Daily Kos wants Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney…

… and it actually makes quite a bit of sense:

Let’s have some fun in Michigan – Daily Kos

With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don’t we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina. 

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat.  Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he’s out. If he wins, he stays in.

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. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

I’ve been kind of annoyed with the big flip of the bird the DNC gave Michigan because we had the audacity to actually, you know, have some impact on the next presidential election. Which, when you consider the condition of our economy, isn’t an unreasonable desire in my mind. I’ve never participated in a primary before and I’m officially registered as an Independent, but I might just be willing to wade into Republican territory this time out seeing as there’s not much point in participating in the Democratic side even if I were so inclined. And it’s been awhile since I’ve gotten into any mischief.

22 thoughts on “Daily Kos wants Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney…

  1. I don’t know anything about the US political system, but I would imagine that only Republicans are allowed to vote in internal party elections (which I assume the primaries are). So I’m obviously not understanding something.

    EDIT: Nevermind, I got it.

  2. I don’t get it.

    This whole system is very confusing for those outside the U.S. I’m sure there are sites explaining it, but I don’t really have the mindset when I get on the net to wade through them.  This is because it’s usually quite late when I get on the web (currently 00:20), and also tonight I’ve had too much amaretto to drink.

    Do these primaries work like the actual election? ie the winner of each state gets so many votes.  (That in itself is a completely wierd system- why not just count proportion nationwide- the president is supposed to be above state politics.  You can actually get a position where the minority guy wins.  I believe this happend at least once in the 20thC).

    Here its much easier for party leaders. All members of a party get to vote. There are various ways of doing this- Single transferable vote, or challenger vs incumbent 1st round- if one person doesn’t get a certain % then a, second round that any one eligible can enter etc.  Actually ‘all members’ voting is fairlt recent- in Labour and the Tory’s it used to be just MPs, but they would be guided by their constituents. It was clear what was going on. Primaries- WTF???

    Part of it is ‘Registered’. Why register.  JOIN I can see- join the club, have a say. but registered officially??? 

    I’m officially registered as an Independent

    Wha…?  “I wish to register as “want’s to hear all arguments and hustings, then make up my own mind based on how they align to my own morals and beliefs”.  The idea of having to register your political opinions ‘officially’ seems a little Big Brother.  America seems to have developed a electorial system that would make those in Pre-Constantinopal go “Well, that’s complicated!”

    Actually the Secret Service is worried about the security implications of Obama being elected in November.  They have calculated that on any visit visit to the South they will need 257 extra agents.  Thats 57 extra to watch for racist rednecks, and 200 to explain to local law enforcement that just because he’s a black man in a limo, doesn’t make him a pimp.

  3. Do these primaries work like the actual election?

    They do, but only within each party.  Each state has a primary for each party, many states restrict you to voting in a primary for the party you are registered with, though some allow anyone to vote no matter party affiliation.  Thus, Les will be able to vote in the Republican primary in Michigan, despite not being a registered Republican.  The only affect on the General Election in November is that the primaries pare down the number of candidates in each party to one, which is a significant affect.

    I’d love to go on and explain the Electoral College that actually determines the winner of the General Election, but I don’t have a year to spend, and my understanding of it is probably flawed anyway.  In any event, the EC really serves no good purpose anymore (if it ever did), the referendum vote should be all that counts in this day and age.  Alas, those old Founding Fathers turn out to have had at least a few bad ideas after all. I’m probably wrong as Wrongy Wrongenstien on this, but I would hardly be the first person to misunderstand the Electoral College.

  4. Alas, those old Founding Fathers turn out to have had at least a few bad ideas after all. I’m probably wrong as Wrongy Wrongenstien on this, but I would hardly be the first person to misunderstand the Electoral College.

    According to my (flawed) understanding, concepts like the EC and the bicameral legislature were required in the begining when the United States was really a union of states, and not so much a feederation of states as it is now. So your founding fathers did have the right idea for their time, only it may not be so right now.

    But as I said my understanding is flawed so I’m open to correction.

    What I don’t understand is why Republicans would allow non-republicans to vote in their primaries. I mean it is an internal matter isn’t it? They (Dems and Reps) are not really required to follow this particular procedure to select their candidate are they? Or am I wrong about that too?

  5. Julian, I’m not sure the actual form of the federal government has changed since the Constitution was ratified.  I’m pretty sure it’s been a federal republic since the beginning.  You may be thinking of the Articles of Confederation, which we had for 11 years before they all said “This ain’t working, we gotta try something else.” and forged the current Constitution.  The articles gave a lot more power to the states than the federal government.  The EC may be a hold over from the Articles, I’m not sure.

    As for why Republicans would allow non-Repubs to vote in their primary?  I’m pretty sure it’s not a private club sort of vote. It’s up to the state governments to either allow or restrict it.  I think here in New York, we are restricted from voting in non-party primary elections, thus I cannot vote in a primary since I am not registered with either Dems or Repubs.  I think Massachusetts is a state where you can vote in either, but I think you can only vote in one, not both, but don’t quote me on it.  I’m pretty much running off what I’ve heard without doing any research here.

  6. The primaries are controlled more by the parties and not the states. Some states vote like an election and some states hold a caucus. State to state the process can be different and even different between the parties in the same state. In Iowa the Republican caucus is run differently than the Democrat one.

    For an independent or undeclared who might vote for a candidate rather than a party might be interested in voting in the primary differently year to year. Even in states where you have to vote in a party you are registered with you could still change your party affiliation. It’s just more of a hassle to do so. Being affiliated doesn’t obligate or control your vote in the final election, just the primaries. A lot of people even if they are affiliated still vote a split ticket in the final election, Republican for some offices, Democrat for others. I tend to vote on the issues and the person so I have even voted “third party” at times (somebody that is neither a Dem or a Rep).

    In Missouri where I am, this year we are voting but often we caucus for the primary. We don’t have to declare to vote, just ask for the party you want. However when we caucus we have to sign an affiliation card.

    Being affiliated also is a determining factor on the amount and type of junk election mail you will get all year.

  7. Each state and party has their own screwed up system as Queen explained. Here in IL you have to vote for your affiliated party in the primaries. If you have no affiliation I think you can vote for whom ever you want.

  8. I understand the College System- I think its … odd… but I do understand it; X number of votes based on population+2 :- one for each senator (if I get Congress and Senate wrong way round, assume the correct one).  However this give the smaller states votes out of proportion with voting strength, because of that plus 2.  A lot of the smaller states (pop wise) are in the midwest- Rep territory, so California’s votes can be wiped out by much fewer people.

    Personally I’d only let paid up members of a party vote for its candidate. 1 ballot paper, issued nationally, to be returned by a set date. No envelope accepted after that date, all opened the day after, then counted. Also what’s wrong with moving to a true ‘one man, one vote’, and just do a straight numbers poll. 

    I’m guessing the whole college thing is for a time when transport was by horse, then train, so this sort of voting would be hard to co-ordinate, especially the primaries. People then get stuck on “Why do you want to change it- is it because youir party lost?”. Going for my method could also be used to eliminate much of the money in US politics- We think its excessive when one party spends £15m ($25-30m), on a general election.  PoTUS candidates nedd $100m just to campaign for the nomination.  Howabout anyone who wants to be considered has to present a petition with ‘x’ number of supporter, plus stump up a set amount of $$$. The money would be used to pay for the following process.

    Each member of the party gets a hustings booklet, where each candidate is allowed 300 words, plus set biog details- Date of Birth,CV/posts held etc.

    Then a half hour interview with a journalistic heavyweight.  All interviews secret until all recorded, then shown in a random order.

    Then a live debate with all candidates.

    Ballot papers issued- you have 3 weeks to return.

    In the UK politicians can’t just buy air time- its all strictly controlled, and the other parties DO use stop watches on the broadcasts.

    Another oddity- In Europe Red is the Left, Blue the right- Confused me the first time I followed a Presidential election.

  9. As always, Wikipedia to the rescue. Here’s the entry for Primary and here’s one for Caucus, which is an alternative to having a Primary. The entry on Primaries includes a list showing when each state holds theirs and whether it’s open, closed, or some other permutation. Michigan has Open primaries which are defined as:

      A registered voter may vote in any party primary regardless of his or her own party affiliation. When voters do not pre-register with a party before the primary, it is called a pick-a-party primary because the voter can select which party’s primary he or she wishes to vote in on election day. Because of the open nature of this system, a practice known as “raiding” may occur. “Raiding” consists of voters of one party crossing over and voting in the primary of another party. Although no cases can be shown where this has happened successfully, the theory is that opposing party members vote for the weakest candidate of the opposite party in order to give their own party the advantage in the general election.

    However, I believe we’re only allowed to participate in one primary. So any Democrats that raid the Republican primary won’t be able to vote in their own primary. Which is fine as the Democratic primary is pretty much pointless at this point because the DNC is punishing Michigan for moving its primary date up before Iowa and New Hampshire even though both those states then moved their dates up so they could still be first.

  10. MI DEMOCRATS should vote RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Don’t let the vote be the better of two evils – secure a worthy Republican Candidate since Democrats are jumping out of the MI primary

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Mi…_Vote_Ron_Paul

    Ron paul is the only TRUE anti-war candidate and, even considering his liberitarian positions that no doubt disgust many Dems, he is no-doubt the better Republican candidate in their minds.

  11. Hey, CBR:  Ron Paul is also virulently anti-choice.  No @#$%^&* way would I put my vote for that.  “Libertarian” my @$$.  If he opposes my RIGHT to control my own medical decisions, he’s a fascist thug just like the Christofascist wing of the Rethuglican party.  The “liberty” to say what does and doesn’t happen with your own @#$%^&* body is about as basic as it gets.  And if he can’t get behind that, he’s no different from any of the other neocons currently toadying up to Pat Robertson and his mouth-breathing zombies.

    Libertarianism in this country has devolved side-by-side with conservatism.  Basically libertarians are conservatives who don’t want the government to interfere with their jacking off to porn and smoking pot.  And in the case of Paul, he’s just as much the bitch of the mega-corporate interests as any of them.  For him, “libertarianism” translates as “let the corporations decide what’s best for all of us.”

    Ron Paul can kiss my fat white dimpled @$$, and so can anyone who drinks his Kool-Aid.

  12. I was all set to do just this, to splinter up the Rethugs, and my husband informed me that Kucinich is still on the Democratic ballot because he missed the deadline to withdraw. I know Kucinich tends to get ignored a lot (what with actually being for accountability and principle and against the war) but I’m figuring that I’ll check and see. If Kucinich is on, he’ll get my vote, but if he’s not then Romney will.

  13. RP is personally anti-choice. what he wants to do is leave it up for the states to decide for themselves, you know – democratically, rather than have some minorities morality, or lack there of imposed upon the greater majority. that is what democracy is. The majority of people in North Carolina don’t want legal abortions in their state. Don’t tell them what the fuck to do or elect a president that will, either. That is what keeps propaganda machines like fox and CNN ratings up. “Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” Ron Paul. Americans on both sides of the aisle have wiped their ass and thumbed their nose at the very document which sustains your country, for long enough. They do it for a variety of reasons for money, for power, for egotistical righteous indignation. Elect someone who actually acknowledges the problem and actually wants to fix it. *wipes kool-aid mustache off. lol.

  14. Wow meow, you sure showed us.  Next time, could you maybe trouble to use FUCKING PARAGRAPHS!?!?!

  15. So meow- how is a state government telling a woman what she may or may not do with her own body more “democratic” than a federal government doing the same?

  16. Thanks for beating me to the point, zilch. 

    So, meow, or CBR, or whatever sock-puppet identity you want to take next, here’s a tip to save you a little time.  Forget the bother of mixing the Kool-Aid at all.  Just snort the stuff straight out of the packet, fanboy.

    And one more point of Constitutionality:  You might have missed that bit about the powers not reserved to the fed. and state governments belonging to the PEOPLE.  Roe v. Wade basically affirmed a basic right of that slice of people otherwise known as women.  Your so-called libertarian would happily roll back that right. So get off your high-horse about the sacredness of the Constitution.  You’re cherry-picking “rights” for other people just like the rest of your theocon ilk.

    The bit about “democratically” deciding these things is bull$#!+.  In my state, the so-called “Right to Life” Christofascist lobby might as well have its own seat in both legislative bodies.  You know d—ned well that the screeches of the minority (and the anti-choice crowd IS the minority in this country) steamroll over the majority time and again.  That’s where the checks and balances of little niceties like precedent of law (e.g. Roe v. Wade) come in.  So the Savonarolas of this country don’t make a complete shambles of the whole system with their hot-button-issue-du-jour. 

    I highly doubt that *anyone* who is anti-choice will respect the RIGHT of anyone else to say what does and doesn’t happen to their body.  Your idol is no exception.  Basically, Paul is making the same wink-wink-nudge-nudge weasel-manoevers that Reagan did in 1980 with his “states rights” talking points.  If you’re old enough to remember it, “states rights” was code-talk for rolling back anti-segregation laws.  Just like Paul’s “states rights” nattering is code-talk for a legislative “divide and conquer” by the busybody @$$#@+$ who fancy that life begins at the moment the chick’s bra’s unhooked. 

    The biggest problem we have with this country is the unholy trinity of religion, government and big business.  Defang the mega-corporations and the mega-churches, and you’ll see a much, MUCH more responsive government. Anything else is bass-ackwards.

  17. Whoo hoo!  Romney for the 39% win in Michigan with 30% going to McCain and 16% to Huckabee (according to CNN).

    And…And…awwwwww…looks like R. Paul (see today’s Sinfest for a great take on that) only got 6%.

  18. So is the goal (for the Democrats) of this campaign to keep Romney in the race, or for him to actually become the Republican’s Presidential candidate? And how exactly does either case benefit the Dems?

    If Romney wins the primaries does that not put the US one step closer to a Theocracy? And if he just stays in the race but does not win, what’s the point? It can’t just be the money spent because I doubt that the Republican candidates are suffering from a lack of funding.

  19. As mentioned above, the goal was to vote for Romney in Michigan because the Democratic party is not going to count any of the votes in Michigan. In other words, a vote for a Dem in Michigan means nothing. So by voting for Romney instead it keeps him in longer and thereby making the Republican candidates spend more money on each other. Which is a good thing for the Dems because usually they have the problem of taking forever to pick a candidate.

    Romney doesn’t have a shot in hell at winning the primaries so there really is no worry there. This just keeps him in a little longer.

  20. So it’s a matter of money then? The more the Republican candidates spend on the primaries, the less they’ll have available for the election itself?

    Somehow I found it hard to believe that money plays such an important part in the democratic process or that there was any shortage of funds. Live and learn.

    BTW Webs, I’m not implying that I doubt what you say is true.

  21. No worries mate! I doubt what I say all the time, it keeps me on my toes! wink

    And yea, unfortunately money is a huge part of our voting system. It’s actually what makes our process un-democratic and gives the voice to the one with the most money and most influence. It kind of jaded me to America and what I learned in grade school at a younger age.

  22. Just to seriously compete in the primaries takes $100 million. ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

    That’s not democracy, that’s buying an election!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.