Democrats boycotting states who have planned earlier primaries.

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    Being a role model
    Posts
    34,456

    Democrats boycotting states who have planned earlier primaries.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components

    The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008.

    The move ended weeks-long jockeying over which states get to hold early primaries.

    Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.



    And then this seems pretty strong statement.....

    On Aug. 25, the DNC told Florida that its primary would have to be held on or after Feb. 5, or it would lose its delegates to the party's convention in Denver next year. The Republican National Committee has issued similar warnings.
    Advertisement

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Location
    Ft. Mitchell Ky
    Posts
    21,150

    The republicans feel the same way and have issued the same advice and warnings to their candidates. I agree with the parties on this issue. Too much jockeying to be one of the first states to hold a primary.

  3. #3
    billyrayjoebob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 06
    Location
    Pikeville
    Posts
    3,379

    Any politician would crawl 9 miles over broken beer bottles and then tell 27 lies if it would get them one more vote....it will be the same old same old whenever and wherever a primary takes place...

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    Being a role model
    Posts
    34,456

    Shouldn't the citizens of the state get to choose when they are going to cast their votes for their Presidential candidate and not the national party?

    Really surprised there are not more comments on this.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Location
    Ft. Mitchell Ky
    Posts
    21,150

    Quote Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach
    Shouldn't the citizens of the state get to choose when they are going to cast their votes for their Presidential candidate
    IMO, NO! They see what would come, the states that are the first few now will move theirs up as well, NH says if another state moves before them then they will move theirs up to the end of this year if necessary to remain the first state to have a primary. It will never end.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    Being a role model
    Posts
    34,456

    Quote Originally Posted by SportsGuy41017
    IMO, NO! They see what would come, the states that are the first few now will move theirs up as well, NH says if another state moves before them then they will move theirs up to the end of this year if necessary to remain the first state to have a primary. It will never end.
    And then when it becomes our time, KY, to choose, the field has been cut in half and the candidate has pretty much been decided by Iowa, New Hampshire and the like.

    Your position means that citizens in other states that have late primaries should just stay when they are and let the citizens in the other states choose the two main party candidates.

    Now, I would go for Congress or whomever sitting up 4 dates with no earlier than Jan 1, of the year of the general election for the primaries MUST be held on. But barring that why should some states get to play by different rules than others? Iowa can hold theirs in January but Florida and Michigan cannot?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Location
    Ft. Mitchell Ky
    Posts
    21,150

    Quote Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach
    Your position means that citizens in other states that have late primaries should just stay when they are and let the citizens in the other states choose the two main party candidates.
    I am just saying it will never end, the states like NH and Iowa will keep moving up to make sure they are still first, before you know it primaries will be held a year before the election, then two.

    I could agree on having certain dates, but also letting history stay as it is and still let NH have the first primary. It has been mentioned, on BGPs as well, that maybe the smaller states should go before the bigger states? Maybe NH one day, and a couple of days later Iowa, then a week or two after that 10 or 15 of the smaller states, a few weeks after that the next group, and a month later the remainder of the states, the biggest ones.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    Being a role model
    Posts
    34,456

    Quote Originally Posted by SportsGuy41017
    I am just saying it will never end, the states like NH and Iowa will keep moving up to make sure they are still first, before you know it primaries will be held a year before the election, then two.

    I could agree on having certain dates, but also letting history stay as it is and still let NH have the first primary. It has been mentioned, on BGPs as well, that maybe the smaller states should go before the bigger states? Maybe NH one day, and a couple of days later Iowa, then a few days after that 10 or 15 of the smaller states, a few weeks after that the next group, and a month later the remainder of the states, the biggest ones.
    How do you decide which states go last when all the candidates but 1 or 2 have dropped out of the race? Why should a state towards the end not get a choice, a REAL choice, in choosing the candidate to represent their party while a state like NH gets the chance.

  9. #9
    swamprat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 01
    Location
    Westchase, FL
    Posts
    31,266

    Why was Uncle Bill here (Fla) yesterday? Mrs. S said that they had sound bites on the news and they sounded like campaigning to her. I though Hillary was part of the boycott.

    I guess it goes back to the definition of "is".

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 00
    Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
    Posts
    4,547

    Quote Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach
    Shouldn't the citizens of the state get to choose when they are going to cast their votes for their Presidential candidate and not the national party?

    Really surprised there are not more comments on this.
    The parties have a perfect right to choose how delegates to their convetions will be selected. That is what this is about.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    Being a role model
    Posts
    34,456

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity alum
    The parties have a perfect right to choose how delegates to their convetions will be selected. That is what this is about.
    Do the voters' have any rights in this regards? And are not the parties nothing but a collection of these voters? Or in parties do you mean the dozen or two party leaders?

    It seems the system is not designed to give all voters across the country an even chance to pick the candidate for President. Even when younger, I never understood why Iowa and NH gets so much pull into choosing the candidates for President while the more populated states don't.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    14,545

    First, I think that New Hampshire has a state law on the books that mandates that their primary always be first.

    Second, it's time for both parties to demand that ALL state primaries means something. As has been stated, by the time the Kentucky primary rolls around the candidates have usually been decided making our primary just a formality.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Location
    Ft. Mitchell Ky
    Posts
    21,150

    Quote Originally Posted by ladiesbballcoach
    How do you decide which states go last when all the candidates but 1 or 2 have dropped out of the race? Why should a state towards the end not get a choice, a REAL choice, in choosing the candidate to represent their party while a state like NH gets the chance.
    As I said, let NH and Iowa go first, then from there you go from the smallest states to the largest states, in groups. That way the smaller states get their say, but the bigger more populated states go last, I am sure a lot of candidates wouldn't pull out until the bigger states have their primaries, again, the smaller states will still get their say.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 05
    Location
    Being a role model
    Posts
    34,456

    Quote Originally Posted by SportsGuy41017
    As I said, let NH and Iowa go first, then from there you go from the smallest states to the largest states, in groups. That way the smaller states get their say, but the bigger more populated states go last, I am sure a lot of candidates wouldn't pull out until the bigger states have their primaries, again, the smaller states will still get their say.
    Florida and Michigan are big states. They moved their primaries up prompting the boycott because candidates were out of the race and decisions made before it got to them.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 02
    Location
    Ft. Mitchell Ky
    Posts
    21,150

    Ok, if the smaller states go first, then it is more likely that candidates would stay in the race, as the big states are still there, this would make the smaller states have a say in who will represent their party more than now. If the bigger states go first, even just a few of them, then the primary states in smaller states like Kentucky won't mean a thing.

    If states like Ca, NY, Mi, Fl, Tx and Pa would go first and on the same day, it wouldn't matter what any of the other states want, it would be over on the first day. That's why I say if they change anything then the smaller states should go first going in order of population, as everyone has a chance to catch up and or win with the bigger states still to come.

Top