Does anyone find it ironic?
 

That with all the whiney fall-on-your-sword bitching and conspiracy theory about disenfranchised voters the Demoncrats would turn around and disavow Florida demoncratic votes from being counted in the national primaries? How the hell is that any better for voters who want to have a say in the process of choosing Hitlery or Obama?

I find the entire primary date position jockeying situation ridiculous. Just have a national primary.

I must agree. Force them all to equal footing on the same day like an election, or sub election in this case.

Yeah, why do they do it like that?

To give the media something to talk about.

oh, so it serves no real purpose?

Well no it serves a purpose. To choose the delegates and ultimately choose who gets to run in the race. To bad it really is designed to exclude third parties. More here, including the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ential_primary

yes, but why a small dribble of primaries followed up by 'all the rest'? That's the main part I don't get. I understand the rest of the process.

I don't have an answer but some of the explanation is in the link under history and after that.

great question - followed by why wasn't that raised by any national media?

by having the primaries scattered around the calendar and country the theory is that more voters will get a chance to actually see, meet, hear the candidates and be able to make a more informed decision than they would otherwise. I think there is value in seeing these professional pols react to the somewhat bizarre situations and questions they encounter in small towns in Iowa, etc.

Wow, we agree on something. I need to sit down.

I think there should be a law that all primaries and caucuses are to be held on the same day in all 50 states. This would prevent smaller states from having an inordinate amount of influence over the national elections.

Or continue having primaries on a staggered schedule, but put the results in Al Gore's lockbox, only to be opened after the last primary. Then release the nationwide results. That way, the early states would have no more influence than the late ones, and the candidates would still have to meet and greet everyone.

The problem with that is the candidates would only focus on the big states that have the most electoral votes - like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. So about 45 states would be ignored. I don't think 5 states should choose the fate of the U.S., nor do I think a person in California or New York should be catered to by the candidates while everyone in the other 45 states will only ever see the candidates on tv. Lookout123 is right on the reasoning behind it. But the voters in Iowa and NH were catered to way more than any other state will be, and that's not right either.

I think it could be more condensed, and multiple primaries on the same day or week, instead of the candidates focusing just on Iowa for a month, then running up to NH for a week... Maybe 5 states each week for 10 weeks. Instead of the slow build up to Super Tuesday and then the slow trickle to the convention.

Clinton was criticized by Edwards for not sticking around longer in SC and running off to campaign in Nevada. Well... she needs to campaign in every state and can't just stick around each state until after the primary. And he didn't stict around SC either, but still criticized her.

I don't get the Florida and Michigan thing. Their primaries don't count because they held it earlier than the democratic party approved of? So disenfranchise two entire states democratic population over a quibble on what date? Does holding it before Super Tuesday really impact the democratic primary process that much that they shouldn't count? Come on.

And that is really the rub with me. After all the finger pointing and wailing over the 2000 results in Florida and now the Dems can just toss the whole state away to punish them??? WTF?

It just proves to me that the Dems are merely the other side of the same coin, like the faces of a jester, one happy, one sad.

I think they should just set it up so that the candidates have to participate in a debate in every state, starting no sooner than 6 Months before the election.

You know I have thought about that as well. Shorten the time frame of the primary, don't make it longer.

Shortening the process sounds good, but ... a debate in every state? FIFTY DEBATES??? ARE YOU MASOCHISTIC, SHELDON??????

Don't ask that... :eek:

I think he said in another thread that he switches, Top or Bottom. :D

YES! By the time the Prez election rolls around, we will have been listening to campaign speeches and bashing for a year and a half! That's too long. And too expensive for some others that may be viable election material but just don't have the funds to spend 18 months campaigning.

My states primary hasn't gone yet and I'm already tired of the election. But it is after Super Tuesday, so the field will be narrower. I also get to choose on primary day which party I vote in, so if the republican I like is already ahead, I'll vote for the democrat I like, and if the democrat I like is already ahead, I'll vote for the republican I like. Better odds of having at least one candidate I like in the general election.

So far NONE of my primary choices from previous elections made it to the general election. I hope that doesn't happen this year.

I am really not looking forward to one more year of non-stop political analysts, name calling and the like. And it's been going on for about that long in this particular race.

Does I find it ironic? Well, it's like rai-ai-ain, on your wedding day...

Well the demoncratic field just got smaller -

Edwards just bowed out

History repeats. Ignore all presidential candidates until after the Super Bowl. Politicking for the past year has been mostly irrelevant. Valid contenders are typically not front runners until after the Super Bowl. Any time spent learning, praising, or listening to presidential candidates before Super Bowl was only wasted time.

The leader Giuliani is gone. McCain, who was at the bottom and all but written off, is moving up. Obama was clearly way down in the polls. Surprise, surprise (as Gomer used to say because even Gomer was smarter).

Your question is, "which candidate is moderate?" Which one does not worship extremist liberal or extremist conservative propaganda? Which one would Rush Limbaugh hate? Which one will work for America rather than as George Jr has done? George Jr, who promoted extremism and mythical fears, is supported by 1/3rd of America who love extremism, fear, and 'big dic' solutions. That is the politics – wacko extremism - that has existed too long in the name of political agendas.

Last Monday may have been a benchmark. But nobody will know until long after the Super Bowl.

The Economist demonstrates how bad presidential candidates eventually get weeded out by the system so that we never even need consider them. Sad? Yes because Thompson promoted the hate and simplistic ignorance that rallies extremists. Those who have been ignoring such wackos can soon begin an intelligent study after the Super Bowl. Irrelevant candidates are being weeded out by their own extremist biases and stupid mistakes. They did not need us to do that for them.

Do we want more extremist politics complete with the hate and unjustified massacre of good American soldiers? Then ask yourself whether he works for America (a moderate who uses intelligence) or is an extremist (who promotes wacko political agendas). Ask yourself whether he will do what George Jr never did. "When do we go after Osama bin Laden?" We know extremists even in the Cellar so hate America as to never ask that question even when challenged.

They fear to ask that question that only moderates would ask. It should be a benchmark question after the Super Bowl.

tw are you drinking alcohol again?

So you'd rather have 50 small debates than one mass debate?

Its still the oldest thing in my refrigerator. And according to my calendar, it will be there another 356 days.

:biglaugha

Good one - very good! touche'

:lol:



C'mon folks, pay attention.

Speaking of ironic, does anyone find it ironic that in this old thread, Merc picked Hitlery Cliton as his number two choice for president?

Don't mean to single you out so much, Merc. there's a lot of funny stuff in this old thread.

I know man, I was surprised as anyone (who personally knows me). :eek: :D

Merc, it is my opinion tw is like that sober.

I was very pleased to find a couple of Libertarian Presidential candidates who aren't the stereotypical withdrawal-monkeys. This is particularly true of that Nevadan, Wayne Root.