<p>Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's is God's choice for 08.</p>
<p>Ron PAul all day!</p>
<p>I don't know, I haven't been following. All I hear on the news is New Hampshire, New Hampshire, Thompson has no chance, New Hampshire, where's Giuliani?, and oh yeah NEW FREAKING HAMPSHIRE. Haha. </p>
<p>I meant in the primary I think it's more likely that rural people will turn out. Wayne County always has a huge turn out for general elections but very rarely for ANYTHING else. Eh...</p>
<p>I understand your frustration over New Hampshire. Michigan, normally an influential state, is being ignored, and Clinton has automatic control of however many Democratic delegates we have left. I remember reading, though, that unless a single candidate wins two of IA, NH, and SC (unlikely seeing as McCain is the NH leader), Michigan will probably be influential. Among those who plan on voting in the Michigan Republican primary, Giuliani and Romney consistently take to lead.</p>
<p>Hmm...why so many Paul and Obama supporters here? Is it because we're high schoolers?</p>
<p>^^^ Yes. </p>
<p>I don't understand the Ron Paul infatuation. He just seems... I dno but something is just off. </p>
<p>Obama's going to be the first person in a while to get young/first-time voters to come out in droves. Everybody sees Clinton as stuck in the 90s and almost unable to deal with issues of today. I don't know why more people don't like Edwards though. </p>
<p>Besides, our generation tends to be more liberal.</p>
<p>People in Michigan don't like Romney because he's too religious. They only LIKE him because he's a hometown boy, but they're starting to realize they don't share the same views as him. It should be interesting if Michigan becomes an influential state. Michigan SHOULD be an influential state if ever there was one. We have the worst economy, the most outsourcing, the worst tourism, one of the most crime ridden cities, and a LOT of racial tension because of Dearborn. It seems to me that if I was a candidate, it'd be the Michigan voters who I'd want to convince because if you convince us, then you can convince better off states. </p>
<p>But that's just me.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is a good guy, but he will win about the same day hell freezes over.</p>
<p>Hell did freeze over - the day Romney and Ted Kennedy agreed on something.</p>
<p>^ Wah? Couldn't have been a social issue.</p>
<p>It was a health care bill.</p>
<p>Michigan is crap and corrupt, if you haven't heard about the recent electoral corruption thats gone rampant in the state.</p>
<p>The State Democratic Party has moved its primarily earlier than assigned, violating the DNC's DIRECT Orders, and thus has ALL the candidates off the ballot, except Mike Gravel (0%) and Hillary Clinton (100% - by default), due to the Clinton-ite party leadership in Michigan that's done this abomniable action.</p>
<p>Thus, the DNC has declared Michigan shall have no say in the selection of our nation's next candidate -and thus will have no influence, all because of Michigan's sneaky tactics in trying to gain Hillary Clinton the nomination by giving all Michigan's votes to Clinton, which would have won Clinton the nomination most likely no matter the outcome of the rest of the divided states.</p>
<p>Michigan</a> Democratic Primary</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Take that Michigan Democratic Party! Corruption is not the way to go, and the DNC just showed you what happens to corrupt tactics.</p>
<p>Oh, and P.S. Florida is out of the running too. Florida has violated party bylaws and thus is deprived of all voting rights for the candidates. Thus, their primary is meaningless as is Michigans.</p>
<p>The Michigan Republican primary will likely be quite influential, as the RNC hasn't taken away our delegates.</p>
<p>I personally think the DNC is just interested in petty moralizing. Michigan is not doing this for Clinton, we're just trying to lessen the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. There is nothing wrong, nor is there anything illegal about moving the primary forward unless you're concerned about frontloading, in which case you should be bashing Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wyoming too.</p>
<p>Do you live in Michigan? I don't think you understand in what circumstances the state is. This isn't corruption, it's just maintaining Michigan's influence in national politics, which is decreasing for reasons outside our control.</p>
<p>The other states in Super-Primary tuesday aren't doing the same. I live in NY and I'm perfectly ok with my primary being later - NY is a big state, as is michigan, and will ALWAYS be influential simply because of its size.</p>
<p>NH, Iowa, SC, and Nevada however, are ants. That's why their primaries/caucuses are earlier - to give the little states a chance that normally would be just passed over by major candidates. Of course, its not perfect, but it keeps the small states in the political spectrum. Otherwise, candidates would only be spending time in big states, and thus never visiting the little states anytime in history.</p>
<p>Then I don't see why New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota are last. Looking at a list of the states in chronological order on their primaries, one could easily conclude that the primary schedule makes no sense, or is in fact designed to prevent certain states from being influential (not necessarily Michigan, but other states).</p>
<p>You'll also find that Michigan isn't exactly a Clinton-friendly state, either. The Metro Detroit area is more pro-Obama (though the Hillary faction is quite strong), and the rest of the state is more conservative (meaning they think Clinton is the devil).</p>
<p>Another thing: The small states are already given a disproportionate amount of power in politics. For example, look at the electoral system. California has approximately 18 times the number of electors Wyoming has. The problem? California also has about 70 times the amount of people Wyoming has. What happened to one man, one vote? Isn't it the people who are represented, not the states? The early states have a disproportionate amount of candidate visits. Candidates should focus on the larger states because that's where most of their future constituents - the people they're representing - will be.</p>
<p>Well, it doesnt matter anyway now, since Michigan and Florida are out - and it doesn't look like they'll be coming back for the primary this year.</p>
<p>They're not out. Michigan still has a ton of influence for the Republican primaries (which we Democrats will hopefully sabotage - they're open), which explains why we get lots of visits from them. If there's no clear leader after Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire, Michigan could potentially become one of the most important states.</p>
<p>Well, I was only talking Democratic wise. I believe the RNC was thinking about only taking half of michigan's republican delegates away - since I'm not a republican I haven't looked into it.</p>