POLL: Who should determine the Democratic nominee?

[TwilightZone]

Simple question. Who should have the power to select our nominee?

[Kucinich4America]

1. REAL Democrats

Not the media
Not the corporations
Not the lobbyists
Not the Repukes
Including the ones who call themselves the DLC

[TwilightZone]

8. Who defines what constitutes a REAL Democrat?

Hate to tell you this, but without all of them, even the ones we detest, we'd be a permanent minority party.

[Kucinich4America]

18. Well, for example.... if someone in the Senate, and they vote wrong more than 50% of the time

I think it's reasonable to consider whether or not they are a REAL Democrat.

Just one example, of course.

Another example would be this: If you think the legacy of FDR is something to run from, instead of embrace, you might not be a Democrat. Yet that is the exact reason that DLC founders Al From & Will Marshall gave for their own existence.

[TwilightZone]

26. Not sure how many of those there would be.

Ben Nelson, maybe. Perhaps a couple of others.

Most of them vote with other Dems more often than not. The following article is a few months old, but it shows that Bush is being opposed more often than it might appear.

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

[Triana]

2. Well. Certainly NOT the news media! (n/t)

[riqster]

3. Democratic PRIMARY VOTERS nt

[TwilightZone]

4. That's generally how it works, of course.

The question is really whether or not Independents and/or Republicans should be allowed to participate in the Democratic primaries/caucuses.

[riqster]

9. Unfortunately, it isn't working that way

...the MSM and establishment were deciding who was electable before a vote was cast. And lots of Dems bought it. To me, that is a bigger problem than Indies.

[TwilightZone]

16. While I won't disagree that the media plays a role, there seems to be some disagreement...

on who they supposedly "chose" for us.

Some say Obama. Some say Clinton. Can't really be both, can it?

[riqster]

23. I don't really think 'they' are that unified

Rather I think that there is a tendency to repeat what the next person wrote, parroting rather than reporting. We saw it in 2000 and 2004, and are seeing it again.

To an extent, this is due to budget cuts and media consolidation, but there does seem to be a cultural shift away from reporting factual news items towards repeating 'truthy' soundbites. Obama is black, Hillary is a woman, Kooch is short, Edwards pays too much for haircuts, etc, all get much more discussion than their records or positions.

This short-changes the voters by giving them insufficient and/or inaccurate information on which to base their choices, and so we see the contest driven by the media's shallow, lazy puffery. We do not have an informed electorate in the main, and look where it has gotten us.

[TwilightZone]

24. Agreed. Too much "reporting", too little journalism.

The media definitely spends way too much time on the surface and makes little effort to show us the "real" candidates. Very little depth and way too much rumor-mongering.

[suston96]

5. Who should determine the Democratic nominee?

Old men with derby hats and mustaches, smoking cigars in dimly lit back rooms of saloons and passing huge wads of money between them......

Uh, I am only kidding of course, but witnessing the state by state crawls, like so many headlines on the bottoms of TV screens, and the scenarios on forum boards like this one, I sorta, kinda, maybe - consider that my smoke filled back rooms were a lot less complicated.

[TwilightZone]

7. So true.

Definitely less complicated.

And arguably not much more corrupt! (I'm kidding....)

[Kucinich4America]

11. We also seemed to have better candidates back then

Who actually won elections, and managed to keep a real majority in both houses of Congress.

Maybe those guys what they were doing, after all? Of course now, it would be smoke-free rooms, but maybe it's time to reconsider?

Every state has a party caucus, delegates are elected, they go to the convention, and elect a nominee in August. What the Hell is wrong with that?

And if you aren't a Democrat, you don't get in. Even better. Of course it's a little tough to keep out the 'Pukes that actually go as far as registering as "Democrats", but you make them suffer in other ways. Mailing lists, for example.....

[suston96]

22. Crossovers between parties during primaries should never be permitted.

The possibility and even the probability of corrupting the outcomes to support the other parties is too obvious. Thirty days before such nominating elections should be the cutoffs for registering in the party of choice. In some states that is the rule.

I respect and support and defend the individual right to vote. But as long as political parties control their own public nominating elections and conventions, then they should be careful and circumspect enough to assure that they maintain secure control of that process.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. The Chicago convention in 1968 ended that system for a good reason

It works great until the establishment decides to back a warmonger like Hubert Humphrey. Now I don't consider myself a single issue voter and I wasn't alive back then, but with the looming possibility of being drafted and being sent to Vietnam to die in a meaningless war I damn sure would've been rioting in the streets.

[Kucinich4America]

36. Not saying that there weren't legitmate reasons for a riot, but...

Who's to say that the Chicago riots weren't either encouraged, or exaggerated (and at the very least, exploited) by those who had agendas other than opposing the Vietnam war. Possibly corporatists who wanted more control over candidate selection?

For a more recent comparison, take the WTO riots in Seattle in 1999. It was a huge peaceful protest, until a handful of assholes in black masks started kicking in Starbucks windows, while still holding a $4 cup of coffee in their hands. You think those guys were REALLY left wing activists? I sure as Hell don't.

But they used that event as the template to increase police state "control" of protests ever since. Somebody's agenda benefited from those demonstrations, and it wasn't the activists.

[LibDemAlways]

6. If people don't register as Dems, they shouldn't be able

to vote in Democratic primaries. My dad, who'd never vote for a repuke, for some unfathonable reason is a registered "declines to state" or independent here in Calif. The Democratic party allows him to request a Dem ballot on primary day, but the repukes don't do the same thing. Their primary in this state is closed to all except registered R's. My dad notwithstanding, I don't think people who aren't willing to declare themselves Democrats should be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary.

[TwilightZone]

39. It does seem to open up the possibility of tampering.

By the accounts I've seen, the numbers aren't remarkable, but if a race is close, it wouldn't take much outside influence to change the result.

[progressivebydesign]

10. Registered Democrats... obviously.

Though I know of some old school voters who register as democrats to screw things up in the primary.

[Bitwit1234]

12. NOT A SINGLE CAUCUS IN IOWA THAT'S FOR SURE.

[Kucinich4America]

19. If that single caucus in Iowa had voted for Hillary

You would have called the nomination already, and you know it.

[Alexander]

27. Moving the goalposts all the time must be tiring for you.

[BringBigDogBack]

13. The american people

Dems, Indies, whoever can vote.

[ecstatic]

14. Democrats who plan to support the nominee nt

[TwilightZone]

29. I like your sig picture.

It stands in, uh, contrast to the general tone around here. ;)

[DrFunkenstein]

15. I Think There's Alot Bigger Problems With Our Electoral System Than That

A better question would be how much should a single vote count in a national election? Or why the hell can't we have run-off elections? Or publicly financed elections? Or automatic voter registration at your primary residence?

[TwilightZone]

34. Public financing would certainly help.

It would be interesting to see if the popularity contests that we call elections would remain popularity contests if the financial disparities weren't so high.

[ShadowLiberal]

17. Democrats and Independents, it gives us candidates that can appeal to independents and win elections

[TwilightZone]

25. Good point.

The bottom line is that we can't push for a more progressive agenda unless we win, so balancing Democratic ideals with appeal to independents would be preferable.

[NoBorders]

20. Me. Just me.

[TwilightZone]

32. That seems to be a common thought.

:)

[Zynx]

21. Dems and Indies together.

The Democratic Party is a much more amorphous party than the Republicans. Liberal leaning independents should certainly have a say as well. We are constantly trying to expand our coalition, not wall ourselves off.

[TwilightZone]

28. If current party affiliation numbers are to be believed...

all we really need are Dems and some independents in '08, and we'd do quite well nationally. Dem party affiliation is up, and independents seem to be shifting left a bit. The more the merrier. I'd rather that the proverbial tent be too large than too small.

[Zynx]

33. Yeah. We tried small in the past and the results were less than stellar.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Well considering all you have to do to be a Democrat is check a box, I'd say Dems and Independents

If you had to pay dues or other requirements for membership like in some other countries, I'd limit it to party only. But since you just check a box to be a Democrat I see no reason to exclude independents, especially when it could get us more votes in November.

[dajoki]

35. Democrats...

Of course the Dems picked the Senate candidate in CT only to have Joementum get around it.

[TwilightZone]

38. Very true.

Luckily, CT is the exception and not the rule. I wouldn't think that there are too many similar situations elsewhere. I'm still kind of amazed (and dismayed) that he pulled it off.

[bobthedrummer]

37. Vote cagers, corrupted electronic vote machines, redistricting masters,

corrupt party officials, and let's just forget eligible US citizens that weren't caged...

[damntexdem]

40. Dems and Ins.

I'm not one for locking people into a party apparatus.

Besides, in Texas, we don't register by party, anyway.

[rucky]

41. Do you want to know who can get crossover votes?

or do you just want to guess?

[PatSeg]

42. Hmmmm, give me a hint!!!!

[rucky]

44. Moms that drive kids to soccer practice in dad's NASCAR.

[TwilightZone]

43. That's the tradeoff, right?

If we limit the process to Democrats only, we select the best fit for us and not necessarily the country.

Conversely, if we allow others to be involved, we run the risk of letting outside influences affect the outcome. There's a very real possibility that there could be instances where Democrats aren't the deciding factor.

Hence, the poll.

[rucky]

45. There's also the Bloomberg Factor:

If independents don't participate in the process, does that just pave the way for someone like Bloomberg to step into the race? No primary hoops to jump through. I would say that knowing a Party-candidates' ability to attract independents is a factor in keeping Bloomberg out of the race so far.

Then Democrats really aren't the deciding factor.

[TwilightZone]

46. Interesting point.

If it seems obvious through the primary process that independents are leaning heavily Democratic, the appeal to Bloomberg is reduced. Good point.

Though, in his particular case, the relative weakness of the Republican field might be the deciding factor on whether or not he runs.

[PatSeg]

48. Or the independents could go with McCain

Just saw this article:

From Biden to McCain: The NH Swing Vote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/07/from-biden-to-mccain-the_n_80113.html

[Bucky]

47. I say only Iowanians and New Hampshirese are qualified to choose our nominees.

Notice that that rhymed.

[TwilightZone]

49. Contrary to what I've always believed...

the possibility of that occurring does seem quite possible, maybe even likely, this election cycle. With apparently nothing more than the Iowa result as a catalyst, the swing in NH is remarkable.

I liked the rhyme, by the way.

[Alexander]

50. It doesn't matter now. Obama's winning all of those groups.

[TwilightZone]

51. Au contraire.

In the Marist poll in NH, Obama is ahead overall 36-28, but Clinton leads him 36-30 among Democrats.

He has the lead because of strong independent support, which in NH, of course, is extremely important.

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ080107.htm

[frogmarch]

52. Democrats ONLY!

If Indys and Repugs want in on it, let them register as Dems - and be forced to remain that way through the GE.