/b

Twitter Updates

What People Say:
"I never thought I'd read the phrase Crazy Politico's Rantings in the NYT. I'll bet they never thought they'd print anything like that phrase either." TLB

Blogroll Me!

My Blog Rolls

American Flag Bloggers

American Flags

Sunday, June 01, 2008

The Problem of Identity Politics

One of the biggest problems with the big tent of the Democratic party is that everyone wants what's best for their group. This year, they have battling groups, women and minorities.

This lady wasn't too happy with the fact that the party big wigs decided that Michigan and Florida will only get 1/2 of their delegations seated. She was unhappier that the rules committee tossed her (and many others) out of the room.




When you play identity politics, as the Democrats have for decades, you can't help but run into problems when the identities clash. Truthfully, this should have been banner year for the Democrats, hoisting the identity of the first black nominee with a chance onto their mantle. The problem is that eight months ago the party thought it would be a banner year when they did that with the first serious female nominee.

Now the women are pissed off at the black guy, the black guys are pissed off at the woman, and the party of unity is a fractured group of individuals, pissed that their identity isn't the one being recognized.

Here's an idea for their party to try in 2012, run on ideas, not identities, and see if it works out better.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Read The Full Post!

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Where's The Revenue?

The Wall Street Journal has a great piece up on how well raising taxes raises revenues. Governor Jennifer Granholm's package of income and gross receipts tax hikes, and new real estate transaction fees were supposed to fill the coffers for the state, raising $1.3 billion. Instead, it's going into the next budget cycle with a $350-550 million hole in the budget.

As is always demonstrated, and contrary to those who sell tax hikes, the folks who pay those taxes don't keep their behavior the same as the taxes go up. More companies are leaving Michigan, more residents are leaving that arriving, by a 2:1 margin, and consequently less revenue is being generated.

Home prices in Michigan, according to the article, are falling the fourth fastest in the country, and Granholm blames that crisis for her budget issue. Here's the problem, when prices rose Michigan wasn't in the top 4, or even top 10. Arizon, Nevada, California and Florida; the speculator heavens; were the top four in home price increases. They make up four of the top 5 in declines, with Michigan tossed in.

At some point Michigan might have to look south to Indiana, or worse, Ohio, and figure out how they are growing, when Michigan isn't. The common thread, both lowered taxes, and removed regulatory hurdles for businesses that wanted to move in. Both have much lower unemployment than Michigan, and net gains in residence. No doubt many of them moving from the Wolverine State.

Who's moving to Michigan? Retirees. Yeah, it's cold, but guess what, pensions aren't taxed there, and property taxes can get capped for older residents. Wow, low taxes attract people to move to the state. Maybe the governor should look at that during the budget battle that is looming.

Hopefully, the GOP on both state and national levels will remind voters of just how well such tax increases have worked.

Labels: , , , ,

Read The Full Post!

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Michigan and Florida Matter?

The Wall Street Journal is kind of slow to catch on to certain things. After both Michigan and Florida's Democratic primaries; both of no consequence yet since their delegations were decertificed; I said that someone would be trying to seat those delegates.

Low and Behold, the Journal has caught on to that idea and started asking questions about how that would be handled. New primaries or caucus's in both states, using combined voting totals have been suggested (and rejected by Florida). A convention fight on the credentials committee is probably going to be the most likely scenario, but one that Clinton wouldn't be happy with. The committee would be based on vote totals, so like the primaries, it would be split pretty evenly, and could get ugly.

The other option, that no one likes, is just telling the two states that they don't get any delegates, as the rules stated when they moved their primaries. With the number of general election electoral votes at stake no one likes that idea. Telling that many people their primary votes don't count could put both states at risk come November.

The whole situation begs for the two parties to get together, and come up with a new primary system. Possibly leaving the four original early states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as the first primaries, then coming up with say 5 or 6 regional dates the rest of the states vote on.

By mixing large and small states into each of the 6 groups, the likelihood of eliminating a candidate before someone votes gets reduced. It would also give the candidates more time to focus on states, instead of having 22 of the vote on Super Tuesday it might only be 7 or 8.

Here's how I'd envision the map, each region would have at least one big state, and no more than 8 states in any of them. (no, the two green areas wouldn't be voting together, I goofed with the colors).

I would think either the north east, with New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania or the midwest with Ohio, Michigan and Illinois would be the choice for the last primaries, making it even more likely that there are relevant candidates available for the voters in those states.

Labels: , , , ,

Read The Full Post!

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

More Lawyers for Elections?

I'm just wondering, after yesterday's Michigan primary elections if they might not lead to a lawsuit.

Specifically, Hillary Clinton was the only "big name" Democrat on the ballot, and easily won 57% of the vote (uncommitted came in second). But, because Michigan insisted on moving their primary up before February 5th, the party has stripped the state of all of it's delegates.

The GOP also took delegates, but only half of them.

This leads me to wonder, if come Democratic National Convention time, if Hillary trails Barack Obama by less delegates than she would have won in Michigan, could we see a lawsuit over the DNC's actions?

Hillary is smart like a fox sometimes. While both Obama and Edwards managed to get their names off of Michigan's ballots, Hillary didn't, and instead just vowed not to campaign there. It makes me wonder if she hasn't been thinking all along that she'd win the vote (duh) and then try and get the delegates seated if she needed them.

Just a thought.

Labels: , , , , ,

Read The Full Post!