Posted on 12/09/2003 7:36:24 PM PST by Wumpus Hunter
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:38:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Does anyone know where there is a good analysis of the Democratic primary system as it now stands? I've lost track of how it all works. When are the big primaries, how many votes does it take to nominate, etc.? I keep seeing polls where Dean is doing well, but I'm wondering how secure his lead really is. For example Hillary said yesterday that Bill was at less than 4% in December, '91, but hasn't the primary system changed since then?
It's hard to imagine what Hillery would gain by the VP on a losing ticket. It would be a bit demotion from her current status as frontrunner in the polls. But it might be too late to jump in now. She isn't really a politician like her husband. I think she hides from the press. She couldn't take the kind of scrutiny that Dean is getting now, for example. I doubt that the people who have endured the primaries are going to hand it to her at the convention. She would have to earn it. Also, I think every day Bill Clinton has less and less clout with the real party. I think the patina will by largely gone by '08. History moves on.
dano1 wrote:A quick Google search for "democratic primary schedule" turned up lots of links.
Does anyone know where there is a good analysis of the Democratic primary system as it now stands? I've lost track of how it all works. When are the big primaries, how many votes does it take to nominate, etc.?
The 2004 schedule is:
dano1 wrote:Yes, the primary system has changed some since then. Actually, it's changed some since 2000. There are more primaries earlier in the process now, and "Super Tuesday" (March 2) doesn't have quite as many primaries as it used to. Some of those moved up to February 3.
I keep seeing polls where Dean is doing well, but I'm wondering how secure his lead really is. For example Hillary said yesterday that Bill was at less than 4% in December, '91, but hasn't the primary system changed since then?
Also, election law (especially judicial precedents in election related litigation) has changed significantly since the. It's now legal to count votes for a dead candidate and pick any candidate to fill the dead person's vacated office after the election (see Missouri 2000). It's also now legal for a political party (at least the Democrats) to change candidates if their candidate dies late in the campaign (see Minnesota 2002) or if their candidate is behind in the polls and likely to lose (see New Jersey 2002).
Also, prominent Democrats seem to have more fatal accidents (especially airplane crashes) and more political problems late in the election process, so they are more likely to take advantage of these new remedies in the election laws.
And, of course, nobody but the actual candidates and the news media will be able to complain if the Dems attempt any of these "alternate" practices on a national presidential election, because the new campaign finance laws prevent "electioneering communications" by anybody who isn't an actual candidate or a news media outlet covering or providing commentary on news events.
dano1 wrote:Victim status going into 2008. No matter what happens in 2004, if she is the VP candidate, she won't be responsible for any loss. She won't run at the top of the ticket if she might lose. This way she can blame the presidential candidate for any loss and say how she would have done things differently and won.
It's hard to imagine what Hillery would gain by the VP on a losing ticket.
Also, as I pointed out, if she promised New Yorkers that she would serve them in the Senate for the duration of her term, running for VP doesn't technically break that promise. The VPOTUS is also President of the Senate, so she would still technically be serving in the Senate for her full term.
Finally, by rising to the Presidency in early 2007 (for whatever reason), she's eligible for 2 more full terms, and she can run as an incumbent President. The potential upside is very big, and the risks in the move are minimal. I would be shocked to see a Democrat ticket that doesn't have Hillary in the VP slot. It's all positive potential for Hillary, and her popularity in the polls says it's also a boost for whichever dwarf gets the nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.