"If 25 states all opt for Jan 3, so what?"
Is that really what you would want? If you think about how much money it takes to run these campaigns already, and think about how difficult it would be for someone who is not rich enough to finance his/her own campaign entirely from the get-go(i'm talking Romney, Blumberg, or Corzine rich), it would be impossible for a little known, not superbly connected, or fabulously wealthy individual/politician to find their footing and run a good enough campaign to make themselves known to A) the voters and B) financiers, if 25 states voted on one day.
So yes, you are right, it IS about power. It's one of the few (and hardly sufficient) restraints on well financed, and finely oiled political and advertising machines from trouncing on (again let me stress RELATIVE) underdogs before they can prove their mettle and establish themselves on more even ground.
The democratic national committee is one hundred percent justified in putting teeth behind their pledge to negate the delegates from those states which broke the rules. They are there for a reason, and the country, not to mention democracy, wouldnt be better off if they were habitually broken.
So , are you satisfied that Iowa and NH always tell the rest of the nation what to do?
Your choices in later primaries are dependent on who Iowans approve.
That ok with you?
In theory I wouldnt be against some kind of rotation system.
But I would be happier with the system we currently use, than to have every state move their primary to the week of January 3rd. It would make the election process even more beholden to money, which is something we do not need.
besides, I must add Iowa and New Hampshire have not dictated the course of this years primaries by an means. Huckabee and Romney didnt pan out, and Obama has had to fight, hard, for his votes and his place as front runner (and I still think it's premature to count Clinton out.)
real life wrote:So , are you satisfied that Iowa and NH always tell the rest of the nation what to do?
Your choices in later primaries are dependent on who Iowans approve.
That ok with you?
Lemme ask you something... Iowa and New Hampshire have always had preeminence in these primary races. Were you whining about their place in the primary scheme before now?
snood wrote:Lemme ask you something... Iowa and New Hampshire have always had preeminence in these primary races. Were you whining about their place in the primary scheme before now?
It's been an issue within the party for some time now - which is why some changes have started to appear in the process.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_10_26/ai_n16118528
Calendar games: timing and sequence in presidential selection (2005)
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/nominating
Quote:The 2004 Democratic National Convention passed a resolution calling for the creation of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling.
Quote:Finally, the Commission urges the DNC to engage at an early stage with the Republican Party with respect to the 2012 calendar so that the two parties can work together to move the entire process later in the presidential year and to harmonize their calendars.
snood wrote:real life wrote:So , are you satisfied that Iowa and NH always tell the rest of the nation what to do?
Your choices in later primaries are dependent on who Iowans approve.
That ok with you?
Lemme ask you something... Iowa and New Hampshire have always had preeminence in these primary races. Were you whining about their place in the primary scheme before now?
No.
And I'm not whining about it now either.
IA and NH have not 'always' been the first states to vote either.
real life wrote:snood wrote:real life wrote:So , are you satisfied that Iowa and NH always tell the rest of the nation what to do?
Your choices in later primaries are dependent on who Iowans approve.
That ok with you?
Lemme ask you something... Iowa and New Hampshire have always had preeminence in these primary races. Were you whining about their place in the primary scheme before now?
No.
And I'm not whining about it now either.
IA and NH have not 'always' been the first states to vote either.
Well, Iowa has had caucuses for over a century although their preeminence is relatively recent (1970s-80s); NH has has the starting position since 1920, and if you're not whining, you're doing a good impression of it.
Now that we've gotten that straightened out, do you think IA and New Hampshire SHOULD continue to go first, just because they have a little bit of tradition and history doing so?
Is that a good enough reason to continue to allow 2 relatively small states to winnow the field for the rest of us?
I can understand the concerns of those who argue that the bigger states provide significant money barriers to lesser known candidates. It's a point that has some validity, although (expensive) TV advertising isn't the only way to get the message out there. (No , I'm not in favor of candidates getting 'free' or taxpayer subsidized ads, either.)
Arendt and others have suggested a rotation system of some kind, which could be a good middle ground.
I'm all for compromise as long as everyone realizes that I was right! :wink:
The Democrat Party created this mess by attempting to "optimize" the primary election process - as the national party officials who made the decisions saw it. The problem was that not all the state party organizations agreed, and somehow showdowns emerged in Florida and Michigan after the state party organizations refused to go along. The result is that the Democrat voters in two large states, Michigan and Florida, may end up being disenfranchised by their political Party.
That some Clinton donors might propose to fund a $12 million revote in Michigan, doesn't strike me as particularly alarming. The $12 million is a small sum compared to the total that will have been raised for this campaign, and the stakes are indeed very high for all the candidates.
No one appears to be taking a principaled view of this matter. Both candidates are merely pursuing their own short-term self interests: the DNC appears to be concerned only about its power within the party. No one, not even the DNC, appears to be concerned about the exclusion of the voters in two of our largest states.
georgeob1 wrote:No one appears to be taking a principaled view of this matter. Both candidates are merely pursuing their own short-term self interests: the DNC appears to be concerned only about its power within the party. No one, not even the DNC, appears to be concerned about the exclusion of the voters in two of our largest states.
The principled stand is to allow people to reap what they sow, to not keep people from the consequences of their actions. It is a hard lesson to be sure, but people need to understand that they are responsible for what is done in their name.
If they don't like what was done in their name, they are responsible to change it , not merely accept it.
hawkeye10 wrote:georgeob1 wrote:No one appears to be taking a principaled view of this matter. Both candidates are merely pursuing their own short-term self interests: the DNC appears to be concerned only about its power within the party. No one, not even the DNC, appears to be concerned about the exclusion of the voters in two of our largest states.
The principled stand is to allow people to reap what they sow, to not keep people from the consequences of their actions. It is a hard lesson to be sure, but people need to understand that they are responsible for what is done in their name.
So, in effect, you would punish the Democrat voters of Michigan and Florida because their local Democrat officials decided not to go along with the DNC directive? Who is reaping and who sowing here?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some voters (perhaps acting with the unseen support of one of the candidates) might sue the DNC for disenfranchising them in a national election. I'm no lawyer, but but it seems to me there might be the basis for such an appeal in either a Federal or state court. If this is correct, then it is likely that contingenncy plans for such an action are probably underway.
Allowing primary votes in the two states would, in essence, award anarchy. It would make a mockery of party rules, and diminish the power of the party. The voters in those states should question of judgment of their Dem leaders.
Stupid me! Here I thought that the right of the people to have their votes count was paramount, without anyone thwarting that right. But I guess the political rights of the party transcends the right of the people. You have been brainwashed like most of the rest of us.
Advocate wrote:It would make a mockery of party rules, and diminish the power of the party.
that might be a good start
Advocate wrote:Allowing primary votes in the two states would, in essence, award anarchy. It would make a mockery of party rules, and diminish the power of the party. The voters in those states should question of judgment of their Dem leaders.
I doubt this would rise (or descend) to the level of "anarchy", though, I agree it might diminish the power of the DNC and that questioniong the judgement of the DNC and state party leaderships is certainly in order.
Advisable or not, I suspect there might be an admissable basis in the eyes of a Federal or state court.
georgeob1 wrote:Advocate wrote:Allowing primary votes in the two states would, in essence, award anarchy. It would make a mockery of party rules, and diminish the power of the party. The voters in those states should question of judgment of their Dem leaders.
I doubt this would rise (or descend) to the level of "anarchy", though, I agree it might diminish the power of the DNC and that questioniong the judgement of the DNC and state party leaderships is certainly in order.
Advisable or not, I suspect there might be an admissable basis in the eyes of a Federal or state court.
Wrong! We are not talking about the general election. The DNC is a private organization, which calls the shots relative to the Dem primaries.
Should Hillary lose the primary, she most definitely will invoke a lawsuit
in Michigan and Florida, for disenfranchising the voters of their constitutional
right. I don't put anything past her - she's as mean spirited as they can
get in order to gain power.
That Kuebler-Ross statement of e-brown is funny, but so right.
I would have thought that the November general election is the only one where it is permissable to speak of disenfranchising. The primaries, as I have understood it, are a private affair.
Still- one never knows.
georgeob1 wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:georgeob1 wrote:No one appears to be taking a principaled view of this matter. Both candidates are merely pursuing their own short-term self interests: the DNC appears to be concerned only about its power within the party. No one, not even the DNC, appears to be concerned about the exclusion of the voters in two of our largest states.
The principled stand is to allow people to reap what they sow, to not keep people from the consequences of their actions. It is a hard lesson to be sure, but people need to understand that they are responsible for what is done in their name.
So, in effect, you would punish the Democrat voters of Michigan and Florida because their local Democrat officials decided not to go along with the DNC directive? Who is reaping and who sowing here?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some voters (perhaps acting with the unseen support of one of the candidates) might sue the DNC for disenfranchising them in a national election. I'm no lawyer, but but it seems to me there might be the basis for such an appeal in either a Federal or state court. If this is correct, then it is likely that contingenncy plans for such an action are probably underway.
Don't know about any lawsuits, but if Obama succeeds in his efforts to disenfranchise Michigan, I'll be remembering it in future elections.
