Imagine a Primary Season where voters actually hear from all qualified candidates

[nadinbrzezinski]

let me take you back to 2007. Back then we had a small, vocal, group of supporters of one candidate telling us why that candidate was the best ever.

Then something curious happened on the way to the forum... we had first one, then two, then three others declare. Not to bore you with all the details, before long we had a very muscular primary season. and we also had a lot of posts appear on this site in support and detracting different candidates. It was a nice primary season with actual debate, but it was also full of posts like we are seeing right now.

One of the things we saw, was Edwards, yes that guy who did other things, actually start a conversation about two Americas, one that was later taken on by the Occupy movement, and that finally entered the political lexicon with the "we are the 99 percent" talk.

Yet we also had posts that told us how the rest of the field, in particular one of them, was unelectable. We also started to see something else, how NADER ruined it all for Gore. It was kind of textbooks.

We are following the precise same story line right at the moment.

To be frank, I don't care who emerges from the primary season.

But there are a few things that should be clear from US Political history in the modern period.

1.- Voters, hate them or love them, are not yet paying attention to this. It is way too early and the candidates right now are still playing a game of funding... and with people who have lots of money, and not necessarily your best interest in mind. This is not specific to one candidate, all of them are. Republicans, Democrats, even a few in third parties. I know we mostly do not hear a peep from the Green Party, but they are actually thinking of nominating a candidate as well, they always do So are other minor parties, like Peace and Freedom in California... and of course we have the slew who are technically qualified, that have filed with the SEC and will not get beyond that.

2.- Voters, love them or hate them, tend to vote for the other major party candidate about every two cycles. There are exceptions, like Carter losing to Reagan after one term, and Bush Sr getting a first term after Reagan's two. But about every two cycles the White House changes what party controls it.

Those are facts.

So, at this point seeing the same exact story line as deployed in 2007 is kind of cute, and very amusing, but just cute. I hope candidates run a muscular, very strong, issues based campaign. That is what Americans should be hoping for. There is nothing short than climate change, and economic stagnation in our futures.

In the meantime, back to work with me, speaking of issues... quite frankly these attacks as unelectable, or NADER, are quite unimpressive, and boring. The fear campaign is even less so.

[Agschmid]

1. ...

- Who defines qualified?
- Who defines what qualifies as "heard from"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The US Constitution, pesky thing

http://people.howstuffworks.com/president1.htm

Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[Agschmid]

4. Sure...

But is Vermin Supreme really qualified? Do I really need to hear from him? Also if they start covering him it only takes away from news coverage on the other well "realistic" candidates.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. That is what primaries are about

[Agschmid]

6. Determining whether Vermin Supreme is qualified to be President...

I think most of us can figure that one out for ourselves?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I think that you are ignoring the constitution at your peril

being qualified for president is a constitutional test.

That candidate being viable is determined in a primary season.

These are two different things.

For example, I am not a qualified candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I am not a natural born citizen. So if I went to the FEC and filed, they would laugh, properly so, in my general direction.

I will repeat what I said in the OP, I don't give two shits who emerges from the contest. I reached that state of zen a while ago, where I am back in Mexico where YOU ARE TOLD WHO TO VOTE FOR and you'll like it. But if you still believe in this, you will want a muscular, full of debates, without attacks on people but on their positions, primary season. In your case you will want it from the democratic party.

[Agschmid]

11. Sure we agree, get the candidates out there but we don't need to hear from everyone.

If people are interested in the non-mainstream candidates they can do research on them. I don't expect to have Lester Holt reporting on them every night.

Can you name (without googling) all the candidates who ran for President in 2008? 2012? It's doubtful... And it's also okay.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Alas you never hear from all of them

I am betting you have never heard of the Peace and Freedom Party in California, odd group, but even most Californians never notice them on the ballot.

The problem I am having is that people are stuck in NOT having a primary, but rather a detape and dedazo. I know we are close to that, but still. Let me still enjoy the illusion that there are TWO candidates for POTUS, both serious, in the Democratic party right at this moment.

We are seeing the exact same shit we saw in 2007 once it was obvious a primary was actually going to happen.

[Agschmid]

15. I don't think anyone here wants to skip the primary...

Even the most excitable Sanders supporters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. I would beg to differ given the posts on this site

[Angry Dragon]

9. +1000

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. The US Constitution I know pesky thing

Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[Agschmid]

12. Yes we both get that.

But again Vermin Supreme, I expect he will be at the national debates... It seems to be what you are suggesting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. If you read that, it is due to my poor communication skills

I wil try to make it damn clear right now for you.

At the moment we have TWO, that is TWO candidates who are serious for the Presidency of the US on the Democratic Ballot. We might still get more. Both are SERIOUS candidates.

We have 17 on the Republican side... I expect that to go down to 10 by the time of the first debate,

We will have a candidate from minor parties who have not been invited to Presidential debates in decades. I do not see that changing anytime soon, since none of them will be qualified in all individual state contests. There are many reasons for that. They are problematic, but I do not see that changing anytime soon.

We have 50 state elections, not one national election.

Is this clear enough for you, or shall I write it further down?

[Angry Dragon]

19. Just because one is old enough and

born here does not mean the person is qualified to be President

Look at gwb

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I am talking of Constitutional requirements

that is what the Constitution states. It does not place other tests, like whether you have the money, or party backing In fact, the Founders feared factions, the name at the time for parties.

It is the party primary that should week out bad candidates.

[Angry Dragon]

21. I think it should be time for ALL politicians

to have to have a license to run for office

One needs a license to cut hair but not one to decide the fate of millions

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Good luck with that one

As you would need a federal amendment. Regardless licenses do not mean you will not get bad actors regardless.

[Angry Dragon]

25. There would be tests ...lots of tests

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Good test takers can still get around.

We still get bad doctors and lawyers, to think of just two that require even continuing education.

Regardless you need an amendment.

[LanternWaste]

30. No doubt you know precisely what those tests would consist of...

No doubt you know precisely what those tests would consist of, but remain silent on that relevancy simply to surprise us at a later date...

[Angry Dragon]

32. Yes I do

[NYC_SKP]

3. I think it's funny that Hillary supporters force me to find proof that she's not one of us....

I hope that the Berkeley Daily Planet isn't viewed by jurors as a right wing source.

... Newly released White House records demonstrate that Clinton lied about NAFTA. (See “Clinton Lie Kills Her Credibility on Trade Policy,” John Nichols, Common Dreams, March 22.) NAFTA, however, is but a single thread in a web of deception regarding globalization and free trade. Clinton is lying not only about NAFTA, but about outsourcing as well. And the evidence comes, not from Obama, but from official records, video tapes, quotations and recordings of Clinton speeches abroad.

Consider this. In 2005 Sen. Clinton visited New Delhi, India, (“far, far from our shores”), where she met wealthy business leaders, venture capitalists eager for U.S. investment. A few years prior to her visit, Enron gained a foothold in India’s economy. Enron uprooted local communities, fleeced the public coffers, then pulled out of India with the profits of unregulated greed.

In a speech promoting globalization and free trade, here is what Sen. Clinton said in New Delhi: “There is no way you can legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue....We are not against all outsourcing, we are not in favor of putting up fences.”

The India Review, a publication of the embassy of India, commented April 1, 2005: “Senator Clinton allayed apprehension in India that there would be a ban on outsourcing.”

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-25/article/29569?headline=Commentary-Hillary-Clinton-Lied-About-Outsourcing-Too--By-Paul-Rockwell

Dang, the more I'm challenged to prove my assertions, the more legitimate proof emerges that makes the case that Clinton is disqualified to lead the Democratic Party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. What I find curious is that

we need a primary, period... and not just limited to the two major parties IMO. But we need one.

[Agschmid]

28. Yes and again... Everyone on here seems to agree with you.

We all want a primary.

This whole skipping the primary meme is bull.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I am going from posts I am seeing here

so if that meme exists, it is not me pushing it. This is my observation.

Perhaps the Fuck Nader posts going away might help... as well as the coronation posts.

[Agschmid]

37. Link me to a post where it says we should skip the primary entirely...

They don't exist.

And if you find one its likely sarcasm with or without the tag.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I do not have to, but it is still damn easy to find them if you open your eyes to them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6666147

What do you think this poster means ultimately?

And no, there is no sarcasm there at all. This is just this morning. I found that post to be full of funny in it though, and it was not sarcastic at all. It is part of a family of these kinds of posts.

Perhaps not being partisan lets me see these things easier. Regardless that was fully a FUCK sanders for running becuase damn it he is like Nader. Given that Sanders is the OTHER candidate in the Democratic Primary, what do you think that means?

Perhaps, it is quite possible, I and a bunch of other posters are just misreading that post, among others. But this is one of a series of them.

[Agschmid]

45. Nadin that post absolutely does not advocate for cancelling the primary.

Which was your claim.

Sure that post is anti Bernie and one sided, but nothing is wrong with that people are entitled to their opinions and it happens on both sides...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806425#post2

Pretty much the same post without so many words, but notice also not advocating for canceling the primary, just for Hillary to drop out.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I dislike the sound of this, because it implies someone deciding who is and isn't "qualified".

As things stand, voters can hear from any candidate they like, if they choose to look that information up; where candidates differ is how likely to hear from them you are if you don't actively seek out messages from them.

I think there is a strong case to be made for limiting how much each candidate can spend (although in the USA it would require a constitutional amendment - CU may have been bad for American, but I think it was fairly clearly correct in law).

But I very much dislike the idea of a process that sorts "qualified" and "unqualified" candidates and treats them differently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Qulification is clearly in the US Constition

the SEC determines if you are qualified. If you are viable is a different story.


On edit, viability is determined by state parties and primaries Why you have national nominating conventions

[sadoldgirl]

22. The problem, as I see it, consists of two

points:
1) Dem voters rarely bother about the primaries
or caucuses, even though this is where their
input would be the strongest.

2) After the first 4 or 5 primaries it becomes
"follow the leader" mentality, which means the
later primaries just support the early ones,
therefore voters bother even less.

Point 2 could be avoided by holding all primaries
on the same day, but that is not going to happen.

BTW, I believe that the 2008 primaries were an
exception to the rule.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. A national super Sunday

(I will take it further) with no media reporting until polls close in Guam would be helpful

That said, we saw the same shit, though less loud, in 2004 as well.

It has to do with the mind of hyper partisans.

[Johonny]

26. Yeah 2 is really strong

The primary season is so strung out that by the time it reaches the majority of the American population... the race is over. I think it goes a long way to helping keep people uninterested in politics. The race will mostly be decided by low population states that don't reflect the typical Americans experience. Then they wonder why voters aren't engaged in the race. The only way to fix this is to get money out of the campaign and have tons of "free" resources for all candidates. But fat chance in that.

[Agschmid]

29. Yes.

I agree it makes it tough to have it spread out, but it would also be equally as tough to do them all on one day. However the Internet and the availability of information on the candidates has helped this a bit.

[Jim Lane]

33. Nader is a completely different issue.

For those of us in the "Fuck Nader" school of thought that you decry, the whole point is that he did NOT run in the primaries. Instead of exercising his right to run in the primaries, he chose instead to exercise his right to run in the general election.

Many DUers believe strongly that his choice was the wrong one, both in light of the information available to him at the time and even more so with the benefit of hindsight, because of its horrific practical consequences. Many other DUers vehemently disagree. At this point, it's unlikely that either side will just shut up.

None of that has much to do with the determination of "qualified" candidates. The fact is that televised debate invitations and other forms of media attention will go to the comparative handful of candidates perceived as being electorally significant. I've heard it asserted that 300 people (presumably most or all of them meeting the Constitutional qualifications you cite) have announced their candidacies. Whatever the exact number is, it's clear that they can't all be given attention equal to that conferred upon the Clinton-Sanders-Cruz-Paul-Rubio types. The weeding out process includes an initial cut even before the first votes are cast.

The reason Nader is irrelevant to that discussion is that the pre-qualification would not have excluded him. Although he's never held elective office, he had national prominence and a significant following within the Democratic Party. If he had chosen to run for the Democratic nomination in 2000, he would have been included in televised debates with Bradley and Gore, and he would have received media attention early in the campaign season. (Later on, who can say, because the weeding-out process also includes dropping candidates who initially made the cut but are doing poorly. There are those, like Kucinich, who are invited to the initial debates but then not invited to later ones. Nader might have met that fate, though my guess is that he would have done well enough to stay in the mix until the end.)

As a Kucinich supporter, I'll be the first to agree that this system isn't perfect. I just don't understand what alternative you're proposing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Whether right or wrong in your view he had a right

to run as the candidate of the Green Party. This is under the US Constitution since he was a qualified candidate, running under a third party banner. He will not be the last to do that, unless we decide to ban ALL third parties... at times I wonder if some folks would rather do that, to be honest.

Your fuck Nader school ignores the actual RW coup that happened. I will not bother posting AGAIN, all the details of that coup. Suffice to say, that NOT learning from that coup, makes it very possible to be done again. It was in many respects, old CIA tricks used in places like El Salvador and Guatemala in the past and included CIA retired operatives. Now that was the piece d'resistance to be honest.

As to the alternative, it is quite simple. Concentrate on the issues. At this point I expect elections to have less and less real choice, but that is a whole different discussion. And I also supported Kucinich, we even spoke with him in Hawaii. I also worked on the Dean campaign while in Hawaii.

At this point I am not invested ANY candidate, but running a non partisan news service, I cannot. So I just watch and I am quite entertained by the whole thing.

[Jim Lane]

35. I knew it. I fucking KNEW it.

Every single time anyone criticizes Nader's choice, we get the same rote response: Nader had a right to run.

Here's a little tip: I've spent a whole lot of time reading DU, and I have never once seen anyone here actually make the argument that Nader did not have right to run. It's a complete straw man.

Nevertheless, because it's so common, I took the trouble to preclude it. I wrote: "Instead of exercising his right to run in the primaries, he chose instead to exercise his right to run in the general election."

Yet it didn't help. Here are you are, "refuting" me by arguing that Nader had a right to run. It's so easy to refute the argument that nobody ever makes, and thus to ignore the actual arguments.

As for the primaries, you say that voters should hear from "all qualified candidates", but you apparently mean all those meeting the minimum legal qualifications in the Constitution. The practicalities of the situation are that voters won't hear from all those candidates, because they can't. That leaves us with serious issues to address about how the weeding-out process works: the number and timing of debates, who gets invited, the influence of early money in determining who's considered a serious candidate, etc.

You mention (in #24) the alternative of a national Super Sunday, by which I assume you mean a single nationwide primary. That alternative would have the advantage of ending the disproportionate influence of Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early states. It would have the disadvantage of making it harder for lesser-known candidates to build up momentum by doing well in smaller contests where they can afford to compete. A single nationwide primary would effectively be closed to anyone who couldn't raise huge amounts of money up front. I personally lean more toward a system of rotating regional primaries, but there is no perfect solution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. The strawman is that it is implied

in every fucking post. There is this implication that perhaps we shoudl do away with third parties, and it sits quite badly on those of who care about democracy, and would prefer if the BUT NADER crowd learned the lessons of 2000, and it was not Nader, but a coup.

And yes, in 24 I make that allusion. You see I happen to live in a state that has far more population than those states, yet we get whatever is left over. Quite frankly we are tired of it.

And yes, it would reduce the influence of smaller candidates across the board. But it would also increase participation in primary contests in states like oh CALIFORNIA. And perhaps we would stop being an ATM for both major parties and a few minor ones.

Of course a publicly funded election... no private funds whatsoever, would also solve that problem. So would, if I were to dream big, proportional representation. I guarantee the break up of two major parties into it's component parts.

[Jim Lane]

39. You feel comfortable reading in an implication when I expressly disclaimed it?

Here's an analogy: People on DU have criticized George W. Bush's decision to sign a tax bill that included huge giveaways to the rich and helped turn a record surplus into a record deficit.

So, because people criticize Bush's decision to sign the bill, they're obviously implying that the President of the United States doesn't have the right to sign or veto legislation. Right?

Well, that would be ludicrous, but it would be exactly analogous to the implication you're trying to read into criticisms of Nader.

I've also never seen anyone here argue that we should do away with third parties, if by that you mean make them illegal. People have argued, correctly in my opinion, that voters should not vote for third parties, but that's obviously different. I think voters should not vote for climate-change-denier candidates but I don't favor making climate change denialism illegal, nor do I favor barring such nitwits and industry hirelings from running.

The lesson of 2000 was completely lost on Nader but not on most of his supporters. From 2000 to 2004, his vote total plummeted. The vast majority of those who had voted for him in 2000 looked at four years of Bush and concluded that they'd made a mistake.

Some sort of public financing would be a good idea but it doesn't get around the problem of telling the difference between Hillary Clinton and Vermin Supreme. Which candidates get public financing, and in what amounts? The plans that have actually been implemented usually involve a match (often at a multiple, like five to one) of private contributions up to a certain amount, so there's still a role for private money. An arrangement like that wouldn't overcome the problem of the big advantage to early front-runners in a single nationwide primary. The public financing for the Presidential election gives each major party the same amount, and it excludes minor parties that fail to reach five percent of the vote, so it's been criticized by the likes of Nader.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. I am just telling you how it feels

in fact it is worst than that.

Some here would love to go back to the pre 1968 smoke filled rooms

[Jim Lane]

41. OK, then I'll tell you how it feels to me.

Nader is the most prominent example, but it happens way way WAY too often on DU that a post disagrees with me -- but is disagreeing with something I didn't actually say. This makes me feel extremely frustrated. How can we have an intelligent exchange of ideas, if one "side" of the argument is someone else's warped conception of my thoughts?

It's particularly frustrating where, as here, I expressly disclaim the false implication -- a step that shouldn't even be necessary -- and I'm still called to task for the views I don't hold.

I also don't agree with your assertion that unnamed DUers would go back to smoke-filled rooms if they could.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Well naming them is called a call out per the rules.

but since I will not name names, it is a faction here. It is a conservative faction, and it is loud. It is not limited to this site at all, and it has been discussed by party members at different levels of state democratic parties.

In fact, this no fuss primary has even made it all the way to the Wall Street Journal. But you can take my word on this or not, if you do any level of political reporting, you have come across this. I just shake my head, but it is out there.

The Democratic political establishment isn’t all that eager to talk about it publicly, but make no mistake: Many prominent figures in the party would just as soon avoid a hard-fought, contested primary in the 2016 presidential race.

What they seem to prefer instead is a no-muss, no-fuss nomination season with the party coalescing behind former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The strategy has certain advantages. Democrats could build a formidable war chest and sit back while Republican candidates wrestle for the GOP nomination.

This isn’t how the Democrats typically do business. In 1980, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy challenged a sitting president, Jimmy Carter, for the Democratic nomination. Sen. Bill Bradley took a shot against incumbent Vice President Al Gore in 2000. And, yes, in 2008 a first-term senator named Barack Obama successfully challenged the candidate who seemed the prohibitive front-runner: Mrs. Clinton.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/17/democrats-seek-no-fuss-primary-in-2016-race/

Yes, it is going back to 1968. And yes, it is a very specific faction represented on this website well.

It is not a mystery either, why all the push back that it is getting from the other prominent faction on this site. That would be the progressives.

As I said in the OP, imagine a primary, I will add now, with two or more candidates. Of course, a muscular primary also makes for a better story, so there is some self interest there. But it also leads to a better prepared nominee.

[brooklynite]

43. So you're unhappy with the election after all of three weeks...with seven months to go.

Some people have no patience.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Look I am in CA...so by the time the primary gets here

I can vote for Mickey Mouse for all you care.

But as I said, I don't give two shits who comes out of the primary. But a primary your party needs. I just get to vote on my state open primary...for all parties.