"There's NO money in politics! We removed it! See? SEE???"
Posted on 02/28/2007 9:38:42 AM PST by centurion316
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!!! Morris could not be more right on this. Dems are pushing this idea to limit our ability to really check out the candidates during the "beauty contest". As he notes, only those who already have a large campaign war chest have any real hope of making it through this manipulated "super Tuesday".
In essence, they want people to go to the primaries as ignorant about the candidates as possible. The whole thing also limits Hillary's exposure and ensures that she won't face any tough questions or fumbles while on the campaign trail.
If your state Lege is considering doing this, they need to hear from you NOW!!!!
What-uh-you, sime kind uh French chef?
This an the inherent flaw in a primary system. And the point LonePalm makes about an early primary winner subsequently self-destructing is another.
Of course, it was not always this way. The primary system we have now was, in essence, a result of the 1968 Democratic Convention where the anti Viet Nam War crowd asserted that they were frozen out of the nominating process. After the '68 election was over they got their way, the Dims nominated McGovern the next time around, and these activists became known as McGovernites.
For a long time afterward the Dims were dominated by their activist loony fringe, and they began a long period of well-deserved political exile. The problem with activist loony fringes is that they have little if anything in common with the mainstream American voter, and the mainstream voter tends to be put off by the loony fringes. Their interests are simply not in sync with one another.
My points here are that the system we have now does not have its roots in anything that we should regard as sacrosanct; that there are a number of inherent flaws in the system we have now and how it operates; and that it was not always done in this fashion.
I may be the only person here who would favor a return to the nominating conventions of old, but they did offer a number of advantages over the current system. The actual campaign did not begin before many voters were engaged in the process. The impact of activist loony fringes in candidate selection was reduced to something approaching their actual numbers. It cost a heck of a lot less money. The impact of the media was reduced. Adults made the ultimate decisions on candidate selection, generally based upon some form of political pragmatism as opposed to the ideologies of the loony fringes.
Sooner or later, our current process will collapse under its own weight. And when it does, what then? My hope is that the nominating convention of old returns in some form or another, is brought up to date, and once again the adults run the process.
First line should read "This IS an inherent flaw . . . "
Sheesh.
A national primary elevates the role of the 527's. Effectively, this has had more of an influence on the left than the right, whose fundraising comes from a larger number of smaller sources. So Soros, et als. will nominate the Deomcrat candidate. This is why right now you are seeing a rush to the left by Dim candidates. This is good news for us in the general election.
There are several third parties that might be ideal vehicles for a third party run. The trick is to get nominated by a party that already has ballot access. H.Ross Perot founded the Reform party and spent a lot of time and money getting the on the ballot. Subsequent "reformers" have grabbed onto that 'entitlement' and used to to their advantage. The Greens and Libertarians are the other two parties that have some ballot access. I think the Libertarians is the best. This might be the best year for the L's to nominate someone who is a billionaire and give it a shot.
?
My desire is that both parties nominate reasonable people to their slates, so that whoever is elected the Nation prospers and survives.
The Dems are probably the favorites to win in 2008 - so we should all want a process that helps them select the best, most reasonable, from among the Donkey candidates.
To have the stars align in such a way that: A) Soros' plays kingmaker even more than last time and B) the Dems are virtually assured of a win means Soros is picking our next Pres.
I am sure that is NOT a GOOD THING for "us".
You're not. I was actually beginning to think that I was the only one that favored this. There's something to be said for that process.
"There's NO money in politics! We removed it! See? SEE???"
I take it as a given that the Republican Party has ultimate control of the methods used to nominate candidates for the Republican Nomination. It is only a long dance-with-the-devil that has led us to turn this control over to state elections boards.
If the state elections boards (many controlled by Democratic legislatures who are not at all adverse to screwing up Republicans in any way they can) are not serving us well than should not WE, THE ACTUAL MEMBERS OF THE GOP, DEMAND THAT THE RNC FIX THE PROCESS so that it gives all candidates access to voters and NOT COOPERATE in the weird BIG BANG that we are being led into.
The RNC could dictate to state parties that only delegates selected in caucusus will be seated. They could dictate dates and suggest that only candidates selected after certain dates will be seated. They could sit down with all the state party chairs and create a 'round robin' system where states alternate dates, based on an initial lottery pick so that over a four election cycle each state has chance to participate at both the front end and back end of the process (say spreading the dates out over eight weeks, two each per month of FEB, MARCH, APRIL and MAY.
They could dictate the state parties that states not meeting these requirements are penalized or have their delegates aportioned by the state party.
I'm not sure what the perfect solution is but I'm pretty sure the California Legislature, which is run 100% be Donkeys, should not be the body deciding when the California Republican Primary is held.
Thoughts? Comments?
> Please show me a superior system?
I suspect before too long you'll see one, maybe even including, dare I say it, proportional representation.
Oh. You mean those models of efficiency and stability like say the Italian Parliament? Enlighten me oh wise one.
I think this is a move by both parties to eliminate the influence of the "little guy" from the process of nomination for President. This has been going on for some time since Regan ran. Elements of the RNC did not want to allow another Regan to emerge to win the nomination. So they at first just moved in the primary dates here and there. Now, this move is to guarantee that only the well financed and backed will have a chance. It is all about leaving true conservatives out. This is an attempt to limit our choices. Period.
There is nothing inherently preventing a brokered convention happening. It happened in 1968 because the Dem party was split over the war, and one of the leading vote getters from the primaries (Robert Kennedy) was assassinated. No one had enough votes to win the nomination outright, so it was "brokered". That means the delegates got to vote. The "McGovernite Changes" moved more of the delegates to being appointed by primary election and fewer by other mechanisms. But the Democratic party still has a large number (20%?) of "super-delegates". Super-delegates get their seat based on some other mechanism than being a proxy for a candidate. For instance, I believe all Democratic Congress Critters are automatic delegates. Ditto Governors. The "McGovernite Changes" sighted above did not happen to the GOP. It was never capture by McGovern, nor is there some super-party body or law that sets these rules. The GOP makes it's own rules!! If we allow a bunch of idiot state legislators to come up with a terrible plan for nominating our candidate IT"S OUR OWN DAMN FAULT.
The "us" I had in mind was conservatives. But as I read it again it applies to "us" as a nation as well.
The Democtat party as a whole has become untrustworthy on matters of national security, without those who think like Joe Lieberman in the mainstream. Chalk it up to what you will. To me it is the unintended consequence of McCain Feingold.
Certainly it has been implemented badly.
Then again, there's no doubt that our current system is implemented badly.
So badly that fully half the electorate in any given year is so convinced their voice isn't meaningful that they don't bother to clap for either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle-dum offered to them by the major parties.
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.