The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

*snap* And it does not run through my courtoom!

~Judge David Young "Justice, with a snap."

Lol.


Let us start frome here: if the GOP really is "trying" to marginalize Ron Paul it's because he doesn't fit with the party's beliefs. If he doesn't fit in with the party's platform, than it is unlikely the party will support him. It is even more unlikely that the GOP, however disappointed the religious conservatives are with McCain, will choose Ron Paul at the Convention when he does not fulfill any of the areas for which McCain is roundly criticized. Ron Paul is opposed to an amendment against abortion, he is opposed to defining marriage constitutionally, he wants to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, etc. He brings other things to the table but he is not the "Anti-McCain." The only people with incentive to "revolt" at the election are likely to choose Huckabee over any other current candidate.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Lol.


The only people with incentive to "revolt" at the election are likely to choose Huckabee over any other current candidate.

By election, do you mean electing the nominee at the Republican Convention? Cause I got to tell you - I hate Huckabee almost as much as McCain.
I'm just tired of picking the least objectionable candidate. Even though I disagree with some of Paul's platform, I believe in his integrity in a way I don't believe in anyone else's. I do NOT know what I am going to do if it is McCain vs. Clinton/Obama. Shudder.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I'm just tired of picking the least objectionable candidate.

I hear you, loud and clear. I keep saying that I have Electial Dysfunction - the inability to be aroused by ANY of the current candidates. And this from someone who has never missed an election, and is very disgruntled about voting in a state where most of the voters are already disenfranchised.


In all seriousness, though, what do you all (well, the Democrats) think should be done about Michigan and Florida? They broke the rules, only one candidate was on the Democratic ballot - should those delegates be included or not? If there's a revote, who should pay for it - the states, the party/parties, or the candidates? I find this the most fascinating thing about this year's election thus far.

[jon1856]

[quote=honeychile;1614994][quote=SWTXBelle;1614861]I'm just tired of picking the least objectionable candidate.

I hear you, loud and clear. I keep saying that I have Electial Dysfunction - the inability to be aroused by ANY of the current candidates. And this from someone who has never missed an election, and is very disgruntled about voting in a state where most of the voters are already disenfranchised.


In all seriousness, though, what do you all (well, the Democrats) think should be done about Michigan and Florida? They broke the rules, only one candidate was on the Democratic ballot - should those delegates be included or not? If there's a revote, who should pay for it - the states, the party/parties, or the candidates? I find this the most fascinating thing about this year's election thus far.

Well the states, by way of their political leaders(?) did break the rules.
And they knew that they were doing so.
So IMHO the parties which caused the damage/problem should be the parties to pay for the fix.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I hear you, loud and clear. I keep saying that I have Electial Dysfunction - the inability to be aroused by ANY of the current candidates. And this from someone who has never missed an election, and is very disgruntled about voting in a state where most of the voters are already disenfranchised.


In all seriousness, though, what do you all (well, the Democrats) think should be done about Michigan and Florida? They broke the rules, only one candidate was on the Democratic ballot - should those delegates be included or not? If there's a revote, who should pay for it - the states, the party/parties, or the candidates? I find this the most fascinating thing about this year's election thus far.

You can't seat the delegates as is, if you do every state will move up their primary to whenever the hell they want. If they want the delegates seated there has to be a revote of some sort. The states should pay, or possibly the state parties, because even though in Florida for example it was the Republican legislature that moved up the date (Dems didn't protest much), the party had the option to hold a caucus to ensure their delegates counted. They could still do that, and if they want to whine about the delegates being seated they should.

That said I don't think it's disenfranchising anyone not to, it's not a constitutional right to vote in a primary. Either party could decide they want to nominate their candidate from within and *poof* it's done.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That said I don't think it's disenfranchising anyone not to, it's not a constitutional right to vote in a primary. Either party could decide they want to nominate their candidate from within and *poof* it's done.

Just so I'm not misunderstood - I have always been upset that I live in one of the last states to hold their primary, when tiny little Vermont and places like that make or break so many candidates. Come on, we have 187 delegates to their 23 delegates! I know that I'm far from the only person who feels somewhat disenfranchised by the lateness of our primary - which obviously spurred Michigan and Florida to push theirs up.

In a perfect world, there would be 5 Super Tuesdays, two weeks apart, with an equal amount of high and low delegates in each match. But it's never going to happen - or not in our lifetimes, anyway.


Another question: If they hold a new primary in Michigan and in Florida, what about the people who have died between January and the new primary?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Florida and Michigan have very different circumstances and should be looked at separately.

Florida: The REPUBLICAN state congress changed the date for the primary and the Dems had no choice. Therefore, the Dems there should not be punished. All of the candidates were on the ballot. Therefore, their delegates should be seated as is.

The Dems all signed on to the bill and could have made alternative arrangements to hold a caucus without any trouble. They could also have gotten separate approval to have a primary later just like they're doing now. The mail-in primary that they seem to be working on will have to be approved by the state legislature. The Republicans sanctioned Florida as well and it's only because that nominee is decided that they're not fussing.

Finally, you have the same name recognition problem that you do in Michigan. Add to that Hillary's "I'm not campaigning here but oh by the way we'll have a party afterwards and I'll get your delegate seated" announcement the day before and I'm not thrilled with it either way.

Michigan doesn't appear to be working forward in the same way Florida has, but they were both struck, along with all the Super Tuesday states, with a "NO I WANT TO BE FIRST" syndrome.

Originally Posted by honeychile

Just so I'm not misunderstood - I have always been upset that I live in one of the last states to hold their primary, when tiny little Vermont and places like that make or break so many candidates. Come on, we have 187 delegates to their 23 delegates! I know that I'm far from the only person who feels somewhat disenfranchised by the lateness of our primary - which obviously spurred Michigan and Florida to push theirs up.

In a perfect world, there would be 5 Super Tuesdays, two weeks apart, with an equal amount of high and low delegates in each match. But it's never going to happen - or not in our lifetimes, anyway.


Another question: If they hold a new primary in Michigan and in Florida, what about the people who have died between January and the new primary?

I don't think Vermont really makes or breaks candidates, and since the primaries used to start in March I don't know why we should be expected to be finished with them anyway. It's ironic that the state's that pushed so hard to be first on Super Tuesday have actually mattered less than the ones who didn't move theirs forward.

Besides the people who died, you also have open primaries in Michigan - people could cross over the second time, and people changing their party registration in Florida - how would they keep track of that!

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Besides the people who died, you also have open primaries in Michigan - people could cross over the second time, and people changing their party registration in Florida - how would they keep track of that!

They can keep track of who voted in the Republican primary and not allow them to vote again. That wouldn't be that difficult. It was clearly noted which one we voted in that day. If they didn't vote in the Republican primary, then they would be welcome to participate in a caucus.

Michigan is trying, but the question of "Who is going to pay for it?" keeps coming up and it stalls there. This state is in a pretty major recession (bordering on depression, IMHO) so funds are scarce all the way around.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The Dems all signed on to the bill and could have made alternative arrangements to hold a caucus without any trouble. They could also have gotten separate approval to have a primary later just like they're doing now. The mail-in primary that they seem to be working on will have to be approved by the state legislature. The Republicans sanctioned Florida as well and it's only because that nominee is decided that they're not fussing.

Finally, you have the same name recognition problem that you do in Michigan. Add to that Hillary's "I'm not campaigning here but oh by the way we'll have a party afterwards and I'll get your delegate seated" announcement the day before and I'm not thrilled with it either way.

Michigan doesn't appear to be working forward in the same way Florida has, but they were both struck, along with all the Super Tuesday states, with a "NO I WANT TO BE FIRST" syndrome.


I don't think Vermont really makes or breaks candidates, and since the primaries used to start in March I don't know why we should be expected to be finished with them anyway. It's ironic that the state's that pushed so hard to be first on Super Tuesday have actually mattered less than the ones who didn't move theirs forward.

Besides the people who died, you also have open primaries in Michigan - people could cross over the second time, and people changing their party registration in Florida - how would they keep track of that!

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Iowa's caucus the first of the primaries, or at least one of the first? It was Howard Dean's behavior after the 2004 Iowa caucus that killed his chances at the Presidency. So, yes, there IS a huge factor in being among the first, because the money's still there, and is still able to be raised for the winners.

I agree completely with the rest of your post.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Lol.

Let us start frome here: if the GOP really is "trying" to marginalize Ron Paul it's because he doesn't fit with the party's beliefs. If he doesn't fit in with the party's platform, than it is unlikely the party will support him. It is even more unlikely that the GOP, however disappointed the religious conservatives are with McCain, will choose Ron Paul at the Convention when he does not fulfill any of the areas for which McCain is roundly criticized. Ron Paul is opposed to an amendment against abortion, he is opposed to defining marriage constitutionally, he wants to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, etc. He brings other things to the table but he is not the "Anti-McCain." The only people with incentive to "revolt" at the election are likely to choose Huckabee over any other current candidate.

I agree with what you've said about Ron Paul; I just want to note that it's not just religions conservatives who aren't super-excited about McCain.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Lol.


Let us start frome here: if the GOP really is "trying" to marginalize Ron Paul it's because he doesn't fit with the party's beliefs. If he doesn't fit in with the party's platform, than it is unlikely the party will support him. It is even more unlikely that the GOP, however disappointed the religious conservatives are with McCain, will choose Ron Paul at the Convention when he does not fulfill any of the areas for which McCain is roundly criticized. Ron Paul is opposed to an amendment against abortion, he is opposed to defining marriage constitutionally, he wants to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, etc.

In other words, Ron Paul won't win the GOP nomination because:

1. The GOP's core values have been perverted by corrupt politicians and Ron Paul would put an end to that corruption (or at least interfere with its progress).

2. Ron Paul is opposed to an abortion amendment and defining marriage constitutionally because it is not the federal government's duty to legislate such matters (as well as a host of other matters), nor was it ever the Founding Fathers' intent for the federal government to legislate such.

In short, Ron Paul is going to lose the GOP nomination because he is trying to bring cleanliness where is is filth, and the dirty folk aren't about to go out quietly.