Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Time For a Change



I would really like to see a change in the way we do the
primaries and caucuses. It's ridiculous Iowa and New
Hampshire have this much power every four years.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165383/handful-white-people-who-choose-your-presidential-candidates

24 comments:

free0352 said...

We? Excuse me no matter what you think of it you get zero say... that is unless you want to join the Republican Party. It's their election, and they can handle it any way they want.

J. Marquis said...

Both parties start in those two states the last time I checked.

Tom Harper said...

I think we need a better caliber of candidates more than a change in the caucuses and primaries.

free0352 said...

Sorry Jim, I thought you were talking about this specific election.

I get all testy when people from outside the party vote in another party's elections. Have a post up on my blog about it actually.

Snave said...

Oregon doesn't have open primaries, and in the part of the state where I live, Democrats rarely ever win anything. So there have been several times I have changed my party registration so I could vote in the primary for the local Republican I find least distasteful, when there have been several Republicans running and probably either no Democrat on the fall ballot, or else some poor sap who runs as a sacrificial lamb. It has worked for me two out of three times.

If it must be a Republican who wins, I'd rather it be someone who is open to working with others and offering something of value than one of the GOP's new breed. I usually know the people running, or at least know enough about them to know what flavors of Kool-Aid they're most likely to prefer. I've only done this on a local basis, because while I feel that in any government there need to be people willing to work together, at the local level it helps me to have a say in what happens. To not be involved is to not be heard, so I'm glad our laws have enough wiggle room to make it so everyone can vote.

I've never changed parties solely for the purpose of voting for a Republican candidate for Senate, House or White House and I won't do it this year, even though Obama is probably unopposed on the Democratic ticket. At least I won't unless it looks like there are some real stinkers running for county commissioner or other local positions. 8-)

My party affiliation has always been Independent, Green or Democrat, and I've always changed back from Republican quickly after primaries, because my wife says she doesn't want to be married to a Republican or live under the same roof as one. 8-)

This time around there are no presidential candidates I would even feel halfway comfortable with in the White House anyway, so I'm planning on staying Democrat for the Oregon primary. What I'd like to see is somebody different win each of the first four or five primaries/caucuses, get some real confusion going in the GOP, and get some people thinking about running somebody third party. The more confusion and divisiveness there in the GOP this year, the better.

J. Marquis said...

Tom- I think the location of the initial primaries and caucuses actually an effect on the caliber of the candidates (at least in the GOP). Rick Santorum is winning tonight because the conservatives in Iowa wish it was still 1952.

free0352 said...

Thats B.S. Snave, and it should be prevented somehow. The general election is one thing, but a party election is something all together. I won't vote in the Republican Primary here in Kansas for example because... duh... I'm not a Republican. Republicans should have the right to choose who they want to represent them without Democrat meddling. Same goes for Republicans. I was really against the Limbaugh Operation Chaos stuff. It's cheating as far as I'm concerned. If I were Republicans, I'd change the nomination process to exclude all non party members.

S.W. Anderson said...

I don't think Iowa has that much power and influence. New Hampshire has more but isn't necessarily decisive.

"Rick Santorum is winning tonight because the conservatives in Iowa wish it was still 1952."

Make that 1922 and I'll agree. ;)

MRMacrum said...

I think we should just stop the charade and let the media pick our candidates. They do it anyway. The election season is now just another source of revenue for the networks.

The process has become so corrupted by money, it is no longer an election, it is an industry.

Snave said...

Well, Free, you can always write a letter to the people in Oregon who run our elections here and make a complaint. :-)

There is absolutely nothing B.S. about it if I know ahead of time there is not going to be a Democratic candidate on the ballot in the fall. It does happen around here. Only 40% of us here in the area where I live are Democrats or not registered as GOP, but if we can't vote, that pretty much disenfranchises 40% of voters. So if we want a say in how our local government is run, we have it.

Dave Splash said...

I have nothing against Iowa (it's five minutes from my door actually) or New Hampshire, but they hardly represent the whole of America. The parties should rotate the placements for the primaries and caucuses to a number of states rather than always those two. By the time the voting comes to Nebraska, it has already been decided. Those two states - plus South Carolina - are the ones who decide who everyone else gets to choose for president. It is grossly unfair to the rest of the country.

Funny thing about Iowa, though, is that their Republicans are as whacky, extremist, and hateful as those in S. Carolina or Mississippi, but the state is a pretty liberal state. Gay marriage is legal there, there are wind farms all across the state for wind energy, their state college and community college system is among the best in the US, and they offer free wi-fi at all rest stops. I could go on...

I think the freakshow that has been on display the last few months is not very representative of the state, in general. That doesn't negate my earlier point about a rotation of states for first in the nation primaries.

Funny, though, how the Iowa Republcans weren't asking for ID to caucus last night. I thought they were so concerned about all the (virtually non-existent) voter fraud.

J. Marquis said...

Dave, is Iowa geographically divided? In other words, is the western part of the state more conservative?

Dave Splash said...

Sort of. Central Iowa is more rural and farm oriented, and often more conservative. The biggest liberal areas are on the east coast of the state. But not all of the west is right wing. The biggest western Iowa county is represented by Steve King in Congress and he is to the right of Bachmann. So, I guess the nutters are spread out. However, many in central Iowa do not respond to the conservative message of "tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for you" in a very positive way.

free0352 said...

There is absolutely nothing B.S. about it if I know ahead of time there is not going to be a Democratic candidate on the ballot in the fall.

Sure there is. You're a Democrat. So be a Democrat.

Snave said...

And not have a say at all in who is running our county and our local government? Hardly! What a hoot!

Come to our town and get a feel for what the political environment is like here before getting self-righteous... lol

free0352 said...

And not have a say at all in who is running our county and our local government?

Last time I checked political parties are not THE GOVERNMENT. I'm sorry if your Democrat sacrificial lamb can't win. That doesn't give you a right to go carpet bagging into another party you aren't a member of. It's the REPUBLICAN primary, not the "Waaa my guy can't win so I'm going to butt in where it doesn't belong" primary.

free0352 said...

As for political climates, try Detroit. No Republicans, ever.

I still don't stick my nose into the Democrat primary where I don't belong. It's also why I won't vote in the Republican Party primary. I'm a Libertarian. And believe me, we never have a chance. But I have some principles, and you on this subject don't. That is the difference.

Snave said...

Hey, you told us specifically in the fourth comment in this thread what makes you "testy" (it's a mistake I often make, setting myself up for the stuff you like to throw at me). I recognized this, and I have been obliging you by throwing some fun stuff out there for you. Thanks for taking the time to respond. 8-)

Parties are NOT the government, this is true. But when one party has a traditional conservative going against one of the newer versions in our town or county, I know what I like. And I am sure the one I vote for appreciates my vote. I talked to one of the candidates once, and he thanked me. You're just pissed off because I prefer moderate conservatives to the more radical variety, such as yourself.

As long as our state law allows me to change parties whenever I feel like it, I have every right to do it, and I have a right to vote in a primary. Like I said, if you don't like it, write a letter to the state of Oregon.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

I have every right to do it

You also have every right to become a raging alcoholic but that doesn't mean you should.

That loophole is one I'd like to see closed, I just can't think of a fair way and no one else can either. Till we do, we're on the honor system. Well, I am and you're clearly not.

It doesn't piss me off you are pushing moderate candidates. It pissed me off you're not doing it in your own party. You're cheating is what you are doing. You're ripping Republicans off. They have every right to put up the candidates the dues paying members want to see in office and you're cheating them out of those dues through a loophole. That's fucked up, but I doubt you ever thought of it that way.

You are a Democrat, you chose that. Have some integrity on this issue and work to get moderate Democrats elected in your district. If you fail, so be it. If you can't find a candidate to support - RUN YOURSELF. Don't go carpet bagging. It's ... cheating. Cheating isn't good last I checked.

Snave said...

No, I don't tend to think of it as "fucked up". This is what is fucked up: Why is playing by Oregon's rules "cheating", but playing by your rules is not?

It isn't a "loophole" here, it's in our law. You only call it a loophole because you disagree with it.

"Ripping off Republicans"? Like I say, I know the people around here pretty well. I've lived here for over 40 years. If I know there is someone running who won't rip off the county, I'll vote for him or her if I am able.

As for "carpetbagging", I am neither a newcomer nor an outsider. I have lived where I live for more than 80% of my life. And my voting in a GOP primary once in a while is not being done as a way to make money off of others.

free0352 said...

You only call it a loophole because you disagree with it.

Haha, if only you thought the same of tax breaks for the "wealthy!"

I have lived where I live for more than 80% of my life.

You are "carpet bagging" into the Republican Party from the Democratic one - where you know you don't live for any percent of your life.

If you want to be a moderate Republican, go do that. Be my guest. They're the only politicians I hate more than Progressive Democrats. But at leas then you'd be honest, pay your party dues, and have a right to decide who Republicans run for any given office. Until then, you should stay out of it. And as for the law, it's a fucked up law... and one I hope Republicans change in their party charter to disenfranchise you right out their business. The same goes for the Democrat Party. Republicans have no business voting in their primaries either.

free0352 said...

write a letter to the state of Oregon.

NO! Because I don't live in Oregon. You really aren't grasping this concept are you Snave LOL.

Snave said...

Nor are you grasping anything I'm throwing at you, it seems. Oh well! Sorry you got all testy. 8-)