Poll question: Should Primaries be eliminated and let the state pick the candidate?
Edited on Mon Aug-18-03 12:15 PM by LynneSin
I'd like to get the opinion from the rest of DU. It seems we have some folks out there who feel the best thing for a state is to just eliminate the primaries and let the state decide who should run for the democratic nomination. So for those of you not following this issue I'll let everyone decide.
1. Depends on how strong the Republican opponent(s) is/are...
for instance, in Pennsylvania the Democratic nominee is likely to face a tough opponent, while in Illinois the Democratic nominee will face a weaker foe.
Because in this country, we start a bad habit like this then in a few decades primaries will be eliminated. Primaries serve a purpose and if a candidate doesn't like to deal with a primary race then maybe he/she shouldn't run.
that's how it was done in the U.S.S.R.. I thought the plan for America was to have the corporate powers choose the nominees.
Sounds better than having a national primary, or taking sides in the democratic process. Why even vote at all, when law and order can simply be dictated and enforced at gunpoint?
considering the sorry state of the states like California and Florida to name two of fifty iffy organizations. I can't think of a time when they have inspired less confidence than now. This is sad since it has nothing to do with corruption or power mania, just poor decision making and combat strategies.
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.