General Discussion

A Little Weird

(1,754 posts)

71. I get what you're saying

Thu Aug 1, 2013, 02:55 PM

Aug 2013

But effectively, the party endorsement cuts out anyone who is not independently wealthy. But I guess that's who we're stuck with anyway whether they are endorsed or not.

As for involvement, I am a state employee so I am limited in what I am allowed to do. I can't serve on any committee for a political club or party, I can't canvas, I can't distribute material, I cannot help organize rallies, etc. One of the few things I'm allowed to do is vote. But voting means very little when the candidates are pre-selected.

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