POLL: Democrats, Are You Voting in Today's Primary?

One of the state's high-ranking Democrats says he won't be voting in today's primary.

Michigan Congressman Gary Peters (D-9th District) won't be voting in today's Democratic primary election.

Neither will Farmington Hills Mayor Barry Brickner.

The two elected officials say there's no reason for them to go to the polls today, because Democrats will be choosing their candidate – President Barack Obama – in statewide caucuses on May 5. 

And even those won't offer much action. 

"There's only one person running, so it's going to be a real quickie," Brickner said.

Michigan Democratic Party officials passed a resolution earlier this month that allows Democrats to vote in the primary and at their caucuses. In the resolution, officials accused Secretary of State Ruth Johnson of "partisan mischief," confusing voters over a party rule that prohibits participation in both the primary and the caucuses. 

A spokesperson for the Michigan GOP told MLive.com there are other races going on Feb. 28, and that under state law, Johnson is required to put all presidential candidates on the ballot. Only a candidate is allowed to withdraw his or her name. 

Peters has been following the Republican primary and said for him, the "interesting storyline" is the tightening of the race between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, given that Romney once had a "commanding" lead.

"It certainly shows his vulnerability," Peters said. "Even if Mr. Romney barely wins (in Michigan), it will certainly not bode well for him." 

He encouraged Democrats with a local election – like the contest to fill a vacant House seat in Pontiac – to vote. 

"There are some places where there are issues that we certainly hope people will turnout," Peters said, "but there are none in my voting area."

Joni Hubred-Golden (Editor) February 28, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Folks, while we understand conversations become heated on these topics, please refrain from personal attacks and stick to discussing the issues. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Brian Clark February 28, 2012 at 09:17 PM
If the Republicans are so unhappy about non-Republicans voting in the Republican primary, why don't the Republicans just change their process to only allow registered members of the GOP to select the nominee? Sounds pretty simple. If the Democrats had a primary like this, do you honestly think the Republicans would not take advantage? In addition to perfectly legal albeit potentially mischievous reasons, there are plenty of other reasons people who are not fanatical Republicans might be interested in this primary. Claiming voting legally is un-American sounds un-American to me.
Brian Clark February 28, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Maybe it's just payback. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10529940-flashback-romney-voted-in-92-dem-primaries "Romney's explanation at the time: 'When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for a Republican.'"
Herb Helzer February 28, 2012 at 10:53 PM
Correction; we're voting for Rick Santorum not to "secure a win" for the President -- I for one think he's capable of winning in November regardless of which tomato can the GOP stands up. It's about the MARGIN of victory, and the impact on the rest of the ballot. Rick Santorum at the top of the GOP line would be devastating to dozens of House and Senate candidates in close races. It makes holding onto the Senate a possibility, andretaking the House more likely.
Herb Helzer February 28, 2012 at 10:56 PM
If everyone who SAID they voted for McGovern (from 1973 on) actually HAD voted for him, the landslide of '72 would've gone the other way.
Rickles February 28, 2012 at 11:16 PM
Lets all remember Acorn, just one of many democratic organizations responsible for voter fraud. Democrats are petty people.
Jeffrey Long February 28, 2012 at 11:36 PM
It's amazing republicans always call Democrats petty for doing what they have done for years.
Mark Steckloff February 28, 2012 at 11:36 PM
ACORN is a poor peopl'es organization. Not a single fraudulent vote anywhere was ever shown to be cast as a result of ACORN voter registration drives or other actions. The worst problems disenfranchising voters and getting votes properly counted was when the Republican party ran its caucuses in Iowa, Nevada and Maine!
Lisa Schultz February 28, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Republicans continue to turn away working Americans, minorities & women with their petty nit picking and wanting to take away not only basic freedoms but our freedom of and from religion. They continue to do everything but address what the American people really want answers on...jobs and the economy. Everytime our President wants to address this issue, or anything else for that matter, they have to act like children and refuse to work together, pathetic and very unpatriotic. Why I left the party and will never vote Republican again until they get their backwards priorities straight.
Anita February 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM
RIGHT ON! It's this partisan BS that's the problem in the first place. Doesn't seem as if any of these geniuses, be them Dem or Rep, get that point. We need to be choosing our President from the best candidates that are running. We owe it to ourselves to do this right and make the right choice for us without resorting to childish antics.
Joni Hubred-Golden (Editor) February 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM
A comment was removed because it violated our Terms of Use.
Sam123 February 29, 2012 at 01:15 AM
Democrats do have open primaries, except this year when The Big O is running unopposed.
Tamara February 29, 2012 at 04:39 AM
Most of you peeps are so clueless - no wonder this country is going down the tubes. The diff between Republicans & Democrats can be summarized simply. Republicans appreciate & want to work with the founding documents that made this country great. Democrats want to take advantage of all the benefits, yet then want to destroy the whole thing. Why would anybody vote for a Democrat? To screw up families - the basis of a great society? To hand out money to people that don't need or deserve it? To make laws that go against our founding documents - such as taking away our freedom of religion one step at a time? To get out of the space program that has given us thousands of benefits in our daily lives with innovation, jobs, etc.? To get a health care system that requires Doctors let people die if their cost of care to life expectancy ratio isn't worth while (TO THEM), AND that creates huge increases in spending and hundreds of new government offices/ bigger beurocracy? Tries to leave the Bible, Christianity, faith, God out of everything, even though it is printed on our money, painted all over our buildings in D.C., is in our national motto and song, etc. and so on? 4 more years of osama and we will have such a huge defecit that China will probably be able to just take the keys to our country. I could go on, but will end inviting all people that want to ruin our country to move to Iraq where you will find what you are looking for already all set up.
Dave W February 29, 2012 at 06:10 AM
Tamara, you're right, the diff between the two is simple. Reps believe we should return to the good old days when women had no rights, the interstate system was only an idea, and companies could pollute and sell as many dangerous products as they wanted. Dems believe in the social safety net so that people who lose their jobs can continue to feed their families, the elderly can get the care that they need, all religions are equal in this country, and that the public should be protected from unsafe products. You have too many points so I'll only address a few... 1. How do Democrats "screw up families", by helping kids go to school/college? 2. "Hand out money", like unemployement and Social Security that people have paid into? 3. Please cite one law that has taken away your freedom of religion. There is none. 4. The reason why the Bible and Christianity are kept out of government is because of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". God was injected into most of the things you mentioned in the 1950s, not in 1776. 5. I think you're confused, Osama Bin Laden was killed by President Obama. Perhaps you missed that? Maybe we wouldn't be in so much debt if President Bush had done that years ago and ended the war, instead of starting a second one and spending trillions. 6. Iraq is an excellent place to go if you'd like to live in a country where the laws are based on a specific religion and women have no rights.
Dave W February 29, 2012 at 06:28 AM
For the record, I used to be a Republican until the party went hardcore social conservative. I, as well as plenty of Republicans I know, appreciate and advocate for fiscal conservatism while also recognizing the need for social equality and justice. My religious beliefs (and yes I do believe in God) should have no place in the government and it actually scares me when I hear people advocating for churches to have more say in the governement. Maybe it's me, but I "appreciate & want to work with the founding documents that made this country great" and keep any one religion from influencing our governement per the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Mike February 29, 2012 at 01:51 PM
If you look at the Strike against GM back when GM spun off Delphi, the Union was emboldened by the Government wanting to impose a mediator. As for the collapse look at the advice Bush was getting from Bernanke. And the deals Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were making with Countrywide, and Freddie Mac. Look at the Boeing Plant case in South Carolina which is being held up by the Pro Union NLRB. Or Eric Holder’s FBI attacks on Gibson Guitars (a non union employer) There is evidence all around us of the failure of the Liberal Left, you just have to open your eyes.
Jeff Yoscovits March 02, 2012 at 03:01 AM
Mark, just curious. What were the enormous concessions the autoworkers gave up? Just wondering.
Jeff Yoscovits March 02, 2012 at 03:11 AM
Sorry dave but your hero did not kill Bin Laden. He just gave the go ahead and NOTHING more. The Navy Seals killed Bin Laden. Much better if he would have been captured alive to rot in prison without all his wives or porn!
Dave W March 02, 2012 at 04:51 AM
Jeff, of course the Navy Seals are credited with the actual kill, but as Commander-in-Chief the President is the top ranked military official and he made the call. Therefore I give him and the Seals credit for the successful mission and if President Bush had succeeded in doing the same, I'd give him the same credit. Contrary to your belief, President Obama is not my hero, but as President he does have my respect. As far as Bin Laden rotting in prison, I'd have been ok with that too because we would have him one way or another, which was the objective after 9/11. I'm not sure I understand your comments about wives and porn, considering he is without them dead. So either way, he doesn't have that any more.
Jan P March 06, 2012 at 12:33 PM
You tell her Dave! and Jeff, his rotting in jail does not stop his rhetoric from getting out to his followers, dead does.
Cathy Fucinari March 06, 2012 at 02:22 PM
I think giving the go ahead was more than Bush did!
Guy Fawkes March 07, 2012 at 01:45 AM
lol Their party is falling apart like an old, moth eaten sweater and the best Jeff can come up with is "technically Obama didn't kill Obama." lol Just look at it. Marvel at its simplistic failure. Revel in the surrender.
Jeff Yoscovits March 07, 2012 at 02:43 AM
Sorry Guy but Obama didn't kill Obama. If he did the country would be around a trillion dollars less in debt. If the oportunity was there I'm sure any president would give the OK. And Jan, I'm afraid his rhetoric still gets out from his successors who follow the same beliefs. BTW Guy, I'm an independent and don't follow the leader like a sheep. Don't judge me without even knowing me.
Sammy V. March 07, 2012 at 01:16 PM
Tamara--where did you learn all this stuff? And where did you learn about the 1st Amendment, Sunday School?
Sammy V. March 07, 2012 at 01:20 PM
Mark--- YES, the 2008 collapse was entirely the fault of the government loosening up Wall Street regulations to the point where there was no oversight. Bush was in charge, but you could argue any congressman who voted to lessen the regulations, Alan Greenspan, the entire SEC, etc. etc. "Regulations" seems to be a dirty word, but they are absolutely necessary.
Sammy V. March 07, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Jeff-- opportunities just don't present themselves. Obama restructured the war on terror to excellent results. If John McCain were President, Osama would still be alive because as McCain told Larry King, he would not enter Pakistan to get Bin Laden... You must have missed that news story.
Sammy V. March 07, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Bizarre reasoning Jeff--- and all this time I blamed George Bush for the war in Iraq, when I should have been blaming the soldiers on the ground (following orders)?????
Jeff Yoscovits March 08, 2012 at 04:12 AM
Yeah I know Sammy, he was over there in Pakistan clandestinely sneaking around that compound and secretly gathering all the intel to make the call to go ahead with the mission. Then was the first down the rope and up the stairs to make the kill shot on Osama. Oh btw, congrees gave bush the green light to go into Iraq. Had the wmds that most of the worlds intel agencies thought were there been found and the war went like the first Gulf war, they would have all been falling all over themselves to take credit. But when we didn't have instant success, they all bailed like rats on a sinking ship. Personnally I don't think that any of of the countries in the middle east are worth a single drop of American blood! Get the oil we have here and we can tell them all to drink theirs!
Sammy V. March 08, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Cheney and his cronies planted the stories about the WMDs and lied to everyone. the whole war was started over B.S. stories planted by Washington insiders. It's almost as if you don't realize Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton before "vetting" Bush's potential V.P. running mates ("Sorry, G.W. I ain't found no one good enough to run for office with you... While, shoot, of course I'll be your V.P. candidate)". Cut to another Iraq War and BILLIONS of dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton and their subsidiaries and volia... Cheney's cronies are richer than ever before. hell, they are probably the ones behind the missing billions of dollars in hard U.S. currency which periodically went missing inside of Iraq. At least we agree no more American blood should be spilt overseas.
Jeff Yoscovits March 09, 2012 at 04:25 AM
They say that when something is repeated enough that some people start taking it as fact. Looks like you bought that story lock, stock and barrel! So they planted that story in the brains of the Clintons, several other top political leaders from both parties and many other foreign leaders? Come on, you can't be that naive. Looks like Rachel and Ed and co. are living in your mind!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something