The Democrats

[Trent Lawless]

See, Mike? Wildfire says I'm right.

And now I can return the favor by saying I agree with him that if the superdelegates don't go with the will of the electorate, they're basically gonna hand the election to McCain. That might even keep me away from the polls.

[Mike M]

Well, if Mark and Wildfire agree, I must be in trouble

I agree with most of what you're saying- but the fact remains that Michigan and Florida chose Hillary Clinton, no matter how little Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigned there or not. Florida and Michigan are both key swing states, and doing ANYTHING to alienate the electorate there is monumentally dumb. Ironically, it only changes the balance of power slightly since the Dems use a propotional allocation of delegates in each state, but it's the principle of it that matters. Just like superdelegates putting one candidate over the top will discourage turnout rates, I think that Democratic turnout in MI and FL will be similarly impacted if "their" candidate loses based on the fact that their votes don't count.

I understand that the state political parties chose to run their elections before the national committee wanted them to- but the state Republicans did the same thing. Instead of disenfranchising the entire electorate, the GOP slashed the delegate total in half. While it's not perfect, at least it doesn't tell two critically important states that they don't matter. Don't be surprised if a number of superdelegates choose to use the 'missing' FL and MI delegates as their excuse for supporting Clinton at a brokered convention that goes her way.

Just for the record, I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter (far from it). But I'd be making this case if Obama, Edwards or even (gasp) Dennis Kucinich had won those states. For a 'party of the people', the Dems are doing a terrible job of representing the voices of a large block of voters, and putting 20% of the convention votes in the hands of super delegates responsible to no one other than themselves.

The Republican are guilty of this as well to a lesser degree. I believe about 10% of their convention-goers are super delegates. It just won't have an impact in this nomination process because McCain's managed to virtually lock things up early on.

[Chewey]

What's the big deal about no other state being allowed to hold a primary (besides Iowa, New Hampshire, and a couple others) before Super Tuesday anyway?

I do agree with Mike M that if the RNC and DNC were going to penalize these two states for breaking the rules, they should have gotten together and agreed on a consensus on how they were going to punish those states.

[Trent Lawless]

I think some of the angst has to do with the early primary/caucus states taking umbrage at being potentially one-upped or something, and while I have in-laws and good friends in Iowa, I have to say I find it odd that that state holds the kind of power it seems to in elections. I'm not so sure I'm for a national primary (haven't read enough about it), but as ridiculously early as this election cycle was, it's not sounding too bad to me.

But honestly, Chewey, I don't have a good answer for you, other than that it's a DNC power play of some kind.

[Chad Olson]

I have no idea why us Iowans have decided we must have the first caucus in the country. I guess it's nice to focus this attention on the state, but I'm leaning towards spreading it around in a national primary/caucus type event.

Although it raises the question, why do we need a national primary and a national vote? Just do it once, winner take all. (I don't know if I agree with that statement, but it would certainly seem to simplify things!)

[Mike M]

If you notice, they try to make smaller states vote/caucus early in the nomination process- partly, I suspect, to give them more attention (and therefore a greater voice) than they get in the general election, where states like New Hampshire are largely overlooked in favor of larger states like NY, OH, FL, TX, CA, etc.

[Trent Lawless]

I get the idea of smaller states being given a more prominent platform, but why always Iowa and New Hampshire? Maybe they should switch that around some...

[Chad Olson]

If it meant less phone calls, commericals and junk mail regarding the caucuses between September and January, I'd be all for it.

[Chewey]

well it's interesting now that the DNC is reconsidering their positions on these states. Hillary wants her delegates to count (naturally). Obama is not adverse to holding the primaries in these states over again, though these states claim that they're not going to be able to fund a second election.

If the DNC was going to punish these states, they should have just followed the Republicans' lead and cut the votes in half, instead of wiping them out completely.

[Mike M]

Personally, I think that Obama deserves to get 0 delegates from Michigan, since he didn't have the foresight to get on the ballot.

The DNC should probably just count the results as-is, but cut the delegates in half like the GOP. But I doubt that the Obama camp will let that happen, so this is bound to be a mess.

[Trent Lawless]

Well, all I can say is I hope Obama blows Clinton away from this point on so the point of Michigan and Florida delegates becomes moot. That's probably the easiest outcome, at least.

[Chewey]

The Economist, granted it has a general pro-big business/anti-Huckabee and especially anti-Hillary stance, has declared Obama the favorite to win the election now. Hillary has no money, she's losing her support among her key constituents, and her dirty tricks are really catching up to her image.

Of course, the Economist also has serious doubts about whether or not Obama can keep it up through the general election. So far, he hasn't been held under the microscope the way everyone else has. As his name is mentioned more and more in the media, people are going to try harder to bring him down and he's going to have to withstand these political attacks.

[mft]

aaron168 said:

As his name is mentioned more and more in the media, people are going to try harder to bring him down and he's going to have to withstand these political attacks.

Like the "fainting women" or the Che Guevara posters??? I'm sure that the media will gladly sweep that under the rug!

[Chewey]

markcpc said:

Whoever wins, they should make Joe Biden Secretary of State. He's got a phenomenal grasp of foreign policy and definitely should be listened to.

I thought this before too, as Biden and McCain had both worked on a series of senate resolutions on foreign policy over the years, but I just picked up the January/February issues of Foreign Affairs, which Bill Richardson finally (albeit late) got a chance to write about what he felt should be America's current foreign policy. Even though Outside the Beltway completely rips it apart, I still felt that Richardson had a better understanding of foreign policy than any of the other presidential candidates (although McCain had a similar message that was better than Hillary or Obama's).

Of course, the publication of this article at this time is probably Richardson's pitch for Secretary of State or National Security Advisor, but I don't think it would be a necessarily bad choice. His Neo-Realist approach is in some ways similar to Bush's Neo-Conservative approach of the past seven years, but by properly identifying Bush's faults as a unilateral cowboy in global politics is far more reasonable and pointed than the other papers that the other candidates submitted.

www.foreignaffairs.org/special/campaign2008

[Trent Lawless]

I read that article for work, actually, Chewey!

Personally, I think Bill Richardson's gonna be the VP nominee, especially if Obama winds up with the nomination. He's not doing so hot among Latino voters, and having him on the ticket might bump those numbers up some more. And I think that'd be a great pick, honestly, given Obama's relative lack of executive experience.

[Chewey]

pretty cool, Mark.

All things considered, Richardson attended my alma mater, Tufts University, both for undergrad and grad school in International Relations, a program for which Tufts is well known for, especially the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. The other candidates didn't seem to have any idea what they were talking about, except for McCain who basically echoed the same main points as Richardson.

Bottom line, Richardson got tired of waiting for Foreign Affairs to publish his piece, so he got it published in the Harvard International Review, and the latter journal doesn't just publish any layman scholars either.

I suppose Richardson is as good a VP candidate as any, now that Mark Warner is running for a seat in the Senate.

[Aquinas]

Hell just froze over.

I, the "NeoCon Republican", just voted for Hillary Clinton

[Chewey]

aquinas said:

Hell just froze over.

I, the "NeoCon Republican", just voted for Hillary Clinton

Hmm... was the logic similar to that of me voting for Mike Huckabee?

[Aquinas]

aaron168 said:

aquinas said:

Hell just froze over.

I, the "NeoCon Republican", just voted for Hillary Clinton

Hmm... was the logic similar to that of me voting for Mike Huckabee?

Yes. A vote for Hillary is a vote against Obama

[Trent Lawless]

No offense, but that kind of strategy annoys me, but it's the fault of the states with open primaries, not necessarily the voters who avail themselves of it. Call me crazy, but I think Dems should vote for Dems and Repubs should vote for Repubs in the primary stage. Otherwise it's just opening it up for lots of rigging when one side's nominee becomes clear.

Aquinas, you are dead to me.