Another Great Compromise may be in order.
August 25, 2007 8:45 PM Subscribe
Today the DNC voted "to strip Florida of all its presidential convention delegates, threatening to leave the state without a vote for the party's 2008 nominee unless it delays the date of its presidential primary election." [More Inside]
Kos suggests that this will have no force and/or effect, as the eventual nominee will most certainly overrule the DNC, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
posted by Poolio at 8:53 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by Poolio at 8:53 PM on August 25, 2007
Poolio writes "Kos suggests that this will have no force and/or effect, as the eventual nominee will most certainly overrule the DNC, and I'm inclined to agree with him."
What the hell does this even mean? Once there's a nominee, the delegates have already voted, and they're irrelevant. That's what the delegates do: they vote for the nominee.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:58 PM on August 25, 2007
What the hell does this even mean? Once there's a nominee, the delegates have already voted, and they're irrelevant. That's what the delegates do: they vote for the nominee.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:58 PM on August 25, 2007
Or, more likely, the impact of who wins the Florida primary will be worth much more than the actual delegates. Unless people really think it will be so close going into the convention that one state will make a difference?
posted by smackfu at 9:01 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by smackfu at 9:01 PM on August 25, 2007
What the hell does this even mean? Once there's a nominee, the delegates have already voted, and they're irrelevant. That's what the delegates do: they vote for the nominee.
I assume he means the "presumed nominee"... as in, the one who has locked up enough delegates to guarantee the nomination... assuming a brokered convention scenario doesn't play out.
posted by Poolio at 9:02 PM on August 25, 2007
I assume he means the "presumed nominee"... as in, the one who has locked up enough delegates to guarantee the nomination... assuming a brokered convention scenario doesn't play out.
posted by Poolio at 9:02 PM on August 25, 2007
If 2000 and 2004 were any indication, the Florida delegates will figure out how to vote, count on it.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:05 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:05 PM on August 25, 2007
If 2000 was any indication, Florida's delegates will be voting for Pat Buchanan.
posted by Poolio at 9:07 PM on August 25, 2007 [7 favorites]
posted by Poolio at 9:07 PM on August 25, 2007 [7 favorites]
Who needs to vote when we've got computers to do it for us?
posted by Tuwa at 9:10 PM on August 25, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by Tuwa at 9:10 PM on August 25, 2007 [3 favorites]
Personally, I'm intrigued by the idea of our nation's 4th largest state having virtually no say in who the Democratic nominee will be. Angering Floridians during a Presidential campaign seems like an especially bad idea for Democrats.
posted by Avenger at 9:11 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by Avenger at 9:11 PM on August 25, 2007
wow. I knew they were going to do something, but that is big.
posted by caddis at 9:12 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by caddis at 9:12 PM on August 25, 2007
Sorry, but they can all go f*** themselves. I'm not voting. There's no way in hell I'd vote for a republican, and the democrats just lost my vote as well.
posted by mike3k at 9:12 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by mike3k at 9:12 PM on August 25, 2007
This actually makes sense, coming from the state where most voters eat their supper at 4:30 in the afternoon.
posted by ColdChef at 9:18 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by ColdChef at 9:18 PM on August 25, 2007
This actually makes sense, coming from the state where most voters eat their supper at 4:30 in the afternoon.
Do you mean holding the primary early, or stripping the state of its delegates?
If you mean the former, agreed.
posted by Poolio at 9:24 PM on August 25, 2007
Do you mean holding the primary early, or stripping the state of its delegates?
If you mean the former, agreed.
posted by Poolio at 9:24 PM on August 25, 2007
I'd be inclined to agree with Avenger that pissing off the delegates of one of the two or three most pivotal states in any presidential election of the past 55 years isn't exactly the most intelligent tactic the DNC has ever employed.
As the LA Times article says, "A refusal to seat delegates from the nation's fourth-largest state could create divisive floor fights and a public spectacle at a convention normally choreographed to show party unity." What a godsend for the GOP that would be.
posted by blucevalo at 9:26 PM on August 25, 2007
As the LA Times article says, "A refusal to seat delegates from the nation's fourth-largest state could create divisive floor fights and a public spectacle at a convention normally choreographed to show party unity." What a godsend for the GOP that would be.
posted by blucevalo at 9:26 PM on August 25, 2007
Angering Floridians during a Presidential campaign seems like an especially bad idea for Democrats.
Angering Democrats during a Presidential election might have been an especially bad idea for Floridians.
posted by Shakeer at 9:31 PM on August 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
Angering Democrats during a Presidential election might have been an especially bad idea for Floridians.
posted by Shakeer at 9:31 PM on August 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
What a godsend for the GOP that would be.
Almost as good as a terrorist attack.
posted by Poolio at 9:34 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
Almost as good as a terrorist attack.
posted by Poolio at 9:34 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
personally I think both the DNC and the RNC need to take everyone who is responsible for setting State primaries out back of the woodshed for a few rounds. The primary system was already kind of a cluster fuck but this year it is turning into a cluster fuck of Caligula-ian proportions.
All primaries need to happen either on one day, or split evenly between two or three days, none of this jackassed State ego stroking about the need of being first, or a bellwether or whatever else.
Most "civilized" nations on the planet manage to announce, run and elect in national elections in under a few months, we're so effing concerned about what fricking machines we get to vote on yet it takes a whole two years to figure out who to vote for. It's not really as if taking this long makes any of the voting public any goddamn smarter, it very well may even make the voting public more apathetic.
Paper ballots, six month election seasons, direct election (none of this electoral college crap), equal funding for all candidates above a certain threshold.
posted by edgeways at 9:34 PM on August 25, 2007 [7 favorites]
All primaries need to happen either on one day, or split evenly between two or three days, none of this jackassed State ego stroking about the need of being first, or a bellwether or whatever else.
Most "civilized" nations on the planet manage to announce, run and elect in national elections in under a few months, we're so effing concerned about what fricking machines we get to vote on yet it takes a whole two years to figure out who to vote for. It's not really as if taking this long makes any of the voting public any goddamn smarter, it very well may even make the voting public more apathetic.
Paper ballots, six month election seasons, direct election (none of this electoral college crap), equal funding for all candidates above a certain threshold.
posted by edgeways at 9:34 PM on August 25, 2007 [7 favorites]
Angering Democrats during a Presidential election might have been an especially bad idea for Floridians.
I'm not sure how it would be. It seems to me that the DNC needs votes from Florida more than Florida needs the DNC.
I mean, DNC leadership will literally bend over backwards to squeeze every vaguely center-right vote out of suburban America that they can, but then they'll turn around and tell Florida Dems to fuck off? It's senseless.
posted by Avenger at 9:38 PM on August 25, 2007
I'm not sure how it would be. It seems to me that the DNC needs votes from Florida more than Florida needs the DNC.
I mean, DNC leadership will literally bend over backwards to squeeze every vaguely center-right vote out of suburban America that they can, but then they'll turn around and tell Florida Dems to fuck off? It's senseless.
posted by Avenger at 9:38 PM on August 25, 2007
edgeways writes "The primary system was already kind of a cluster fuck but this year it is turning into a cluster fuck of Caligula-ian proportions. "
Clusterfuck is the word exactly. Our primary system is an embarrassment. The NCs need to get together and enforce some sense.
I think California should announce we're holding the primary over Thanksgiving weekend. That'll force some movement on this bullshit. Fuck New Hampshire.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:47 PM on August 25, 2007
Clusterfuck is the word exactly. Our primary system is an embarrassment. The NCs need to get together and enforce some sense.
I think California should announce we're holding the primary over Thanksgiving weekend. That'll force some movement on this bullshit. Fuck New Hampshire.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:47 PM on August 25, 2007
Poolio writes "I assume he means the 'presumed nominee'... as in, the one who has locked up enough delegates to guarantee the nomination... assuming a brokered convention scenario doesn't play out."
OK; yeah, that's probably true. The only thing is, I think this year's going to be tight. There might be a battle at the convention. It won't be as bad as the one the Republicans are going to have, though...
posted by mr_roboto at 9:50 PM on August 25, 2007
OK; yeah, that's probably true. The only thing is, I think this year's going to be tight. There might be a battle at the convention. It won't be as bad as the one the Republicans are going to have, though...
posted by mr_roboto at 9:50 PM on August 25, 2007
And this is the party that is supposed to unite the country?
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 9:57 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 9:57 PM on August 25, 2007
mr_roboto - I really think there's a pretty decent chance that one or both parties end up with a brokered convention... I certainly wouldn't bet against it at this point in time.
My dream scenario is that both conventions feature floor fights; the Democrats nominate Clinton, the Republicans nominate Giuliani, and Bloomberg runs as an independent. That'd be clusterfucktastic!
posted by Poolio at 10:00 PM on August 25, 2007
My dream scenario is that both conventions feature floor fights; the Democrats nominate Clinton, the Republicans nominate Giuliani, and Bloomberg runs as an independent. That'd be clusterfucktastic!
posted by Poolio at 10:00 PM on August 25, 2007
is there any argument against having the primaries in all the states on the same day, just like the general election? i mean a well spelled-out rational one, not "its always been this way" or "we (iowans and new hampshire..ites?) are more sophisticated than everyone else"?
i'm seriously asking because i don't understand why the parties don't just change how it's done. is the majority of the DNC from iowa? what is to lose by altering the status quo?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:02 PM on August 25, 2007
i'm seriously asking because i don't understand why the parties don't just change how it's done. is the majority of the DNC from iowa? what is to lose by altering the status quo?
posted by sergeant sandwich at 10:02 PM on August 25, 2007
I like the fact that the primaries are not all on the same day, because it makes the races a little more competitive for candidates without as much money or national press attention. By staging the early primaries one at a time, in smaller states, it gives candidates who lack the money to fund a national campaign the ability to compete in a smaller arena and get the national attention that they might not get otherwise. Now, to be fair, the system hasn't exactly worked this way recently and these candidates still tend to lose, but I think there is something to be said for the system.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:11 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:11 PM on August 25, 2007
Florida- which, by the way, signed and approved the very rules the DNC is using to strip them of delegates for violating them- is merely being the most blatant of the ridiculous attempts each state is trying to be first.
I'm so glad you said this, XQUZYPHYR. The DNC doesn't deserve all of the blame for the fucked-upedness of the situation (which seems to be the prevailing sentiment)... far from it.
posted by Poolio at 10:16 PM on August 25, 2007
I'm so glad you said this, XQUZYPHYR. The DNC doesn't deserve all of the blame for the fucked-upedness of the situation (which seems to be the prevailing sentiment)... far from it.
posted by Poolio at 10:16 PM on August 25, 2007
is there any argument against having the primaries in all the states on the same day, just like the general election? i mean a well spelled-out rational one, not "its always been this way" or "we (iowans and new hampshire..ites?) are more sophisticated than everyone else"?
I could be off on this, but I seem to remember that it's another one of those "big state vs. little state" things. Since originally the US was more of a confederation than a country, the states felt that they deserved equal representation - this of course being why we have both a House (population-based representation, good for the big states) and a Senate (state-based representation, good for the small states).
The primary schedule may have started out the same way by giving smaller states (like, hey, Iowa and New Hampshire) a balance to the power that big states get in the general election.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 10:16 PM on August 25, 2007
I could be off on this, but I seem to remember that it's another one of those "big state vs. little state" things. Since originally the US was more of a confederation than a country, the states felt that they deserved equal representation - this of course being why we have both a House (population-based representation, good for the big states) and a Senate (state-based representation, good for the small states).
The primary schedule may have started out the same way by giving smaller states (like, hey, Iowa and New Hampshire) a balance to the power that big states get in the general election.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 10:16 PM on August 25, 2007
"I am a member of no organized party. I'm a Democrat!"
posted by aerotive at 10:19 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by aerotive at 10:19 PM on August 25, 2007
"Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we're going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico! We're going to California and Texas and New York! And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan! And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaah!"
You'll notice that Florida isn't on the itinerary.
posted by Poolio at 10:26 PM on August 25, 2007
You'll notice that Florida isn't on the itinerary.
posted by Poolio at 10:26 PM on August 25, 2007
While I'm perfectly happy that my own state has no real voice, I'm gettin' kinda pissed about always being held hostage to Florida's continual idiocy.
posted by RavinDave at 11:11 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by RavinDave at 11:11 PM on August 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
This whole episode make Democrats look like the Silly Party.
posted by Poolio at 11:27 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by Poolio at 11:27 PM on August 25, 2007
I'm not sure how it would be. It seems to me that the DNC needs votes from Florida more than Florida needs the DNC.
I agree, and so I can't help but wonder if bitterness had anything to do with this decision.
posted by Shakeer at 11:45 PM on August 25, 2007
I agree, and so I can't help but wonder if bitterness had anything to do with this decision.
posted by Shakeer at 11:45 PM on August 25, 2007
If it were truly a hollow threat, wouldn't the DNC know that others would see through it and they'd end up looking silly? I gotta think they're serious.
posted by RavinDave at 11:54 PM on August 25, 2007
posted by RavinDave at 11:54 PM on August 25, 2007
XQUZYPHYR writes "I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should be the first every year. But someone should be, because a national primary means the front-runner (in this case, Hillary) is almost a lock to win without any gradual attempts for a dark horse to build momentum. The states should be tiered and selected randomly and/or based on location- for example, 4 or 8 states a week evenly divided by a quadrant of the US. "
Of course! Every sensible person in the fucking country agrees with you, XQUZYPHYR! This is the obvious (and relatively easy!) solution. What the hell is it going to take to make it happen? Seriously, how much worse is it going to get until we get a sensible system like this.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:03 AM on August 26, 2007
Of course! Every sensible person in the fucking country agrees with you, XQUZYPHYR! This is the obvious (and relatively easy!) solution. What the hell is it going to take to make it happen? Seriously, how much worse is it going to get until we get a sensible system like this.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:03 AM on August 26, 2007
Seriously, how much worse is it going to get until we get a sensible system like this.
Surely this...
posted by Poolio at 12:06 AM on August 26, 2007
Surely this...
posted by Poolio at 12:06 AM on August 26, 2007
What a godsend for the GOP that would be.
Especially since no mention is made that both committees threatened action (cutting delegates in half) back in May, when HB 537 was passed & signed.
posted by MikeKD at 12:45 AM on August 26, 2007
Especially since no mention is made that both committees threatened action (cutting delegates in half) back in May, when HB 537 was passed & signed.
posted by MikeKD at 12:45 AM on August 26, 2007
Also, it wasn't the whole DNC, it was the rules and bylaws committee. But leaving that detail out makes for a better lede.
posted by MikeKD at 12:47 AM on August 26, 2007
posted by MikeKD at 12:47 AM on August 26, 2007
Also, it wasn't the whole DNC, it was the rules and bylaws committee.
Donna Brazile is on the DNC rules & by laws committee... the WaPo reported back in 2003 that she was "trading tips" with Karl Rove... Karl Rove is a genius... therefore, Occam's razor suggests that ratfucking is to blame for this whole Florida fiasco.
posted by Poolio at 1:20 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
Donna Brazile is on the DNC rules & by laws committee... the WaPo reported back in 2003 that she was "trading tips" with Karl Rove... Karl Rove is a genius... therefore, Occam's razor suggests that ratfucking is to blame for this whole Florida fiasco.
posted by Poolio at 1:20 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
I've actually read some really interesting proposals about how to partition the primaries. One proposal is to let those states with the closest margin in the previous election (swing states) go first.
Another is to set up a rotating schedule by region. First day, one midwestern state, one NE state, one southern state, etc. In the following years, a different midwestern state, NE state, etc, etc.
posted by chrisamiller at 1:26 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
Another is to set up a rotating schedule by region. First day, one midwestern state, one NE state, one southern state, etc. In the following years, a different midwestern state, NE state, etc, etc.
posted by chrisamiller at 1:26 AM on August 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
a national primary, which is a disaster for every person in America who actually cares about having a choice of candidates.
I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should be the first every year. But someone should be, because a national primary means the front-runner (in this case, Hillary) is almost a lock to win without any gradual attempts for a dark horse to build momentum.
I think you're wrong. A one-day nationwide primary would maximize every voter's impact, in a way that reflects the general election. For instance, I would have voted for Dean in that primary, but by the time I got the chance, the pinheads in the early states had already swallowed the media sperm about The Scream, and he was out. If there is a real front-runner, who has a solid majority of the party's voters behind him or her, that person should be the candidate, and a one-day will confirm that. I don't think there is such a clear front-runner this year, and I would like to get to vote for my favorite before the people whose views are not at all like mine get to push some pandering liar to the forefront. All this "building momentum" off of what Iowa and New Hamster come up with is a major drawback to the way we choose candidates now. Having a rotating group of states get to play Iowa just complicates an already bad system.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:37 AM on August 26, 2007
I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should be the first every year. But someone should be, because a national primary means the front-runner (in this case, Hillary) is almost a lock to win without any gradual attempts for a dark horse to build momentum.
I think you're wrong. A one-day nationwide primary would maximize every voter's impact, in a way that reflects the general election. For instance, I would have voted for Dean in that primary, but by the time I got the chance, the pinheads in the early states had already swallowed the media sperm about The Scream, and he was out. If there is a real front-runner, who has a solid majority of the party's voters behind him or her, that person should be the candidate, and a one-day will confirm that. I don't think there is such a clear front-runner this year, and I would like to get to vote for my favorite before the people whose views are not at all like mine get to push some pandering liar to the forefront. All this "building momentum" off of what Iowa and New Hamster come up with is a major drawback to the way we choose candidates now. Having a rotating group of states get to play Iowa just complicates an already bad system.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:37 AM on August 26, 2007
the dnc are a bunch of idiots who'd rather risk losing an election than to give up some of their power to local and regional members
i might add it was republicans who got this bill passed in florida
posted by pyramid termite at 5:52 AM on August 26, 2007
i might add it was republicans who got this bill passed in florida
posted by pyramid termite at 5:52 AM on August 26, 2007
I also want a national primary. I see no reason that the idiosyncrasies of the electorate in Iowa and New Hampshire should limit the choices of voters in other states later on. I have not yet been able to cast a vote in a Presidential primary where the result was not already decided.
posted by grouse at 6:30 AM on August 26, 2007
posted by grouse at 6:30 AM on August 26, 2007
And this is the party that is supposed to unite the country?
As compared to the party who pits white against black, citizen against immigrant, Christian against gay, rich against poor, poor against poorer and middle American versus coastal?
Yeah, I'll take these schmucks over those bastards.
posted by psmealey at 6:36 AM on August 26, 2007 [4 favorites]
As compared to the party who pits white against black, citizen against immigrant, Christian against gay, rich against poor, poor against poorer and middle American versus coastal?
Yeah, I'll take these schmucks over those bastards.
posted by psmealey at 6:36 AM on August 26, 2007 [4 favorites]
Adding, the national primary stuff is the part that I find most perplexing from DailyKos. Kos' core cause is grassroots independent candidates, and yet he's wildly obsessed with setting up a system that will guarantee Hillary Clinton the nomination.
Well in the past he's been all about getting the democrats to win. And a lot of the Dems he championed on his blog or were championed on MyDD ended up being "Blue Dogs" So maybe he's coming around. His thesis is that he wanted a candidate who can do a nation-wide media game, rather then a small state ground game. (After all, it's probably harder to win governor of California then the Iowa Caucus).
But, as a resident of Iowa, I have to say I like the current system. After all, if an arbitrary group of people should get to have a major say in who becomes the next president, I have to say I'd prefer it to be an arbitrary group that includes me.
I also wish we had even more of a 'winnowing' process similar to the republicans straw poll. I would much rather watch a debate without Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel (No offense to Gravel, but the others can fuck off.)
posted by delmoi at 7:12 AM on August 26, 2007
Well in the past he's been all about getting the democrats to win. And a lot of the Dems he championed on his blog or were championed on MyDD ended up being "Blue Dogs" So maybe he's coming around. His thesis is that he wanted a candidate who can do a nation-wide media game, rather then a small state ground game. (After all, it's probably harder to win governor of California then the Iowa Caucus).
But, as a resident of Iowa, I have to say I like the current system. After all, if an arbitrary group of people should get to have a major say in who becomes the next president, I have to say I'd prefer it to be an arbitrary group that includes me.
I also wish we had even more of a 'winnowing' process similar to the republicans straw poll. I would much rather watch a debate without Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and Gravel (No offense to Gravel, but the others can fuck off.)
posted by delmoi at 7:12 AM on August 26, 2007
You've sort of stumbled on a major fallacy in a vision of election by mob rule in that the mob may not necessarily be on your side.
so when the majority decide for a candidate, it's "mob rule"? ... really, all the talk about how to stagger the various primaries sounds more like the political elite trying to game the system rather than asking the people what they want
the current system is hopelessly broken
posted by pyramid termite at 7:28 AM on August 26, 2007
so when the majority decide for a candidate, it's "mob rule"? ... really, all the talk about how to stagger the various primaries sounds more like the political elite trying to game the system rather than asking the people what they want
the current system is hopelessly broken
posted by pyramid termite at 7:28 AM on August 26, 2007
isn't that how we've been doing it all along? ... i'll let you decide whether a country with two competing versions of the comintern is better than a country with one
posted by pyramid termite at 7:47 AM on August 26, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 7:47 AM on August 26, 2007
Or we could just not have primaries, and let parties choose their nominees however it pleases them to do so.
Most "civilized" nations on the planet manage to announce, run and elect in national elections in under a few months
Hardly anywhere else on the world has primaries. Most civilized nations allow parties to control their own nominations.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:06 AM on August 26, 2007
Most "civilized" nations on the planet manage to announce, run and elect in national elections in under a few months
Hardly anywhere else on the world has primaries. Most civilized nations allow parties to control their own nominations.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:06 AM on August 26, 2007
you're the one going on about "mob rule" and the "comintern"
all i know is the kind of crap that's going on with the primaries this year is exactly what's turning people off from politics in this country
the current system is broken, because people have made a point of breaking it this time around ... a national primary might fix that, but again, the politicians couldn't game that system as well as they game the current one
is the dnc going to disqualify delegates from ALL the states that flout the rules?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:46 AM on August 26, 2007
all i know is the kind of crap that's going on with the primaries this year is exactly what's turning people off from politics in this country
the current system is broken, because people have made a point of breaking it this time around ... a national primary might fix that, but again, the politicians couldn't game that system as well as they game the current one
is the dnc going to disqualify delegates from ALL the states that flout the rules?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:46 AM on August 26, 2007
the current system is broken
Pyramid termite, I think you and XQUZPHYR agree on that one. In fact, we all seem to agree on that point, and on the fact that the DNC rules committee made a ridiculous decision.
But a national primary would, as suggested above, unfairly empower the candidate who starts with the most money and influence. The frontrunner would always win, and there would be less time for us to suss out which candidates we thought would best represent us in the general election.
To be honest, Howard Dean's weird shouting episode? I'm glad I saw that before I voted in the primary. Because if it had happened during the general election, it could have been much worse.
I would love to see early primaries in four states, with those states changing every four years, and the order of primaries in general changing each election cycle as well. There is no doubt that the entire election system needs to be re-thought, but a general primary is not the way to do that.
posted by brina at 9:14 AM on August 26, 2007
Pyramid termite, I think you and XQUZPHYR agree on that one. In fact, we all seem to agree on that point, and on the fact that the DNC rules committee made a ridiculous decision.
But a national primary would, as suggested above, unfairly empower the candidate who starts with the most money and influence. The frontrunner would always win, and there would be less time for us to suss out which candidates we thought would best represent us in the general election.
To be honest, Howard Dean's weird shouting episode? I'm glad I saw that before I voted in the primary. Because if it had happened during the general election, it could have been much worse.
I would love to see early primaries in four states, with those states changing every four years, and the order of primaries in general changing each election cycle as well. There is no doubt that the entire election system needs to be re-thought, but a general primary is not the way to do that.
posted by brina at 9:14 AM on August 26, 2007
Because if it had happened during the general election, it could have been much worse.
Yeah, we could have had four more years of Bush.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:21 AM on August 26, 2007
Yeah, we could have had four more years of Bush.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:21 AM on August 26, 2007
But a national primary would, as suggested above, unfairly empower the candidate who starts with the most money and influence.
I think a national primary is the least of our problems in that department.
The frontrunner would always win, and there would be less time for us to suss out which candidates we thought would best represent us in the general election.
Depending on when you set the national primary, there could be more time to decide on a candidate. The difference is that you wouldn't be able to decide based on previous poll results because there wouldn't be any. I see this as a plus. People should select a nominee based on who they think would be the best candidate, not on who has done well in the internal party campaign in a small number of states.
Right now I don't take any time to decide who I'll vote for in the primary, because it's very, very unlikely that the contest will stil be undecided by then. I don't agree that I should be disenfranchised in favor of the voters in New Hampshire or another arbitrarily-chosen location.
posted by grouse at 9:35 AM on August 26, 2007
I think a national primary is the least of our problems in that department.
The frontrunner would always win, and there would be less time for us to suss out which candidates we thought would best represent us in the general election.
Depending on when you set the national primary, there could be more time to decide on a candidate. The difference is that you wouldn't be able to decide based on previous poll results because there wouldn't be any. I see this as a plus. People should select a nominee based on who they think would be the best candidate, not on who has done well in the internal party campaign in a small number of states.
Right now I don't take any time to decide who I'll vote for in the primary, because it's very, very unlikely that the contest will stil be undecided by then. I don't agree that I should be disenfranchised in favor of the voters in New Hampshire or another arbitrarily-chosen location.
posted by grouse at 9:35 AM on August 26, 2007
Hardly anywhere else on the world has primaries. Most civilized nations allow parties to control their own nominations.
ROU_Xenophobe, meet machine politics. Machine politics, meet ROU_Xenophobe.
More seriously, though, Tony Blair is the inevitable result of such foolishness- a candidate despised by a huge chunk of his party but empowered by the party elite and benefiting from a nation that's just seen firsthand what happens when you vote for the opposition.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:56 AM on August 26, 2007
ROU_Xenophobe, meet machine politics. Machine politics, meet ROU_Xenophobe.
More seriously, though, Tony Blair is the inevitable result of such foolishness- a candidate despised by a huge chunk of his party but empowered by the party elite and benefiting from a nation that's just seen firsthand what happens when you vote for the opposition.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:56 AM on August 26, 2007
It was mentioned that this bill was "passed by the Republicans," but that isn't quite true.
The FL Senate version of this legislation was introduced by a Democratic Senator, Jeremy Ring (SB 960). The House version, HB 537 was introduced by Rep. Rivera, who is basically 2nd in command in the House.
The bill ended up passing by near-unanimous majorities in both houses, with only a handful of dissenters on either side of the aisle. The Democrat leaders in the House and Senate basically told Dean to go to hell when he warned them that this would happen if they supported the bill. So there's really no blaming the GOP here.
Some of the commenters here have basically nailed the thought process behind the FL Dems who supported the bill - that even if the DNC and RNC punished the state for moving its primary, having the primary so early means candidates will nevertheless be forced to pay more attention to the state.
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 11:25 AM on August 26, 2007
The FL Senate version of this legislation was introduced by a Democratic Senator, Jeremy Ring (SB 960). The House version, HB 537 was introduced by Rep. Rivera, who is basically 2nd in command in the House.
The bill ended up passing by near-unanimous majorities in both houses, with only a handful of dissenters on either side of the aisle. The Democrat leaders in the House and Senate basically told Dean to go to hell when he warned them that this would happen if they supported the bill. So there's really no blaming the GOP here.
Some of the commenters here have basically nailed the thought process behind the FL Dems who supported the bill - that even if the DNC and RNC punished the state for moving its primary, having the primary so early means candidates will nevertheless be forced to pay more attention to the state.
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 11:25 AM on August 26, 2007
To be honest, Howard Dean's weird shouting episode? I'm glad I saw that before I voted in the primary. Because if it had happened during the general election, it could have been much worse.
Why would an unforced expression of enthusiasm keep you from voting for an otherwise qualified candidate?
posted by batmonkey at 4:18 PM on August 26, 2007
Why would an unforced expression of enthusiasm keep you from voting for an otherwise qualified candidate?
posted by batmonkey at 4:18 PM on August 26, 2007
... particularly when said "shouting" was mostly an artifact of the type of mic he was using. It was shameless how it was used to torpedo Dean -- shameless, because it was used MOST extensively by DEMOCRATS.
posted by RavinDave at 4:45 PM on August 26, 2007
posted by RavinDave at 4:45 PM on August 26, 2007
It sounds like your argument here is based simply on being miffed the primary system in 2004 didn't coronate Dean because he was an early leader.
If that's what it "sounds like" to you. you're not listening. I have done all my voting for forty years in the same late-primary state, and the candidate has been essentially chosen by the time I get to vote every time. What grouse said is what you should be hearing me say. too:
I see no reason that the idiosyncrasies of the electorate in Iowa and New Hampshire should limit the choices of voters in other states later on. I have not yet been able to cast a vote in a Presidential primary where the result was not already decided.
If, when the primary happened, Clinton had the most Democrats thinking she's the best candidate, then she should get the nomination. Having all the candidates running around to diners in remote backwaters, pretending to care about the corn crop and the Bible is not proving anything about their ability to run the country.
you're sort of the last person on earth I'd like to see with any authority over "maximizing every voter's impact."
Did I say I should have some kind of authority? No. I want all the voters in primaries to have an equal say. With the current system, and with your proposed Level 2 clusterfuck, they don't.
So, what, is every candidate other than your favorite a "pandering liar?" Truly, we must silence these radicals lest their message spread and inspire the serfs.
I didn't say that, but pandering liar seems to be what emerges from your momentum-building process more often than not.
How about addressing what I wrote, instead fantastic misinterpretations of it?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:17 PM on August 26, 2007
If that's what it "sounds like" to you. you're not listening. I have done all my voting for forty years in the same late-primary state, and the candidate has been essentially chosen by the time I get to vote every time. What grouse said is what you should be hearing me say. too:
I see no reason that the idiosyncrasies of the electorate in Iowa and New Hampshire should limit the choices of voters in other states later on. I have not yet been able to cast a vote in a Presidential primary where the result was not already decided.
If, when the primary happened, Clinton had the most Democrats thinking she's the best candidate, then she should get the nomination. Having all the candidates running around to diners in remote backwaters, pretending to care about the corn crop and the Bible is not proving anything about their ability to run the country.
you're sort of the last person on earth I'd like to see with any authority over "maximizing every voter's impact."
Did I say I should have some kind of authority? No. I want all the voters in primaries to have an equal say. With the current system, and with your proposed Level 2 clusterfuck, they don't.
So, what, is every candidate other than your favorite a "pandering liar?" Truly, we must silence these radicals lest their message spread and inspire the serfs.
I didn't say that, but pandering liar seems to be what emerges from your momentum-building process more often than not.
How about addressing what I wrote, instead fantastic misinterpretations of it?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:17 PM on August 26, 2007
Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain," evaluates the Democratic presidential candidates' ads and the party's messaging in general. Short version: More Jim Webb, less John Kerry
posted by homunculus at 6:33 PM on August 26, 2007
posted by homunculus at 6:33 PM on August 26, 2007
« Older Mountaintop Removal Mining | He's Got Rhythm Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
future of the Primary Schedule seems in doubt. Will the repercussions from this be felt in 2008 or is this just another example of Big State vs. Small State[s]?
posted by Avenger at 8:46 PM on August 25, 2007