag our Primary process into the mud because you wanted this schedule date. Someone sold you a load of crap and now you are going to make it look even worse by promoting a bullshit candidate like Romney? Or vote against Hillary because you can't stand her getting some delegates? Have we become that petty and cruel that we have to act like the some rabid Republicans?

    I say, let the Primary go as planned and let Michagan live with the wonderful aromatic mess it created. Let it be a lesson to be learned when you let a few politicians talk you into screwing around with our political process in an election year THIS is how it turns out. I know its a bit severe to say, but it was ludicrous at the start of the year when people were crying out for it. Each state sounding worse than the last. They should have argued with the DNC about the schedule for 2012's Primary Date, not 2008.

    Sorry, but I'm not forgiving MI,

    "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

    by Wynter on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:00:22 PM PST

    •  it's the voters who are screwed (0+ / 0-)

      no matter how you cut it, we're out of the game.  I don't care who's to blame.  After months, no YEARS of looking forward to Nov. 2008, after studying candidates, watching debates, etc., we're suddenly "irrelevant."  I hate it.

      Michigan voters deserve better.

      Michigan voters count, too.

      by marjo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I still think this is genius (3+ / 0-)

    Kos is absolutely right.

    This isn't about the high ground or the low ground; it's about standing our ground.

    The question is, do we want to lose righteously, or win pragmatically?


    by OutOfManyOne on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM PST

  •  he'll sell out his kids (0+ / 0-)

    I can't stand Mitt Romney, but the comment "he'll sell out his kids (the way he's selling out their inheritance)" is wrong on two levels. First, it's crap. Even the most rabid right wingers love their families, just the way we do, and secondly, no parent owes their kids and iheritance. Parents raise us, some help pay for education, and we all do what we can, but adult kids (of all political stripes) waiting for their parents to die, just need to learn to provide for themselves and cut the cord of codependance.

    These are the types of personal attacks I normally see on right wing websites. Too bad they're showing up here.

  •  your 4th point is the most important one (0+ / 0-)
  •  my response. (7+ / 0-)
    1. The benefits of keeping Mitt in the race are not that good. Kos, you yourself argue frequently that tough primary fights are good for the candidates in question because it tests their campaign resilience, and draws media attention. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but neither does Mitt staying in the race really hurt the Republicans that much. The primary effect of Mitt winning Michigan would not be damage to the GOP; it would merely help Mitt to get the nomination. Whether or not that's your goal, that's the effect it would have.
    1. Yes the democratic race is irrelevant. But if "uncommitted" gets more votes than Hillary, the pundits will at least mention it as a sign of Hillary's vulnerability. So if you support Hillary, you should vote for her to prevent such an embarrassment, and if you oppose her, you should vote uncommitted.
    1. Ends justifying the means types of arguments make more sense when the end is something substantially beneficial. As stated above, it's not clear to me that keeping Mitt in the race does all that much good.  

    (-3.00, -7.54) Feingold '08 - Because reality is unacceptable.

    by Bundy on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM PST

  •  Your time would be better spent (5+ / 0-)

    getting verifiable voting systems in place so the people's voice could actually be heard than legally manipulating elections yourself.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:02:00 PM PST

  •  I SAY NO! - BIG MISTAKE (4+ / 0-)

    These strategic gambles have a history of back firing. It is like supporting the Taliban to fight the Russians and then have to deal with Osama. Or supporting Irak against Iran and then have to deal with Saddam Hussein. I don't like this. Who knows what a desaster Mitt is going to be.

    I believe the American People have an interest that the best Republican is nominated for the Republican Party, someone who can lead this country more competent then Bush, in case the Democrats loose. The Democrats should win anyway given the global picture, but against the best candidate on the other side. This is an election for the Democrats to loose.

  •  There's nothing wrong with strategic voting. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, kimg, twinpeaks
  •  Open primaries suck. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, kimg

    And this Mitt for Michigan is some seriously funny shit.

    Dirty tricks?  Bwahahaha.  No, what Bush did to McCain in THAT is dirty tricks.

    Well done.

    "I'm voting for John Edwards" - CNN/YouTube GOP Debate Focus Group Republican Voter

    by jre2k8 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM PST

  •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with the idea of closed primaries. I can see where someone with unwavering loyaties to one political party or the other might insist on such an approach.

    I'm an independent who just happens to have voted Democratic since 1988, but I am definitely not a yellow-dog democrat.

    Independents don't get much respect because many of us would actually prefer to forego the partisan rancor.

    You guys spit on Ross Perot and Mike Bloomberg and the like but what your really doing is mostly spitting on independents.

    Of course the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, if they had've been closed party functions, well, my guess is the nomination would essentially be over right now.

    What I further think is that depending on WHO gets their party nominations, Bloomberg runs. The game will change.

    If you don't want the independent vote, just say so. Most of us have been pushed away from the other party; I guess it's not much of a surprise to figure we're not wanted here either.

    •  Going into the Iowa caucuses (0+ / 0-)

      these were the numbers.

      Among Democrats, Clinton is viewed favorably by 80% of Democratic voters, Edwards by 66%, and Obama by 61%.

      Compare those numbers with the preference tracking polls that are posted on the front page here or heck just look at the vote thus far and you can see that you guys don't agree with the majority of democrats, not by a long shot.

    •  If you want to influence a party's direction (0+ / 0-)

      then have the courage (nerve, whatever) to JOIN one.

      Just my $.02....

      •  you mean blindness!!! (0+ / 0-)

        most of the times, it's the lesser of two evils!!!

        •  I'm also (0+ / 0-)

          of the unaffiliated camp, also democrat-voting. But i don't have a problem with closed primaries. I'm generally unhappy with the way individual party politics plays out, so have opted to be independent, but i accept that should mean i don't get to still play party reindeer games. I agree - if you feel like you should have the privilege to take part in the primary process, it is not unreasonable that you should accept the responsibility  and register with that party.

  •  Kos Suggested THIS??? (8+ / 0-)

    I thought you were not one to ASK your audience to BLINDLY follow you to one candidate? But you would ask them to RIG a primary by voting for a Republican instead? You just lost a few points in my view.

    We are not like the GOP. We don't use their low and deceitful methods to win. We vote for issues, and for progress.

    Just my own opinion,

    "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

    by Wynter on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:03:52 PM PST

    •  that's what I originally though. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bartcopfan, twinpeaks, gsenski

      But Kos makes the good point that it's not illegal. If the Repubs are willing to do ILLEGAL things to get elected, we should at least be willing to use all the legal "loopholes" we can to counteract them.

      And, as Kos said, if this stunt causes the loophole to be closed... then the process just got a little better.

      •  Is this Ethical Hacking? NOT. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rick, cph, PointGuard

        It would be more responsible to simply complain to the state DNC about the process than to "exploit" the loophole.

        Its like letting a hacker go free, if he breaks into your computer using an "exploit" in your computers defenses and says, "I just wanted to make a point to show its weakness." It doesn't make your actions any better. Let the GOP keep the mantle of "muckracker of the year".

        "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

        by Wynter on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Heart vs head argument (0+ / 0-)

          the heart of a good progressive says "resist the questionably ethical". But the head says what Kos said, "it sucks but think about what might have happened if we had started thinking this way during the Gore - Bush election. if it means preventing all the abuses of the last 7 years, maybe i'm willing to fight fire with fire. as long as it's not illegal."

          The choice isn't easy, but maybe it's what we need.

        •  it's completely different. (0+ / 0-)

          Hacking into someone's computer is illegal.  Voting for a strategic Republican candidate in an open primary is not.

  •  It's smart on so many levels... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, twinpeaks

    I wish I could vote in Michigan instead of Florida.  At least we could have some fun then.  But we have a closed primary, and the wimpy-ass Dems didn't want to offend the Almighty Iowa and New Hampshire by allowing Florida to actually matter for the first time in 30 years or so.

    Huckleberry was right.  Politics is a blood sport.  Use the weapons you have.

    The meek will inherit the earth, but after the strong get done with, it won't be worth inheriting!

    In an insane society, the sane man would appear insane

    by TampaCPA on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:05:02 PM PST

  •  If you live in Michigan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, twinpeaks

    VOTE FOR MITT....and then take a shower.

    Romney has already pissed off the Repub evangelical crowd, he doesn't stand a chance at getting the GOPer nomination BUT we have to stop old man McCain because there are still to many brain-deads out there who think this crazy old man, who says it would be ok to stay in Iraq for 100 years, is a moderate.

    Michiganers, VOTE FOR MITT!!!...a vote for him is a vote to put a Dem in the White House.

  •  Kos (5+ / 0-)

    You rock!!!  This is so awesome!  I sent an e-mail out to all my Michigan friends to do this.  And they'll tell more friends, and so on, and so on.

    I heart mischief!

  •  I can't see myself voting for a Repug (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, baltimoremom

    so I would not be in a position to recommend anyone else to.

    I called myself a liberal decades before I passed (failed?) this test.  As for liberals not vigorously contesting on issues, using unconventional methods, a walk down memory lane to the '68 riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago might give a more accurate image.  Those protesters were called liberals, among other epithets.

  •  as a michigan dem (8+ / 0-)

    I'll be voting "uncommitted," mostly because I am.(I'm so disappointed that our candidates have not talked about their vision for the Great Lakes region). Moreover, I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out how others would interpret my actions, and you're proposal, Kos, is one that feels like a lot like trying to force a message with very, very little control over it.

    Imagination is the foundation of hope.

    by billy pilgrim on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM PST

  •  Michiganders: run for precinct delegate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, pico, tiredntexas

    If you're disgusted by the ineptitude of the Michigan Democratic Party, do something about it: run for precinct delegate.

    The filing deadline is in May, and all you have to do is go to your local clerk and file an affidavit of candidacy. If you're on the ballot, chances are good that you'll win; there are usually fewer candidates than seats to fill.

    In 2008-09, precinct delegates will vote on county and district officers, including members of the State Central Committee, and then vote for statewide party offices at the state convention in early 2009.

    "What if we could have an election that was not a referendum on either the Clinton or Bush presidencies?"--Frank Rich.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:07:54 PM PST

  •  with all the confusion (0+ / 0-)

    going around on the Dems side. . . nothing of any great substance/impact is going to happen.  I'm betting most think that their vote truly is worthless and plan to stay home anyway.  The whole thing is a big fat travesty.  

    I heard from my MI friends in the Detroit area that Kwame was also in support of voting uncommitted, and said so on local news.  Governor Granholm is not supporting the push to vote uncommitted.  My friend said Kwame was back on the news saying not to vote uncommitted. . . pressure from the Governor??  

    The whole thing is a mess.  I'm having a hard enough time choosing my fav Dem candidate.  Glad that I don't live in MI and feel compelled to choose between GOP and our team.  Good luck, Michigan folks!  Do what you think is best. . .

  •  I see it as a waste of energy best used elsewhere (6+ / 0-)

    Fine, okay, strategery and all that, but so what?  Wouldn't that energy be better used in reaching out to other voters to talk to them about why they might want to vote for a Democratic candidate?

    One of the problems with the GOP is that they became addicted to election pranks and petty frauds in the same way that some people get hooked on crack.  Does it work?  Sure, but it also is a dead end street.  They forgot how to win by reaching out to voters and addressing their needs and now the voters don't give a damn whether the GOP lives or dies.  I'm serious.  People I have known who have been what I call "economic Republicans" are fed up with the GOP.  A lot of them say they are voting for Obama.

    So, fine, if you want to start doing electoral crack then neither I nor anyone else is going to be able to stop you.  But don't try to enlist others in a sideshow.

    •  But Hillary's the only major Dem on the ballot (0+ / 0-)

      She's going to win by default anyway.  (Unless people really waste their votes with an "uncommitted" vote.)

      The time to stump for other Dems was six months ago.  If not earlier.  There's no time for that now.

      On the other hand, crossing over to vote for Romney denies McCain momentum from New Hampshire -- and McCain is, along with Rudy G. (whose campaign is now dead) the only GOP guy who can beat a Dem in the general.  (He beats Hillary easily, Obama not as easily, and loses to Edwards.  Polling's shown that for months now.)

  •  Can we call in fake pizza orders too? ;-) n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    baltimoremom, owlbear1
  •  Um.. ok, vote Ron Paul! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Just to piss off the Fox News people.

  •  ZZZZ (9+ / 0-)

    What a childish campaign Markos.  Congratulations on acting like the Repubs you claim to hate, while endorsing a scheme to circumvent democracy in what amoutns to an orchestrated fraud.  This is how you waste your energy?  When is recess over?

    •  Is it worth it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Markos is correct, we lose if we don't play the game.  They made the rules, we are fools if we don't compete.

      In my eyes, your high minded consternation is sad and a little pathetic.  Maybe even selfish.  It seems you would rather lose an unfair game than win by fighting on their turf.  

      To follow your logic, another 8 years of war, death, destruction is worth not stooping to their level.  Our country might not last that long if we get another War Maker.  What part of that don't you understand? Do you think the other side has ANY problem using any method necessary to win?

      It's true that most people with a liberal mindset abhor what politics has become. But that doesn't change what we have to do to WIN.

      Wake up.  Grow up.

  •  This is the worst idea we've had since John Kerry (8+ / 0-)

    This is a remarkably ill-advised plan.  In fact, if it wasn't Kos who posted it, I'd suspect a Romney campaign rat.

    Romney and McCain are the only Republicans who have a chance in November.  The ONLY ones.  In Michigan, we have the chance to knock one of them out of the race for good.  Not only that, but it's the greater of the two evils.

    If Romney wins the nomination--and being able to use Michigan as a rallying point for a comeback would be a good way for him to make that happen--who knows what might happen?  There could be another 9/11.  Obama/Hillary could be caught with a Girl Scout.  Who knows?  But Romney would then skate into the White House.

    Who cares if we get a couple more weeks of Republican back-stabbing out of this?  The reward isn't worth the risk.  Besides, if we can't win in 2008 after the last 8 years with the candidates we have, do we really deserve to?

    If you live in Michigan: Ignore Kos.  If you have to meddle in the GOP primary, vote Thompson or Huckabee.  Bury Romney.

  •  What a brilliant little scheme KOS.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Looking back on it, and that scene at the Broward Office of Elections with the Republicans trying to tear down the door that time in 2000 coming to mind, yes....I sincerely wish we had fought harder.

  •  No thanks, (9+ / 0-)

    I'll be voting uncommitted.  I'd would rather the primary contest Hillary's electability than to screw around with the republican ticket (as much as I really want to.)

    If voting could make a difference, it would be outlawed.

    by soros on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM PST

  •  A vote for clusterfuck is a vote for change !!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Err, umm... I think, sorta?

  •  I can't be bothered to give this idiotic (11+ / 0-)

    suggestion anymore than a cursory glance but I would have thought the economic situation in Michigan is serious enough to warrant a serious listen to anyone who has any kind of ideas.

    The decline of the automobile industry, the major employer in  the state, as I understand it anyway, in Michigan is indicative of the decline of manufacturing in the entitre nation.

    To advocate playing games with the republican vote is not worthy of a blog that professes to want to be taken seriously as a political analyyser of the American voting public.

    This, in my opinion anyway, is unworthy of the seriousness with which some/many? take the ability to make their opinions known here.  Especially since Mitt Romney and his family have a long history in the state.

    I am losing my way in the blogosphere these days.

    •  well said... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There's little substance or value left to my personal vote on Tuesday, if there IS any left to it.  But what I have, I take seriously, and the bleakness of the Michigan economy is no laughing matter.  

      My best guess as to how to vote is "uncommitted."  My husband will vote Mitt.  We're screwed no matter what.   But I'm not crazy about the glee with which others here want to burn off my useless vote.

      Michigan voters count, too.

      by marjo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:14:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  eh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Far and Wide

    Open primaries may be stupid, but that doesn't make it right.

    There are some concerned that this is "dirty tricks" and that we shouldn't "stoop to their level". This is perhaps the key difference between traditional liberals and movement progressives.


    •  thinking more about that (0+ / 0-)

      There are some concerned that this is "dirty tricks" and that we shouldn't "stoop to their level". This is perhaps the key difference between traditional liberals and movement progressives.

      First off there's the obvious implication here that if you don't agree with your idea, then you're not a progressive.

      But there also seems to be use of a RW frame.. the use or at least implicit acceptance of 'liberal' as a pejorative?

  •  it is PRO-Romney (3+ / 0-)

    telling people to vote for Romney is pro-Romney, no matter the reason.

    the time to rise has been engaged...

    by catchaz on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM PST

  •  Well, I for one am 100% for this idea... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, twinpeaks

    Of course the fact I had a GOP Absentee ballot already filled out for Mitt before I saw Kos's first post yesterday kind of makes me more agreeable.

    Why waste your time voting 'uncommitted' and sending :

    1. A delegate who may not get to vote.
    1. A delegate who could end up voting for someone you don't like.

    Seems pointless.

    Why bother voting for Hillary?  She's already going to win it since she's basically the only one on the ballot.

    Seems pointless.

    A vote for Mitt possibly throws yet another monkey wrench in the GOP nominating process.  Gets him likely to spend some more of his own money and on top of that it will cause the GOP to spend money to try to get your vote!

    How?  The voter rolls for who took what ballot will be turned over to the parties.  So every Democrat who votes in the GOP Primary will get the GOP to waste money, effort and time in sending mail/calling/etc voters who won't vote GOP in the end.

    Win - Win as far as I'm concerned.

    "Ever get the feeling you're in the wrong alternate universe?"

    by Siberian on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:14:43 PM PST

  •  this will help RUDY - AND THAT's BAD!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Far and Wide

    Anything that makes the Feb Super Primary a barometer of the race HELPS Rudy Giuliani.

    And that's bad, because he is the one candidate that can beat the democrats.

    He's the only one.  And he would be a hell of an opponent in the primaries.

    Mark my words here.  If he gets the nom and we lose, it will be BECAUSE he benefited from the chaos Kos is rooting for.

  •  don't you all see? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I hate to write this down, but just because kos wrote this and it has gotten linked from Faux to RedState the Repub. primary will be suspect.  It doesn't matter if anyone does what he sugests.  Romney was born in Michigan, his father was governor, there is a good chance he will win the Repub vote.  If he does, they won't know what to do because they won't know if he really one or if the Great Orange Satan caused it to be!


    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society -Mark Twain

    by gooners on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM PST

    •  oops (0+ / 0-)

      should read:
      "If he does, they won't know what to do because they won't know if he really


      or if the Great Orange Satan caused it to be!

      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society -Mark Twain

      by gooners on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:17:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So Kos thinks Edwards should drop out? (0+ / 0-)

    We want an unsettled field with Republicans fragmented and fighting. We want the theocons (Huckabee), the neocons (McCain), and the corportate cons (Romney) to maintain viable top-tier candidates in the race for as long as possible, since it fuels their civil war. Heck, if we truly hit the jackpot, we might even get a brokered GOP convention.

    Using the same logic, doesn't that mean that we want our side settled as soon as possible? Therefore, shouldn't we want Edwards to drop out and endorse ASAP to end the fight? Granted their side has been a lot nastier and more damaging than ours but there does seem to be a bit of hypocrisy around here. How is a prolonged drawn out fight good for us ('strengthens the candidates') but bad for them?

  •  Stop Working Against Activists in Michigan (9+ / 0-)

    I won't tell you what to do in California, and you quit sabotaging what hundreds of grassroots and netroots people are doing in Michigan.

    Kos, you just don't know what the heck you're talking about.  I don't know of any bloggers in Michigan supporting this idea.

    Edwards and Obama people and those angry that Granholm forced this on the MDP should Vote Uncommitted.

  •  Edwards Is Splitting The Progressive Vote (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Travis Stark

    Yes, Edwards should drop out.  Unless, that is, you'd like to have War Candidate Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

  •  Great Idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, gsenski

    I AM fed up with taking the high road and acting like this type of fighting is beneath us. I hate dirty tactics but we have been screwed so many times by them. i am tired of the democratic idea that we are above these tactics. not any more!

  •  scruples (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, gsenski

    A lot of people are sanctimonious about how they vote.  As if there could be such a thing as a dishonest or immoral vote.  I've never understood that.  A vote is a means to an end.  You can use it wisely or foolishly, effectively or not.  If the rules allow you to vote to achieve your desired outcome, then do it.

  •  Damn! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I guess in Michigan you have to register to vote 30 days in advance of the election. I haven't registered here at my school yet. :( I want to vote for Willard!

  •  It's the right thing to do (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And the tasty way to do it.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM PST

  •  i'll go you one better (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    years ago I went to Republican County meetings and joined as a Republican.  My aim was to do what I could to affect their choice of who was running for President at that time.  I only wish that many, many Democrats would do the same now.  We could sure do a lot to change the course of our Nation if we changed the course of the Republican Party on a local level.

    I guess you could call me a subversive. :)

  •  Nov '08 Headline: "ROMNEY WINS" (0+ / 0-)
    And that, my friends, would be it for Markos.  Stay as far away from Republican shenanigans as possible.
  •  A dumb idea (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, baltimoremom, cph, BuyLocal

    I think Kos must have taken stupid pills in preparation for his stint with the main stream media.

    "A republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin

    by herodotus on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM PST

  •  Nothing to add except agreement (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Open primaries are stupid. Should we be meddling in their primary? To be honest, open primaries like this Michigan one are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't a Democrat, they shouldn't get to decide my party's nominee. If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee.

    (Emphases added.)

    and thanks for saying it!

  •  Likewise.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twinpeaks many thousands of soldiers and Iraqis wish that Democrats had fought a little harder for Gore's victory?

    Likewise, millions, natch, billions of citizens here in the U.S., and around the world, wished the same thing, and are still simply fucking stunned that so many Americans were prepared to quickly surrender their freedoms, their rights, and their government, to the Bush cabal and its fascist neocons.

    What a different world we would be living in had millions of Democrats gone to Florida and confronted the likes of John Bolton and the rest of the Bushie election-stealers. They would have run at the sight, and victory would have been ours!, .... but no.
    Too many fat-assed, lazy, and greedy people just didn't give a shit. After all, it wasn't their kids going to fight, and we were warring on "brown skins" in some country we had been "told" had nuclear weapons....(and oil).


    by Hornito on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM PST

  •  NO (5+ / 0-)

    Please folks, vote uncommitted and lets send the Clintons packing.

  •  didn't have a spork so i brought a foon (0+ / 0-)

    will that help?

    we'll stand him up against a wall and pop goes the weasel /rufus t. firefly

    by 2nd balcony on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:36:36 PM PST

  •  I luv ya kos, BUT (6+ / 0-)

    First, let me first say that I'm known for my fierce defenses of Markos. I take on his critics with gusto, whether they come from the right or from our own ranks. I'm not some culty starry-eyed fan of Markos either. That runs counter to his own philosophy, the purpose of this site, and democracy generally.

    That said, I gotta disagree with Markos on this particular front-page.

    First, there is a group ready to go in Michigan to cross the line and vote in the Republican Michigan primary, and their preference is Huckabee. Now, why would that be? Because, despite Huckabee's resemblance to Richard Nixon in more than one way, he is riding a crest of populist revolt within the Republican Party. You may not agree with the evangelical populists' policy plans, but they have one thing right: The corporate insiders in this country are out of control.

    Second, Mitt Romney is the front runner. A win in Michigan for Romney won't help muddy the waters, it will help Romney get further ahead. He has more delegates, despite only winning one contest so far.

    Next, the Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich and Uncommitted are on the ballot, and write-ins are going to be TOSSED. Those who come out to vote in a contest the DNC is billing as a "meaningless beauty contest" aren't likely to be Clinton supporters making sure she gets an easy win.

    Instead, those who are motivated to come out are likely to be MAD AS HELL at the establishment, and determined to make their vote count in SOME way, even if it's symbolic.

    Previously, I exhorted my fellow progressives to vote solid for Dennis Kucinich, because "Uncommitted" isn't going to carry the banner to the convention and insist the delegates are seated. But, I've changed my mind.

    Dennis Kucinich's recent behavior is not that of a canny politician taking advantage of a golden opportunity to keep the populist wave alive. He's picking fights with Texas Democrats over their insistence that he signs something pledging support to the eventual nominee. I mean, really, he's taking them to court over it! He's doing that instead of campaigning in Michigan, which he should have done immediately after NH.

    So, I'm with the Edwards and Obama supporters who are calling for "Uncommitted" votes. Edwards and Obama have enough combined support to get an "uncommitted" win over Hillary Clinton in Michigan. At this point, it's the best we progressives can do to fight the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton.

    That's my take. Want to bolt the party in protest? Fine. For Heaven's sake, don't help the corporate insider in the Republican contest! Vote for Huckabee instead. He won't win, but if the independents give the win to McCain, then Huckabee could beat Romney for second place, and at least Romney won't win with help from Democrats!

    As for the Democratic contest: I'm BEGGING the Michigan Democrats to make "Uncommitted" beat Hillary Clinton.

    The party is going to think twice about disenfranchising Michigan Democrats. It's a GRAVE error that affects the general election if they don't reverse it.

    The stupidity isn't in Michigan, it's in the DNC, who tried to rig an early primary system for the establishment favorite. Did the Republicans strip THEIR party's delegation to the convention over this issue? They didn't. Why not? Think about that one, ya'll.

    •  Thank you.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      just voted uncommited today (absentee)...Father supports Romney (for real, not to 'play games'), Mother is a Dem, who will probably vote to BLOCK Romney, as she considers him WAY TOO dangerous (which means Huckabee or maybe McCain to block...), sister a conservative who is leaning Huckabee ('for real')....

      I considered voting Repub (initially to BLOCK Romney), but decided against it at the last minute, as I don't like the risk of potentially voting for the wrong Repub by mistake, who might win the nomination and/or GE, and could not take that on my conscience....

    •  thank you. nt (0+ / 0-)

      Michigan voters count, too.

      by marjo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:22:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I understand, but I still disagree (6+ / 0-)

    I live here. I also have to take things on a state level. With Mitt supported by the rest of most of the GOP, that gives their establishment the victory.

    These goons have fucked up by state beyond all recognition. At least they hate Huckabee and Ron Paul.

    Support Fair Trade. Buy American! Keep jobs at home.

    by John Lane on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:39:14 PM PST

  •  Absolutely agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with Kos.  No more sporks!

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM PST

  •  I watched the GOP debate last night. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, marjo, kimberlyweldon

    Mitt actually looked human and reasonably intelligent.  He looked like an old-time Gerald Ford/Barry Goldwater Republican, which is about where he is. I think he's going to do very well in Michigan.

    McCain looked out of focus and all over the map.  

    Huckabee is very impressive on the issue of religion and handles attacks well.  He has a way of talking about faith that doesn't scare you...unlike Bush.  
    He did get attacked for all those taxes and all that spending, which he chalked up to 'governing'.  The risk of Huckabee to Democrats is that he might be able to bring competent government back to that party.  

    Thompson attacked Huckabee, but Grandpa Fred still looks pretty sleepy.  He's the most doctrinal laissez-faire conservative in the race (aside from Ron Paul).

    Ron Paul is always the best in any GOP debate because of the war.  I give him a lot of credit for telling Fox News that the incident in the Strait of Hormuz didn't happen as initially reported.  

    Giuliani seems to not have a place at this party.  

    I think Mitt is poised to make a comeback and win Michigan.  I don't think people in Michigan view him as negatively as people in NH did.  

    The GOP race is far from over.  My prediction is that McCain won't win another major primary in this race.  

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:41:15 PM PST

    •  I think Romney IS the most dangerous candidate? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      (perhaps) and we need to be careful least, a lot of the people I know in Michigan seem to think so (especially older people who remember his Father as Governor...)

    •  I'm afraid that no matter who the GOP chooses... (0+ / 0-)

      if the way the DNC/MDP eff'd up this state's primary is any indication, Democrats will go out of their way to LOSE in Nov out of sheer stupidity.

      I hope that doesn't happen.  But I'm not real hopeful right now.

      Michigan voters count, too.

      by marjo on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Simply a STUPID idea by Kos (8+ / 0-)

    Be the change you want!

    by BuyLocal on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM PST

    •  Make me wonder (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Why does Kos need attention so badly that he'd stoop to something so childish like this even though it could very easily backfire on us? Romney is the most vile candidate they have and a vote for Romney IS a vote for Romney no matter how you spin it.

      Just because I spend time in "Blogostan" doesn't mean that I gave up my citizenship in the real world.

      by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MI (and FL) delegates (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, the most likely outcome is that by convention time these delegates won't change the outcome, so a face-saving compromise will seat delegates from these states.  But if the outcome is still in doubt...

    Just remember that the DNC does NOT have the final word on this.  Hillary can send her MI slate to the convention without DNC blessing, and it will be up to the convention whether to seat them or not.  

  •  Bad Idea (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, moira977, tiredntexas

    This is just one more example of why blogs and bloggers have such a poor reputation in the real world.  Work for and support the candidate of your choice in your party.  Don't play games with the other party's primary.  The fact that kos may believe that the republicans haved attempted to do so in the past does not in any way justify the democrats doing so now.

  •  Personally, I think this is a brilliant move... (5+ / 0-)

    ...this is chess, not checkers.  If you want to win, you need to use every opportunity to drain your opponent in a way that is beneficial to you.  You need to control the board, not your half of it.

    This is strategy.  It's grand strategy, I'd go so far as to say.  All of the feel-good "we hate Hillary" sentiment in the world isn't going to change a thing.  

    It's far - FAR - easier to debunk a "Hillary win in Michigan means something" argument than it is to deal with united Republican candidate...

    And that's the calculus here.  Normally I don't subscribe to the politics of bringing another group down to raise yours up but it's what we have to do to beat their machine.

    •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, tiredntexas

      This is neither chess nor checkers.  It is deciding who will become the next president.  You have no idea what effect the kind of dirty tricks advocated by kos will have on the republican primary, the ultimate selection of a republican nominee, the press and public's perception of democrats, or the identity of the next president. Given that, it's best for democrats to mind their own business.

      •  It stops McCain (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        And McCain's the one GOP guy who (now that Rudy's campaign is done) can beat Hillary or Obama in the general.  (None of the Republicans can beat Edwards in head-to-heads, which is one reason why the press hates him.)

      •  You sound like the guy with the bowl of peas (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eireknight, gsenski

        in The Plague.

        You may never commit a sin but that doesn't mean you have been effective.

        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

        by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, I do have an idea... (0+ / 0-)

        ...of the affect this would have... it would put votes into the Mitt column in Michigan.  Which, if the stars align properly will make him win that primary.

        Maybe it will cause an eruption and Mitt will take the cake... I'm going to suggest right here and right now that it won't.  Instead the greater chance is that it will make the race more competitive.

        What's the alternative?  A stronger Huckabee or a stronger McCain.  

        There's no risk in this for us.  A stronger Huckabee or McCain is worse for us than a 3 way split creating further Republican uncertainty (and draining Republican funds) any day.  There really aren't that many ways that this can turn out.

        The press already attacks Democrats.  And if we're going to avoid using valuable tactics out of fear that the press might jump on us for doing things that aren't even remotely as bad as what they allow Republicans to do virtually unchecked... well then we've already lost.  Don't let the servants of those would see America fail misguide you.

        And I wouldn't say this is a dirty trick.  Dirty trick implies that this is somehow not warranted.  

        The state, by law, has an open primary.  People are free to vote wheresoever they choose to and for whomever they choose.  If this is a dirty trick, then Michigan law establishes the right of dirty tricks in black and white.  Turn-about is fair play in any ethical measure.

        And if your belief, that elections aren't strategic, holds any traction in the Democratic party en mass then we're pretty much screwed.  It's largely because too much of the left didn't see the election as strategic that we wound up with Bush as pResident in 2000 in the first place.  

        These contests ARE strategic.  Rejecting that fact is the path to self-destruction.

  •  I have a question? Don't candidates receive... (0+ / 0-)

    reimbusements on out of (their own)pocket donations if they receive a certain percentage of votes?  I thought I heard that somewhere but I could have been hullucinating.

    The worst democrat is better than the best republican.  My Dad.  

  •  I'm in (4+ / 0-)

    As a Michigan voter I'm down with this plan. Am I pissed that the Democratic primary means squat, absolutely, but the whole symbolic vote against Hillary just doesn't carry much weight with me.

  •  It's not the difference between (0+ / 0-)

    movement liberals and traditional liberals.  It's a difference between right and wrong.  Some believe that 2 wrongs make a right.  But I am not that guy and I never will be. If this all goes horribly wrong and Mitt Romney is the 44th President of the United States, I think Kos should have to take down his site permanently.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM PST

  •  They're onto you, Kos! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, cph

    Kos Urges Readers to Vote for Romney In Michigan -- Lame!

    A few of the comments are slightly enjoyable:

    More evidence that Kos is a thug. <n/t>

    Kos and his kids would not know a principle if it bit them in the rectum, and if they do happen to win an election they will forever be the dog that caught the car.

     Counter-attack  by ekevlar11

    Each person writes a blog and submits on dK. 20 or so articles that are conservative and wipes all their blogs off the front page for a bit.

    Ah, I will probably have to pony up for Redstate for anyone who gets dirty on this one. Ok, just a thought. Must be late in the day.

    Restore constitutional government in America. Impeach Bush and Cheney.

    by revbludge on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM PST

  •  This is just wrong headed Kos (6+ / 0-)

    1.) This isn't a pro-Romney effort.

    Well. Yes. It is. Romney needs to win in Michigan to be relevant going forward. He's practically dead without that win. He would like to see nothing better than for Democrats to cross lines and vote for him. This is distinctly a pro-Romney action. If you want to do this, pick someone we have a better chance of beating, like say Fred Thompson.

    2.) The Democratic race is irrelevant.

    Well. No. It's ALMOST irrelevant. You argue that there's no point in sending a message that 2/3 of Democratic primary voters don't want Hillary. Well there sure is. Right now, though everyone suspects that to be true. No one can prove it. In each of the other races if you argue that 2/3 didn't want Hillary you can be countered with, "Well, 2/3 didn't want Obama." or "2/3 didn't want Edwards."

    Well if 2/3 of the Democrats vote "uncommitted" instead of Hillary, then there is no other way to interpret that result than that the HillBill candidacy was rejected by 2/3 of those voters.

    3.) You can't bring a spork to a gun battle. There aresome concerned that this is "dirty tricks" and that we shouldn't "stoop to their level". This is perhaps the key difference between traditional liberals and movement progressives.

    Oh, so now we need to divide up the left to see who is leftier, "traditional" (read older) liberals vs. "movement progressives". Well guess what. There is no such distinction. Where there  is a distinction is that if you believe the end justifies the means, then you're as bad as the Republicans. Not everything that's right and wrong is covered by law, and so that's a pretty low standard.

    In this case, I'd have no objection to crossing parties to vote Republican. Hey, I've considered it in New Hampshire many times, and done it a couple. Point is, well, it's pointless in this case, and there's a better thing to do with your vote.

    4.) Open primaries are stupid.

    Closed primaries are stupid. Hell. Primaries are stupid. Political parties are stupid! The reason we see more and more independents every year is because political parties are a part of our system as a means to financing candidates, and consequently inherently corrupt. That include Republicans (most of all), but also Democrats.

    Effectively, in New Hampshire, I get to look at all the people running for President, in both parties, and vote for whichever I choose, because I'm an Independent. That's a whole lot more democratic than closed primaries.

    When people have more allegiance to their political party than they do to their country what do we call that? Republicanism.


    Travis Stark
    Accidental Wisdom

  •  Headline for "uncommitted" Dem MI race: (0+ / 0-)

    "Hillary beats both of her closest competitors combined."  I wonder if the "uncommitted" supporters have considered that angle.  People who say the Romney strategy could have unintended consequences shouldn't throw stones.

    The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

    by rfahey22 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM PST

    •  The media is about expectations (0+ / 0-)

      They expect Hillary to win big, so if she does it's not big news. They don't expect Uncommitted to do very well because this has never happened before and they are cynical about things that haven't happened before, therefore if Uncommitted wins, it's big news. A no-lose for Uncommitted supporters, and a no-win for Hillary.

  •  i don't like this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    First of all, Kos, I am pretty nervous about your statement that movement progressives should use every political tool at their disposal to win elections, except breaking the law of course.  That's a slippery slope.  Just because they do it doesn't mean we have to.  That's the whole point of people powered politics, isn't it?  You don't HAVE to control the media, put out falsehoods, or, in this case, meddle with elections in order to win.  It's the MOVEMENTS that make things change, not the system.

    Secondly, I'm a bit shocked about your open-primary invective, and think you might be going a bit overboard in support of your cause.  I think closed primaries, as the name suggests, shut people out.  In Kentucky, everyone's a registered Democrat because, in the southern tradition, the local Democratic primaries end up being the actual election.  A bunch of dems who voted twice for Bush.  If you don't register as a Democrat, you're disenfranchised.  It throws off registration numbers and makes it harder to win elections.  Additionally, what if someone doesn't WANT to register with a party?  i'm sure there are a lot of movement progressives that consider the Democratic party too slow/fast/whatever.  You cut people out.  And to me, and I thought you, any step that makes it harder for people to vote is a step away from Democracy.

    "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."

    by flowrider on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:56:29 PM PST

  •  Interesting logic problem (0+ / 0-)

    As someone not in Michigan, but partial to Edwards and somewhat less so to Clinton, this present an interesting logic problem.  The optimum outcome for me would be two results: 1) Romney wins with the help of crossovers from Democrats, and 2) The uncommitted Democratic delegates slate wins over the Clinton slate of delegates.

    An single voter cannot make a choice that will enhance the probability that this dual outcome occurs. However, if there are a sufficient number of Democratic voters willing to vote on Tuesday, then their votes may split such that the dual result above does happen. It's hard to know in advance how that split should go numerically. It would have been simpler if Clinton had also removed her name, and part of the reason I am not so partial to Clinton is her doing things like this and voting for Kyl-Lieberman.

    My own feeling is that McCain is the most dangerous Republican candidate, followed by Romney. Others may disagree, but that is why elections are held.

  •  What You Talkin' Bout Kos? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, cph, keepinon

    Dude. Really? This is like Nader Trader without the logic. I was hoping this is some kind of joke, but you're really serious about misguiding voters into the fire. Just because the democratic primary doesn't matter, we shouldn't in turn go and support such a vile choice of candidate.

    I don't like open primaries like the next guy because these conservative cases are moving over to the democrats and letting their influence be known. But I'm sorry, giving Mitt Romney a "gold medal" in any event doesn't settle in my stomach well.

  •  My Republican Relatives Live in MI (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, kimg

    I'm going to attempt to plant the seed that Mittens is the way to go.

  •  I think this is a great idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1.  It makes Romney look like a fool if he wins.  How does he frame his victory?  His cross-over appeal to progressive voters?  Makes him look like a fool if he takes it seriously.  Half the fun is seeing how McCain and Huckabee would spin it.
    1.  It underscores the power of the blogosphere.  The notion that the leading progressive blog could swing the outcome of the Michigan Republican election is not something lightly dismissed.
    1.  It's an anti-HRC vote, for those inclined that way, that has more of a likely impact than voting "Uncommitted."  Tally the Romney "joke" vote with the Uncommitted vote and that will tell the true story of the Democratic "primary."

    Let the joke be on them for once...

  •  I'm with Kos (4+ / 0-)

    Kos is right. High-minded principles are fine, if you don't mind losing. Sometimes you need to take a risk if you want to win a fight, and this election promises to be a tough one. The Republicans are too desperate/evil to give up.

    I noticed several comments are along the lines of, "Gosh, what if Romney becomes the nominee?" So? Would you prefer Huckabee as the nominee? He's got the same appeal as Bush, but with more fanaticism. I don't fancy being put in a Southern Baptist Re-education Camp.

    Or perhaps you prefer McCain? He's got considerable appeal among independents and an undeserved reputation for being tough but fair. He could easily be the strongest of our potential opponents.

    Let's not let the same old timidity paralyze us like it seems to every cycle. Playing it safe is what our Congressional leadership is doing. Feel good about that?

  •  For years... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    liberals and Democrats did not have people with guts like Markos to say what a lot of us feel.  I am sick of getting my ass handed to me by candidates for whom death and money are more important than peace and equality.

    If we don't fight on their terms, we will lose.  Plain and simple. The Republicans laugh at us because we still think the system is fair.  They laugh at how naive we are to think that issues and good speeches alone win elections.

    Politics is a dirty business, not for the meek or mild.
    If you cant deal with that, at least get out of the way and let the people that want to fight for our country save your asses.

  •  Absolutely right on, Kos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimg, gsenski

    I especially appreciate your commentary on open primaries - they make no sense and they don't do a damn thing for attracting Indie votes in the fall; they just justify every indie whose candidate didn't win to vote for the other party.

    Keep up the good fight.

    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

    by Clem Yeobright on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:02:27 PM PST

  •  Voting for Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

    Would be a better idea. Ron Paul has zero shot at actually getting the nomination (unlike Mitt) and we could boost the Paultard nation's self-delusions to the point where Paul would consider a 3rd party run. Now THAT would hurt the Republican party in November.

  •  I agree with Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Its perfectly legal and allowable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Aside from helping Mitt to eventual defeat in the General Election, its a nice way of getting Michigan to see that a closed election is the only way to go. Sometimes some of the best legislation comes about by people performing acts in unconventional ways that were not intended to get politicians to close loopholes.

  •  I dunno (0+ / 0-)

    I understand the argument of creating chaos for the Republicans but this proposal just feels like it belongs in the category of "be careful what you ask for". Hard to know in the end how it all shakes out. Could result in President Huckabee.

    Also regarding point 3 I'm not sure you nor anyone else can speak for movement progressives with such a broad brush. Nor is it true that traditional progressives are pure as the fresh driven snow.

  •  I'm all for it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    For Democrats here too squimish for this just remember Republican wouldn't hesistate one second executing the same kind of plan. This is not dirty, it's rightful payback that doesn't even begin to make up for all the dirty election tricks the GOP has pulled over the years.

    Hillary: Let's give America the kind of comeback New Hampshire has just given me.

    by Christopher Liberal on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:05:28 PM PST

  •  Michigan really doesn't count. (0+ / 0-)

    You can play all the games you want but they will accomplish nothing.

    Conservatives still control the Republican party and they will speak soon enough.  Romney looks to be the favorite to be the eventual winner.  The Republican talk shows (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) are constantly trashing McCain and Huckabee and they are playing to the conservative choirs.

    Hillary has it nailed down for Democrats.  Her emotional moment (which was both real and opportunistic) nailed New Hampshire but she already had CA, NY, and FL locked up so the end is not in doubt.  Obama seems to be making race an issue (given the talk in SC), but this will cause more harm than good (and it won't get him elected).

    The problem for Democrats is that Romney is fuzzy enough to appeal to independents and marginal Democrats who think a President ought to be tall, dark, and handsome (hard to believe but not everyone really cares).  His likely running mate will be Duncan Hunter who appears to be a nice Dick Cheney.

    Who is out there to match as a running mate with Hillary??  Who can carry the South or help out in the West??

    With Iraq off the table because of the surge and the economy tanking too early allowing it to spring back next summer, the November election is going to be tough.  Hillary needs a tough, no nonsense vice-presidential running mate.  Will she get what she needs?  Let's hope so.

    •  If it's HillBill vs. McCain (0+ / 0-)

      I may vote for McCain.

      If it's HillBill vs. Romney, as you predict... I may stay home.

      If it's HillBill vs. anyone, I stop playing an activist role the day after the convention.

      •  This is what I'm talking about (0+ / 0-)

        McCain's the only GOP guy (besides Rudy, who won't make it past February 5) who can beat Demos in the general -- and he does the best against Hillary.  (Edwards is the only guy who conclusively beats him.)

        •  This is not true. (0+ / 0-)

          Obama beats as many Repubs as Edwards. You're just repeating the Edwards spin. I outlined the whole thing with links yesterday or the day before. I'll leave it to you to search.

          In short, the one poll that has McCain beating Obama is a Fox News poll in which they didn't match up Edwards. And Edwards actually comes out losing in a couple of other polls but that's offset when you average, whereas Obama only loses in that one Fox poll.

          I like Edwards, but I'm getting tired of hearing this false fact.

  •  We Have the Exact Same Situation In WA State (0+ / 0-)

    Our primary is 2-19-08 but it means absolutely NOTHING to Democrats -- all of our delegates are selected in the caucus on 1-9-08!!

    Why participate in a meaningless Democratic beauty contest when we can stir some mischief for the Republicans by selecting their primary ballot instead??

    Washingtonians for Ron Paul!!

  •  Agree: need closed primaries -- why not force it? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Open primaries work against progressives and should be eliminated.  They serve to help get our DLC types elected, without equivalently diluting the GOP agenda -- all the candidates they run are bleeding-edge extremists.

    Besides, the initiative is a good signal that we're through playing sheep all the time.

    Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

    by Minerva on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM PST

    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

      Closed primaries work for the DLC agenda. The more the party sets the rules the more power to the Democratic Party old guard establishment. The more you open up the process, the more people are free to come and go from the process, the more responsive the head of the party have to be.

      If you close up the primary process however, you will probably force a viable third party with open primaries. Maybe that would be a good thing.

  •  Lawn signs and bumper stickers. (0+ / 0-)

    Can we do in landscape format that photo promo up there on the right -- where Mitt looks to the clouds?  

    I might purchase one so that I have it when I want a good laugh.

  •  I'm fine with voting across party line (0+ / 0-)

    If only to undermine the whole open primary system.

    But I couldn't bring myself to vote for Romney.  How about giving Ron Paul some delegates who might raise a ruckus at the convention?

    •  Because Ron Paul can never be the nominee (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman

      What I wrote elsewhere today is that the Republican we need to throw our support behind is the one who (A) has a chance of becoming the Republican nominee, and (B) is  very beatable in November. After running through each candidate, I came up with Fred Thompson.

      •  You have to be kidding? (0+ / 0-)

        The average voter does not pay attention to platforms.  He/she goes by name recognition, and Fred Thompson has serious name recognition from being on "Law and Order."  They love this guy in the Red States. If you doubt me, just visit any of the hunting websites on the WWW.

        Follow the Independents! Democrats lose the general election without the Independent vote.

        by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He's got Hillary Disease (0+ / 0-)

          By which I mean no Democrats will vote for him.

          In addition he's the furthest right. He doesn't come off as smart. He's comes off as snarky in debates. He's Hollywood. His trophy wife is going to piss off women. His work ethic is... lax.

          He's the clearest opposite to Obama. I like our chances against him, at least a hell of a lot more than going against Mitt or McCain.

      •  You mean... (0+ / 0-)

        I've got to support a lesser evil even when I'm playing a prank on Republicans???

        I'd much rather disrupt their convention.

  •  I got interviewed for a book about Romney & Bain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, keepinon

    I was downsized in May after almost 10 years of employment. Bain capital bought the company in 2000, and things went down hill.At least as far as sales and
    employees went.
    I was interviewed for a book by a reporter whose specialty was leveraged buy outs and private equity groups. In the equity world, Bain Capital is one of the worst. Far as I know the book hasn't come out yet
    And Romney is the "pretty" face to questionable practices and the motto "greed is good"

  •  I am all for this and have a good analogy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    For all those who think this plan is  immoral or "stooping" to their level here is a good analogy for you to understand why this isnt immoral or stooping to their level:

    Lets say we the democrats and all liberal minded people are one baseball team and the other are the rethugs. The losers team will all be killed. The rethugs start cheating making their own rules. If they strike out they say they have hit a home run, if they hit someone on a pitch they say that hitter is out. etc etc. Now we as democrats are so moral or ethical and wont stoop to their level and wont even call them out on it we keep playing with the rules that we would like to be there. HOW CAN WE WIN WHEN THE RULES ARE BEING MADE UP BY THEM? we cant  also IT IS LEGAL TO VOTE FOR ANY PARTY ITS NOT DIRTY.

    I agree with kos the new guard of liberals/ progressives are those who have morals or are  ethical and care and have empathy for others. But are not restrained or restricted to voice and ACT (especially this) to make a difference. a real difference.

    The funny part is that most of you who dont agree for reasons of not turning into a rethug, you are sure acting like on and not just dissecting the idea as a poor one but also bashing Kos like a rethug would. Jeez what hypocritical people you are.

  •  I think this is a bad idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I quite agree with the sentiment behind this idea but still don't like it because

    a.  as the saying goes, be careful of what you ask for, since you just might get it.  Put another way,

    b.  be careful of unintended consequences.

    c.  let's not act as They would.  If we found out that the Republicans were interfering in our primaries to elect the candidate they perceived to be the weakest or who they most wanted to run against (and, of course, I am not saying that they are not, but I have no eveidence to prove that they are)  we would, rightly, scream, yell and howl as loudly as possible.

    Let's worry about our own process and go after the candidate they nominate, without our "help."

    "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"

    by Barth on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM PST

  •  Snap out of it, Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Fighting for what you believe in -- for Gore in Florida, which you cite as an example -- is quite a different thing from stupid human dirty tricks like this one.  

    So let's fight, yes; but f*ck around, no.

  •  Latest Romney Laugher: "Just a Guy from Detroit" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In his campaign of gymnastic flip-flops and mind-bending distortions, Mitt Romney topped himself Monday with his hilarious claim that he's just "a guy from Detroit." While Detroit and Romney's suburban childhood home in tony Bloomfield Hills might be separated by just a few miles, his privileged life there was light years away from Motor City.

    For the details, see:
    "Latest Romney Laugher: 'Just a Guy from Detroit.'"

  •  I'm a Dem in MI and I'm for Mitt! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, kimg, gloryous1

    I got a robocall last night push polling me for Huckabee.  I reported it to TPM and they've been developing the story, as they do so well.  I like the idea of monkeywrenching their primary.  Dig those sabots out of the closet and start tossing them into the looms!

  •  alright, Markos, you've convinced me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    though I still say that "uncommitted" beating Hillary will have at least some impact, and that Mitt's a dangerous candidate.

    Even so, watching Mitt's poll numbers tank, buoying his candidacy may be a good idea at this point.

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:33:58 PM PST

  •  Don't contested primaries strengthen candidates? (0+ / 0-)

    I thought that was the argument when advocating supporting a primary challenger.

    So, wouldn't keeping the Republican party primary contested allow them to get more kinks out of the operation, and correct problems prior to the general?

  •  Have fun with your 7th grade election subterfuge! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm headed out to protest Guantanamo Bay on the sixth anniversary of its sad, shameful existence.  

    Kos, imagine what might be achieved if you directed your energies to that sort of action today, instead of this juvenile scheme?  

  •  GOP Clusterfuck '08! Yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Now that is a campaign I can get behind.

    Dogs have so many friends because they wag their tails instead of their tongues. -Anonymous

    by gloryous1 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:41:14 PM PST

  •  Where's your tipjar, troll? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    westsyde, keepinon

    I've got a donut for you right here.

    It's against site rules to advocate voting for any Republican. Read the fuckin FAQ. :')

    Vote Dodd, fight wiretaps.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
    Court certified Marijuana Expert

    by ben masel on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 01:46:18 PM PST

  •  Thanks for splainin it to all... (0+ / 0-)

    of the irrelevant Dems in Mich. Florida and Ohio were two States that became very relevant in the last two national elections. Maybe 08 will be Michigan's turn. How irrelevant would Michigan's primary be if Clinton finished behind NOBODY?  Open primaries may be stupid, but then so is this never ending campaign that started WAY TOO EARLY and is costing WAY TOO MUCH. As for voting for a clusterfuck..well your sophistication has left this midwestern hick awed.

    Random chance suggests that sometime some Dems are going to stand for something. If or when that happens, I hope someone is left who notices.

    by keepinon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:00:43 PM PST

  •  Huckabee ginormous effort in MI (0+ / 0-)

    hope this is not a repeat. the thread is much too long to review all of it

    Getting a whole enormous lot of evangelical help this weekend, with the evangelicals who make up 1/3 or more of MI Repub. primary voters.

    How does this play in the Dems for Miit equation? Just asking. Any ideas anyone?

    •  I was going to vote for Huck, but now will vote (0+ / 0-)

      for Mittens.

      I long ago decided not to bother voting in the Democratic primary.  I was going to vote for Huck (when we was low in the polls) as he was the only candidate who represented the religious right who were upset about the GOP slate.

      I thought that a Huckabee with momentum would force an all out stop Huck campaign which would put Mittens in the election with damaged relations with the RR.

      But with McCain surging, Guilliani's collapse and Mittens looking shaky I am afraid the GOP is already trying to coronate an anti-Huckabee.  If the CW that Mittens has to win MI or he will withdraw,  I figure I have to support him to keep him in the race.

      I was pleased when I saw that Kos sees things the same way I do.

  •  Kos, can you summarize our positions? (0+ / 0-)

    I agree that there will be faux rage about this, especially if they can put a name to progressive misdoings and an ethnic one at that and it will bring on the MSM especially on that famous Friday slow news day.

    On the slight chance that MSM still checks it sources and comes back to DKos, it would be good for them to find a "sense of the meeting" of the commenters here.

    Shorter me: if we do their thinking for them, there is a slight chance something thoughtful might comes out.

    Wishful thinking, perhaps. But Kos can out think the NYT newsroom.

  •  ID does battle with Ego and Super Ego (0+ / 0-)

    Many (this one included) Kos posts are representations of the psychological battles constantly roiling my inner self.

    To be frank, I am both horrified and delighted by the idea of clusterfucking the republicans at their own game.

    Though I'm not all sure how this helps our cause (progressive political power).

    Way to go KOS.

    Fuck you KOS.

    Awwww, nevermind.

    No quarter. No surrender.

    by hegemony57 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM PST

  •  Closing a primary does not stop one from (0+ / 0-)

    changing party affiliations before the primary, and changing back after casting one's vote!

    Many voters do not fit into a political party.  I am pro-choice and pro-gun ownership, which makes me pariah in both of the major parties.  I have to look at both parties to see who best deserves my vote.  

    I personally believe that Independent voters should be able to vote in the primary, as they compose one-third of the electorate.  Allowing Independents to vote in the primary gives a party a good idea of who stands the greatest chance of getting elected in the general election.  Neither of the major parties can win with only their registered voters.  

    Follow the Independents! Democrats lose the general election without the Independent vote.

    by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM PST

  •  Facebook (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone want to take a leading role?

    I'm just one college student in Arizona who was happy to spread Kos's message, and decided to create the facebook group.  I was wondering if anyone from Michigan would like to take leading role of the group and attempt to do more with it.  If anyone is interested, please facebook message me (im the creator, take the link).

  •  Already posted, but question still stands... (0+ / 0-)

    Why not use this tactic in Florida?

    As most of you know, I'm sure, Florida's Democratic delegates have been stripped and, to my understanding, still have more Republican delegates representing that state than Michigan does even after the RNC stripped each state of 57 (Florida) and 30 (Michigan). So, if Florida carries even more weight than Michigan, where's the Mitt decal for Florida?

    (-5.38, -3.38) "...human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability."

    by Solid Smashies on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:30:02 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site