Presidential Nominating Process

[Fern]

My state (NC) was asked by the DNC NOT to move up it's primary. For complying with the request we were given additional delegates. Our date is May 5th (IIRC).

I'm now hearing that the DNC and other party honchos want the nomination resolved by March (TX & OH primaries). They don't even want it to go to Pennsylvania (April).

WTH?

So, we're looking like we might actually get a say in the nomination because HRC & Obama are running neck-n-neck. Now it's gonna be over before the later states get to vote?

This sucks. Look, I can understand if it's already been resolved before our chance (like with teh Repubs), but to basically adopted the position that the nomination needs to be wrapped up in early Spring means we never had a chance for our vote to count.

Either the nomination is over:

1. Early because of a clear front-runner, or

2. It's close but they wanna call it in March.

WTH ask us to wait until May? That's plain wrong.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Fern
My state (NC) was asked by the DNC NOT to move up it's primary. For complying with the request we were given additional delegates. Our date is May 5th (IIRC).

I'm now hearing that the DNC and other party honchos want the nomination resolved by March (TX & OH primaries). They don't even want it to go to Pennsylvania (April).

WTH?

So, we're looking like we might actually get a say in the nomination because HRC & Obama are running neck-n-neck. Now it's gonna be over before the later states get to vote?

This sucks. Look, I can understand if it's already been resolved before our chance (like with teh Repubs), but to basically adopted the position that the nomination needs to be wrapped up in early Spring means we never had a chance for our vote to count.

Either the nomination is over:

1. Early because of a clear front-runner, or

2. It's close but they wanna call it in March.

WTH ask us to wait until May? That's plain wrong.

Fern

They would like it to be over, but theres no way the Clinton campaign will concede defeat, even if it is mathmatically impossible for her to win the most elected delegates. Right now the Clinton campaign is banking on winning the most super delegates. The only way ijt to be over on March 4 is if Obama wins TX or Ohio.

 

[Fern]

Yeah.

There are many valid complaints, and some fairly good suggestions for remedy.

This one's particularly galling to me because it seems readily forseeable.

They allowed the start of the primaries to be moved up. Clearly they needed to move up the "finish" date as well.

And to think these are basically the people that run our country :roll:

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

Hes wrong, the worst of any idea is a national primary.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

Hes wrong, the worst of any idea is a national primary.

I stand corrected. I forgot about that one.


Rotating regions are stupid because you'd lump dissimilar states in a region and the candidates would only concentrate on the one with the most delegates. Sure they do that to an extent now but it'd be much worse trying to do regional. Plus you have the issue about which regions go first and the rest of the order.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

Hes wrong, the worst of any idea is a national primary.

I stand corrected. I forgot about that one.


Rotating regions are stupid because you'd lump dissimilar states in a region and the candidates would only concentrate on the one with the most delegates. Sure they do that to an extent now but it'd be much worse trying to do regional. Plus you have the issue about which regions go first and the rest of the order.

Do candidates only concentrate on states with the most delegates now? Of course not. Did the fact that Hillary won the states with the largest numbers of delegates on Super Tuesday overshadow the fact that Obama won more other, smaller states? Of course not.

Choosing what regions go when is easy, just do random lots on where to start. So far I am unconvinced. Especially since if we leave it the way it is, the same two tiny states exert huge influence over the selection of presidential candidates for no particularly good reason, and we will continue to have this race to see how far into January people can push their primaries.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

Hes wrong, the worst of any idea is a national primary.

I stand corrected. I forgot about that one.


Rotating regions are stupid because you'd lump dissimilar states in a region and the candidates would only concentrate on the one with the most delegates. Sure they do that to an extent now but it'd be much worse trying to do regional. Plus you have the issue about which regions go first and the rest of the order.

Do candidates only concentrate on states with the most delegates now? Of course not. Did the fact that Hillary won the states with the largest numbers of delegates on Super Tuesday overshadow the fact that Obama won more other, smaller states? Of course not.

Choosing what regions go when is easy, just do random lots on where to start. So far I am unconvinced. Especially since if we leave it the way it is, the same two tiny states exert huge influence over the selection of presidential candidates for no particularly good reason, and we will continue to have this race to see how far into January people can push their primaries.

Or the parties could dictate to all when their primaries are. Right now, they only say whos 1-5. Then the rest is up for grabs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

Hes wrong, the worst of any idea is a national primary.

I stand corrected. I forgot about that one.


Rotating regions are stupid because you'd lump dissimilar states in a region and the candidates would only concentrate on the one with the most delegates. Sure they do that to an extent now but it'd be much worse trying to do regional. Plus you have the issue about which regions go first and the rest of the order.

Do candidates only concentrate on states with the most delegates now? Of course not. Did the fact that Hillary won the states with the largest numbers of delegates on Super Tuesday overshadow the fact that Obama won more other, smaller states? Of course not.

Choosing what regions go when is easy, just do random lots on where to start. So far I am unconvinced. Especially since if we leave it the way it is, the same two tiny states exert huge influence over the selection of presidential candidates for no particularly good reason, and we will continue to have this race to see how far into January people can push their primaries.

Uh - have you paid attention to this primary season? Ofcourse they concentrate on the larger delegate states and a few key bellweather states.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

Hes wrong, the worst of any idea is a national primary.

I stand corrected. I forgot about that one.


Rotating regions are stupid because you'd lump dissimilar states in a region and the candidates would only concentrate on the one with the most delegates. Sure they do that to an extent now but it'd be much worse trying to do regional. Plus you have the issue about which regions go first and the rest of the order.

Do candidates only concentrate on states with the most delegates now? Of course not. Did the fact that Hillary won the states with the largest numbers of delegates on Super Tuesday overshadow the fact that Obama won more other, smaller states? Of course not.

Choosing what regions go when is easy, just do random lots on where to start. So far I am unconvinced. Especially since if we leave it the way it is, the same two tiny states exert huge influence over the selection of presidential candidates for no particularly good reason, and we will continue to have this race to see how far into January people can push their primaries.

Uh - have you paid attention to this primary season? Ofcourse they concentrate on the larger delegate states and a few key bellweather states.

Yes I've paid attention, my comment stands.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There's really no defending the current primary system. It's stupid. The rotating regional primary seems to make by far the most sense to me, but... good luck with that one.

Rotating regional is the worst of any ideas I've heard thrown out by the whiners. This primary system has been just fine but this time around states tried to make themselves more important since the prez race started so damn early(by almost a full year). The states that tried to move shit up are the problem IMO.

Right, and states will continue to do this.

Please elaborate why rotating regional is 'the worst of any ideas'.

Hes wrong, the worst of any idea is a national primary.

I stand corrected. I forgot about that one.


Rotating regions are stupid because you'd lump dissimilar states in a region and the candidates would only concentrate on the one with the most delegates. Sure they do that to an extent now but it'd be much worse trying to do regional. Plus you have the issue about which regions go first and the rest of the order.

Do candidates only concentrate on states with the most delegates now? Of course not. Did the fact that Hillary won the states with the largest numbers of delegates on Super Tuesday overshadow the fact that Obama won more other, smaller states? Of course not.

Choosing what regions go when is easy, just do random lots on where to start. So far I am unconvinced. Especially since if we leave it the way it is, the same two tiny states exert huge influence over the selection of presidential candidates for no particularly good reason, and we will continue to have this race to see how far into January people can push their primaries.

Uh - have you paid attention to this primary season? Ofcourse they concentrate on the larger delegate states and a few key bellweather states.

Yes I've paid attention, my comment stands.

Please tell me why Guiliani didn't do Iowa. Fred Iowa? Hmmm... yeah - no did pay attention me thinks. But anyway it matters very little because there will always be some "strategery" when it comes to the nomination process.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-

....the same two tiny states exert huge influence over the selection of presidential candidates for no particularly good reason...

I'm now less convinced that Iowa and NH have all that much influenced.

They have some, to be sure. But I've changed my mind.

While I haven't gone as far as Rudy, who felt he could just blow them and others off until FL, I think they have less inflence now than ever before.

I feel this way because of an explosion in polling and media coverage.

Iowa & NH have shown they have the interest & dedication to play a role in the process. They attend all kinds of stuff and question the candidates etc. I think more than other states.

As far as I'm concerned they, and even some other small states, can go first.

Coming in 3rd in Iowa no longer means you're finished. Everybodies gonna look at polls in later bigger states b4 dropping out.

The momentum thingy hasn't really showed up to the extent expected. I think the media coverage has somewhat limited this. We can now see all the candidates speeches in these states and choose for ourselves.

What I would do now is just move up every state remaining into some kind of super March (maybe end of March) primary date (since they don't wanna go past that date). Just finish it off then.

Obviously, it can't all be condensed as that would prohibit candidates from efectively campaigning. Just as obviously they can't have states scheduling primary dates so late that they may as well not have them. As in NC's, PA and many other cases.

It's a big waste of taxpayer money, and the super delegates are gonna wrap it up even before we vote (because, especially after PA, there's not likely to be enough delegates in play due to the "proportional rules" to change who the front runner is in pledged delegates)

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Please tell me why Guiliani didn't do Iowa. Fred Iowa? Hmmm... yeah - no did pay attention me thinks. But anyway it matters very little because there will always be some "strategery" when it comes to the nomination process.

Please tell me why every other candidate did Iowa and please tell me why candidates were setting up organization for years in advance in Iowa. Huckabee spent tons of time in the South where there are no particularly important states outside of Florida.

I think your problem is that you're trying to apply Republican race dynamics to the examples I set forth that were from the Democratic one. You've got a winner take all formula (in a lot of cases) and you're trying to use candidate behavior as some sort of answer to my example where two candidates are competing in a PR election. (of sorts) Republican candidates will spend the most time and money in states where the polls are close, because getting just a few % more means you get all the delegates. Democratic candidates are far more likely to spend a lot of time in areas where they can rack up some significant majorities.

Anyways, in a rotating regional primary there is no indication based on current candidate behavior that the candidates would ignore the smaller states. Sure they would get less attention then the big ones, but... duh. More importantly though, with this primary season being the sole exception in god knows how long, a rotating primary would get rid of a situation where the vast majority of states are simply ignored... forever. There's no perfect solution, but the one we have now is completely retarded.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-

....the same two tiny states exert huge influence over the selection of presidential candidates for no particularly good reason...

I'm now less convinced that Iowa and NH have all that much influenced.

They have some, to be sure. But I've changed my mind.

While I haven't gone as far as Rudy, who felt he could just blow them and others off until FL, I think they have less inflence now than ever before.

I feel this way because of an explosion in polling and media coverage.

Iowa & NH have shown they have the interest & dedication to play a role in the process. They attend all kinds of stuff and question the candidates etc. I think more than other states.

As far as I'm concerned they, and even some other small states, can go first.

Coming in 3rd in Iowa no longer means you're finished. Everybodies gonna look at polls in later bigger states b4 dropping out.

The momentum thingy hasn't really showed up to the extent expected. I think the media coverage has somewhat limited this. We can now see all the candidates speeches in these states and choose for ourselves.

What I would do now is just move up every state remaining into some kind of super March (maybe end of March) primary date (since they don't wanna go past that date). Just finish it off then.

Obviously, it can't all be condensed as that would prohibit candidates from efectively campaigning. Just as obviously they can't have states scheduling primary dates so late that they may as well not have them. As in NC's, PA and many other cases.

It's a big waste of taxpayer money, and the super delegates are gonna wrap it up even before we vote (because, especially after PA, there's not likely to be enough delegates in play due to the "proportional rules" to change who the front runner is in pledged delegates)

Fern

Finishing third in Iowa has never meant you were finished. Bill Clinton finished 3rd (with like 3%) and won the nomination, So did Dukakis and GHWB. Losing New Hampsire on the other hand is frequently the kiss of death. People are taking far too many 'lessons' from one very abnormal primary season I think. Media saturation was just as bad in 2004 and yet Kerry had it pretty much wrapped up after NH.

Iowa and NH exert gigantic influence far out of proportion with their importance geographically, economically, demographically, and politically. There is no logical reason for this, and so I think it should be changed.

Oh, and Giuliani's strategy was hugely criticized when he announced it. Every political scientist I know pronounced him dead as soon as he did that. True he might not have been able to win those states anyway, but to not even try was the height of stupidity.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Please tell me why Guiliani didn't do Iowa. Fred Iowa? Hmmm... yeah - no did pay attention me thinks. But anyway it matters very little because there will always be some "strategery" when it comes to the nomination process.

Please tell me why every other candidate did Iowa and please tell me why candidates were setting up organization for years in advance in Iowa. Huckabee spent tons of time in the South where there are no particularly important states outside of Florida.

I think your problem is that you're trying to apply Republican race dynamics to the examples I set forth that were from the Democratic one. You've got a winner take all formula (in a lot of cases) and you're trying to use candidate behavior as some sort of answer to my example where two candidates are competing in a PR election. (of sorts) Republican candidates will spend the most time and money in states where the polls are close, because getting just a few % more means you get all the delegates. Democratic candidates are far more likely to spend a lot of time in areas where they can rack up some significant majorities.

Anyways, in a rotating regional primary there is no indication based on current candidate behavior that the candidates would ignore the smaller states. Sure they would get less attention then the big ones, but... duh. More importantly though, with this primary season being the sole exception in god knows how long, a rotating primary would get rid of a situation where the vast majority of states are simply ignored... forever. There's no perfect solution, but the one we have now is completely retarded.

Uh - you obviously are very young and have not been actively watching these thing. Don't feel bad, it takes people a while to get over their noobness and look back at the history of things. Good luck.

 

[Lemon law]

Criticizing the primary process is like bad mouthing the electoral college or the weather. Everyone does it and no does anything to change it. But to make a liar out of myself, this year they front loaded the primaries. It used to be that California used to be last and it was often the deciding State.

I have long warned of the danger of front loading the primaries. And this year it may a dagger aimed at the heart of the GOP. Given the fact that McCain basically has the nomination locked up and the fact that McCain has painted himself into a corner on his Iraq war position, any great increase in Iraqi violence with a verdict by events that the surge has failed, may leave the GOP stuck with a sure loser in November. With McCain unable to change positions.

The silent voter is always the verdict by events. Especially volatile this year as the GWB Presidency winds down and a recession lurking.

Which is why I warn against the dangers of front loading the primaries. Because events are very important in validating a future or present President's position on issues. A President should guess right the first time on an issue. And is why Obama will probably beat Hillary. Because Hillary voted pro Iraq war and Obama spoke out against it.

 

[BarneyFife]

Something is wrong when a shithole state like Iowa gets first dibs.

NY, CA, TX, IL, MI, OH, PA, FL, should be in the front of the line.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Something is wrong when a shithole state like Iowa gets first dibs.

NY, CA, TX, IL, MI, OH, PA, FL, should be in the front of the line.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its a point of view thing and evidently, from the viewpoint of Iowa party officials, its the best thing that ever happened to Iowa.

Just by sheer fairness, there is some validity to say that honor or curse of being first should rotate between States
by some random but fair process.

 

[schmedy]

Actually to make it "fair" and not have so much bias from a couple states they should just have all the primaries the same day.

 

[kedlav]

Why not schedule all primaries on the same day instead of dragging this shit out for six months?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
-snip-
Which is why I warn against the dangers of front loading the primaries. Because events are very important in validating a future or present President's position on issues.

Yeah, I've said so as well.

The 9 months until the Nov election is several political lifetimes away. I'm very curious to see if some event, or changes, arise and completely scramble the election. And if so, which candidate gets caught on wrong side of things.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Iowa and NH exert gigantic influence far out of proportion with their importance geographically, economically, demographically, and politically. There is no logical reason for this, and so I think it should be changed.

I just don't think they do any more.

They strike me more as small time stages where the candidates start warming up their acts.

I don't really give a crap about who wins either Iowa or NH.

I thought HRC won NH. So, apparently not many other people are influenced by it either given she's lost a ton of states since.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: schmedy
Actually to make it "fair" and not have so much bias from a couple states they should just have all the primaries the same day.

Originally posted by: kedlav
Why not schedule all primaries on the same day instead of dragging this shit out for six months?

I'd really hate to see us move to that.

The biggest reason is because we start out with about 6 candidates.

Somebody gathering about 25% of the vote could win if every other (better) candidate split the remaing 75%.

That candidate winning with just 25% could be absolutley hated by the other 75%.

A "one day" simultaneous primary could begin being acceptible if there were just 2 candidates.

Then you'd have to address the problem of how they'd campaign.

Instead of traveling around building support, it would become mostly a big media (buying TV ads) event.

This system would drastically favor some candidate picked before- hand by party insiders who had big corporate ($s) support.

Fern