Michigan Court OKs Early Primary
By KATHY BARKS HOFFMANThe Associated Press Wednesday, November 21, 2007; 3:38 PM
LANSING, Mich. -- Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary can go forward, the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday, keeping alive the state's bid to be one of the 2008 campaign's first contests.
The court decision should make it easier for New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to schedule that state's primary, which New Hampshire law requires to be the nation's first. Gardner has been waiting to see what the Michigan courts would do.
The high court's decision should clear the way for the Republican and Democratic parties to take part in the Jan. 15 primary. Both have already filed letters with the secretary of state saying that's their plan.
However, by holding its primary so early _ in violation of the national parties' rules _ Michigan stands to lose half of its delegates to the Republican National Convention, reducing the number to 30, and all of its 156 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
N.H. Primary Set for Jan. 8
16 comments:
I think that its easier for New Hampshire now that Michigan has set the date for its primary election, but I don't know how convient it's going to be for Michigan because they may lose all their delegates to the Republican National Convention. And now New Hampshire can have theirs, I think that it's weird to have a law saying that you have to have your primary election before all the other states
I don't know why Michigan would want to set their primary that early and lose almost all of their delegates at the national conventions. They knew New Hampshire was going to be first anyway, so there isn't that much point of it but to be number 2.
I agree with the above comments that this wasn't Michigan's smartest move. New Hampshire is going to be first so why is Michigan risking thier number of delegates? It doesn't make much sense and Michigan doesn't seem to benefit very much from thier own decision.
I can see why Michigan wanted to be the first state but it was rather foolish of them to break the rules. But I guess they must have some other motive or there must be something much more to the story if teenagers are able to see that this was an unwise move.
I don't really understand why Michigan would want to move up thier primary. Because most of the delegates will not be present anyway, I don't see the point. And Michigan also knew that New Hampshire has a law enabling that state to have the first primary, so Michigan could not be the first primary if they tried. I think this was a really bad decision that can only hinder Michigan's early primary.
My whole comment was erased. Now I'm angry. It doesn't surprise me that Michigan is the state to attempt to break the rules. After living there for 4 years of my life, it's not shocking in the least bit. However, I think Michigan should have respected the fact that New Hampshire has their own law saying that they have to be first. Seems kind of childish to me....
I have to agree with most of the comments this week. Michigan made a bad move by setting their primary so early. There was no reason for them to be so early. The delegate number will be down for Michigan. This is why i do not understand why they made this move.
First off, I think it's great that Michigan wants their primary so early. It shows that their state wants to be an active leader in the election. However, I do not think it's smart to do so. Losing so many delegates will be harmful to the primary.
Consider this:
1. MI (mostly U.S. Sen. Levin) thinks MI with bigger cities and a more diverse population should have a bigger influence than a state like NH.
2. MI can gamble that the nominee is essentially going to be chosen by Feb. 6 so the delegate count isn't going to matter, but giving one candidate an early bounce will. In other words, the convention is going to be a formality and MI will have influenced all the states that come after it.
I think it's good that Michigan can have more influence over the primary election. As Mr. B. said it is larger and more diverse, so I think it represents the country better.
You have to love how we all make comments then Mr. B comes on here and pretty much tells us we are wrong.
Well I agreee with Manda, Mr. B made a good point about the diversity. The diversity should better represent the country
Ditto to the three above mine. =]
Never would have guessed that mente was a 'dittohead'. (google it)
Just to be clear, nobody is necessarily wrong, I just wanted to give everyone something to consider.
Now consider this: NH has been the first for several decades. The voters there take their politics seriously. They pride themselves on not allowing anyone to buy the election. You have to meet people face to face. Retail politics.
(as reported by the Times Herald-Record)
How intimate is the New Hampshire primary? There's an old joke in New Hampshire: ``Sir, are you going to vote for that candidate for president?''
``Don't know yet. Only met him twice.''
I think it was stupid of Michigan to be the first state, why would they want to change something like that. It's common knowledge that New Hampshire is the first.
Is there any way to find out what MI hopes to benefit from having the primary election so early? Why won't NH lose just as many delegates if not more since they have to be first?
I see why Michigan wanted to be the first, or even second state to hold a primary election. Holding a primary so early can give candidates the upper hand if they come up on top in early battlegrounds. Though, i'm glad New Hampshire still keeps with tradition by being the first state to hold a primary. Though Michigan is more diverse, I have to say that states like New Hampshire take voting and electing candidates seriously, and it doesnt hurt that New Hampshire is quite a blue state (not that Michigan isn't and I am of course choosing to ignore that Bush won 4 electoral votes from N.H. in 2000).
Post a Comment