I don't want it to be over Feb. 3. Do you?

[bain_sidhe]

But I think it will be if Kerry sweeps all seven states, or even if Edwards wins SC and Clark wins OK, because those are "expected" and not the kind of "big news" that will puncture the "inevitability" balloon holding Kerry up. I wouldn't mind so much if Kerry were the *eventual* nominee, as long as I feel my guy (and Dean, and what the heck the others too) got a fair evaluation from a reasonably wide cross-section of the Democratic voters.

But having just two small states vote then BAM! it's over... because the media covers nothing else... so everybody jumps on the front runner's bandwagon... because they don't even get a *look* at the other guys... NO! I think it would be bad for the party, and in the long run, bad for the country, because once again, most voters will feel their views never even got a hearing. Can you say "apathy"? So, I don't want Kerry to sweep the 2/3 primaries.

Does that make me a "stop Kerry" person? And if it does, does that make me a bad person, or a good Democrat? And most importantly, do you agree that it shouldn't be over on 2/3?

[jpgray]

1. Remember, Dean had an "inevitability balloon", so anything's possible (nt)

[quinnox]

2. No

I don't want to see it over so early either. I would like to see either Edwards (my preference) or Clark emerge and have a head to head battle against Kerry. And I say this as one who has Kerry as my first choice.

It would be a good thing to have a battle tested nominee, plus for me it would be a lot more fun in the horse race aspect to have a real race rather than a boring conclusion. Heh, a little shallow but I see politics as part entertainment as well.

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. No it doesn't make you a bad person. I don't think they should

be over on February 3rd either. I think people should take a little bit more time to consider what's at stake here. With the way Bushco is handling things, Mickey Mouse would beat him come November. Go for the candidate you like, stick with the candidate you like. Then get out there and talk about him!!!

:hi:

[milkyway]

4. No, and it won't be. nt

[Rowdyboy]

5. Chill

"Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be!"

[bain_sidhe]

11. Already old...

waitin' for the best. The best candidate to take off, that is. Or heck, just to be *noticed*!

[Capn Sunshine]

6. IT WON'T Be

Maybe in March, but not Feb. Too much up in the air.

Unless you want the corporate media to make up your mind for you.
Then it might be.

[isbister]

12. Iowa and New Hampshire voters

soundly rejected the corporate media's chosen Democratic nominee.

[krkaufman]

21. Would that be the same corporate media...

Would that be the same corporate media that spent all of January through the present railing about Dean's "electability"?

[isbister]

31. Yes, questioned his anger too

Media questions about Dean began before January. Early to mid-December. The media pretty much let Dean run free before that.

[shance]

29. Good point Sunshine**unless you want corporate media to make up your mind,

for you, then it might be.**

Great point. Im asking everyone who is the slightest bit awake and enlightened to follow their first instincts and overall GUT****

[BeatleBoot]

7. March 10th or so...

Then what a hangover on November 3rd!!!

:hangover:

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. If things regress down the current path

That hangover will last until 2008 :(

[AP]

8. I have a suspicion this is why Clinton was in DC today.

He doesn't want it be over either, so he probably told senators to do what they can with their machines to make sure all the candidates are getting a fair shake.

[isbister]

13. Or

the complete opposite of that.

Maybe he told them to get every on board the Kerry train so we can unify and cream bush.

[AP]

27. He wouldn't need to make a trip to DC to do that.

Kerry is 2-0 so far, and will roll on his own weight.

Furthermore, Clinton would have used a word stronger than "good" to describe him, if that were the case. And he was emphasizing that he liked the field in the interview.

[isbister]

30. Maybe

I'm sure Clinton understands he's a lightening rod...wouldn't want to call things too early. Clinton threw the field comment in at the end...seemed like a cover statement.

[krkaufman]

22. After tonight's debate...

After tonight's debate, I'm wishing/hoping that it *does* go on for a while longer. They were *shredding* Bush and his policies. Although, I suppose, excessive vitriol directed at Bush may just drive away the swing voters we'll need in November.

We need criticism, but not anger; rational, detailed critique of just how Chimp has screwed up. (oops)

[NoPasaran]

9. No I love it too much

I want it to go on and on. Really I so.

[Gadave]

10. We need to change the way primaries are done

I am tired of 2 states determining the Presidential nominations every year. People think they should start small, but I think that is a load of horse pucky.

The candidates spend like 6 months in Iowa and NH. I think they could very easily expand the first set of primaries to say 8 states. (2 in each main region).

This gives candidates options to shop thier brand of politics in many states at ones. I agree the states themselves should be smaller. You can think of it as the first round. Say, NH, Iowa, SC, Vermont, Indiana, Mississippi, Arizona and Oregon.

Sure it will cost more money, but the candidates have 6 months to make thier case, and to raise money. Each candidate can pick a favorite state and try to win that. Come the first primary, if your candidate cannot win a state or at least be competitive in a large number of them, you aren't viable, and should drop out.

Then, wait a month, and let the candidates raise money and make their case for round 2. In this round, make a large number of states, say 16 (none of the largest ones though). After this half the states would have their say before it is likely we will be down to 1 candidate.

The problem with this year is that Kerry is untested and we might be screwed because of it. Everyone is telling Dean to drop out, but Kerry has not had to face the spotlight, so we don't know if he can take it. Under my plan, the candidates have a month after the first elimination round to make thier case. They can explain how they lost all 8 primaries and still think they should stay in (not likely). Having more than 1 means there will most likely be more than 1 winner and more chance for legitimacy to more than one candidate.

Also this guarentees geographic balance and nationwide appeal. If the candidates message only sells in NH why should we stop letting them compete.

Finally, I think all Democratic leaders should pledge to not make endorsements before any votes are cast. Its like mom and dad are telling us who we can vote for, and personally I usually resent it. Let the candidates speak for themselves.

Well since I am not a New Hampshire resident I will go back to not counting in the primaries.

[bain_sidhe]

14. I agree. And welcome to DU

:hi:

Yes, I've thought the primaries were screwed up for a while now, but this year is much worse. It used to be, after Iowa and NH, candidates had some breathing room to hone their message, connect with voters, and raise money. Now it's just BANG BANG BANG, and that gives FAR too much power to the media, IMHO. They can make or break a candidate in a week, just by how they cover him.

[Gadave]

16. So why are people so in love with the Iowa first thing

I am also not a fan of caucuses. I think closed primaries are the best way. Make it so you can change parties but only after sitting on election out as an independent.

Caucuses seem to be used to keep the outsiders out. Besides how many times has the Iowa winner became President anyway.

[isbister]

15. Kerry is untested?

What the heck are you talking about?

He's been on and off the national stage since he was 21. Kerry's seen it thrown at him and watched while it was thrown at others near him. He's swatted down every piece of dirt a republican could throw.

Part of Dean's problem was that he was little fish in the big pond. Edwards and Clark have gotten a little taste of that too (Edwards less). Kerry's been in the big pond and thrives there.

[Gadave]

17. I mean by democrats in the primaries

In retrospect I realize I didn't make that clear. We need to test our own people.

There is a lot of stress running for President as the front runner. Dean cracked a little, but IMHO is still viable. Kerry has not had a chance to hold the mantle for more than a week or so and people want everyone else to drop out.

That is a bad idea I think. We need to know how he handles the front-runner status for longer than 14 days to see how he handles being the standard bearer for Nov. I just hope Dean wins a state in the next group and maybe Edwards or Clark, just so we can be sure. Really its good for us, its like a test drive.

EDIT : corrected a spelling error

[fujiyama]

39. It may be true..

that Kerry has been in politics since he was young...

But presidential politics, and that too against Rove, are a whole other ballgame. Fortunately Kerry is a good campaigner but he still needs to slug it out and be tested in various different regions of the country.

[Eurobabe]

25. Mixed feelings about that....

I spent alot of time in New Hampster these past 4 months, my dad lives in Keene. So I partook of the process as much as I could.

It does bug me that these two states (Iowa and NH) give a candidate the big MO and the rest of the country follows like lemmings. But the NH people are truly different. They live and breathe politics. Political speak was rampant last week, in coffee shops, in bars, restaurants. Where else can you call someone who is undecided on the primary election day, bring out salient arguments for them to support your candidate and convince them right then and there on the phone? That was a very interesting experience. Most Granite Staters take this process very seriously.

But the fact that they are so pampered by the candidates (Wes Clark actually was sitting right in front of me at the phones on 1/27 talking to an undecided voter)and the process takes so much time away from the rest of the country is truly unfair.

My thoughts are that we have a rotating primary in states that more accurately represent the diversity of the American population.

[fujiyama]

38. Welcome to DU!

And you're right. I think more primaries should be held at first. It would be better to expland the first set. I was originally thinking they should all be on the same day, but the region by region thing isn't a bad idea. Good idea about the endorsements as well, though that's more difficult to control.

I also hope these primaries aren't over on Tues, because whether or not Kerry is the nominee I want him to be battle tested.

[Amager]

18. Of course not.

I'd still like to see Edwards do well next week and then break out with some momentum from there. He really has to win SC in order to do that.

[Cloud]

19. Yes, I jumped on the Kerry bandwagon.

So sue me. :)

I do want the primaries to go all 50 states. If there is no clear nominee then Rove will not be able to focus on one person for attacks. Make him uncertain who the nominee will be for the longest possible time.

If Kerry sweeps all the states Feb. 3rd then Rove can immediately start planning attacks because Kerry will most likely be the nominee.

It is better for us and would generate more interest by the public if it is an exciting down to the wire finish.

[genius]

20. I"m pulling for Edwards and Clark to do well that day too. I'd like

to see the race continue through to the convention.

[ochazuke]

23. A Kerry sweep would be bad for the party - and Kerry.

We need to take a good, long look at the remaining viable candidates, have more debates, interviews, see who is the best candidate, because the Thuglikans are gonna throw a shale storm at our boy and the media are gonna sit back and say, "yeah, take that shale storm you loser!"

So, I'm hoping that Edwards gets a big boost from Super Tuesday. I'd like Clark to stay in the race, too, but I wonder if both Edwards and Clark can survive.

Even if Kerry is the nominee, a longer period of challenge would do him good.

[Eurobabe]

26. agreed

take a look at the four remaining *viable candidates* and start assessing their ability to beat Bu$h.

I saw all of them last week in NH, and I just don't think Kerry is the one. Sorry.

[Leilani]

24. I don't want it to be over yet, either.

I think it's been great for the Dems; our message keeps getting out there, Bush is not hogging the spotlight.

Also, The longer it goes, the better the nominee will be. Dean really challenged Kerry, & Kerry stepped up his campaign & became stronger.

Also, to unite the party around the eventual nominee, supporters of other candidates must feel their guy had an equal shot, & that it was not highjacked by the establishment.

I think kerry will probably win, but with the media cheerleading, frontloading of primaries, etc., I fear some will be resentful. If people feel it was a done deal, before they have their say, it will not make for happy campers.

[Piperay]

28. NO way...

I would like to have my vote count for something out here in CA for a change.

[bain_sidhe]

32. So, how do we make it NOT be over on 2/3

Do we do a "deal" ala Kucinich/Edwards? Or an unspoken kind of background buzz that in any given state, the guy with the best chance to stop a Kerry sprint to the nomination gets not beat up too bad, or even background support from the other candidates? What? I have to admit that I'm considering doing a "strategic" vote for Dean (YIKES! I can't believe I'm THINKING it, even!) here in Michigan on the 7th, because Clark isn't doing very well here, and Dean has a real shot at beating Kerry here. And Clark doesn't seem to be contesting it very strongly, so maybe in the back of his mind there's some notion that the "keeping Kerry from running the table" idea is more important than one particular state... After all, if Kerry DOES run the table, neither Clark nor Dean will have the TIME to build support (or, in Dean's case, come back). And I have to wonder if that idea plays a role in Dean not contesting the 2/3 states strongly... Clark has a better chance in several of them, let HIM stop Kerry's momentum, because that's the only way he - or anybody - will still be alive on 2/7 in Michigan. Or if it plays a part in both Clark and Dean not being that active in SC (with Edwards "stopping" Kerry idea in that case)...

I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm not asking anybody to do anything, and I'm not promising to do anything... after all, if Clark is doing better in MI by 2/7, I'll certainly cast my vote for him... I'm just wondering how to insure our guys get a *chance* to make their case.

Please don't flame me for saying the words "stop Kerry" - remember, I just want to stop the *momentum*, not stop him from being the nominee. I can live with him being the nominee if I feel he's EARNED it. At this point, I don't.

[slinkerwink]

37. same here too

[jsw_81]

33. Yes

It's time to unite against Bush.

[Uzybone]

34. The sooner the better

and I would say this no matter who was ahead. The sooner us Dems can coalesce behind one candidate and dump these foolish NBXers the better for us. That way we can focus on Bush.

[bain_sidhe]

35. I disagree on so many levels!

First of all, if Kerry surfs the wave of the positive media attention to sweep the 2/3 states, I can guarantee that MOST Democratic voters will resent it. Why? Because MOST Democratic voters voted for, and support, somebody else, and NONE of us will feel our guy got a fair shot. That resentment won't make for motivated troops in the fall. OTOH, if we DO feel that our guy got a fair chance to make his case, we're much more likely to accept the eventual nominee.

Secondly, I don't WANT to "dump" the NBX-ers. I want to keep them. Again, a coronation isn't going to do that.

"and I would say this no matter who was ahead."

Looking at your Kerry avatar, I suggest that statement has yet to be tested.

[MrSlayer]

40. No, it would suck if it was.

I hate the way the media paints one guy as the man after only two pissy elections. If they don't think people are influenced by this, they are fooling themselves. Stop influencing voters and let everyone's message out equally! It's frustrating.

[fujiyama]

41. I think the primary system...

is not set up well enough to challenge the candidates. Another possiblity is to have one primary from each region held on the first primary day. That way, it wouldn't be as though NH by itself was determining who the candidate is.

We could start off by having a few states with a small number of delegates have primaries and then move on to higher delegate states.

Or we can split the nation into several regions and have a larger number of states have primaries.

It also seems as though caucuses have some problems, especially if they aren't closed. However, if they are closed or modified closed caucuses I suppose they are ok.