[vmpaul]

Link is here.

Point of this thread isn't the Gore endorsement or Howard Dean, per se. Dean, barring any serious meltdown, has this thing locked up. He has more money, by far, then anybody. He has two big union endorsements, major leads in the polls, a better organization, and now this major endorsement by Gore. The other candidates are going to drop out fairly rapidly.

So, my point is we now have, for all purposes, the two candidates for next years presidential election without a single primary vote yet to be taken! Does this bother anybody? Is this democracy? The Primaries mean nothing.

I've ranted about this before but this really annoys me to no end. I'm tired of hearing abut bringing democracy to the Middle East, how 'bout a little here at home?

[awaspaas]

It would be a much bigger issue if it wasn't blatantly obvious he's the best man for the job. I'm a little more upset about how G.W. Bush nailed the republican nomination when in many people's opinion, McCain was the better man for the job.

[BRussell]

They ought to just have one national primary, maybe in June. This sucking-up to weirdos in New Hampshire and Iowa just ain't right.

[BlackGriffen]

Just because a vote hasn't been cast doesn't mean that this isn't democracy in action. If Dean was the favorite from the get-go and this was happening, I might be a little upset. Dean got where he was, though, via processes that are completely Democratic:

• Lots of small donors (avg donation well under $100 with a very large donor base).
• Leads or is in serious contention for the lead in just about every poll.
• Was originally expected to be an asterisk.

My guess is that with this news, this is what we'll see happen:

• The vanity candidates, who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell anyway, will drop.
• Lieberman will bow out.
• Kerry is being too thoroughly owned in the northeast to expect to compete effectively, he should bow out, but may not.

That leaves Edwards, Clark, and Geppy, a far more realistic field. It's difficult to say who'll do what among these three. Expect Geppy to bow out if he gets dominated in Iowa. If both Clark and Edwards remain in though South Carolina, expect to see Dean win big on that weekend. If one of them drops out soon, though, expect the other to give Dean a good run for his money.

It isn't over yet, but Dean's frontrunner status is darn solid now if it wasn't obvious before.

BlackGriffen

[vmpaul]

No, he hasn't officially won it yet but it would take a lot for him to crash now.

I don't know, maybe I'm too idealistic but it doesn't seem very democratic to me. How can anybody say it's democratic when not one vote has been cast and the results are a forgone conclusion?

The things you mention just means he's good at organizing and a very small portion of the party members have opened up their checkbooks. So if you're unwilling, or unable, to provide monetary support to a candidate then you have no voice, correct?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No, he hasn't officially won it yet but it would take a lot for him to crash now.

I don't know, maybe I'm too idealistic but it doesn't seem very democratic to me. How can anybody say it's democratic when not one vote has been cast and the results are a forgone conclusion?

The things you mention just means he's good at organizing and a very small portion of the party members have opened up their checkbooks. So if you're unwilling, or unable, to provide monetary support to a candidate then you have no voice, correct?

You could make an argument that what got Dean to here is his grass roots support as reflected in his rather impressive fundraising. That would work particularly well for him because his fundraising has been overwhelmingly in small donations. It seems to me that is just as democratic in its own way as the Terry McAuliffe-engineered primary system that the Democrats have.

Edit: Oops! I didn't see BlackGriffin had already made that point.

The other argument you could make is that the other candidates are still running. No matter who endorses who, there still have to be primary votes to get the nomination. If the voters hate him, they could still vote for someone else. No?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
So, my point is we now have, for all purposes, the two candidates for next years presidential election without a single primary vote yet to be taken! Does this bother anybody? Is this democracy? The Primaries mean nothing.

I've ranted about this before but this really annoys me to no end. I'm tired of hearing abut bringing democracy to the Middle East, how 'bout a little here at home?

I don't know if it has any profound meaning but it does seem very strange. There was a time when these things weren't decided until the convention, sometimes even taking more than one ballot. That there hasn't been a single primary makes it even stranger, although the primaries have gotten earlier and earlier over the years, so I guess it was sort of inevitable that the nominee would effectively be determined earlier and earlier.

It makes a certain strategic sense. Devote the party's resources to, and unite behind, one candidate rather than engage in six months of in-fighting.

I'm not sure that this settles it, but it's certainly a big step towards settling it. I wonder if there's anything personal behind it - is Gore thumbing his nose at Lieberman and Clark/Clinton?

[BRussell]

I get the feeling this is just vmpaul attempting again to rationalize his not voting.

[BlackGriffen]

vmpaul, what is the point of a representative democracy? It's to choose the rulers based on the will of the people, right? If anything, the only reason why the nomination is "all zipped up" in your mind is that all of these facts you raise have been good indicators of how candidates performed in the past. Believe me, Dean's momentum feeds on itself (good polls beget fundraising, which begets good polls, ad infinitum), but ultimately it comes down to whether or not the people support him.

BG

[vmpaul]

But again, Simey, saying that Dean's grass roots support is reflected in his campaign war chest just emphasizes my point. It's representative of a minority of the registered Democratic voters and it's no better than Colonial times when you had to be a property owner in order to vote. Are only those willing to contribute cash worthy to be heard? Is that the spirit of our Democracy now?

I would ask all of you to take off your strategy-analysis hats and think about the what really is happening here. I'm not talking what the Party, or the candidates, should be doing to win. In the current situation I'd do the same in their position. But is it right? Is it really a democratic process?

I find it really frustrating. I've voted in every primary since I was 18 and they've all meant nothing. They were all just an exercise in rubber-stamping the results. At best, the race lasted through New Hampshire and Iowa, maybe Super Tuesday, but by the time it came to CA it was meaningless.

[NYCFarmboy]

Uh...isn't this really a slap in the face to Lieberman?

I think its very sadly descriptive of Gore's loyalty, or perhaps even darker as a political move to have a weak candidate against Bush so Gore can run in '08?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
vmpaul, what is the point of a representative democracy? It's to choose the rulers based on the will of the people, right? If anything, the only reason why the nomination is "all zipped up" in your mind is that all of these facts you raise have been good indicators of how candidates performed in the past. Believe me, Dean's momentum feeds on itself (good polls beget fundraising, which begets good polls, ad infinitum), but ultimately it comes down to whether or not the people support him.

BG

Yeah, but the reality has been that if don't have a war chest and don't do particularly well in NH or Iowa, then you end up dropping out of the race. That has been the what's happened. What are the chances of the voters in the other 48 voting for someone else if the candidate hasn't even campaigned?

So essentially the candidates have been chosen by a small portion of voters in two tiny states. Now it's even worse because of Dean's success at fundraising. Just wait to see how fast this gets wrapped up.

Maybe I'm the only one who is bugged by this. I don't know. I just find it dispiriting if I can't have a say in choosing my party's candidate unless I cough up some cash.

[BlackGriffen]

Frankly, vmpaul, I think that you're overemphasizing the importance of the Gore endorsement. As I said before, Geppy, Clark or Edwards will give Dean a pretty good run for his money, probably until it becomes clearly impossible to win enough delegates to get the nomination.

BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
No, he hasn't officially won it yet but it would take a lot for him to crash now.

I don't know, maybe I'm too idealistic but it doesn't seem very democratic to me. How can anybody say it's democratic when not one vote has been cast and the results are a forgone conclusion?

The things you mention just means he's good at organizing and a very small portion of the party members have opened up their checkbooks. So if you're unwilling, or unable, to provide monetary support to a candidate then you have no voice, correct?

well, actually I've always been more upset at how the incumbent is basically automatically the candidate, which is unfair to the others in his own party who might be better candidates. In those cases, the primaries are really just campaign stumping and that's a bit unfair to the opposing guy as well, since he's fighting to just get in the ring against others of his own party, while the incumbent is solidifying existing support and basically gets double the exposure and campaigning in.

btw: I have felt this way, no matter who the incumbent is, of either party. I find it a operational flaw that doesn't HAVE to be true, but has been true as long as I can remember.

[vmpaul]

Nah, it's not the just the Gore endorsement alone. Although I think it is significant. I just see the snowball getting bigger and bigger.

We'll see. If Gephart and Edwards don't drop out directly after Iowa maybe we'll have a race. I'll bet you though it'll be done long before it gets to CA.

I guess I could move to Iowa or New Hampshire to be heard.

[BRussell]

Despite the supposed importance of New Hampshire, remember that most people who win it don't win the nomination, at least in recent years. Bush lost to McCain. Dole lost to Buchanan. Clinton lost to Tsongas. Gore won, but just barely.

I think Dean will win in NH, but then it's very possible that someone else, probably Clark, will take some states in the week after NH. Then who knows what could happen.

[vmpaul]

Quite possibly. I was wondering about what Lerkfish brought up. Do you know if an incumbent has ever been challenged and defeated by a challenger in his own party? I can't recall anybody in my lifetme.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Quite possibly. I was wondering about what Lerkfish brought up. Do you know if an incumbent has ever been challenged and defeated by a challenger in his own party? I can't recall anybody in my lifetme.

nor I. There might have been but I can't think of one. I know there have been incumbents who didn't make a second term, but I don't recall any incumbent who wasn't the nominee after the primary in a presidential election.

[moki]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
He has two big union endorsements, major leads in the polls, a better organization, and now this major endorsement by Gore. The other candidates are going to drop out fairly rapidly.

So, my point is we now have, for all purposes, the two candidates for next years presidential election without a single primary vote yet to be taken! Does this bother anybody? Is this democracy?

What do you think polls are representative of, exactly?

You're seeing democracy in action, you're just seeing it done millenium-style, with opinion polling, forecasting, etc. But the bottom line is that what is being polled, and what is being forecasted are still people's votes.

What's the issue here?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by moki:
What do you think polls are representative of, exactly?

You're seeing democracy in action, you're just seeing it done millenium-style, with opinion polling, forecasting, etc. But the bottom line is that what is being polled, and what is being forecasted are still people's votes.

What's the issue here?

And you see no problem with that?

Right, who needs actual polling booths when we have Gallup? Or maybe Nielson could forecast election results while they're compiling the TV ratings. That way the next president would be the one who has the most watched political ad.

C'mon, polling is NOT democracy in action.

[tie]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
C'mon, polling is NOT democracy in action.

It's part of it. I just don't see that this is such a big deal. For example, even if Dean has gotten money from a small fraction of voters, this is still an improvement over getting money from just a few corrupt CEOs. I don't think Dean has gotten where he is from money, or even the media. There's been a crowded Democratic field and against the odds he has really stood out.

[Spliffdaddy]

Gephardt.

Are you guys blind to how the DNC operates?

Big labor funds the DNC.

Whoever big labor wants, big labor gets.

And big labor wants Gephardt.

Deal with it. He's a much better candidate than Dean.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by tie:
I don't think Dean has gotten where he is from money, or even the media. There's been a crowded Democratic field and against the odds he has really stood out.

Well, he hasn't it gotten to the top by receiving any votes. That's my whole point. This race is effectively over before a single vote has ben cast.

I'm not talking about strategy. I'm saying this is not democracy. Unless we pick winners by how much they have in the bank and what the poll numbers are.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Quite possibly. I was wondering about what Lerkfish brought up. Do you know if an incumbent has ever been challenged and defeated by a challenger in his own party? I can't recall anybody in my lifetme.

I know it's not exactly what you had in mind, but off the top of my head, Ford, Carter, and Bush I were all challenged by a member of their own party. They pulled through enough to get the nomination, but they still went on to defeat in the election.

It's one of those rules that seem to work in American politics. If a president is so weak that he is challenged in his own party's primary, he loses in the general election. On the other hand, a president who isn't challenged (i.e. one who has his base locked up) tends to get reelected. Reagan and Clinton are two recent examples.

You also could argue that Johnson was defeated by his own party in the primaries. He just withdrew before the knife went in.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Well, he hasn't it gotten to the top by receiving any votes. That's my whole point. This race is effectively over before a single vote has ben cast.

I'm not talking about strategy. I'm saying this is not democracy. Unless we pick winners by how much they have in the bank and what the poll numbers are.

I understand your frustration but I'm not sure it's over. There's always a front-runner, and he often stumbles. He still has to convince the people of South Carolina, California, etc. that he's their man. The Clintons are still fighting for control of the party. I think there's a lot of water yet to go under the bridge.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I know it's not exactly what you had in mind, but off the top of my head, Ford, Carter, and Bush I were all challenged by a member of their own party. They pulled through enough to get the nomination, but they still went on to defeat in the election.

It's one of those rules that seem to work in American politics. If a president is so weak that he is challenged in his own party's primary, he loses in the general election. On the other hand, a president who isn't challenged (i.e. one who has his base locked up) tends to get reelected. Reagan and Clinton are two recent examples.

You also could argue that Johnson was defeated by his own party in the primaries. He just withdrew before the knife went in.

while this is true, I was trying to think of any incumbent who lost the nomination when challenged, not who lost the election.

Still, it does bring up another facet to this issue, and one that I think shows how political parties in general almost seem to get in the way of the process as much as help it.

I edited to add: but doesn't Bush Sr. go against the trend you mention? I don't recall that he was effectively challenged in the primaries yet he certainly lost in the election.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
while this is true, I was trying to think of any incumbent who lost the nomination when challenged, not who lost the election.

***

I edited to add: but doesn't Bush Sr. go against the trend you mention? I don't recall that he was effectively challenged in the primaries yet he certainly lost in the election.

On your first one, I think that Johnson came the closest. Had he not dropped out, I think he might well have lost in the primaries. If you recall, his anointed successor (VP Humphrey) lost in the primaries as well.

Bush I was challenged in the primaries by Pat Buchanan. Even worse, Bush let Buchanan deliver his vile "crossdressers" speech to the convention. That speech hurt Bush badly. Bush then went on to be challenged by Ross Perot in the general election. Perot was basically a disaffected Republican.

GHW Bush just had a really bad year! (much of it because he had such bad political judgment).

[finboy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Uh...isn't this really a slap in the face to Lieberman?

I think its very sadly descriptive of Gore's loyalty, or perhaps even darker as a political move to have a weak candidate against Bush so Gore can run in '08?

Uh, yeah on both counts. The second is questionable though. The first -- no surprise. Lieberman went to bat for Algore and he's tossed away. Bad for the party -- unless the party is being run for the sake of the Clintons (with Billary running in '08).

[itai195]

Frankly I don't see what's worse about a candidate becoming the frontrunner through endorsements, grassroots organizing, and donations. The primary system is flawed and undemocratic anyway. How much political influence do Iowa and New Hampshire deserve?

I'll bet you though it'll be done long before it gets to CA.

It's always done long before it gets to CA, see above. Hey, at least in this system you can donate some time or money to the candidate of your choice and have an impact, instead of waiting until the CA primary when the issue has essentially been decided.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by itai195:
Frankly I don't see what's worse about a candidate becoming the frontrunner through endorsements, grassroots organizing, and donations. The primary system is flawed and undemocratic anyway. How much political influence do Iowa and New Hampshire deserve?

It's always done long before it gets to CA, see above. Hey, at least in this system you can donate some time or money to the candidate of your choice and have an impact, instead of waiting until the CA primary when the issue has essentially been decided.

So it's no longer "One man, one vote" anymore, it's "One man with a 'Check made out to...', One Vote" now.

You really don't see what's wrong with that? I'm not trying to be Chicken Little here. I'm just pointing out that over the years the candidates for President have been chosen by an ever dwindling amount of people. Usually it's just NH and Iowa picking for the whole country. This year happens to be a more dramatic example of that. Dean has the race so front-loaded that I bet the others will drop out very soon. I could be proven wrong, but history is on my side.

I wonder about all of you who were so upset about the uncounted Florida votes in the 2000 election but don't see the this as a problem. Doesn't it bother you that our ONLY choices are decided on before the majority of us even gets a chance to vote?

[davesimondotcom]

So is Al angling for another run at VP? Is this his way of flipping a middle finger to the Clintons?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I'm just pointing out that over the years the candidates for President have been chosen by an ever dwindling amount of people. Usually it's just NH and Iowa picking for the whole country. This year happens to be a more dramatic example of that. Dean has the race so front-loaded that I bet the others will drop out very soon. I could be proven wrong, but history is on my side.

History isn't on your side. Even if Dean wins NH, an odds-maker would have to say that it's more likely that someone else wins the nomination, going by recent history.

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I wonder about all of you who were so upset about the uncounted Florida votes in the 2000 election but don't see the this as a problem. Doesn't it bother you that our ONLY choices are decided on before the majority of us even gets a chance to vote?

Nope, because the parties operate outside the framework of the Constitution and get to choose their candidates however they want. The primaries just give this process an illusion of democracy. The parties, not the voters, have always had ultimate control over the selection process. Hell, when Californians switched to an open primary, we did so despite the parties threatening to totally discount our primary results. Frankly, I think "One man/woman who can write a $20 check" is more democratic that "One man/woman who lives in New Hampshire." I agree with you that it's not ideal, but it's an improvement. The parties have their own interests in mind, and they're reluctant to give up too much control to voters.

Besides, Dean has not gotten to where he is just because of money. He's struck a chord with a lot of Democrats, he's been effective at organizing grassroots support, and he's had an impressive Internet effort as well. In many ways he has set the tone for the campaign amongst a crowded field, with most of the other candidates usually left reacting to his speeches and opinion rather than advocating their own... if they have some (cough Gephardt cough).

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:
History isn't on your side. Even if Dean wins NH, an odds-maker would have to say that it's more likely that someone else wins the nomination, going by recent history.

Yes and no. If this process lasts longer than NH and Iowa it still will be decided before the majority of primaries and and votes have been cast. I know for a fact that the CA (one the largest and most populous states) primary has meant nothing. That's recent history and I've witnessed it.

The system is front-loaded. After a clear front-runner is established, other candidates funding dries up and they stop campaigning thereby making the rest of the primaries moot.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by itai195:
Nope, because the parties operate outside the framework of the Constitution and get to choose their candidates however they want. The primaries just give this process an illusion of democracy. The parties, not the voters, have always had ultimate control over the selection process. Hell, when Californians switched to an open primary, we did so despite the parties threatening to totally discount our primary results. Frankly, I think "One man/woman who can write a $20 check" is more democratic that "One man/woman who lives in New Hampshire." I agree with you that it's not ideal, but it's an improvement. The parties have their own interests in mind, and they're reluctant to give up too much control to voters.

Besides, Dean has not gotten to where he is just because of money. He's struck a chord with a lot of Democrats, he's been effective at organizing grassroots support, and he's had an impressive Internet effort as well. In many ways he has set the tone for the campaign amongst a crowded field, with most of the other candidates usually left reacting to his speeches and opinion rather than advocating their own... if they have some (cough Gephardt cough).

An improvement over what? How is our election choices being decided by a smaller and smaller group of people an improvement? Maybe we should just choose a president by having a group of 9 people in black robes choose..., er, wait that's what happened last time.

You're right though. It isn't a Constitutionally decreed process. But it isn't a democratic process either. or, at least a fair democratic process, unless you're willing to pony up some cash. IMO, I think there's something inherently wrong with that. That's my complaint.

Again, Dean has gotten to where he is without a single vote being cast. Not talking strategy, I'd do the same if I was him. I'm saying it's a undemocratic, unfair system.

Seriously, I don't see how our presidential election process is any better than the old Soviet elections (vote the Party 95%) or the process that elected Saddam Hussein to a 99% victory last year.

(edit: to add the last paragraph)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
An improvement over what? How is our election choices being decided by a smaller and smaller group of people an improvement? Maybe we should just choose a president by having a group of 9 people in black robes choose..., er, wait that's what happened last time.

You're right though. It isn't a Constitutionally decreed process. But it isn't a democratic process either. or, at least a fair democratic process, unless you're willing to pony up some cash. IMO, I think there's something inherently wrong with that. That's my complaint.

Again, Dean has gotten to where he is without a single vote being cast. Not talking strategy, I'd do the same if I was him. I'm saying it's a undemocratic, unfair system.

I'm kind of wondering what alternative system could deliver the result that you would consider democratic? We're only talking about who the parties nominate as their candidates. That's an internal process, and in most countries its done by active members in a sort of caucus system. Or it is done by members of Parliament who belong to a certain party.

I suppose you could have a system like that where the Democratic (or Republican) senators, governors, and representatives all vote for a nominee? Or how about a system where party members of state legislatures together nominate a candidate for president? Either of those systems would allow democratic imput through parties without quite being smoke filled rooms. I.e the decision would be made by a small and manageable group, but they wouldn't be party hacks as we had before primaries. They would instead be accountable officeholders. Would that work?

Alternatively, if you insist on a popular nominating system, you could have a single national primary day. That would get rid of the problem with having some states having more influence than others. But what it would do would be to make it impossible for a candidate to build momentum. Basically, the election would go to whoever has the most money to organize what would amount to a second general election. That's pretty much the problem with the current primary system. To get into the race at all, you need a huge amount of money. That money acts as a gatekeeper on who gets to run.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Seriously, I don't see how our presidential election process is any better than the old Soviet elections (vote the Party 95%) or the process that elected Saddam Hussein to a 99% victory last year.

I'm sorry, but that really deserves this:

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm sorry, but that really deserves this:

Why? How is our current presidential primary process any better than the examples cited.

Candidates are chosen by a ridiculously small minority group of party activists and those willing to make a financial contribution. Is that representative to you?

It certainly isn't a democratic process. I don't see how you can argue that it is. It isn't representative of the majority at large because the majority of us aren't given any choice. If you aren't interested in choice, or would rather just ratify what's been chosen for you, fine. IMO, the primary process is a charade. For any real and practical purposes it's over before it begins.

[itai195]

The problem is that there's a difference between the primaries and the general election that you are glossing over. Think of a better alternative and let us know. In plenty of other countries that you aren't attacking for undemocratic policies, people don't even vote for candidates in the general election... they vote for a party!

In light of the fact that it's probably not possible to improve the primary system, what you should be directing your rage at is either a) the two party system, which effectively shuts out any other choices or b) the lack of effective campaign finance reform. That said, Dean is running a strong campaign and is the front runner now, but that doesn't mean that he's going to win the nomination. We already have an unusually large field of candidates, if a few drop out because of Gore's endorsement then I wouldn't see it as anything more than rectifying that anomaly.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Alternatively, if you insist on a popular nominating system, you could have a single national primary day. That would get rid of the problem with having some states having more influence than others. But what it would do would be to make it impossible for a candidate to build momentum. Basically, the election would go to whoever has the most money to organize what would amount to a second general election. That's pretty much the problem with the current primary system. To get into the race at all, you need a huge amount of money. That money acts as a gatekeeper on who gets to run.

That was my initial solution. Though I think that just raises the problem we have with small vs. large states. It's the same situation that prompted the creation of a bicameral Congress and the Electoral College.

I think a National Primary Day with a subsequent run-off election between the 2 or 3 top vote getters, in each party, would be great. That would be real choice.

I wouldn't even mind if it was a closed primary. Meaning closed to only those in the specific party. Anything to involve those who are not just the 'landed-gentry' or extremists in each party.

[itai195]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That was my initial solution. Though I think that just raises the problem we have with small vs. large states. It's the same situation that prompted the creation of a bicameral Congress and the Electoral College.

I think a National Primary Day with a subsequent run-off election between the 2 or 3 top vote getters, in each party, would be great. That would be real choice.

I wouldn't even mind if it was a closed primary. Meaning closed to only those in the specific party. Anything to involve those who are not just the 'landed-gentry' or extremists in each party.

So now candidates would have to have the money for 3 general elections? A national primary, a run-off, and then the general election later? And what will the voter turnout for these events be anyway? Will it even be high enough to make it worthwhile? If that were the system in effect today, then all of Dean's opponents would have dropped out a month ago.

Wouldn't having some viable 3rd parties would be a more reasonable solution...

[thunderous_funker]

Hey, I agree with vmpaul on this one. Although I might disagree with him on what it means.

Yes, the Party basically decides everything. Its all done in smoke-filled roomes by the people who control the money, because the money is who decides who runs and who wins utlimately. So a tiny fraction of people decide for the rest of us and we simply get to agree with what they've already decided or not participate.

But rather than view this as top-down corruption of the system, I think its simply a reaction to how disconnected voters are from the election process.

Why is everything decided by party insiders? Because they are the ones who are involved.

Now that an election is basically a popularity contest based on the most shallow and meaningless criteria within the last few weeks of an election, Party's strategy has to reflect that in order to get their man in.

Consider Arnold and Dubya. They ran the prototype campaigns. We already know that Bush turned out to be almost nothing like his campaign persona. The jury is still out on Arnold.

As for the Gore endorsement--I'm not sure how I feel. This should finally put to bed the internal battle between Dean and the DLC. I think the idea is to cull the herd and start nationalizing the guy they think can win--which appears to be Dean. That is, of course, unless Gore's move indicates a split in the DLC. If that's the case, this could get really ugly.

A split in the DLC could ratchet up the vitriol and accrimony in the primary which would produce a rather lame-duck nominee. Lieberman's reaction to this announcement might mean just that.

It also remains to be seen how this will affect the Dean campaign. Let's face it, the critical mass behind his campaign is NOT the DLC crowd. Will they welcome the alliance or will it backfire as they question their loyalty to a guy who is suddenly embraced by "establishment" Democrats. The people who organized Dean's massive grassroots organization are people that didn't vote for Gore--they didn't vote at all!!

"We don't have the luxury of fighting among ourselves to the point where we seriously damage our ability to win on behalf of the American people," --Gore

Yep. He gets it. That's exactly the point. The question now is can a fractured party wake up to this fact and get the job done or will they implode even further.

What does Gore's announcement mean for Dean's VP? All along I expected Clark would be offered that job. Now some backroom deal with the DLC could mean someone considerably different. I'm just worried that a VP that would probably make the DLC happy might be someone too polarizing outside of the Party and actually hurt Dean's chances against Bush.

The plot just got a lot thicker.

[thunderous_funker]

Just wanted to add that this really is a mirror situation to the McCain--Dubya struggle in 2000. The Party insiders wanted Dubya but McCain appeared to have the popular momentum. The guys who write the checks and control the Party organization apparatus finally had the last word.

Now the GOP was disciplined enough to rally behind Dubya and get him elected.

I really think people have forgotten what a dark horse Dubya was. I don't think anyone took him seriously until the convention. Maybe even later than that. He really seemed to come outa nowhere. That shows just how hard the organizers and marketers were working behind the scenes. They manufactured a victory out of almost nothing.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by itai195:
So now candidates would have to have the money for 3 general elections? A national primary, a run-off, and then the general election later? And what will the voter turnout for these events be anyway? Will it even be high enough to make it worthwhile? If that were the system in effect today, then all of Dean's opponents would have dropped out a month ago.

Wouldn't having some viable 3rd parties would be a more reasonable solution...

I'd think it'd be better than the slow phony tease we have today. Primaries are held in fits and spurts now. One primary one month, another two weeks later, another a month later, etc., etc..

Did you know that several states have canceled their primaries altogether? They've found it's not worth the expense to stage an election if they have no say in the results. Is that right?

A National Primary Day with a run-off wouldn't exclude 3rd or 4th or 5th parties at all. They could present as many candidates as they'd like as well. We, the people (stands and salutes), would have more say and choice in the process.

OT - today is the run-off for Mayor of San Francisco. First election was a group of 5 or 6 candidates that was reduced to the two top vote getters. Voters are choosing between those two in today's election.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I'd think it'd be better than the slow phony tease we have today. Primaries are held in fits and spurts now. One primary one month, another two weeks later, another a month later, etc., etc..

Did you know that several states have canceled their primaries altogether? They've found it's not worth the expense to stage an election if they have no say in the results. Is that right?

A National Primary Day with a run-off wouldn't exclude 3rd or 4th or 5th parties at all. They could present as many candidates as they'd like as well. We, the people (stands and salutes), would have more say and choice in the process.

OT - today is the run-off for Mayor of San Francisco. First election was a group of 5 or 6 candidates that was reduced to the two top vote getters. Voters are choosing between those two in today's election.

Primary Day and Instant Run-off Voting would be supremely welcome reforms to the current system. Abso-****ing-lutely!!!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Why? How is our current presidential primary process any better than the examples cited.

Please. No better than totalitarian dictatorships. Uh-huh.

I'm just not sure what you're complaining about. Is it polling? I do think we could do with less opinion-polling, but I don't really see how opinion-polling is anti-democratic.

Is it the fact that states have separate primary days? We could have National Primary Day. But that doesn't solve most of the problems you seem to have with the current system, and it introduces new problems. As Simey points out, I think correctly, money would be even more important then, and retail politics less important.

And your vote still "wouldn't matter," in the sense that you would still only have a 1/100,000,000 say in the selection of the nominee. Logically, you have no more or less of a say if your state is first or last in the process. You can still vote for whomever you wish, and the candidate with the most votes wins the primary.

[itai195]

It just seems to me that if you have a national primary day, you'd never even hear about poeple like Dennis Kucinich. How would 8 or 9 Democrats possibly have enough money to compete in a nation wide campaign? In the current system, at least a lesser known candidate can get some free publicity through media coverage. Also, as Gray Davis so astutely demonstrated in the 2002 California Republican Primary, a single day primary can be manipulated by the other party's well-financed incumbent. And of course it would understandably piss off all the small states who currently have too much influence in the primary and general elections.

When you've got a party system, you're always going to lose some degree of choice in electing a nominee. The problem is that we only have two parties... If you're unsatisfied with the Democratic nominee, and you'd never vote for a Republican, then you're disenfranchised. Vice versa as well...

Yes, it's time for one of my favorite Simpsons quotes!

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!

[vmpaul]

I don't think it's corrupt necessarily just not democratic. It definitely has the potential to become very corrupt.

The chance for change is pretty slim though, especially if reaction on this board is representative. We have sharp, interested and and committed individuals, on both sides of the political spectrum, and they don't seem to have any problem that their voice isn't heard in the process. It just so happens to be my pet peeve.

I'm glad t_f that you brought up the McCain-Dubya situation. I remember it that way as well. I don't think this issue is a particular partisan problem. I have nothing against Dean either (not yet at least). I just see the snowball getting bigger and bigger and it seems to be happening earlier every election year.

If you really are a fan of drama and back-room politics then I'd think most of you would LIKE to see competition all through the primary process. I can't think of anything more dramatic than an undecided convention. That would be kinda fun.

[Lerkfish]

The problem has always been that power brokers within the party, rather than the populace, determine nominations to a large degree. That's a problem because the needs and goals of the party are very self-centered vs. service to the people oriented. If you've ever met those who work in the party organizations (not the politicians, necessarily), you'd understand why they are invulnerable to voter preferences. It is usually they who are most involved in gerrymandering on behalf of their party.
Its sort of like the Mets as an organization is more powerful than the individual ballplayers, even though the ballplayers are who the public sees and roots for, its the front office who makes the decisions (regarding primaries here).
And how the nominee is decided is highly influential (obviously) on the choices for the voter. If the system were not presently bifurcated, that would be ok, but with only two choices, the public suffers. It was not always so...we at various times have had multiple parties throughout history, its only recently that their vigor is atrophied, and that due to the stranglehold of the two existing parties.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Please. No better than totalitarian dictatorships. Uh-huh.

Well, no worse because we have the general election at least. No better because the candidates are being picked for us. Again, you seem fine with ratifying candidates chosen for you. I find that objectionable. It flies against the idea of democracy and representative government to me.

I'm just not sure what you're complaining about. Is it polling? I do think we could do with less opinion-polling, but I don't really see how opinion-polling is anti-democratic.

No, polling is just a small part of it. It's being locked out of the system. It's having no choice in who I'd like to see as candidate for President. It's disenchantment with a process that purports to be democratic but doesn't rely on the vote of the people as much the checkbooks of a minority. Is Dean the best candidate for the Dem nomination? I don't know. Was Dukakis? Or McGovern? Or Bush over McCain? I'd like the option of being heard on the matter. What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by BRussell:
Is it the fact that states have separate primary days? We could have National Primary Day. But that doesn't solve most of the problems you seem to have with the current system, and it introduces new problems. As Simey points out, I think correctly, money would be even more important then, and retail politics less important.

Why? You'd have more choices in candidates. Your vote would be as important as those in NH and Iowa are now. Wait to see how this primary season plays out. You'll see candidates dropping put very soon after NH & Iowa. It happens like that every season. How can you say that having less choice is a good thing? By the time you have a chance to vote it's become meaningless.

Originally posted by BRussell:
And your vote still "wouldn't matter," in the sense that you would still only have a 1/100,000,000 say in the selection of the nominee. Logically, you have no more or less of a say if your state is first or last in the process. You can still vote for whomever you wish, and the candidate with the most votes wins the primary.

Thanks for the push into existential despair. Then why participate at all? Logically, I'd have more say if there were more than one candidate still in the race when my primary is held. How can I have more say if i have no real choice? Where's the logic in that?