2
   

California moves up primary, confirming front-loading trend

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 01:28 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
And I'm a big fan of precious bodily fluids.


I'm with ya there . . . mine, at least.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 08:11 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Blow it out your ear, nimh.

How's that for condescension?

Pretty weak.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 08:37 am
Super-Duper Tuesday Comes to NY
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 08:43 am
How far can this arms race go? Does federal law set any legal limits about permissible primary dates?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 08:51 am
Thomas wrote:
How far can this arms race go? Does federal law set any legal limits about permissible primary dates?


Nope. The state's each set their own primary dates.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 08:52 am
Thomas wrote:
How far can this arms race go?

We'll see when and if Florida decides to hold its primary on Jan. 29. If that happens, then all hell will break loose.

Thomas wrote:
Does federal law set any legal limits about permissible primary dates?

No.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11:10 am
The Constitution is completely mute on the subject of a "primary" election, because it complete fails to take any notice of political parties. This could be alleged to have been wisdom on the part of the framers, or political hebetude. However, it is worth noting that political parties such as we know them simply did not exist in the late 18th century. The first emergence of political parties in the United States resulted from the process of the ratification of the Constitution. Those who supported it called themselves "Federalists," leaving their opposition with the feeble title of "Anti-Federalists," which was applied to them by newspaper editors.

The Federalists were fairly well organized, in the terms of the day--and their opponents were not. Famous "anti-Federalists" such as Jefferson spoke out against the document, but did not actively lobby members of legislatures to oppose the ratification. Federalists, however, did lobby legislatures. The Federalists eventually became, more or less, a political party. Jefferson then created his Democratic-Republican Party to oppose them, and they were generally known as Republicans. But the Republicans were basically the party of "everybody else," as opposed to the Federalists, who advocated strong central government, and a fiscal policy which aided their mercantile supporters. A group of veterans of the Revolution organized the Society of the Cincinnati, and asked Washington to join them and to become their first President--but Washington declined, and condemned what he called "faction." That was, once again, either an expression of republican virtue, or just simply naive--much as was the silence of the Constitution on the subject of political parties.

Later, when the Federalists were dying on the vine, and Jackson's new Democratic Party had hammered J. Q. Adams almost out of political existence, Adams tried to create a National Republican Party. It suffered, however, from the same problem as the old Federalists, and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans--it was organized from the top down, and there was little involvement by and hence little enthusiasm from the grassroots. For exactly that reason, Jackson was able to gather up most of the fragments of Jefferson's Republicans to form the modern Democratic Party. Keeping the name Democratic Party helped for name recognition, and he was able to recapture the cachet of grassroots participation which has been both the promise and the lie of Jefferson's party. Jackson's party, however, was organized from the ground up, for all that it may have been controlled from the top down. With ward heelers, precinct committeemen, county committees and state committees, the Democratic Party gave the people who participated the feeling that they had not just a stake in the Party, but some small say in its activities and agenda. This was perhaps less true than they may have thought, but in that dawning of the "Age of the Common Man," the Party did take heed of popular sentiment which they could measure from their broad-based organization.

The Whigs and other attempts to organize a National Republican Party such as J. Q. Adams had envisioned suffered from the top-down organization without a grassroots base. When the modern Republican Party was formed, however, they had finally taken notice of and learned a lesson from the Democrats, and organized on a broad base in all the jurisdictions in which they felt capable of putting up candidates. John Fremont lost in 1856, but the Republicans showed that they had done their homework and their legwork, and they elected local candidates all over he Northeast and the Midwest, and Fremont polled well in those areas.

The Democratic Party was well enough established to survive the American Civil War, which the Whigs did not. Much of the Whig support had already gone to the Republicans. The system of primary elections was created by the two surviving political parties, because for whatever else they disagree on, they've always agreed on those measures which benefit both parties, and the primary system certainly acts to prop up the "great two party system" and to exclude any other viable competition. Just as neither party is willing to change the Senate rules because they anticipate using them to their advantage when they are "in" and the other party is "out," so neither party is willing to see their state committees lose control of the primaries, and they likely will always work together in state legislatures to perpetuate the system, to exclude third parties, and to seek advantage on a state by state basis by setting the date of the primary.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 02:52 pm
Rhode Island votes to move 2008 primary to tomorrow
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 03:09 pm
Hendrik Hertzberg discusses this in the April 18th New Yorker
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2007 06:12 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
We'll see when and if Florida decides to hold its primary on Jan. 29. If that happens, then all hell will break loose.

So let it be said, so let it be done.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 May, 2007 08:19 pm
Good grief!!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:05 am
Senate OKs early Ill. primary

May 16, 2007
BY DAVE MCKINNEY AND WHITNEY WOODWARD Staff Reporters

SPRINGFIELD -- Illinois would jump to near the front of the class in next year's presidential primary under legislation the Senate approved Tuesday and sent to Gov. Blagojevich.

The initiative, which passed 48-10, was designed to help Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) build momentum in the primaries and give Illinois more of a say in choosing presidential candidates.

Instead of casting ballots March 18, 2008, primary voters would head to the polls on Feb. 5, 2008, under the legislation.

"That primary date would put us in concert with many other states . . . so the voters of Illinois would have an impact on who the nominee should be for our respective parties," said Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), the bill's chief Senate sponsor.

Fifteen states have moved their primaries up to that date, are considering it or already had it set for Feb. 5.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina have caucuses or primaries in January. Florida is trying to add its name to that list.

Blagojevich has indicated his support for the initiative.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 08:46 am
Oh good grief.

I guess I'm happy about the Obama part, but I really dislike this trend.

(And if he DOESN'T win that primary?)

(Just saw my previous post... "good grief" seems to best encapsulate my exasperation here I guess...)
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:00 am
sozobe wrote:
Oh good grief.

I guess I'm happy about the Obama part, but I really dislike this trend.

(And if he DOESN'T win that primary?)

(Just saw my previous post... "good grief" seems to best encapsulate my exasperation here I guess...)


yup.. it's starting to get a little silly.

how are ya soz ?? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:01 am
I'm fine, thanks. How are you doin'?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:14 am
I'm telling ya, it's National Primary time!!!!

With a rotating schedule for fairness, at least. Otherwise, this silliness will just continue...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 09:17 am
sozobe wrote:
I'm fine, thanks. How are you doin'?


okee dokey. sittin' down here in east tenn. while my dad gets his second knee replacement. ow! Shocked

---

national primary.. hmmm... i like that. kinda get all the cards on the table at one time and let the bluffing begin.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 May, 2007 11:54 am
As of now, the following states have either scheduled their primary elections or party caucuses for Feb. 5, 2008 or are contemplating a move to that date: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 May, 2007 04:13 am
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 04:53 am
The trend continues which will likely include New Hampshire and Iowa.


Excerpt:

By LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Aug 8, 2007 (AP)
Font Size



South Carolina is poised to hold its Republican presidential primary earlier than Feb. 2, 2008, likely in mid-January, a move that is expected to push New Hampshire and Iowa to follow suit.

Such shifts could mean the first GOP nominating contest could take place in December of 2007, in just four months.
Top Politics stories

South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson will announce the earlier date Thursday during a joint news conference with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner in Concord, N.H.

"We're going to protect this battleground," Dawson said of South Carolina's historic first-in-the-South primary status.

Source
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2022 at 12:42:52