Are you happy with the way the primaries have gone?

[Doctor_J]

I am sort of giving it to JFK. I am not happy that my guy didn't get the nomination. That said, I think all the nominees kept their focus on Smirk, and lots of good things (AWOL) came out of the discussion. I think we'll head into November energized and unified.

[quinnox]

1. It has exceeded all my expectations

I never expected Kerry to win so many primaries at this point. After his comeback, I figured either Edwards or Clark would win more than they did.

[HuskerDem]

2. No, I think it's a real shit shack

I don't care how it gets fixed but this......... this isn't working.

I'm happy to support JK, but this primary season sucked for a whole long list of reasons.

[janx]

6. I salute you. n/t

[Crewleader]

3. I agree with you Doctor

and I, like you...I'm not happy it isn't our guy being nominated but all the candidates' focus on smirk makes the Democratic Party energized and unified and that's what is needed to win in Nov. :-)

[DebJ]

4. about as happy as I was with the Florida vote count. But this time,

we need to fix this. Starting now, before the next election, the primaries have GOT to be all on the same day. Tired of this crap.

[janx]

5. I'm as delighted as you are.

Make no mistake.

[Doctor_J]

7. Yes, I would have liked to have had a vote

in the primary (will be long over before it comes to IL). THis part is bad.

BUT, IMO Clark, Dean, and DK appeal to MUCH different constituencies, and ALL of their supporters are on the deck and will be there for the GE. This part is really, really good.

[salin]

21. back in 1992

you had a major vote in Illinois - the primary (I belieeve just before or after "super tuesday") still had several contending candidates including Clinton, Tsongas and Brown (and I think - others). By this time - early March - most candidates will be out of the race. I remember that primary well, as I was in Michigan (Ill., Michigan and Ohio all had primaries the same day). It was the only primary election (and I have been able to vote since 1984) in which my vote "counted." When the primaries were more distributed - it didn't feel quite as disenfranchising as this. I fear that while we have seen higher primary turnout (compared to the last election) in early primary states, that we might see not only a reversal - but a "ho hum" point to it all that leads to a lessening of momentum and bleeds into the general election (eg lower turnout which always hurts democrats.) But - as I stated elsewhere - it is way to early to say this - we have never run a primary season so front ended, and have no idea how it will turn out in the end.

[Tinoire]

8. No. Extremely disgusted and about to become totally apathetic

to politics. Maybe it's the mood this week but frankly, I don't even feel like posting, caring or even voting anymore. And what scares me is that I know myself very well, this isn't a temporary disgust- it's like being scarred for life and not wanting to even look at the cess-pool again because you know there's no way it will ever change.

The amount of resistance we met from the Party establishment, during this, the best time to get a really Progressive candidate in, has been a total turn-off. What I saw this election cycle was an insulting charade.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. I agree that some good things

have come out of it, but overall I'm very unhappy. This is not sour grapes. I would be OK if my guy lost fair and square, but I think that the combination of extreme front loading of the primaries along with the extreme media manipulation and unfair coverage of candidates has really screwed up the process.

I myself have been completely disenfranchised and I am not happy about it at all.:grr:

[mbee]

10. The opposite party stole the election in 2000 and now our own

party stole the Democratic nomination. Voters are irelevant in the USA I'd say!

[Tinoire]

12. Those are my feelings too - total disenfranchisement

Should I, should I not delete all my bookmarks about certain bizarre things that took place at caucauses, Blacks being very much disenfranchised in Detroit and to some extent in DC, endorsements being yanked, calls for purging from official organs, I feel angrier about this than I did about 2000 because some of the ugly things were done by my own party.

I thought it would have been ok if your guy lost fair and square too. Or Dean. Or Kucinich. Or Kerry. Or Lieberman. Sharpton. Gephardt. Braun. Graham.

It feels more like a game of musical chairs right now. The sick part is that I have no reason to believe it hasn't always been like this or that it will ever change.

Tiny little voters against big money and big interests. You feel so powerless.

Voiceless.

[Zan_of_Texas]

11. Nope.

There is at least some evidence that N.H. had quite disparate results, when split out according to paper ballot vs. one kind of machine vs. another kind. No one demanded a recount within the short time frame. That is disappointing, because these are paper ballots, either hand counted or scanned, and the recount potential was at least there. Some of the optical scanners in NH are made by Diebold. Bev Harris says optical scanners, because they are computers, can be rigged.

The difference in Dean vote vs. Kerry vote in Iowa and NH was roughly 25,000 actual votes each. Based on that, huge amounts of money and media attention started flowing toward Kerry. I don't think 50,000 voters, even if they were all counted honestly and fairly, should get to decide the nominee. Too much power is front-loaded in these primaries.

After Dean's comments in December about deconsolidating the media, the media trounced on him. Great article: http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm

A significant number of Michigan Democrats voted using the internet. Experts say the internet has all the problems of electronic voting, plus some. Who conducted the internet voting? A NJ company, Election Services Corporation, many of whose personnel used to be involved in electon.com What is that company? Well, at one point it became majority owned by Saudis. Who was one of the fellows on the board of the NJ company? Former congressman Tony Coelho. Tony has a number of claims to fame -- a long-time board member at Service Corp. Int'l (SCI), the infamous mega funeral home that twice got caught doing bad stuff (FuneralGate), including throwing bodies in the woods instead of in graves in Florida. CEO of that company, Robert Waltrip, has been a big financial contributor to Bush. Coelho, a Democrat, is also a trustee for the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Tony Coelho did not report a now-controversial $300,000 personal loan on a federal financial disclosure report that he signed on June 11, 1998. Coelho had also "over-achieved" as a congressman -- he was named one of the top check-bouncers of the House bank (Coelho made the Top 22 with almost $300,000 in hot checks). So, Michigan Democrats -- THIS is who you're trusting your primary to?

[burning bush]

13. Nope, the primary season is a repeat of Florida in 2000.

I should have seen the writing on the wall back then...

My vote doesn't count, it hasn't in years.

Now it looks like John "Cry In Your Teacup" Kerry will represent the DLC wing of the Dem party. And my vote still doesn't count.

I'm supposed to be happy about this? Perhaps some people have been dealing with mindless, spineless, jellyfish for far too long now, and they just don't expect anyone to mind. Maybe we weren't even supposed to notice.

Well, maybe its time for a new wing in the Dem party. One with backbone, one that hasn't sold its soul to the enemy.

The saddest thing is that when you steal the votes of angry and informed citizens, you leave them very few positive ways to acheive change - but that's the idea right?

Back us into a corner, and hope we go all passive and give in?

Well, like Grossman, some will. Others won't.

The days of the current Democratic party are numbered. Win or lose in November, the days are numbered.

[salin]

14. Well it gives more folks empathy

to those of us with late primaries... it appears that even super tuesday states' voters are irrelevant to the process... Seriously, I never thought that the front loading would essentially determine a nominee by early/mid February (our primary isn't until May)... not sure if it is a good or a bad thing. Right now, it doesn't feel right that so many voters will never have a say in the primary process (given that most candidates will have dropped out.) Sort of feels... anti-democratic. However, we have never run a full cycle under this system... so I will try to keep an open mind to see how it works.

There just lingers something - regardless of who is in the lead right now - about the voters in so few states (not to mention the smallness of those states) who make the final determination for the rest of us. Might as well just have a single national primary. I know the rationale against that - that too much money would have to be spent across all states rather than some real influx in a state by state system... but we don't have a state by state system anymore... would a single primary really be any worse than having such a small proportion of the population determining the nominee?

[Sugarbleus]

17. Really good point Salin..I was thinking about

the way we conduct primaries also. Indeed, why can't we all vote at the same time--or at least have one primary on the WEST coast FIRST?

Since we obviously need to remove shrubya, this election season is extremely important. So, woohoo to whomever gets the nom. That said, I agree with Tinore; it's like nothing changes.

I've been excited and invigorated by the campaigning. I've learned a lot. I've been forced to see things differently. I've learned to think about what really matters instead of just "marking a ballot".

I guess the frustrating thing is that some of us are longing for REAL CHANGE...Long lasting CHANGE. It doesn't seem like it will ever happen. It appears we are an entrenched society in terms of what the voting public envisions for this country's future. We are a modern country with all the gadgets, weapons, and techno stuff but, IMO, we are still too anachronistic in our social and global ideals.

I'm glad a Dem will beat Bush but I'm sad we won't be seeing any "ground breaking" changes any time soon.

I shift my focus now and hope that while we have a dem in office, there is a chance to continue to work for the future and for "who" will come after this next president.

[SW FL Dem]

15. I have very mixed feelings

My guy is out, but I love seeing an energized Dem party. Turnout is HUGE and that is the big story. We have to be ABB

[genius]

16. I'm happier than I thought I'd be. I prefer Kucinich but Kerry's ok

I'm glad that my least favorite candidate is pretty much out of the picture.

[KittyWampus]

18. Would Have Felt Better If Primaries Were Closed

and Republicans weren't allowed to influence our Primary.

[maxanne]

19. not even a little

I don't share your optimism, Doctor. We've been given a weak candidate that will be easy prey for the Rove/Bush tong.

I don't see this unity I keep hearing about anywhere I go. I do see a lot of angry, disenfranchised Democrats who loathe the right turn the party is taking and will very likely leave the party. More and more the liberal left wing is being purged. It's ugly and it's going to get uglier, imo.

[MidwestMomma]

20. I'm mad because I thought I was a pretty informed person and

I was unaware that the Party officials were changing the primaries in such a dramatic way to insure that no grassroot insurgent candidate would have a chance in hell of winning. Someone linked an article about frontloading the primaries recently and the reason why and I wished I had realized earlier how stacked the odds were against any grassroot candidate.

It worked very well. One of the Clark supporters on the ground in Tennessee said that in the areas they were able to heavily campaign, Clark did well. If they would have had more time, he would have done better.

I was under the impression that we were frontloading the primaries to better our odds of beating Bush. I feel like a fool....

[andym]

22. No

No, the whole process was designed to end the process as quickly as possible so as to prevent the kind of attacks that happened in 1992, when Jerry Brown kept up pressure on Clinton right up the end. A byproduct of this is that they also get to diminish a possible grassroots campaign.

Why did they hate Brown so much? Well he was against big corporate money in politics, he stated that both parties were corrupted by corporate money. And he angrily attacked the other candidates for their perceived hypocrisy and scandals (he raised what would become whitewater at one of the debates which almost led to a physical confrontation with Clinton). He raised all his money from small donors-- max 100/donor.

[mountainvue]

23. The dems

have turned out in record numbers at the primaries. I think it's a very good sign of what's to come.

[Leilani]

24. Completely Unhappy

with the front loading.

Too many people feel they were shut out of the process.

Iowa & New Hampshire results determined the outcome.

Now we have all these months ahead, where repubs can spend all their money smearing Kerry. While the primaries were hot, Bush got no positive press.

[moondust]

25. The strructure is bad.

There is something wrong with the structure when half the states in the country will have no meaningful vote on who becomes the nominee when there were so many good choices to begin with. It's undemocratic. That said, things probably would have gone differently if * wasn't so damn bad and the dems did not have a mandate to get rid of him for the greater good of mankind.