Shenanigans In Michigan

Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas is urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary for Mitt Romney in the hope of prolonging the Republican contest.

Remember: only HRC is on the ballot in Michigan, although there is a growing movement by supporters of John Edwards and Barack Obama to vote for "uncommitted" to try and deal Clinton a symbolic blow there. (What if she finishes second to uncommitted, like Jimmy Carter did in 1976 in Iowa?)

Already, the secretary of state reports that a large number of the 222,000 absentee ballots are crossovers -- most from Democrats to Republicans, but some, inexplicably, from Republicans to Democrats.

Comments

Michigan voters should vote for Clinton and deal the rest a blow. Hillary stayed on the ballet. Edwards and Obama pandered to Iowa and left Michigan hanging. Michigan should deliver some payback.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 11, 2008 1:19 PM

If this works out and Romney wins, let me be the first to say this: Democrats voting for Romney to screw the Repubs are no more illegitimate than Democrats voting for McCain because of his liberal leanings. This is a REPUBLICAN primary and I wish the system would just let us pick our candidate.

Posted by Mike | January 11, 2008 1:22 PM

I agree with Mike. Why the hell are Democrats allowed to vote in the GOP primary? It's insane. But my ultimate conclusion is that the Michigan GOP asked for this. They knew that Howard Dean's DNC would invalidate the Democratic contest, but they pushed for an early date, open primary anyway. They have asked for whatever trouble they get!

Posted by Byron | January 11, 2008 2:06 PM

Mike and Byron, you obviously didn't read what Kos wrote in his post. Republicans already screwed over the Dems in 1972. This is just payback for dirty politics. Seeing as the Republican party hasn't run a clean campaign since 1860 I don't think you guys can ask for a clean one this time around, especially with the race baiting and nativism present in your rhetoric. It's disgusting.

Posted by james | January 11, 2008 2:35 PM

What if she finishes second to uncommitted, like Jimmy Carter did in 1976 in Iowa?

I think I may have read in a book that Jimmy Carter was reasonably successful in 1976.

Posted by George Sorwell | January 11, 2008 2:36 PM

Running second to uncommitted in Iowa in 1976 was a huge win for Carter. Getting anything less than a huge majority in Michigan in 2008 would be a big defeat for Clinton.

For Carter in 1976, that was so because he was an unknown in a field of bigger-name candidates, who succeeded by personal contact, and by impressing people with the integrity and timeliness of his message ("I will never lie to you").

For Clinton in 2008, it's because she has 100% name recognition, is the only name on the ballot (!), and has been the presumed front-runner for so long. With those assets, anything less than an enormous majority would be a setback.

Posted by David | January 11, 2008 2:49 PM

If Michigan Republicans wanted to keep the process closed to themselves, they could have had a caucus or a convention.

But that probably would have brought out the Huckabee brigades, and the MI GOP powerbrokers would have had egg on their faces. So the only way to escape that was to hold a primary. On the public dime.

These are the consequences.

Settle your intra-party fights privately and on your own dime. Or, if you insist on billing the public at large for the ability to duck your embarrassing fights, then accept what the public at large decides to do with your primary.

Posted by Kagro X | January 11, 2008 2:57 PM

In 2000, a lot of Democrats voted in the GOP primary for McCain(including myself) to stick to incumbent Gov. John Engler who was leading up Bush's efforts in the state.

Posted by gangofone | January 11, 2008 3:19 PM

After California Democratic Primary v. Jones, how is this even legal? Unless the Republicans want Dems to be able to vote in their primary.

Posted by Trevor | January 11, 2008 3:38 PM

Hello, all (McCain-site publisher)-

I think that all of the talk about WHY Democrats cross over to vote in GOP primaries (or vice versa) might not be accurate. The reason why the vast majority of Dems/indies voted for McCain in 2000, was not to stick it to John Engler. They crossed over and voted for McCain b/c they liked him.

Much in the same way, should Mitt receive the support of a large number of Dems/indies (unlikely, but possible), it will NOT be because of the influence of DailyKos. It would be because those voters like him and want to affirmatively cast votes for him.

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 11, 2008 3:41 PM

People who are crying about it need to read the following from Kos:

In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state's Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian's lawyer -- quack Geoffrey Feiger -- win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor's mansion that year.

Posted by Jake | January 11, 2008 3:54 PM

"Already, the secretary of state reports that a large number of the 222,000 absentee ballots are crossovers -- most from Democrats to Republicans, but some, inexplicably, from Republicans to Democrats."

Maybe those Republicans are thinking the same thing about Clinton that the Democrats Kos is urging to vote Romney are thinking...

Posted by matthew | January 11, 2008 4:40 PM

Uncommitted winning, while very unlikely, would be a nightmare for Clinton. The next day's headline, "Unopposed Clinton Lose to None of the Above in MI."

Congressman Coyners has started to run ads in Michigan urging uncommitted votes. The state chair and Sen. Levin are urging voters to vote Uncommitted if they support a candidate other than Sen. Clinton. A 527 has popped up and is canvassing and door knocking. The local blogs are pushing for Uncommitted votes.

The last poll I've seen showed Clinton ~45 and Uncommitted ~30, but this was before the Uncommitted campaign began in earnest. It's possible that Uncommitted could win, but very unlikely. Clinton signed a pledge to not campaign there, so there's nothing she can do. It's a no-win situation for her, and a no-lose situation for the Uncommitted campaign. If she wins, that was expected because she was the only name on the ballot. If she loses, it immediately starts people within the party asking, "Can she unify the party?" And, "Will she have a negative effect on down ballot races."

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | January 11, 2008 5:42 PM

I agree w/ the analysis of The Bag of Health and Politics above. "Uncommitted" has, by definition, zero expectations. Plus, obviously, it cannot commit gaffes.

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com Publisher | January 11, 2008 6:09 PM

Since Huckabee was accused by the fanciful media of having a floating cross over his head, shouldn't he get the cross over vote? (Was that lame or what?)

This is just silly stuff. The Daily Kos folks will have time finding a ballot written in Russian where many of them studied communism.

Posted by TrueHawk | January 11, 2008 7:26 PM

Interesting, but I think their premise is wrong. The dems don't want Romney in under any circumstance. Not because he would be a strong canidate. On the contrary, I think he would be a very flawed canidate. But if Romney gets in, Bloomberg will run. And if Bloomberg runs, there is a very good shot the dems will not win the election. He would put california, NY, NJ and Conn into play which the dems cannot afford. I truely believe, if Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani win the election, Bloomberg is in. And having a man who can spend close to a BILLION dollars on advertising (easily) in the presidential election is not something the dems want. Having Ron Paul win the Michigan would be a worse scenerio for the republican. Having to listen to those guys at the convention would be unbearable.

Posted by asher | January 11, 2008 8:04 PM

If I was a MI Democrat, I'd vote McCain. Every McCain victory is a repudiation of Bush by his own party.

Posted by Chris | January 11, 2008 8:48 PM

I, for one, am voting FOR Uncommitted, not AGAINST Hillary. I like Uncommitted's list of (no) campaign promises, and (lack of) positions on the issues. I know Uncommitted has never, and will never, accept gifts from lobbyists. While other candidates may be more inspiring, Uncommitted never makes empty promises. Uncommitted never runs negative ads. Uncommitted doesn't raise our taxes, or vote to invade foreign countries. Uncommitted in 08!!!

Posted by K Dub | January 11, 2008 8:49 PM

"Seeing as the Republican party hasn't run a clean campaign since 1860..."

I see that some of us are still smarting over the Lincoln upset of McClellan in 1864.

Posted by Ursus Americanus | January 11, 2008 9:12 PM

Maybe Romney can add 'The Daily Kos' to his endorsements list.

This should point Republicans to the candidate to vote for--'The enemy of my enemy must be my friend.' All GOPers (not sure about Paul)
HATE the 'Daily Kos'.

John McCain has been endorsed by Jack Kemp, Sam Brownback and Henry Kissinger.

Romney may be a great guy with a bright future in the GOP but right now he is damaged goods and he has been endorsed by 'The Daily Kos'

The 'Daily Kos' is right--a prolonged convention hurts us. Let's stand united agaist the Hiillabama.

Posted by Prentman | January 11, 2008 9:12 PM

I supported McCain in the 2000 primary. Based on what I've seen in the years since - that was a huge mistake.

To any Reagan Republican considering voting for McCain in the Michigan primary, I'd say only 3 things:

McCain/Feingold

Functional Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Voted against Bush tax cuts

There are many good things John McCain has done and could do for our country.

Being the Republican party's candidate for President is not one of them...

Posted by ReagRepub | January 11, 2008 10:26 PM

What is the possibility that Romney wins with or without Daily Kos? If he wins now, the media will spin this as an invalid win, saying the cross over vote was overwhelming. Either way it works against Romney's momentum.
I agree that Primaries should be limited to members of the respective Party.

Posted by Eric | January 11, 2008 10:33 PM

Eric,

A win is a win. The media will find no traction for that kind of spin,(accidental poetry)...

Frankly, the Daily Kos could be a reverse endorsement, designed to be so repulsive to Michigan Republican primary voters as to induce them to vote for McCain or Huckabee.

This could result in Rommney dropping out and allow Dems to focus on Thompson and Giuliani.

A conservative's biggest fear would be either Huckabee or McCain being our standard bearer in November.

I could vote for Rommney, Thompson, and with considerable "family-values" grinding of teeth, Giuliani.

McCain or Huckabee? I might just miss voting in general election for the first time in my life.

Posted by ReagRepub | January 11, 2008 11:00 PM

Since MI does not have party registration, I don't know how the clerks would know the loyalties of the people requesting absentee ballots.

And because we don't have party registration, there is no way to prevent Democrats or Independents from voting in the Republican Primary, unless it is a party-run primary or a caucus.

These stories about Republicans causing mischief in past Democrat primaries...I haven't heard them before, they may be true, but then, Wallace in 1972, Jackson in 1988, and Dr. Death's lawyer in 1998 might have won anyway, without Republican votes. Who knows? Especially Jackson. I know that most of the Democrats who voted for McCain in 2000 genuinely liked him and wanted him to be president. This may not have been true in Detroit, but certainly in places like Warren, Sterling Heights, Auburn Hills, Dearborn.

Hey...everybody knew the rules, and knew for months in advance that the Democrats were shunning MI, so it would be a free-for-all, and should have planned accordingly.

Good luck to all of the candidates. Especially Uncommitted, who has run a clean campaign.

Posted by Ronald Reagan | January 11, 2008 11:21 PM

The open primary is the best. If you can draw support from independents now they are much more likely to vote for you in November.

Posted by rick | January 11, 2008 11:23 PM

racist crap against russians should stop now. in my office i have a russian immigrant who works really dang hard for us, and she's happy to be here. the russian people were never our enemy -- their government was. this racist crap from "TrueHawk" about the russian language is nasty and unnecessary.

Posted by James Hare | January 11, 2008 11:47 PM

James:

Take it easy...TrueHawk's comment was a joke meant to make fun of the Daily Kos-niks, not Russians. It is a fact that many people on the FAR left were russophiles during the cold war (e.g. Betty Friedan's husband) and they learned Russian because they fully expected the USA to be taken over someday by Communists, like Hungary was.

Posted by Ronald Reagan | January 12, 2008 12:49 AM

Michigan ! Vote UNCOMMITTED for a better America!

Posted by PulSamsara | January 12, 2008 2:48 AM

I'd vote for Mrs. C.
Uncommitted won't cry if it loses.

Posted by tomdc | January 12, 2008 4:08 AM

It would be great to have Mitt win for everyone.

Posted by Josh Wilson | January 13, 2008 6:00 PM

Proud Democrat for Mitt Romney. Because the Republicans deserve the very worst. Oh, and I live in Michigan.

Posted by Jason | January 14, 2008 2:05 AM