Why vote? GOP doesn't see the need

Fishin' is attempting to muddy the waters of discussion with a trick question. His intent, no doubt, was to point out that no democrats voted in the primaries of the states listed. Fishin' knows that he has listed the caucus states, who do not have a primary election per se. They opt to selct their delegates through the caucus process and not through direct election as one would do in a primary state. Nice try but as transparent as glass. I don't even see your point, though.

The list Fishin gave us is incorrect in part. Delaware did have a primary on 2.3.04 which kerry won with 50.4% of the vote. DC also had a primary.

Fishin' is attempting to muddy the waters of discussion with a trick question. His intent, no doubt, was to point out that no democrats voted in the primaries of the states listed. Fishin' knows that he has listed the caucus states, who do not have a primary election per se. They opt to selct their delegates through the caucus process and not through direct election as one would do in a primary state. Nice try but as transparent as glass. I don't even see your point, though.

Sagamore wrote:

Fishin' is attempting to muddy the waters of discussion with a trick question. His intent, no doubt, was to point out that no democrats voted in the primaries of the states listed. Fishin' knows that he has listed the caucus states, who do not have a primary election per se. They opt to selct their delegates through the caucus process and not through direct election as one would do in a primary state. Nice try but as transparent as glass. I don't even see your point, though.

The point is that most of the states that dropped Republican primaries held caucuses instead and since Democrats have traditionally had more caucus states than Republicans have, their bitching about it now and crying about how it's an attempt to hide dissent is a typical pot calling the kettle black.

Since that is exactly what the author of the original piece and Redheat are doing it's directly on point in the dicsussion and since at least 3 of the 5 states that moved to the caucus system the decision to make the change was made by legislatures controlled by Democrats so they can hardly cry that it's a Republican ploy to hide dissent.

Otherwise your point is irrelevant.

Redheat wrote:

Otherwise your point is irrelevant.

All hail Redheat! The final arbitter of what is and isn't relevant! lmao


I'll address your other comments later. I have a meeting to get to.

oth·er·wise [ úər wz ]

adverb

1. or else: if things had been different
"I overslept," said Joe, "otherwise you would have heard from me earlier."


2. differently: different from or opposite to something stated

Ya know, redheat, mischaracterizations such as those expressed by you indicate to me precisely what it is about The Democratic Party which over the past decade has brought about, for the first time in nearly a century, Republican control of The Executive Office, both Houses of Congress, and the majority of State Governorships and legislatures. Keep up the good work. Its much appreciated, I assure you.

Timber you seem to love that word "mischaracterizations" however you never actually provide anything that would allow someone to make the same conclusion.

Oh that's what brought over control? So when the Democrats controlled congress that means the Republicans were "mischaracterizng"? or was it "different"? If they fail to hold onto the Congress and the WH that would mean what?

See here I always thought control went back and forth between parties since our nation began. I never knew it was all due to "mischaracteriaztion"

Anyway do you have something to comment concerning that actual article and points being laid out?

Do you think it's right that Repbulicans didn't have access to a primary? Do you think it is wise to prevent voting in a Democracy?

... Given that it is not unusual for a state party, as an economic consideration, to not hold a primary when that party's candidate is an incumbent without inter-party challenge ... why undertake the expense to present a contest in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion ... it is clear the reason for cancelled Republican primaries is simply lack of reason to hold a primary.

I point in particular to your unsubstantiable interpolations of the statements of others. For example and evidence, reread your own posts

In fact, you need look no further than that twisty bit of nonsequitur.

Pay attention. See:

Quote:

... Given that it is not unusual for a state party, as an economic consideration, to not hold a primary when that party's candidate is an incumbent without inter-party challenge ... why undertake the expense to present a contest in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion ... it is clear the reason for cancelled Republican primaries is simply lack of reason to hold a primary.

I recommend you spend a bit of time familiarizing yourself with Logical Fallacies. They can be employed much more effectively than so far has been evidenced by your interactions.

Of course it was a Republican saying this. Can you show me any other state that did this under a Democratic Incumbent? Plus once again you regale yourself in your contrived prowess at vocabulary but still offer nothing of substance or little support for your claims be they wrapped in a big word or not.

Were those words conveniently small for you?

"After Chicago, and Humphrey's subsequent defeat in the general election, the impetus for change was, if anything, stronger and broader based" (Bartles, 1988, pg. 20). After 1968, Democrats formed a commission to recommend reforms in how they chose their nominee. It was unofficially called the McGovern-Fraser Committee. Among the Committee proposals eventually adopted were that all states adopt primary/caucus rules (some had none), make times and dates available to the public, choose delegates during the convention year, ending the winner-take all primary, and ending various forms of discrimination (DiClerico and Uslaner, 1984, pg. 9-16). Some of these reforms were also adopted by the Republican party because "many Democratically controlled legislatures...instituted presidential primaries for their states that were in many cases to be conducted for both parties" (Haskell, 1996, pg. 28). There was a sharp increase in the number of state presidential primaries in the aftermath of 1968, but a national primary was not one of the reforms adopted, not surprisingly because "most members of the McGovern-Fraser Commission...favored a reformed convention rather than establishment of regional or national primaries" (Davis, 1980, pg. 244). Perhaps the best chance to adopt a national primary, since its inception, was lost.

After the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, the schedule changes every presidential election as other states jockey to increase their influence over the candidate selection process by holding their caucuses or primaries at different times. As a result, the overall presidential primary schedule is not usually known for certain until just a few months before the primary elections begin.

Past Presidential Primary Election Schedules

DEMOCRATIC PARTY 1996 Primary

TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST: 10,963,044

Some states to drop primaries
By Andrew Buttaro

Facing record deficits, several states have decided to cancel their presidential primaries for 2004. The states claim that they cannot afford the elections in a time of fiscal austerity, saying that increasingly late primaries are becoming irrelevant.

Many political observers have said this nascent trend is unsurprising, as the primary system is in disarray and dire need of reform. Opponents of the current system argue that the primaries are front-loaded, meaning that the leading candidate is chosen by campaign donors after the first few primaries, and the rest are ineffectual formalities ...