A question for DUers from VT, OH, TX, RI, WY, MS, PA, IN, NC, WV, KY, OR, MT, SD

[question everything]

Regardless of who your candidate is (or was), aren't you glad to have a chance to vote your preference, to have your state and the people getting exposure on national media? Aren't you glad that the open race is the main reason for getting so many new voters to register and to vote?

Isn't this how we should be electing our nominees?

If nothing else, I hope that we've learned our lesson on how to plan our primary season in 2012.

I know that many want a one day national primary and I don't know that this is feasible. But certainly some mode of rotating regional primaries - including IA and NH - once a month, will be a good start.

I have often wondered whether Edwards would have still dropped out of the race had he known that the race would still be on.

[Texas Hill Country]

1. this has been the best year for dems ever!

[Tyler Durden]

18. Not if you're from Michigan or Florida.

We both view this Primary as a personal tragedy.

And not having either candidate stop here in Michigan, even after the primary debacle, was a tactical error on both their parts of gargantuan proportions.

And if all someone has to say is "Blame your leaders," then save your breath. I won't go through the rules violations that were unfairly enforced or the torpedoing of the redo again.

[question everything]

21. Yes, it is a tragedy. And changing the system

moving to rotating regional primaries should prevent - one hopes - from such a tragedy occurring again.

[Tyler Durden]

24. Thank you. A reasonable reply.

We were angry from the first moment that Dean and the DNC started with their "Traditional first in line" shit. It was silly not to address this anger, and it was even sillier to treat us as pariahs AFTER we got fucked out of our delegates.

[On the Road]

41. How Would Rotating Regional Primaries Help?

States would have just as much opportunity to jump the pack. (And I support rotating primaries BTW.)

[question everything]

44. They would not. If, say, Florida's region is in March in 2012

and in February in 2016 then that's when Floridians will vote.

And I think what happened with MI and FL this year will send a clear message that the rules are there to be followed.

The whole idea of rotating regional primaries is to remove IA and NH - two tiny states that do not resemble the country as a whole - from determining the next President.

Except when a sitting president was running for re-election, Bush II is the only one to win Iowa and to end up in the White House (barely).

[Texas Hill Country]

43. point taken.

[MercutioATC]

2. Why wouldn't a national primary day be feasible?

(actually, I advocate a 3-day national primary...and general election)

[Texas Hill Country]

3. because the extended primary give the candidates time to tour the country so we get to know each

[MercutioATC]

6. I didn't say the primary had to be in January...

Let them campaign all they want. Hold the primary in March and move the convention to May (just in case something goes wrong).

They'd have months to campaign in the primary and still have 7 months to do nothing but hammer away at the Republicans.

As an added advantage, there'd be no more of this "Iowa and NH" shit.

[verges]

9. Regional would be better.

If it was a national, the focus would only be on population centers, and swing states.

[MercutioATC]

11. I don't think so...look what a 50-state strategy has done for Obama.

Under the old politics, yes. But a 50-state strategy obviously works...and it puts the candidates in all 50 states.

[charlie and algernon]

19. regional is the way to go

to keep NH first, whatever, do something like this

New England Primary - January
Plain States - February
Mid Atlantic and Great Lake States - March
Pacific Coast and South West - April
South East - May
Convention - June

Five primaries, 5 months, with plenty of time left to battle in the GE.

[question everything]

25. Rotating regional

so in the next elections - 2016 - the order will be

Plain States - January
Mid Atlantic and Great Lake States - February
Pacific Coast and South West - March
South East - April
Convention - May
New England Primary - June

Four years later - in 2020 - the Mid Atlantic And Great Lake will start in January, while the Plain States will close in June.

[charlie and algernon]

30. exactly

[sakura]

37. Great idea

As an Oregonian, it does bother me that our primary is held so late that it is normally inconsequential. But it bothers me more that two states thought they were more important than the rest of us late voters and could therefore break the rules. Rules are there for a reason (whether you like the reason or not), and it is ridiculous for one group to think they can break those rules with impunity.

A rotating regional primary would fix the problem of some states having more influence than others, and give all fifty states a chance to be first in line and influence.

[BklnDem75]

45. Slight error...

Might want to have the New England Primary before the Convention. :)

[question everything]

48. LOL, I just copied and pasted the previous post

and moved the first back and changed the months.

Should read these more closely next time.

[marions ghost]

42. that would be fair

and efficient. Well, how about switching it around for better weather so that south and pacific come first...

[question everything]

46. Actually I think that it can show character when candidates

and reporters have to endure the harsh winter of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Still, at some point the South or the Pacific will be first..

[marions ghost]

49. yes but

I'm thinking of voter turnout too...:)

Or should I assume Ohioans and New Englanders will vote in the same numbers during blizzards? (I'm in the SE)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. Money.

The cost of running an effective campaign in 52 states is prohibitive. You'd end up with the candidates concentrating on the 10 largest states. Like you I prefer a much shorter contest, though.

6-8 rotating primaries(every 4 years their positions are moved up a notch and the first batch moves to the end) over 2 months. 6-8 states per cycle, each with a large Dem state in them.

[question everything]

26. Right. I should have included one more item in my OP

A real reform in financing campaign.

I am really ashamed every time a new number pops up. I think that all the candidates, of both parties, raised more than $600 million. There is so much that could be done with that amount of money.

[ieoeja]

32. Speaking as someone whose primary moved to Super Duper Tuesday.

I fucking hated it. For the first time in my adult life we saw NOTHING of either campaign. There were too many primaries too suddenly. And we weren't important enough to warrant either campaign's limited time.

Prior to this year, we always held our primary in mid-March. Even when the nomination was virtually wrapped up, we got SOME campaigning.

I am fully opposed to a national primary. I oppose more than four primaries on any given day.

[question everything]

34. Being from Chicago, you really cannot blame the date of the Illinois primary

Illinois this year was like Iowa in 1992 when Harkin was running. The state was pretty much conceded to a favorite son.

[dbmk]

36. It would be an enourmous advantage

to the candidates with the most name recognition and start economic backing.

All candidates would have to amass a pile of money beyond belief to campaign for a 50 state vote.
Now they can take one or a few contests at a time. Test the waters and get out if there is no traction before time and money.

Now the campaigns can move a certain group of people from one contest to the next. Try handling all 50 states plus territories at the same time.

And you might end up in a situation where many states don't even see the contenders, since the bigger ones will have to be contested to avoid landslides to an opponent.

[cali]

4. Honestly? I could have cared less.

Primary voting isn't some sacrosant constitutional right. Parties are free to choose the nominee any way they wish. I don't care if my primary is ever first, or among the first or even if my vote is meaningful in the primary. And living in a deep blue state, my vote isn't even meaningful in the general. And a national primary is a bad idea. I'd go for rotating regionals though.

[democrattotheend]

10. I disagree.

I was a diehard Deaniac since March of 2003, before most people I knew had even heard of him. I volunteered for a year and spent my winter break interning in New Hampshire, working 12 hour days for his campaign. But New Jersey's primary was not until June, so I never got to vote for Dean, and that bothered me.

I just wish Bill Clinton, as the de facto leader of the party at the time, had shown the same concern back then for voters in later states getting a say that he has shown this year.

[cali]

17. why would you disagree with what I feel?

The OP asked how we felt individually. I was simply speaking for myself.

[democrattotheend]

29. Ok, fair enough

I meant that I felt shafted in 2004. You're right, I should have made this its own comment.

[Lyric]

5. Not really. I'm more concerned about the damage done to our candidates

than I am about my personal vote.

I'd rather see the nation united around an undamaged candidate who can beat McCain than have the "wondrous" experience of having my vote "count", to be honest.

[paparush]

38. Here! Here!

The Cause is not celebrating the process.

The Cause is Beating the shit out of the Republicans, ending this fscking war, and holding the Bush Junta responsible for eight years of raping and pillaging.

[ccharles000]

7. Yes I love to think NC matters.

[democrattotheend]

8. I am glad my vote mattered in Virginia. Under Hillary's original plan it wouldn't have.

Since she planned to wrap it up by Super Tuesday.

I am from New Jersey and went to college in DC. I graduated last May and moved to Northern Virginia...I went back and forth about whether to switch my registration before or after the primary. I decided at the last minute to switch, even though I was afraid my vote would end up not mattering. I was glad when Hillary's original plan to knock everyone out by February 5 did not work and my vote mattered after all. And I'm proud that we gave Obama one of the biggest primary landslides of the campaign (I think it might be the biggest in a primary, other than DC).

I do think we need some reforms for 2012...less front-loaded, for one thing. I bet a lot of the states that moved their primaries up to February 5 wish they'd waited...the later states are getting more attention and influence.

[indimuse]

13. What about FL and MI???

<SNIP>

One place this also shows up is in the reality of Florida and Michigan. In spite of Ed Schultz's ugly filibustering on every show in which he appears, like last night's pathetic performance on CNN where the blow hard wouldn't let anyone get a word in edge wise, it's Obama who stopped the revote. Ed's ego knows no bounds. Someone needs to tell him that TV isn't radio, so look like your head's going to explode turns people off. Like when yelling at telling Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz that he knew better what was happening in her own state than she did. Ed is wrong but to his Neanderthal mind that doesn't matter. He'll put his swagger where his mouth is. Truth is that the money was there for a Florida revote, but Obama and his team blinked, went scared, blocked it, even as Obama ran ads, which were against the rules, but Clinton didn't. In Michigan, where Obama chose to take his name off of the ballot, his team hoped Hillary would pay for staying on it through Iowa and New Hampshire.

In contrast, Hillary was ready to do it again, take him on, let the people revote, even though she won both states the first time around fair and square. Nothing scares Clinton. It's a storyline that sticks. Her courage, tenacity, and willingness to fight it out has exhausted her opponent and made his supporters whine about her her relentless presence, drive, and sense of purpose.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Once again, FL and MI chose not to participate. (nt)

[Tyler Durden]

23. You know, we dispute that, and have all the reasons to back it up.

You don't want to accept the logic, then it's best we don't talk.

Whichever candidate wins today, we have reconciliation to do, and the candidate had best get with it, fast, especially in Michigan.

We may have gotten fucked by Dean on the Primary, but we still wield 17 electoral votes, and the candidate is going to need every single one they can get.

I don't think anyone will delude themselves that this is not going to be at least as close as 2000.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. There is no logic involved in your arguments.

I don't disagree with the fallout - that Florida and Michigan hold important electoral votes that will be hard to get - but there is absolutely, positively no rational or fact-based argument that comes to the conclusion that the actions taken by the elected representatives of Florida and Michigan knowingly chose a course of action that was in direct defiance of an established rule of the DNC. No one - I repeat - not one single person outside of Michigan or Florida took actions that resulted in the loss of their states' delegates.

I typically have a lot of respect for your opinions, Tyler, but this is not an argument based upon opinions. There is no gray area involved in this issue.

[SoFlaJet]

20. you obviously don't know shit

about what happened in Florida so in the meantime, and until you do STFU

[dbmk]

39. Incredible. Simpy Incredible.

"In contrast, Hillary was ready to do it again, take him on, let the people revote, even though she won both states the first time around fair and square."

I hear Putin, Mugabe, Castro or Kim Jong-il has an opening somewhere on their writing staff for the likes of you.

Calling a victory in a vote that was ruled not counting, as being won fair and square is beyond ludicrous. It is simply astonishing that anyone living under the umbrella of (some sort of) democracy would make that claim.

[verges]

12. This could have been a great experience.

Had both(all) of the candidates waged an honest, fair, constructive campaign; and focused on defeating the common enemy, and choosing democratically the best candidate to represent our party, this could have been a wonderful campaign season. A shame it didn't play out that way.

[swishyfeet]

14. It certainly is nice to have a voice for a change

But I wish we could have stayed more positive, and I'm so ready to start going after McCain.

[TBF]

15. I'm glad Obama won Texas overall, but yes I did learn something -

that the Texas caucus system sucks. As an Obama volunteer I spent so much time calling people to explain the caucus, and get them to attend. I'd rather have one up/down vote. I could've just used my energy to register people and get out the vote.

[question everything]

31. Yes, the caucus system sucks, in general

If you cannot be at a specific time at a specific place, you are being disenfranchised. If you have to be out of town, have to work - second or third job - are ill, or your kids are ill, or just give up in disgust when you drive around the blocks and cannot find a place to park - as happened in Minnesota, at least, in the Twin Cities Metro area - you are disenfranchised.

Sure, employers are expected to give workers time off to vote and this works when it is a whole day affair as in the general elections or with a primary system. But do we expect all police officers and hospital emergency personnel to just go off their jobs to participate in the caucus?

At least, in Minnesota, all one had to do, and many did, was to come and write a name on a post-it note (really) and then leave. But in places like Iowa, and perhaps others, you had to stay the whole several hours until your vote was counted.

[pdx_prog]

28. A good, fair contest

where the candidates are evenly matched and the people can fairly decide would be a helluva nice race. This is not that race.....however, I am glad that I "may" get to cast a vote in Oregon this time around.

[pansypoo53219]

33. so, kerry getting all the attension after iowa

MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BAD THING?

WHY did kerry get anointed? fucking teevee gnews media.

[question everything]

35. Yes, it was. He was not ready for the swift boaters

at least, not as he should have been. He did not know how to handle the question of abortion: putting his hand on his heart and saying that he, personally, opposed abortion, but... put him in a bad light, IMO.

He was not ready for what role to assign Teresa, or even how to best use his military service. The air surfing, the clean room visit, the "hunter" image. All sent a message of, yes, elitism, to your average voter. At least, Obama is now ready with the story of his mom and his upbringing.

As much as many here are upset at the way "Democrats treating other Democrats" - all these would have come out from the Republicans, so at least both are now really vetted.

[Umbram]

40. D.K. had suspended by OH. So...no? (nt)

[noel711]

47. We desperately need voting reform....

I know that I'm not in charge of the world, but things would be so much easier if these changes might be considered:

1. A rotating regional primary system where both parties vote during the same time. Rotating meaning that one year the northeastern states vote first, the southwestern states vote next, the north midwestern states next, etc etc etc. The next election the regions that voted first vote last etc etc. That way all the regions (made up of neighboring states) have an equal say in the process.

2. And this Tuesday voting day is ridiculous. Tuesday was set aside back when we were a rural country... Tuesday because the farmers wouldn't travel on the 'sabbath' day, and MOnday was traveling day to a central place to vote.. that place was set to afford one days travel. But we are no longer a rural economy. My suggestion? Vote weekends, like they do in Europe... Saturday and Sunday, to afford plenty of time for people who have to work/go to school/etc. A weekend you're saying? Yes. And Monday would be 'dark' as they say in the theatre.. no news at all. Time to count and tabulate by strict standards. Results divulged on Tuesday.

3. Of course there needs to be stricter time limits.. no more years of campaigning.. a shorter campaign time.

4. And financial limits on spending- elections should be publicly financed.

5. Media limits too: the fairness doctrine needs to come into play here.
Media should have to follow a code of conduct and objectivity. anything that goes beyond the limits should be liable to fines.

6. Of course there's that argument about federally regulated voting systems, to provide for fairness and accountability. Another good argument, considering what's happened in Florida and Ohio.

As I said, I'm not in charge of the world. I am just a citizen. My way I'm sure is not perfect. But we need change pronto...

[musicblind]

50. Hell Yes!