Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

politicaljunkie41910

(3,335 posts)
Thu Feb 4, 2016, 09:08 PM Feb 2016

I would like to take a break from the usual back and forth bickering here to pose a question [View all]

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2016, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

that was on C-Span this morning. Backbitting about either Dem Candidate need not respond.

C-Span asked the viewers during what appeared to be a later segment this morning, the following question regarding Iowa and New Hampshire being the leading states in the primary:

What would you propose as a change to the current process of allowing Iowa and New Hampshire,two states who don't represent the country's demographics, to go first in the nation?

Most of the callers thought that small monolithic states like Iowa and NH should not get to go first while other states get penalized if they try to move up their elections. Some people called in defending the current process, but others offered proposals like everyone voting the same day, to rotating state primaries. One guy stated rotating the states each presidential primary starting with Alaska and continuing in alphabetical order. When the moderator told him that it would take 200 years to get through all the states, the caller said "I knew it would take a while, but I didn't realize it would take that long." Others though Iowa and NH should remain because it allowed the country watching from outside, to get to know the candidates and it was an affordable way of getting to know the candidates. Most thought the caucus had outlived their usefulness. Campaign financing of all candidates would be wonderful, but the SCOTUS has determined that contributions are free speech.

I hesitated to to offer up my suggestion because I wanted to encourage a discussion rather than attacks on others ideas, so I didn't.

I would however, like to offer up my suggestion about how the primary process is covered. but not necessarily about the primary process itself though, for whatever process was put in place, or should the current process be retained.

That suggestion is: I would make it illegal for any news organizations, political groups, institutions, etc to include private citizens to conduct ANY polls during the entire primary process. No polls of any type of the candidates. My reasoning is twofold. One Polls influence outcomes. First, going back to the beginning of 2015/early spring, I began seeing polls on MSNBC that said simply, "Do you think that Hillary Clinton is Honest and Trustworthy." This at a time when the Congress's polling numbers was at 9%. The poll was repeated about once a month at least, and each time I saw it, the number that though she was not Honest and Trustworthy grew". I never saw a similar poll about the other perspective candidates until long after primary season was under way, and then only one time. I don't doubt that some people actually think that Hillary is not Honest or Trustworthy, but anyone out there who has taken a basic course in human behavior or hasn't studied human behavior would know that if you repeated something often enough, it becomes a fact. This, mind you, was before any of the masses descended on Iowa and NH canvassing voters. Polling influences perceptions. Polling influences votes.

Secondly, the press has given unprecedented coverage to one individual including free media time. Since, I conclude that Polling numbers are influenced by how much coverage individuals get. if any station gives air time to one candidate, they must give that same time to all candidates in an equal time space. Donald Trump can call in on any show at any time and talk for as long as he wants. This is unprecedented. Don't think that future candidates won't have figured out what they need to do or say, what types of antics they must engage in, to get Trump-style coverage in future primaries. The current equal rule time is not adequate because it allows a station to give the reciprocal time space at whatever time that station wants which would be the least watched time slot, probably late on a Saturday night when no one's watching. Please don't waste time debating this, Lawrence O'Donnell explained what the rules are on a show a couple of months ago.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I would like to take a br...»Reply #0