I'm from Ohio and I can't take the pressure

[eileen from OH]

Even I'M getting sick of the attention.

Look, in my neck of the woods things are incredible but I'm in the NE liberal corner. We're workin' hard. And I do think the our areas will have enough with GOTV efforts to balance the conservative areas.

But it revives a recurring bitch of mine. During the primaries you didn't hear SHIT about Ohio - we were ignored because our primary was so late. If we're so goddam important, why the hell don't we get to have a say in choosing the candidate? (Florida is even after ours, I think.) I mean, if the election comes down to the swing states, why the bloody hell don't the swing states get in on the primary action? Especially when it sometimes isn't even a real primary, but a church-supper-wannabee caucus.

This is NOT, I repeat NOT to diss (although I really hate that made-up word) Kerry. Or to relive past battles. Ohio IS Kerry country -now. But it makes no bloody sense to have red states or solid blue basically choose the candidates and only THEN go to the swing states that will actually win the damn thing. Howsabout finding out, via the primaries, which candidates are strongest in the states that will matter in the general?

Nationwide primaries on the same day, dammit. I don't know if the Dem party sets these up or if it's some kind of state law setup or what, but it's stoopid and it oughtta be changed.

eileen from OH

[faithnotgreed]

1. you make a good point eileen. thanks for your hard work

[juliagoolia]

3. I'm hearing you..

Just think you could be in TX like me where jobs are crappy and no one gives a crap because so many in the countryside are singing songs on sunday in the little church and afraid the neighbors will get an abortion.

NONE of them have been here except A-Hole..and then only to vacation and bring shame and a pox on our state.

[eileen from OH]

14. Having recently spent a month in Lubbock

which is like a year anywhere else, I can REALLY sympathize. I did manage to find a bar/restaurant where the patrons and my regular server re-affirmed that there ARE wonderful folks down there.

Personal note - I was down there helping my daughter with her two babies as she unloaded her creepy abusive husband and gradually the "regulars" and the server heard the story. Right before I left I took HER there and it was soooo funny. Many offers to beat him up, for a very reasonable fee.

eileen from OH

[eileen from OH]

26. We got pretty much zip visits by Dem candidates

but Bush and/or Cheney were here so often the last 2 years that they were crapping Buckeyes.

eileen from OH

[iamjoy]

2. I Totally Agree

I'm in Florida, and it was pretty much over by our primary.
But then, to be fair to those red and blue states, they never see the candidates during the campaign, at least we get to see them.

Iowa and New Hampshire really hit the jackpot, the candidates actually spend time there, really talking to people for the primary, and they are swing states. Still, seems unfair to people elsewhere.

[Jersey Devil]

4. Agree completely from NJ where our primary is in June

It ticks me off that a state like NJ which has delivered time and time again for good Dem candidates has no say in reality about who is the nominee. I have grown to think Kerry is a terrific candidate but I never got a chance to back my guy, Howard Dean.

[shraby]

6. This doesn't address your problem but

I think diss is a shortened version of disparage.

[eileen from OH]

16. Actually, I THINK it comes from

"disrespect" which ain't a word. Or shouldn't be.

eileen from OH

[Lorien]

5. I understand how you feel

I was born and raised in Ohio, but have been living in Florida for 15 years (about 14 years to long). Same situation here, even with the primaries. Just makes me sick!

I'm also really worried about our Dem group here in Orlando. I've signed up several times to volunteer, I've called, I've signed up online, and I've gone into the headquarters itself, but they keep saying "we'll get back to you" and they never do. No one has been canvassing in my neighborhood. No one calls. I've been doing online activism, but it's past time to get out there. Maybe I'll just go in tomorrow and refuse to move until they give me something to do!

[eileen from OH]

8. My sister's in Tampa

and has never been involved before and has been up to her eyeballs for the past month. Up here we found that the local official Democratic Party is fer shit - it's been grassrooters that have done the heavy lifting - with the assist from the Kerry on-the-ground people (who figured out real quick not to count on the official local party.) Anyone calling the local Dem office would get nada. Ya might wanna call/email the Kerry campaign and ask specifically who to contact.

OR contact ACT or Move On - Don't know about FLA, but they are all over Ohio. I've gotten 4 calls in the last few days from one or the other asking for help.

eileen from OH

[madfloridian]

11. Our Dem group here is in flux.

Our DFA group is taking positions in it, taking stands, making them fight back, and they are not used to it. They have sat on their butts for years here, and it has become comfortable to them. We are stirring the pot, and many do not like it.

A local DEC member asked my husband who he supported in the primaries...he said Dean. The group in the office at the DEC exchanged sighs....like there they go again...making waves.

Instead of taking it we reported it, and we got an apology. I know what you mean. But our group is emailing us now, they did not even use online stuff before. We are challenging them, making them irritated, but they are standing up.

They did not even have a viable website, now they do.

[eridani]

96. And step by step, so it goes--

The newbie self-organized volunteers from the Dean, Kucinich and Clark campaigns may yet be the yeast that causes the DLC-dominated lump of dough that is the current party to rise.

[crispini]

101. Hee hee hee! We're in the same boat here.

Somewhat recalcitrant disorganized regular party... absolutely POPPIN grassroots organization. After the election, we're takin over the place. :D

[madfloridian]

7. Amen! Hallelujah, I agree.

Florida's primary was March 9. Our vote for our candidate was simply a protest vote.

But NOW....we are going to have to shut down the phone or something. We even have call intercept, and calls are getting through.

Today we have heard from ACT, DNC, MoveOn (who is having an organizing meeting here this week), and many others.

But they don't care what we thought in the primaries. Our 27 electoral votes are sure enough important now, though.

[AP]

9. The richest candidates would win nationwide same day primaries. That's...

...insane.

you want to have early primaries in a few small states in which it's easy for all the voters to get a close look at the candidates. We should have the first primary in RI, the second one in LA, and the third in IA and the fourth in OR.

Then CA and NV, then NY and PA, etc.

[madfloridian]

13. No, not any more.

I want to have a say in the primaries. I do not think small states should have that right anymore.

[AP]

19. If you did it nationwide, money and the media would decide and I don't

think they have the right to decide, and as JI7 said, having them in small states first does give you a bigger chance to participate. You as an individual can go to Iowa and contact 1000 voters in 4 days, which is a significant percentage of the voters in the primaries. I'd rather be able to chat up voters in Iowa and have an influence on a caucus then have a nationwide primary which allows the media to have total control over the mediation of the message.

This I find way too obvious.

[eileen from OH]

22. You think money and the media doesn't do it NOW?

Jeebus, both money and media were all over NH and Iowa. As for going to Iowa. . .wtf should I have to go to Iowa and learn what will move them when I live in Ohio and have a pretty good idea what will work HERE? And, bringing in a bahgillion Dean supporters to do exactly what you said may have backfired. It wasn't lack of volunteers that sunk him there.

If the media had to split their damn coverage over 50 states, they wouldn't be able to turn a few tiny contests into the electoral equivalent of American Idol.

I'd rather work on people in my state, my neighborhood, on my street than go to another state. And I don't think I should have to.

PLUS, by not having the ground game set up here, by having a meaningful primary here, we had to wait and watch before we could get geared up.

eileen from OH

[AP]

24. Media totally ignored Edwards and Kerry in the leadup to Iowa.

In last week it was all Dean all the time (especially on NPR). Yet those are the two on the ticket.

[eileen from OH]

28. Yeah, but the focus was on IOWA

and who was winning or losing or saying what in IOWA. The media lived there during the primary. The media built Iowa into more than it should be, but they couldn't do that if the story wasn't IOWA 24/7.

eileen from OH

[AP]

30. I watched the caucuses on CSPAN. They weren't arguing Iowa issues.

They were arguing national issues. Thanks to the fact that the first caucus was in Iowa, every voter could be reached with a direct appeal and a full airing of the candidates' messages. The best message won.

[AP]

27. Dean supporters weren't enough because they didn't have the best arguments

to sway people.

You can have 10,000 people saying things that don't connect with the voters or you can have a couple hundred that do.

If you have the right message, at least in Iowa you can deliver it to the voters.

Dean had all the money, all the volunteers and all the media, but he didn't have the message.

Because the first primary was in Iowa, the candidates with a better argument to offer could reach past everything else and get it to the voters.

[eileen from OH]

33. And maybe that was because all the volunteers

who came for Dean came from other states and didn't know how to relate to the people of Iowa and their concerns, etc. If they'd been able to work in their own damn states, they would have been a helluva lot more effective. But instead you had people from FL or NY or any of the other states who's primaries didn't matter frustrated and wanting to do something so they invaded. And, their message and Dean's didn't work. I'm not talking about why or why not Dean did not succeed, I'm talking about people being able to work within their own state in the primaries. Especially if their state is gonna wind up being reallll important in the general.

eileen from OH

[AP]

34. Other candidates had non-IA volunteers, and they didn't have the problem

dean's people had. Dean simply did not have a message that a lot of people found compelling and once they could compare it with the positions of other candidates once the media stopped mediating the voters' relationships with the candidates.

[madfloridian]

47. That is not a valid argument.

You will never listen to what we have to say on this subject, so I don't intend to argue. Dean had 5 candidates, plus now we know Bill Clinton, working against him. So a lot of the things you say are unfounded.

If you think it is just fine for one small state to decide our nominee, and another tiny state to help....then we totally completely disagree.

[AP]

50. And that's not a valid argument. Five candidates and Bill Clinton could

see where a Dean arc was headed: a huge defeat at the hands of George Bush. Ever think that that might be the reason they all got so organized? But the fact is, Bill Clinton wasn't in every one of those IA caucuses. Volunteers making arguments for the candidates on the heels of the candidates themselves making arguments to many of those voters in person was what made the difference.

[madfloridian]

59. So you agree, the party decided it. Thank you.

:hi:

[HuskerDem]

72. Are those crickets I hear? madfloridian?

*must conceal laughter* :headbang:

[AP]

78. You really thought I didn't have a response for that?

[AP]

76. Read closely. The people decided it. Did you watch the caucuses?

I didn't see Terry McCaulife or Bill Clinton in a single one of those caucuses. It was just volunteers making the arguments for their candidates. The same arguments that the candidates themselves had made directly to many of those voters. And the voters responded by chosing the candidates who made the most persuasive arguments. Bill Clinton had the foresight to see which arguments people were going to respond to. That's why he was elected president twice and governor a couple times and attorney general once.

[HuskerDem]

82. Of course they didn't vote in those caucuses - poor bastards like the rest

of us are disenfranchised voters when it comes to their vote mattering worth a tinkers DAMN in the primaries.

[AP]

90. You have to pretty dumb and selfish to say that you want your one in 40

million influence on the primaries which would automatically give money and media almost total control over who gets nominanted because you don't like that somebody else gets a 1 in 1 million say.

I'd step aside so that fewer people could make an informed judgment of ALL the candidates after hearing directly from them so that the media and money doesn't get to totally determine who wins, and then I'd take advantage of that by getting involved in the process. I'd write letters to NH and IA and I'd volunteer to go to IA and NH. Hell, you know that most people who go help for more than a month register to vote in IA?

If there were a national primary, I guess you could write letters to your neighbors. But everyone's going to be writing letters to each other. What goods that? I'd rather have everyone write letters to Iowans.

[HuskerDem]

98. I love you too sweetheart

But your are assuming that I agree with your assertion that media and money would decide everything. Ergo your latrine quality logic.

If that were true why bother with the fucking elections at all sweets? Why not just drop two old white men in Iowa and let Iowa choose for the whole gaddamn nation? Who the fuck died and gave omnipotence to the hallowed citizens of Council Bluffs?

National Primaries for the good of the party

One person - one vote for the good of the country

[AP]

106. Iowans aren't some strange breed of humans. They think logically and

respond to common sense arguments.

Why do we have jury trials with nine people to decide the fate of men and women? Why don't we just have American Convict (TM) seven nights a week on fox with people calling in?

Because hearing people argue right in front of your face is a better way to separate the truth from lies than letting the media, entertainment tonight and the morning TV shows tell you what Kelly Clarkson's like.

DUHHHHH!

[JI7]

18. i live in California but still participated in early primary in other ways

so i agree. i would not want california to be an early state. because of the large state and culture. even though i'm not from iowa i enjoyed how the candidates would go there and meet people directly. the people there have a chance to meet candidates many times and actually speak with them and ask questions and even debate them.

[HuskerDem]

21. How the hell is that any different than the way it is now?

Raising and/or having the most cash does not guarantee a win, but stand there with a straight face and tell me money doesn't matter with this system.

How will we EVER win back any corner of the south unless we quit ignoring them and the rest of the country when choosing a candidate? I for one refuse to believe the south is dead for us. We just have to get better at reaching them. Including them in the decision making would be a HELL of a way to start.

[JI7]

23. Edwards is the vice presidential candidate

Kerry did not ignore the south. he could have picked a midwesterner and totally ignored the south. but he picked edwards to reach out all across america. even in the primary he made sure to win southern states because he knew he needed them to continue being seen as strong as a candidate. especially since he is from massachusettes.

[HuskerDem]

40. You are completely ignoring my point

I don't recall where I said anything about Kerry's decisions. I said the race was decided before the south had any real input. Who the hell was talking about Kerry's running mate choices? I was talking about the primary system.

[AP]

46. Talk to Wes Clark. If he pulled out earlier, the south might have made...

...a big difference in the campaign.

With him in it, the south still made a big difference. GA went for Kerry.

[HuskerDem]

58. It was already done

Johnny boy just wanted to show off his VP skills.

[incapsulated]

84. Oh give me

a fucking break. :eyes:

Sorry my candidate didn't roll over and quit so that your boy could have an easier time coming in a constant... second.

Instead he withdrew early and started to work his ass off for Kerry after less than a week after pulling out. While Edwards stayed in the race loooong after it was sealed for Kerry.


The system is fucked. My vote means nothing in the primaries and I'm in a solid blue state now. I spend my time on the phone with people from other states.

But who am I to argue with the wisdom of a couple of thousand white people from a rural state or a state that doesn't even vote for Democrats and brings only 4 electoral votes?

[HuskerDem]

86. HELL YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY ARE WE

supposed to feel DEFENSIVE when we say we want a FUCKING VOICE?

[AP]

94. I've never seen someone so ignorantly selfish.

I want my vote. I don't care if it means that it results in us nominating the worst candidate.

You know what? If Dems switched to a same day national primary, the Republicans would not because they're not THAT stupid.

The Republicans would never nominate a Pat Buchanan or Pat Robertson as a result, but the democrats would nominate a Howard Dean and the Democrats would never win another presidential election.

[madfloridian]

95. You sound as though we the people are fools and idiots.

What a thing to say! Yes, I want my vote. I want it to count. Your opinion of one man is making you totally irrational about our voting process.

You called a person "ignorantly selfish" because they advocated having their vote count in the primary.

That is so far out of the mainstream belief that I am stunned.

[HuskerDem]

100. Fascism of a different flavor

Allow other people to choose for you because they know whats best for you.

I'm selfish now because I want my vote to count? Well OK. If that's the new definition of selfish I guess I'll have to wear it. I must be insane, wanting to vote.

[AP]

108. Do you want a vote on the Scott Peterson jury even if you don't spend a

single day listening to the arguments live and looking into his eyes and the eyes of the witnesses against him?

[AP]

107. I step aside and let trial juries decide right from wrong based on their

first hand experience of a trial.

I don't expect my uninformed opinion entirely created by what Matt Lauer decides to tell me about Scott Peterson be the thing that decides his fate.

Get it yet?

[AP]

93. If the south wants to determine who gets nominated, the south should get

organized. That's all I'm saying.

I'm still stunned that people don't see that the two candidates (other than Kucinich) who got ignored and written off by the corporate media got nominated.

A big reason they got ignored and written off before Jan 19 was because they were the best two candidates running. A big reason they got nominated was because of the way we nominate them.

If you don't like Iowa, then you have to pick another small state with low media rates. Go ahead. Pick one. I don't care which state it is, so long as it's a state which is inexpensive to campaign in and doesnt' have a huge population.

You can improve the primaries. I'll concede that. But you don't improve them by having a same day national primary. Duh.

[HuskerDem]

102. It really doesn't have anything to do with Iowa - it's just that a

national primary is the only way to make sure everyone has a real voice.

I'll DUH you back. I DO believe that the only real way to improve the primary system is to have a national primary day.

More debates. Strict regulation. National primaries.

[JI7]

57. Kerry was seen as a stronger candidate when he won Tennessee and Virginia

if he had lost those states the other candidates could have made a strong argument against him saying he would not be able to reach out to more moderate or conservative people during the general election and would therefore be a weaker candidate.

and in fact kerry won mostly because he did well with traditional democratic voters. and edwards did better with conservative leaners so the argument would have have stood but the fact that kerry still ended up winning those states made it much harder to argue that point. so the south did make a huge difference.

i bring this up because you made some arguments about ignoring the south. but the south was not ignored. and this can be seen especially in kerry picking a southerner as vp.

[HuskerDem]

64. OMG. I don't think you get it. It's not about KERRY ignoring the south

He didn't. I get that. BUT THE PRIMARY SYSTEM DOES. As a whole, the south now has little to say by the time the primaries make it around. Just like the rest of us. It's about the majority of the nation being put on ignore.

[madfloridian]

69. Yes! Say it again. Put on ignore during the primaries.

But important as hell now.

[HuskerDem]

74. AMEN BABY!..................... Amen.

Even though I keep showing up, doing my duty and participating in the process.......... I HOPE I DON"T DIE BEFORE MY VOTE ACTUALLY MATTERS.


AAAAAAAAAAAarrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[AP]

29. Dean had most money and most media up to Jan 19 but he didn't have the...

...best message.

Candidates whom the media had written off up to Jan 19 who had better messages are on the ticket.

That's how the primaries worked relatively well.

[HuskerDem]

35. I hate repeating myself

Raising and/or having the most cash does not guarantee a win , but stand there with a straight face and tell me money doesn't matter with this system.

Money wasn't absolutely everything in our current suck-ass system and it wouldn't be in one where the rest of the country had a say in the process either. The difference would be - more people would be satisfied that they played a valid part in the decision making and therefore more motivated to see it through to a sucessful outcome. Personal investment, personal fight.

[AP]

36. And when you have a primary in a state like IA, $ matters much less.

That's the entire point of having NH and IA primaries.

[AP]

38. And I'll repeat: Nationwide Primary: $$$+media would guarantee win.

Iowa+NH=message has a chance of overcoming money and media, which is exactly what happened this year.

Dean had the money and media up until about 11pm on Jan 19.

[HuskerDem]

I disagree completely and find your approach short sighted

Trees and the forrest and all that. Or maybe you are from Iowa and have a decided self-interest coupled with the almost diva-like self obsession of many Iowa voters, I don't know.

I just don't see how we can continue to complain about ever lower turnout when we involve fewer and fewer people in the process. I don't see how we can shake a finger at the south for leaving us in droves when we give them NO WEIGHT in the primary process.

The system is in decline. Somebody has got to quit kissing Iowa and New Hampshires ASS and fix it.

[AP]

53. Right. What's your solution? A national primary?

I'm open to better ideas. A national primary is NOT a better idea, which is perfectly obvious, if you ask me.

[HuskerDem]

68. A national primary is the only solution - and it's perfectly obvious

if you ask me. Involve the ENTIRE nation in the voting process. How quaint..........

[AP]

77. And you say you want to get money OUT of politics?

Right-o.

[HuskerDem]

85. Show me where I said that., because you can't

Taking money out of politics? Only mental patients and snake oil distributors would buy or sell a fantasy like that.


In some ways, Iowa has become Rome.

[AP]

89. So you want to make money and media and even more essential part?

OK that explains a lot.

[HuskerDem]

103. Nice dodge - but your assertions are still false

I really didn't imagine I'd run into someone on this board who thought it was a BAD IDEA for peoples votes to count. I didn't expect to run into someone here on DU who would call someone selfish for wanting their vote to count.

[eridani]

97. Really?

What you are saying is that being against the war is not a good message for Dems. If that is the case, why were 95% of the convention delegates against the war, and 80% in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

It wasn't Kerry's 'message' that won, but his image of 'electability,' when most voters made that their most important issue, over and above any platform item.

[AP]

109. Yes. Really.

If you don't see it, I probably can't make you. But I think it's pretty obvious what happened in this year's election.

[BootinUp]

10. Every state except Iowa probably has a bone to pick

this year. The new primary schedule plus our bogus media horse race coverage resulted in a momentum from Iowa that essentially decided the race imho.

I kinda wished I were in a swing state, but I am sure the pressure and all the ads has to wear a body down. Hang in there, we are almost to the finish line.

:pals:

[HuskerDem]

12. I agree COMPLETELY! Nationwide primaries

It's the ONLY fair way.

[Sugarbleus]

39. Yes, and then .................DUMP the electoral college thing

One person, one vote. Most votes wins. This is a freaking SCREWBALL way to run an election in this day and age.

[HuskerDem]

55. ABSOLUTELY! First the STUPID archaic primary system AND THEN

The HORRIBLE............ HORRIBLE incentive killing, interest killing, voter turnout killing stupid electoral college system.

[JI7]

15. Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states

[eileen from OH]

20. Not to denigrate either but. ..

New Hampshire, with the exception of Clinton, has been mostly red, I think (could be wrong, correct me, if so.) It has 4 electoral votes.

Iowa's isn't a primary. It's a swap meet. Cool and all to watch how it unfolds and all but. . .

I'm sorry, I think it's a really crappy way to pick the guy/gal who has to win BIG.

If not a national primary on the same day, then what? I just think it sucks.

eileen from OH

[AP]

32. Who did you like during the primaries?

[eileen from OH]

41. Oh, I did like Dean and supported him

a lot but I really didn't dislike any of them (well, 'cept for Joe). And I was sad when he was out of it (Dean, I mean, not Joe), mixed with a certain "well, it's probably all for the best" feeling -there were obviously some major probs with his campaign organization (NOT his grassrooters at all, though). And knowing that he would continue to be a major force in the Dem party, maybe even more as a "loser", made me feel a lot better.

But my experience with that whole thing really opened my eyes to the way the political process worked. I was a bitch-a-lot-and-vote type Dem before. Now I still bitch a lot, still vote, but also give money and time, thanks to the Gov. And part of that bitch-a-lot is thinking that the way we do primaries is dumb.

eileen from OH

[AP]

43. No candidate was better able to deliver his message than Dean. Dean's

problem was nothing more than, when stacked up against him, other candidates had better messages to which voters responded.

Not until Iowa did those other candidates circumvent the money and media problem and connect directly with the voters.

That's why small state primaries are good.

A candidate who lives by media mediation, dies by media mediation. A candidate who can circumvent it in the primaries proves he or she can circumvent it when the media inevitably will turn against the Democrat in the GE.

A national primary would deliver the candidate the media selected, and the media would deselect that candidate in the GE.

[madfloridian]

48. A national primary would have given the states favorable to Dean a voice.

That is the truth, the total truth. See my post above.

[AP]

54. Dean's popularity was largely based on media coverage that excluded

and misrepresented the other candidates. Dean didn't lose support until voters got to hear directly from the other candidates.

OK, I'll give you your national primary, but I also want cloning so all the candidates can meet directly with voters so that as many voters as possible can hear directly from the candidates. I also want a 5 billion dollar public fund so everyone can put on their advertisements so that everyone knows for whom and what they're voting.

[madfloridian]

56. Plain and simple, the party controls the primaries.

They did not like the fundraising that Dean was accomplishing. It would mess up their corporate ties. It was not so much his message, but the donations from the grassroots.

Our primary system is pathetic. I am feeling very angry here now. I had no say in the nominee, but our phone is ringing constantly.

We are being pressured, harassed, and made to feel guilty because we are giving enough, doing enough. Yet we are large donors to the grassroots DFA candidates, we are working at the polls, we work with many groups.

It is unreal, and it is too much.

[AP]

60. Corporations loved Dean because they knew he'd lose to Bush.

It was the corporations that gave him the media coverage that put him at the top of the polls (and screwed over the two candidates who ended up on top of the ticket).

[madfloridian]

63. No, that is a convoluted argument.

I try to ignore it when this happens, but this is my country, too.
When the candidates and the party chair, and an ex pres, all work to bring a guy down....it ain't cause the corporations love him...trust me.

Don't get me wrong. I don't care now, and would rather see him do what he is doing. But I will never forget that my vote did not count, again. And that I finally at last realized the utter control the party holds.

[AP]

73. Why is it wrong for an ex prse, party chair and other candidates to want

to run a candidate who can win?

What's convoluted about that?

[madfloridian]

99. BECAUSE...it is the voters who should decide! NOT the party officials.

It is that plain and simple. Just that simple. It should be the choice of the VOTERS!

[HuskerDem]

79. " But I will never forget that my vote did not count, again"

A point that seems very

ssss......llllllll........ooooooooo..........wwww

to sink in with some.

[AP]

80. You will be even more powerless as an individual with a national primary.

Have you no clue why they do it in IA and NH first?

Paul Tsongas would have been the nominee in 1992 had it not been for early primaries in small states. George Bush got something like 38% of the vote in 92. Had he run against Tsongas, he surely would have won. Would you have felt democratically empowered because the media picked a candidate they knew would lose to Bush?

[HuskerDem]

87. You are an Iowa diva! Aren't you!

you make me smile. :P

[AP]

88. I guess you don't have an argument at all if that's your argument.

You're just sloganeering and you can't back up your slogan with a good argument about how a national primary won't require even more money and media cooperation with your candidancy to win.

[naufragus]

17. the fate of the entire world is in the hand of a few 1000 people in oh

how do you think that makes me feel.

[frogbison]

25. Set your mind at ease...

Ohio is coming through for you!

[AP]

31. Better than having it in the hands of 4 international media conglomerates.

[madfloridian]

51. No, it was in the hands of Iowa. That simple.

You better look out for Florida, too.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

37. Yes we have a crappy system that this is true. But for this year, this

time, you and the rest of the Dems in OH, like it or not, are a really really important part of history. Really dumb that it should come down to a handful of states, but there it is. Too late to change it for this election. I can only hope some (nonpartisan) legislation to help change this comes down in the next couple of years...

[eileen from OH]

44. Yep, that's what I meant. . .really!

Right after this election is the time to start looking and working and studying and deciding whether how we're doing this whole thing is the best way.

It was the bahgillionth ad on tv that probably spurred my rant.

eileen from OH

[charleston1]

42. Can't second guess the process now

While one can argue that a more conservative candidate could be faring better in the polls now, it is too late too change that this time around. Personally I think if Lieberman was the candidate he'd be slaughtering Bush for so many reasons. I can see that debate now. Anyway, the problem needs fixing with some more of the true bellweather states being in the primary process earlier in the game. How to fix it I don't know, I am no expert, but I agree if Ohio was right after New Hampshire, it could change the process so that we get a more centrist spin to the early primary cycle.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

45. Lieberman. It is to laugh.

[madfloridian]

49. Baloney

On every level. Lieberman would be agreeing with Bush.

[charleston1]

67. Don't want argue

"On every level. Lieberman would be agreeing with Bush."

On foreign policy perhaps but that leaves the economy and social issues where there are stark contrasts.

Look I don't want to open any old wounds, the current primary system is archaic, the question is how to fix it.

[madfloridian]

71. Lieberman is almost Republican, sorry but he is.

And I supported a candidate who governed his state in a centrist manner. But Lieberman is just too much.

[charleston1]

75. It's about process

"But Lieberman is just too much."

Too much what? Finding someone who can triangulate the issues like Clinton did, is what we need a primary system to produce. Gore did it quite well. Perhaps Lieberman was a bad example, all I am trying to say is we need to make sure the process reflects centrist America early on.

[foo_bar]

83. Lieberman would run to *'s right

That's how he beat Weicker in Connecticut. He didn't go full bore in 2000 because running to the right of Cheney would take a waxed mustache. DU should cut him slack in spite of the masquerade: he would be Vice-President if the people's vote were taken into consideration. Next to Cheney he's frickin Moses.

[eileen from OH]

52. Ah, gee. . .

I'm not arguing that another candidate would be better. Repeat: I am not re-fighting old battles. I don't think that another candidate would do better. I don't know if one would do better here. Really. I just don't think the current system makes sense - all the emphasis on some states for primaries when the general election relies on others.

Shooting for discussion here, not re-opening old wounds or even a whiff of doubts about Kerry. Like I said, the ads are getting to me.

eileen from OH

[madfloridian]

61. I know what you meant for sure. But we need to say it.

If others misunderstand, then they are not wanting to see it. We need to insist on a better primary system, and we can not wait forever.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

62. I think we all know where this poster is "coming from". Eileen, I

understand what you are saying about the pressure. You Dems in OH are like the Rebel Alliance Base against the Death Star. You're our only hope!

But if we do this thing, as it appears we ARE DOING, you can claim the credit for one of the most important wins in history.

So you've got THAT going for you. Which is nice! :toast:

[secular_warrior]

65. Yes - there is something very unfair about the primary system

It's not very democratic to have a few rural, homogenous (white) states basically choose our nominee. In addition, if someone pulls off a convincing win early (as Kerry did) it results in a domino effect leaving the remaining states with little-to-no say.

I disagree however on the nationwide primaries or any early primaries involving large, populous states.

We need to pick a handful of small-to-medium states that are a good representation of the party as a whole, and have those states hold their primaries on the same day. If we held nationwide primaries the lesser known candidates would never be able to afford it; there would be a built in bias towards well established, well financed candidates. Sticking to a few small-to-medium states in the first round also forces the candidates to do retail, face-to-face campaigning, which is a better test of how they relate to real people.

[madfloridian]

66. A question: Why is Ohio considered more important than Florida?

I always hear that, but I never knew why.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

70. I think there is a "conventional wisdom" here on DU that since FL is

run by the banana republic administration of Jebbie, that given the same reality/vote breakdown among the population, FL will be harder to win than OH just because of having to overcome the organization corruption of Jebco to get a legitimate win even if we are ahead there. Shrubco certainly has many tricks going in OH, but their control over the political machinery is not seen to be as tight, and a legitimate win there is seen as more easily held onto by us.

Whether this "conventional wisdom" is true I don't know, although it certainly makes a kind of sense.

[Robeson]

81. Agreed....

....Bushco, Inc. owns the state. I just don't know how we're supposed to overcome that.

[vetwife]

92. Its my understanding that no one has won without Ohio !

Strange as they may seem, I have heard it reported time and time again, as Ohio goes, so goes the country by electoral college.
Myth or Fact, I don't know but that is why the concentration on Ohio ! You can't win without Ohio. That is what has been said over and over again. Other than a landslide.

[calmblueocean]

91. Hmmm.

Never thought much about that before, but you're right.

I thought each state chose their own primary day, but I may be wrong.

[crispini]

104. Being from a red state with a late primary

I have to agree with the OP on the point that the current primary system makes some people feel disenfranchised.

However, I see some of the other posters' points that a nationwide, simultaneous primary would kind of cause a lot of reliance on media and lotsa money.

Question: Just from a practical point of view, who decides the primary dates? IIRC it's the state party, right?

And a thought: No one on this thread has yet mentioned (unless I missed it) the possibility of rotating the privilege of the first / early primaries among a group of states, varying geographically. Let's mix it up!

NH would squeal like a stuck pig, of course. But from what I hear, the NH voters are madly well-informed and take their citizenly responsibilities VERY seriously. Might not be a bad idea to get some of that spirit in the rest of the nation.

(edited for spelling)
Good thread, I'm enjoying it! :)

[madfloridian]

110. States have an option, but the party has control over it. Article.

Primary Predicament (2002)

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020121&s=nichols

SNIP..."With little public notice and no serious debate inside the party, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe and his allies have hatched a plan to radically alter the schedule and character of the 2004 Democratic presidential nominating process. If the changes McAuliffe proposes are implemented--as is expected at a January 17-19 meeting of the full DNC--the role of grassroots Democrats in the nomination of their party's challenger to George W. Bush will be dramatically reduced, as will the likelihood that the Democratic nominee will run the sort of populist, people-power campaign that might actually pose a threat to Bush's re-election

SNIP.."What McAuliffe is doing represents a continuation of the shift of influence inside the Democratic Party from volunteer-driven, precinct-based grassroots politics to a cadre of consultants, hacks and Washington insiders," says Mike Dolan, the veteran organizer who ran voter-registration campaigns for the California Democratic Party before serving as national field director for MTV's "Rock the Vote" initiative. "This whole process of reshaping the party to exclude people at home from the equation has been going on for years, but this really is the most serious change we've seen. And it's an incredibly disturbing shift. It will increase the power of the consultants and the fundraisers. But it will also make it a lot harder to build the enthusiasm and volunteer base a candidate needs to win in November."

SNIP..."That bodes well for the best-known candidates with the strongest fundraising networks, like former Vice President Al Gore and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, and also for well-heeled senators like Massachusetts' John Kerry and North Carolina's John Edwards. But low-budget, issue-driven campaigns, like those imagined by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio or outgoing Vermont Governor Howard Dean, will be even more difficult to mount. That, says former Democratic National Committee chairman Fred Harris, is bad news for the party and for progressive politics in America. "If you tighten up all the primaries at the start, it will limit the serious choices for Democrats to those candidates who are well-known or well-financed, or both. That takes away the range of choices, it makes the process less exciting and, ultimately, less connected to the grassroots," says Harris, a former senator and 1976 candidate for the presidency. "This really is a move in the wrong direction. The Democratic Party, to win, needs to be more democratic--not less."

[crispini]

111. YUCK! How horrible.

Isn't McAuliffe stepping down? I hope so! Dean for chairman of the DNC! (and I say this NOT as a former Deaniac, which I wasn't heh.)

[cyr330]

105. You think you have a complaint?

I live in San Francisco, and we get NO attention whatsoever, and we are one of the most populous states in the entire country if not THE most populous state. By the time we even get to vote, they are generally already (if they haven't already done so) announcing who won the election. That really annoys me to wait to to vote and already know the results before I even leave my apartment to go to the polls. . .

[demokatgurrl]

112. If it makes you feel any better, it's the same in PA-

our primary is the last week of May. It's a done deal by then, And, now we are in the limelight because we are a very important swing state with a lot of EVs and both candidates are here every other week, or more.
But I don't mind it! Actually I DO mind Bush coming here so much but I'd love to see more of Kerry.

As for a national primary day, I agree. The way it is set up now is ridiculous and has a bad effect on the campaigning process. A few small states have way too much power, IMHO.