Hillary Clinton may have won, if we had a one-day 50-state primary

[stahbrett]

The more Obama and Clinton campaigns somewhere, the better Obama does and the worse she does (compared to pre-campaign polls). In other words, the more that voters get to know Obama and Clinton, the better Obama does.

So in hindsight, Clinton should have tried to arrange for a one-day, 50-state Super-Duper-Double-Duper Tuesday, and hope that Obama would not have time to campaign enough.

[islandmkl]

1. well...we ARE 2 weeks past Feb. 5, which was supposed to do the trick....

it ain't over by any means...and the damn fat lady is practicing more than one song! Maybe Hillary should have arranged for more states delegates to be 'restricted' or 'sanctioned' (back in the heady days of Dem Party rules-making)...this current situation definitely WAS NOT the plan.

[stahbrett]

2. lol - my original subject line was going to be:

"The Clinton campaign should have tried to get more states to follow MI and FL's lead"

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. or maybe Edwards would have won... or Kucinich

I'm all in favor of a 1 day primary.
Give the candidates a start date of a few months ahead of that and let them go at it.

[stahbrett]

4. A one-day primary heavily favors the candidates with tons of name recognition...

And candidates with the backing of the establishment. No thanks - those candidates already have a huge leg up on the lesser known candidates.

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. riiiiiight... the current system work out well for small candidates

just look at all of them that make it to the convention
:eyes:

[stahbrett]

7. So making it even harder for them makes sense to you? (n/t)

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. I don't see it as making it harder for them

I see it as giving them a better chance.

[stahbrett]

9. I don't see how - care to explain your opinion?

Take a candidate without a lot of name recognition or money early on - how does forcing him/her to compete nationwide for a one-day, 50-state primary contest help, versus focusing on one or two states, where he/she can build momentum after winning/coming close to winning?

[Clovis Sangrail]

12. sure

Right now no small candidates will ever make it to the convention. (just look at the track record)

A big part of, but not the only, reason for this is because the current system gives the monied candidates plenty of time to identify and outspend any candidate who raises an important issue.
The Kuncinich's or Edwards' can be neutralized long before the convention by co-opting their ideas and marginalizing them.
The periodic primaries give the monied interests plenty of time to identify and neutralize any issue that a smaller candidate might have right.

I also think we should completely do away with any kind of campaign contributions... is that offensive too?

[stahbrett]

14. Interesting... thanks for sharing - not sure I agree but it gives me something to think about

Also, if we do away with contributions, how would campaigns be paid for, and if the answer is the government, then could anyone just register as a candidate in order to get campaign funds, and if not, who would determine the "legitimate" candidates are?

[Clovis Sangrail]

15. yes, I think the govt should pay for the campaigns.

In Clovis fantasy-land... it works like this:
No Democratic or Republican nominees.
(my fantasy my rules)

To become a candidate people must get X number of signatures, and X is something reasonably large.
If there are less than 20 candidates, move forward with the election, if not give each of them another week to get another Y signatures.
Lather, rinse and repeat until the number is 20 or less.
'Campaign contributions' will be called by their correct name.. 'attempted bribery' and will be illegal.
Any candidate taking contributions will be immediately disqualified.

We the taxpayers, NOT the corporations, then do the following for the remaining candidate's campaigns:
Provide them each with a mailer that goes to every address in the country.
Same page limit, same color limit, etc. etc.
They can make whatever they want of it, but that's what they all get.
Provide them all with equal airtime once a week during prime time broadcast on ALL public access stations.
Provide all of them (+2 staff each) free nationwide travel during the course of the campaign.
Provide each of them with a small amount of discretionary money for campaigning.
If the MSM provides sells (or gives) any candidate something they are required to offer the same at the same price to ALL the candidates... otherwise it's a campaign contribution.

At election time the vote is taken using http://instantrunoff.fairvote.org/how/gates/">Instant Runoff Voting.

In Clovis non-fantasy-land I don't think the above will ever come to pass without some major cultural shift, but I think it's worth striving for before that happens.

[stahbrett]

19. I like part of that, especially the IRV (I'm actually a little more partial to...

Range Voting

http://rangevoting.org/

It lets voters rank each candidate on a scale of 0-99 (or any scale you'd like). The candidate with the highest average ranking wins.

[Clovis Sangrail]

20. I'm not die hard IRV

There are a number of voting methods that are better and harder to game than what we currently have.
A number of of places are already using IRV already which is why I pulled that one out of the air.

The site is interesting, I'll be reading it.
Thanks

[sandnsea]

5. She was trying her heart out

Why do you think she was trying to move MI & FL up. She wanted to offset the importance of IA & NH because it takes money to reach the same number of people in MI & FL. Money JOHN EDWARDS didn't have. If she'd succeeded, she'd have looked a lot more inevitable on Feb 5, making it a lot harder for Obama to even out the race.

We have to fight a one day primary. We will never have a grassroots candidate again if we go that way.

[suston96]

11. There is no way Barack Obama would have suffered "recognition loss" in a national primary...

The media would have flocked to him as they have already done.

The political parties cannot be trusted to run a fair and equitable primary elimination system, as we have seen voters denied full participation in that nominating process - full participation by rank and file members, as both major party charters mandate.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. So might have Howard Dean.

:shrug:

[TheDonkey]

13. Thank God we do not

[ecstatic]

16. I think she would have. And though I'm leaning more towards Obama now

I believe future primaries should all be held on the same day (and no more caucuses).

[Renew Deal]

17. Hillary may have won if she used the 50 state strategy.

That's how it is.

[Skip Intro]

18. When and if its over for her, and its not over yet, she'll be back in four years.

And we'll have the good sense then to nominate, and elect her.


just my humble opinion

[MadHound]

21. Maybe, maybe not, but the rules for this primary season were the same for all

And Hillary's game plan failed, dismally. She tried to go for the quick Super Tuesday KO blow and failed. This left her short of money and without a backup plan in place. Thus we see her floundering for the past couple of weeks, with virtually no chance of winning. I really hope that she doesn't decide to go down the scorched earth road and sacrifice the party on the altar of her vanity and ego.

[MethuenProgressive]

22. If only Democrats were allowed to vote, and it was a secret ballot, Clinton would be far ahead.

And Obama would be nothing more than Joe Biden with hair.