Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Super Duper Tuesday - Early Primaries in '08

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 06:59 PM
Original message
Super Duper Tuesday - Early Primaries in '08
Gov Terminator just announced that the CA primary is going to move up to Feb 5th. That's going to be a lot of delegates determined that day. IMHO, stacking the primaries up early benefits big money candidates who can blanket the airwaves. I haven't thought about it enough to be for it or against. But IMHO, Hillary Clinton benefits most.

What sayest thou?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. I say it's about time we Californians have a say
Why should Iowa and New Hampshire have all the fun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I Agree
I live in Wisconsin, and if memory serves mecorrectly, California had their 2004 "primary" in June. I remember thinking that was bullshit, and wondered how voter turnout was for that primary. I'm glad for you California!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoPasaran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. March 2, 2004, actually
February 5, 2008 is going to be a hell of a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yes It Will
Thanks for the correction:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Because it's impossible for candidates without $100 million to compete in California
Iowa and New Hampshire worked because they were small enough states that candidates without much money and name recognition like Jimmy Carter could win there. You can't get anywhere with small gatherings in living rooms in California whereas in Iowa and New Hampshire you can. I'd favor rotating between small to mid-sized states but not putting California so damn early (unless we we fix public financing).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmkinsey Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Given the MSM's penchant for hyperventilating over the results of the FIRST VOTE
anything that happens AFTER the first vote is mostly insignificant. No one wants to participate in a thing that's insignificant so everybody wants to be first.

It's unfortunate but I don't see how there can be a system that forces some voters to wait until the question is resolved to cast their votes.

On the funding question, it's clear that in big states like California and Michigan, etc., television advertising will be a requirement. This will obviously play into the hands of those candidates with the name recognition to enable them to raise big money.

That said, I think Hillary could still blow it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think they should all be on the same day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sampsonblk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Why? - nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Again, that would destroy any candidate that doesn't have inside fundraising connections
It may not be fair that they always go first, but candidates could succeed in Iowa and New Hampshire with real grassroots campaigning. That's the test I want to put my candidates through, not how much money they can raise.

Until the playing field is level (we fix the public financing system), it's incredibly unfair to lesser known less connected candidates to have big states to go first or to have a one day national primary (which we will essentially have on February 5th).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Thank you.
Very well put. Until the public financing fix (or some other solution) is provided, we have to rely on smaller, cheaper, states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Instant runoff voting could be a big part of the solution.
People can vote for their favorite candidate without worrying that it might be "wssted" if that candidate is not a frontrunner.

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

Sorry I can't participate more, short on time today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Which is exactly why instant runoff voting will never take place.
It would help the Kuciniches of the world too much. For that matter, it would help the Tancredos and Brownbacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IA_Seth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
11. All hail the almighty dollar!
Because that is the winner here. No longer will any 'second tier' candidates be able to compete against the well-moneyed, bought and paid for candidates that we'll end up with.

I understand the frustration that CA and NY and the other big money states must feel...you are taken advantage of and then left to feel that your votes don't count.

But by allowing smaller, or cheaper, states to go up front we allow candidates that may not have the 50 million dollar warchest to actually compete against those that do. With so many states frontloaded we will now get to see candidates flying in and out of states before they even take a crap, let alone sitting down and having coffee with the regular folks.

Welcome to tarmac-to-tarmac, increased TV ads, and slick advertising campaigns. American politics are now more than ever part of our marketing mess in America. Woo flippin hoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. I say CA/NY/FL/TX will from here on out choose the nominee for President of the United states
Why even hold primaries in other states? :shrug:

Just give a call to 'the big four' and ask them who they've chosen.

As for retail politics? Out the window. x( Candidates will hit Sacramento, Los Angeles and maybe wander around the Santa Monica pier (with a trip to Hollywood for a $1million dollar fund raiser). Otherwise it will be TV/TV/TV.

At least when smaller states were allowed to participate candidates had to face voters one-on-one and answer tough questions. Now all they have to do is get an agent/political consultant and have $40,000,000 dollars in their bank account.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC