Posted on 09/11/2004 1:53:57 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I entirely disagree. Under a single primary Hillary would start out with 40-50% of the vote under her belt, by far the most money, and by far the most name ID. There is no way another candidate could come close to competing with her, except maybe Bill. Where is the money going to come from to fund a national campaign against Hillary?
In a rolling campaign, other candidates would at least have the chance to take their message voter to voter, and could show a truer appeal to the rural Iowans and indy New Hampsherites and set up a David vs. Goliath scenario.
I'd like to see a two-tiered process where an earlier primary narrows the field rather early, thus eliminating the nuisance ticks.
The only way that delegates would go to the Convention as "uncommitted" is if that particular state permitted that option, and the voters of that state chose all or some of such delegates.
Billybob
Maybe a different nominating process will do the trick. Best of luck to you.
I agree completely. A national primary is a really scary idea. It would complete the centralization of power in this country -- not that it isn't already pretty far gone.
work harder to man the polls.
In '08, the Dems will nominate Hillary and Howard Dean and take the worst thrashing in political history. Just a thought.
What the GOP or the democratic party does internally, is what they do. They should set there own primaries, states and dates, without any kind of implicit help or interference from the government. I'd much rather roll back then push into the process.
For '08 we need to run Bill Owens.
Which is why this election, like 2000, is being played out in a handful of "meaningless" "Battleground" states? Oh wait, that includes PA, Florida, Michigan, Ohio... what were you saying about protecting the small states?
California doesn't matter in selecting the GOP candidate--we tried moving our primary up *twice* and even still it was all over a week beforehand and it doesn't matter in the national arena because it's been written off as Democrat territory. This is why even in the midst of a terror war, our illegal immigration problem lay unaddressed in a Republican administration. It's pathetic! Of the southern border states, only New Mexico (and maybe Arizona) are in any "play" and it looks like this time it'll be just New Mexico.
Why not try to get Republicans to increase numbers in states demonstrated by their democrat -run cesspool cities?
Oops... that should have been DOMINATED, not demonstrated. I outsmarted myself with the Spell Check. :)
GoLightly said: "I think the first step to putting the MSM in it's proper place (the ash heap of history). . . ."
Internet communications ceem to be doing that already, to a degree. Witness the CBS fiasco. The Far Left's cause relies on suppression of truth and control over the lives of citizens.
True "freedom of the press" must be thought of today in the terms of today's technology. At the time of the founding, "printing" provided the primary means of communicating ideas (along with the pulpit, the home, the school, etc.). In recent decades, other means came to dominate the ability to circulate ideas.
The Founders would love the rapidity with which ideas can circulate now; and the Far Left, with its "control" mentality must deal with the fact that it can no longer CONTROL what citizens know or think by managing the news on three major networks and through "think tanks" and other news outlets.
Oh, Divine Providence, have you once again enabled liberty to prevail over tyranny?
The people who are gonna put Hillary on the ticket depend on something basic to the nature of people, from a line in the movie "Wayne's World", we fear change. We would rather keep on doing what he know, what we've always done than challenge ourselves to the point where it pushes us out of our comfort zone.
I used that very argument on a college liberal once and was slapped for my audacity. She called me evil...
Not too sure about this idea; NATIONAL anything scares the dickens out of me as opposed to States. I did think this part was well-thought out though, and I like it:
"Another public advantage concerns issues. If the candidates are not buttoned up before the Conventions, then the issues and party platforms are probably not buttoned up either. When was the last time you recall seeing a debate on any platform point at a Convention? And yet, choosing between policy choices on subjects from war and peace to social security are the very essence of modern American politics. "
The first means undercutting the powers of the state legislatures. The second means affirming those powers. Quite a difference and I agree with you in preferring the latter.
Billybob
I've read more of the replies and your answers and see that now. I think that we might all be overreacting. Anyway, I could only opt for the second choice (that of states cooperating), and many states might be willing to go along with it just to give New Hampshire and Iowa a black eye.
I'm not reading it ... too much to do for this election 'aint over till its over' .... pls repost mid-november!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.