General Discussion

A Little Weird

(1,754 posts)

61. The primary process seems to be corrupted for lower offices too

Thu Aug 1, 2013, 01:00 PM

Aug 2013

For example - there are several threads talking about the Kentucky senate race today. The ones I've read all refer to Grimes as the Democratic challenger but she has not won the primary. The three other democrats in the race might as well drop out now because she's already been anointed by the state and national democratic party. (I have nothing against her at all but I'm irritated that the voters weren't the ones to decide.)

But I think the tread was really focused on the presidential primary. I am in favor of changing the order for each election so it's not always the same few states that get to decide.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We Need to Reclaim the Primary Process [View all] Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 OP

I'm going to kick this once Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #1

Changing our system of government got more respone than this good post. mick063 Aug 2013 #2

I don't know, I thought it a good topic of discussion Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #3

This is key. That's why it's given so little oxygen. Also... Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #4

Every Primary in the nation should be held the same day, a month before the General. 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #5

Yes, that would be one step nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #6

I said something like this after '08, which was unbelievably unbalanced. LWolf Aug 2013 #7

I have a problem with the Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #13

I remember the league of women voters debates. LWolf Aug 2013 #18

Well, as far as I know, Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #23

That's a good start. LWolf Aug 2013 #29

We do have several "activist" forums. Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #37

Here's an idea--if you want to reclaim the process, how about showing up to do the work? msanthrope Aug 2013 #8

Here's another idea -- Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #9

But it is about you. It's about personal action, and what you are willing to do msanthrope Aug 2013 #11

The topic is the primary process. Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #14

Yes--the primary prcess doesn't change until enough actual bodies within the Party want to msanthrope Aug 2013 #17

Oy vey! Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #27

The entire point of a primary process is whittling down the slate. msanthrope Aug 2013 #44

How can a candidate stay in the primary if s/he doesn't have any money? KamaAina Aug 2013 #53

Through grass-roots support. Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #54

South Carolina is in the mix because KamaAina Aug 2013 #60

I live in Oregon. I was very fucking involved from platform convention on in 2008 and in the Bluenorthwest Aug 2013 #21

But isn't that an Oregon problem? Work to move the primary. The primaries are msanthrope Aug 2013 #25

For starters... bobclark86 Aug 2013 #50

My point is that becoming the Party may be the only way. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #58

I don' t live in Iowa or New Hampsire mick063 Aug 2013 #10

But you have local races, right? nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #12

You seem to be laboring under a false premise Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #15

I have no idea what you do all day. But here's what I do know--you are complaining about the msanthrope Aug 2013 #20

Here's what you said: Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #28

I think your idea of a national primary is disastrous....Joe Lieberman msanthrope Aug 2013 #57

I never proposed Calfiornia's primary be moved Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #59

Work for the "Party" selected candidates? That's your idea of reclaiming the process? Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #79

Hey--here's an idea that might seem odd on Democratic Underground, but yeah-- msanthrope Aug 2013 #81

national primary means the establishment candidate wins automatically nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #16

In what way? Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #19

That would mean the presidential ticket would be picked on the same day nationwide. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #22

But isn't that what we have now? Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #32

Joe Lieberman could have won a national primary in 2004. Howard Dean would have never been heard of. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #34

That's supposition based on Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #39

Partisan thinking is inappropriate when contemplating primaries? nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #40

Imo partisan thinking is always inappropriate Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #42

Then there's no point to having primaries. nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #43

That was just a personal opinion Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #46

The entire point of primaries is to define a single political party. It is inherently partisan. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #48

No, the entire point of primaries is to determine Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #49

Your title says "we need to reclaim the primary process" geek tragedy Aug 2013 #51

The 85% of the people who Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #52

This message was self-deleted by its author ieoeja Aug 2013 #33

Imagine 2004 if there had been a national primary. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #35

This message was self-deleted by its author ieoeja Aug 2013 #41

Process is more important than policy. Whining doesn't help. CK_John Aug 2013 #24

Get rid of caucuses. Very easily manipulated. boston bean Aug 2013 #26

That would still leave the process of Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #36

We have caucuses in Minnesota, but all they can do MineralMan Aug 2013 #66

Agree completely. BlueCheese Aug 2013 #75

First, don't give any more money to Pacs, give it directly to the candidate you want in your state. sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #30

as soon as i get a couple billion dollars to buy it away from the networks etc... librechik Aug 2013 #31

Rotating regional primaries question everything Aug 2013 #38

Rotating regional primaries is a better solution. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #45

I'm for anything that gives Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #47

The Primary Process Isn't Just for the Presidential Election. MineralMan Aug 2013 #55

The primary process seems to be corrupted for lower offices too A Little Weird Aug 2013 #61

Each state decides for itself when its Primary elections take place. MineralMan Aug 2013 #64

I get what you're saying A Little Weird Aug 2013 #71

The biggest problem is with Iowa and NH being first all the time. DCBob Aug 2013 #56

I like having the small states vote first. JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2013 #62

So, instead, the smaller states get to tip the scales? Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #63

The small states get to tip the scales a little JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2013 #68

Impractical and/or unconstitutional onenote Aug 2013 #65

Actually, I never proposed national legislation Le Taz Hot Aug 2013 #69

If there are a "myriad of options" I would expect someone to describe at least one onenote Aug 2013 #76

k&r avaistheone1 Aug 2013 #67

This Californian is in total agreement with you. AtomicKitten Aug 2013 #70

I'd have Iowa, New Hampshire, California, Vermont, Louisiana and Mississippi all go first stevenleser Aug 2013 #72

As a practical matter, how would you get this implemented? onenote Aug 2013 #78

No, I am right there with you. I'm just saying that in my perfect world, that's how it would be stevenleser Aug 2013 #82

YOu'd have better luck getting CA to move its primary up. Bake Aug 2013 #73

California's primary used to be June. Then it was moved up to February. onenote Aug 2013 #77

So for a national candidate, you want all the focus to be on large States... brooklynite Aug 2013 #74

The good and the bad of a long primary season mick063 Aug 2013 #80

The expense of the current system goes both ways. If you win Iowa or New Hampshire, both small stevenleser Aug 2013 #83