My vote probably doesn't matter in the primary

[Recursion]

I'm a registered voter in Washington, DC. By Federal law (this is the only jurisdiction for which Congress gets to decide the primary dates -- not even Puerto Rico or Guam get that) DC's primary is June 14th.

Because my official domicile is within the US (this is required for Foreign Service families), I can't join the Democrats Abroad primary, which votes on March 8th. That might have an effect. As it is, there will probably be a clear winner by mid-June (God, I hope so...)

Anyways, where I stand now is this:

I'm not a huge fan of Clinton. I've mentioned before that I think administrative capabilities are the most important qualifications of a President, and her previous national campaign and tenure as Secretary of State leave me less than impressed.

Sanders is something of a cipher to me because I haven't seen him do anything other than advocate policies I agree with. That in itself is great, but a President's ideological correctness tells me very little about his or her ability to effectively be President. He doesn't have the strike in front of him for me that Clinton does, and I look forward to seeing how he handles a national campaign (some people lament national campaigns, but I think they are very important because they are pretty good at revealing a candidate's administrative skills). So, I'm more than happy to vote for Sanders if he shows himself capable of handling a national campaign.

O'Malley I've liked for a long time, coming from his neck of the woods (I worked in Baltimore when he was mayor, actually). He's got some issues with ignoring police brutality, and that could be a huge problem in this election cycle, but I'm more than willing to listen.

Webb worries me. I was an enthusiastic supporter for his Senate bid because I wanted to turn the chamber blue (and we did!), but I don't think he's prime-time material for our party right now. But, again, I'm willing to listen.

My original choice was Schweitzer, but he seems to have given up on his run, sadly.

Anyways, my vote will be so late that it probably won't matter, but that is where I stand as it is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. really now?

Martin O`Malley is a Moderate Liberal.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Martin_O%60Malley.htm


Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm


So this tells me you are just a Moderate Liberal since you seem to be saying HE represents you better than she does...

[Recursion]

2. My lean right now is towards O'Malley

But like I said I have to see how he handles a large organization like a national campaign.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. unfortunately HE is to the Right of Barack Obama...

Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal.
http://ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

[TexasProgresive]

5. I agree with the OP in that a president

must not only be ideologically sound but be able to administrate as well. A president who had executive experience as a governor is more able to work effectively with a legislature to get things done. One president who came from Congress and was effective in landmark legislation was LBJ. I just don't think Sanders or Clinton will be able to carry it off. Clinton will galvanize the pukes to obstruct every thing she pushes just like they did with Obama, Sanders will be vilified for being a socialist and have a hard time getting any kind of coalition behind him.

I will vote for the democratic nominee in the General election as long as it is not Lyndon Larouche.

[frazzled]

3. Well, you have an entire year to think about it

before you have to vote. My advice is not to get too agitated about the choices right now, because a year is a long time and you're likely to get an ulcer if you fret about it. And regrettably, you're right: your vote will probably not matter by June; it will have been already decided.

I'd worry more about why DC still has no real representation in Congress.

PS: On the upside, you do escape the frenzy that exists when you live in an early primary state like Iowa or New Hampshire. I used to do a lot of primary canvassing in NH, and I actually felt sorry for the people whose doors I had to knock on. I figured they'd been bombarded by workers from every other candidate as well, every weekend, with about a zillion phone calls in between. It's endless and fatiguing.

[Recursion]

4. Fair point (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

7. Often it seems our "democracy" is really a Rube-Goldberg machine to insure to smallest group

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

of people possible have the most power and/or are weighted most heavily.

Primaries should all be held on one day in May or June, the votes should be represented reflectively or just go straight popular with it, and Super Delegates must be abolished.

One person, one vote, one value to each one's vote.

[Recursion]

8. That would be interesting (nt)

[alc]

9. it gives data to the winner

If the winner gets 80% in all primaries, he/she can pretty much say FU to the other 20% Ds and work on the middle/right. If the winner barely squeaks by in all primaries, he/she needs to pay more attention to the Ds and specifically to the policy's of the opponents who came close. So it's important to vote for the candidate/issues you care about in the primaries, not the candidate you think is best for the general.

[Chathamization]

10. Congress doesn't decide the primary date for D.C. They have veto power over all D.C. laws and

control over how D.C. spends its own money, so they could pressure D.C. on the primary date (just like they can and do pressure them on other issues). But the laws regarding the date of the primary are passed by the city council (the last one was passed a couple of years ago, I believe, moving the date from April to June).

[Recursion]

11. It passed under the threat of a Congressional overruling

Which would have included going back (yet again) into receivership.

[Chathamization]

12. Every law in DC has the possibility of Congressional overruling; but that's quite different from

Congress writing all of DC's laws. If it wasn't, we'd be saying that Congress recently decriminalized Marijuana in D.C. (rather than not overturning the decriminalization passed by the city council). It should also be pointed out that congressional interference mostly comes from control over the budget (see marijuana legalization).

As I mentioned, DC's primary date is set by the Council, not Congress. There was a recent change that happened after a lot of debate, but Congress wasn't involved at all, and there was never concern about Congress interfering with the date (anymore than DC politicians worry about Congress interfering with the school budgets).