Comments on: Who wins and who loses from SC moving its primary up?

By: Connie

Connie — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:51:30 +0000

Don’t forget that there are voting differences in primaries. In NYS, we can only vote in the primary of the party we are registered in. In GA, you can cross party lines and vote for the weaker/weakest candidate of the opposing party. Never quite felt like that was ethical. Are there any other differences in state primaries?

By: MirCat

MirCat — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:59:18 +0000

Pretty soon elections are going to be done in a way that’s going to queue up presidents. You’ll be a lame duck before you’re even in office.

- The Cat

By: duff65

duff65 — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:37:27 +0000

What we need is to go back to “Nominating Conventions”. They had a lot of problems but they were better than what we have now. At least they tended to delay the start of things to an almost reasonable date.

By: DaveS

DaveS — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:08:52 +0000

Fred is stalling because he hasn’t really started campaigning yet. Once he officially declares, there will be a whole new buzz about him, there will tons of talk on how his candidacy affects television syndication (accompanied with tons of footage of his roles), and he will have to start ACTING like a candidate.

Up to now, he’s been doing the whole “outside-with-some-observations” thing… it’s stale, but it won’t last much longer. He could–potentially–come out of the box sounding like a Reagan conservative and change the race as an official candidate.

By: aero

aero — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:59:21 +0000

Okay, what if a whole bunch of states were to pass laws saying they have to be first, like Iowa did? The state laws would be directly in conflict with each other, which would force the situation to the Supreme Court, right? Maybe that’s how this stupidity will eventually have to be solved. Some brave state(s) will have to go head-to-head with Iowa and force a showdown in the SCOTUS.

By: captivated_dem

captivated_dem — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:54:23 +0000

angryoldfatman on August 9, 2007 at 12:43 PM

As soon as I saw Kerry choose Edwards as a running mate back in 2004 and sealing his defeat, I resigned myself to a Hitlery presidency in 2008.

I don’t want to say, “It’s not over until the fatman sings.” Clinton/Obama is too scary a combination to concede defeat to.

By: captivated_dem

captivated_dem — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:44:04 +0000

SouthernGent on August 9, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Does South of South Dakota count?

By: angryoldfatman

angryoldfatman — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:43:55 +0000

This all reeks of Dem “strategy”. The GOP would not be messing with the rules even if it benefited them, ergo it is all designed to help the Hildebeast take over.

bbz123 on August 9, 2007 at 12:06 PM

When I first heard politicos talking about shifting the primaries around several months ago, this is exactly what I told my family.

As soon as I saw Kerry choose Edwards as a running mate back in 2004 and sealing his defeat, I resigned myself to a Hitlery presidency in 2008.

By: Valiant

Valiant — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:43:54 +0000

Fred! is quickly becoming Fred¡

By: Bad Candy

Bad Candy — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:40:45 +0000

Hey now, don’t pick on Yankee refugees! They can’t help their home states have been overrun by liberal cranks.

By: SouthernGent

SouthernGent — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:31:28 +0000

I think it’s fair to say South Carolina would have been the REAL “First in South” primary even if they hadn’t moved the actual date. A state over-run with relocated Yankees doesn’t get to be called “Southern”…EVAH! Just ask any home grown Southerner!

By: Hollowpoint

Hollowpoint — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:24:20 +0000

Big winners in moving earlier: Professional campaign advisors.

Big losers in moving earlier: Everyone else.

By: Entelechy

Entelechy — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:24:07 +0000

This is what happens when Moulitsas, Matthews and Olbermann are given credence. The country is already asleep. By the time it’s over we’ll be in a perpetual coma and ant colonies will have political forums, with assumed significance.

By: captivated_dem

captivated_dem — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:22:06 +0000

The political landscape of a trisected nation split 33.3%,33.3%,33.3%. Who will get the,.03% advantage? Probably won’t get this squeagy close, but should make for some interesting jockeying. New world of tripartisanship?

By: lorien1973

lorien1973 — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:16:25 +0000

I have a feeling one or both parties is going to be very unhappy with their candidates. These early primaries are too far away from the election. There is not enough time for voters to make a real choice. Who wins? The fringe. who loses? people who only vote in the general. They are gonna be stuck with 2 bad choices. 2009-2012 is going to be a very long presidency.

By: bbz123

bbz123 — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:06:56 +0000

This all reeks of Dem “strategy”. The GOP would not be messing with the rules even if it benefited them, ergo it is all designed to help the Hildebeast take over.

By: Always Right

Always Right — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:43:31 +0000

I have this sneaking feeling that I am going to wake up one morning just after Labor Day and see a headline that the 2008 election has already been held.

By: Hollowpoint

Hollowpoint — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:41:50 +0000

IIRC, RNC rules already state that any state that moves it’s date before Feb 5th loses half it’s delegates; states don’t think they’ll follow through.

It’s time to crack down, because this is getting ridiculous- two small states have laws saying that they have to be first. Enough is enough- they need to pass a rule (and stick by it) that no state votes before Feb 5th, and if they do they get ZERO delegates. If they don’t move to Feb 5 or later, their vote doesn’t count at all. We don’t vote in the general election one state at a time, we should do so in the primaries.

This business with candidates trying to outspend and out campaign each other in IA and NH (combined electoral votes: 11) is counterproductive, essentially making the votes cast in IA and NH count more than they do in other states- most of whom have more electoral votes.

By: Mojack420

Mojack420 — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:41:28 +0000

so the general election begins on what date?

By: Bad Candy

Bad Candy — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:39:35 +0000

It would require independent state organizations with a national coordination effort. It would be a very involved and complex process just to get the organizations to push for primary reform off the ground.

By: aero

aero — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:31:36 +0000

Thing is, how do we start a movement for a single, national primary day? The Constitution gives this to the states, doesn’t it? They’re not bound by anything at all to behave reasonably about this. We could petition each of the 50 states individually to try to get them to cooperate because the people want it, but I don’t see such a coordinated, sustained effort happening. Particularly in the states like Iowa and NH where the people ONLY feel important because they call firsties on presidential primaries.

By: aero

aero — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:28:20 +0000

This is just getting downright stupid now. We need a single national primary day.

By: crazy_legs

crazy_legs — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:26:16 +0000

Newt’s right. This is getting insane!

It’s insane to think that someone who doesn’t announce until September (think Fred) or October (think Newt), about when candidates used to announce, is “way behind” because they haven’t been in the race for 9 months.

Drudge has a link that the debate ratings are way down. Haven’t had time to read it yet, but it’s no surprise. People are already sick of it.

Leave the primary schedule alone and pass a law that no candidate can announce until 3 months before the first one. This has gotten WAY out of hand.

By: Bad Candy

Bad Candy — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:25:30 +0000

Fred is stalling because Fred is waiting too damn long to get in the game, and start debating.

Anyway, this jockeying for position on primaries is stupid. Either lock down when primaries occur, or do them all at once! This is ridiculous, we’ll be doing the next presidential primaries in ’09 at this rate.

By: Blake

Blake — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:22:43 +0000

We have long campaigns because the candidates need the money to pay for ads to influence the dumbest to vote for them. And, no, I don’t want to be forced to pay as a taxpayer for someone’s campaign I don’t support and who is undoubtedly a millionaire themselves.