The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[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.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

IA and NH are first. I'd be a pretty big fan of some sort of regional system where the country is split into five or ten state regions and a state from each region has a primary every other week - it seems like there'd be more regional national exposure.

I've always thought the whole Dean scream thing was extremely overplayed, and he did keep trucking in that race through the Wisconsin primary which was almost a month after Iowa.

I also would like to add I think the whole caucus system is a load of crap - I was elected a delegate at my local caucus only to find out that the party leadership reallocated me as an alternate delegate - lame. I spent two hours yesterday morning waiting to find out if I'd be seated.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

You said Vermont, not Iowa, and Vermont just voted along with Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island!). Are you thinking of New Hampshire the first primary and second contest of the entire season?

[honeychile]

Well, the multi-quote function isn't working here this morning...

GP, I am so with you on this. Five Super Tuesdays, then get ready for November.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You said Vermont, not Iowa, and Vermont just voted along with Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island!). Are you thinking of New Hampshire the first primary and second contest of the entire season?

I stand corrected - I did mean New Hampshire. Unless I have some Ben & Jerry's in front of me, I confuse the two.