Time to Talk about the 2008 Election

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 11 September, 2004 | John Armor (CongressmanBillybob)

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "...the Democrats will choose someone with greater substance and integrity than Hillary!"

Don't count on it. They are bone stupid. As an example it is a wonder to me that a party with the power, money, experience and (hack, cough, hauch spit) talent as the Democratic party would pick a man who was promoting his Vietnam War credentials as qualification for President during wartime while at the same time stating he was proud of his antiwar efforts. How can a logical and sane man claim he is proud of his war efforts and at the same time be proud of saying he participating in war crimes? It defies all logic, it makes no common sense. Like the Clintoon scandal, the swift boat Vets were predictable well before the primaries were over. Hand wringing over their candidates short comings is a little late.

I doubt they will do any better in four years. Lets face facts they have never faced the real problem which is their world view, their fantasy land outlook. I can sum up the reason they won with Clintoon in 92 and 96 in two words:

Ross Perot

[Congressman Billybob]

What you describe is the way that all American elections were conducted until the Australian "secret ballot" was adopted here, beginning in Louisville, Ky., in 1888. I could, with you, list the benefits of returning to that system. But I see no pragmatic possibility that the nation will ever go backwards on that general decision.

John / Billybob

[mrsmith]

The Parties, or a party, could set a date for primaries in all states and bar it's candidates from running in earlier ones.

Of course that'd be 'too easy'.

You're right about the problem. Maine and Iowa are not bellwethers of any sort.

[exnavy]

I think the first step to putting the MSM in it's proper place (the ash heap of history) is to explore the legal steps possible, both criminal and civil, as that regards memogate. I have told more than a few people I know that you are witnessing the begining of the end of the DNC and its media wing(MSM).

If, somehow, we could make sure that a Republican was elected in 2008, and served two terms, along with a republican controlled senate and congress ...

I truely believe that would be the end of the DNC.

I will explore the links and see what can be done.

[GoLightly]

Proxmire used to spend around $100 per year & that was in statewide elections, so yes, I know throwing money at a seat is no guarantee.

As you know, throwing money at any problem doesn't always work, else there would no longer be any poor people, all horrible diseases would have cures & all students would become educated.

If your system was adopted before 2008, Hillary would be cozy & in place with the first round of votes, while the Republican party would likely be in disarray. Sure, I'd love to be in a state where candidates aren't already set in place by the time I can vote. Be interesting to have rolling polls, with a ban on any counting of votes until all states have voted.

[Congressman Billybob]

There is no doubt that for Iowa and New Hampshire, these primaries are cottage industries by bringing in money in the winter when the trees and the fields are frozen. For purely economic reasons, neither state would voluntarily get rid of their primary.

However, as I point out, if enough other states move the dates of their primaries, Iowa and N.H. can keep their dates but their importance nationally will be "defanged."

Billybob

[gatorgriz]

I agree with your analysis... Anything that even attempts to impugn the integrity of the electoal college I'm opposed to.

The founders had very, very good reasons to do what they did and I'm very reluctant to even consider going against the founders. I respect them that much.

I also live in a small state (Montana); and I don't want New York; California; and Illinois dictating to the nation...

THE EC IS WHAT PROTECTS US AS A NATION...

[Congressman Billybob]

As soon as it is clear that Kerry is down the dumper - about four minutes after the polls close on the East Coast - Hillary! will be the favorite to get the Democrat nomination in 2008. What I've set forth is that her chances are less of being the eventual nominee under the single primary pattern than under the current rolling campaign. She would almost certainly copy the Kerry pattern in 2004, given the chance.

Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

You are right that the national Parties could do this, if they wanted to. But the national parties are run by the same people who led the Parties in Congress. For the same reason that Congress won't act, the Parties won't act.

So, this will only happen if common sense rears its ugly head in the state legislatures, it can be done. And to my experience, the state legislators are common sense folks.

Billybob

[SAJ]

...no incumbent President has ever been denied renomination if he sought that.

...no incumbent President since Chester Arthur in 1884 was unsaddled in favor of James Blaine has ever been denied renomination if he sought that.

Fixed it up for ya. No charge, of course. Boola boola, and all that. (g!)

[DakotaGator]

But I see no pragmatic possibility that the nation will ever go backwards on that general decision.

You are correct sir. And I agree with you.

My stance is that the further we depart from our original system, the worse it will become. As long as government is involved with the political parties' processes those processes will be terribly tainted.

Mr. Talley's idea of a National Primary has an appealing elegance. But to my way of thinking it deepens government involvement. And that worries me.

Our political parties are already stagnant due, in large part, to government freezing of their structures. I believe this is unhealthy. And I am loathe to increase government involvement.

Having said that, let's presume the National Primary idea was adopted. What is your position on adding the selection "None of the Above" to each office's list of candidates?

Might make the parties and primary candidates more accountable and work harder. Or it just may stir up the pot!

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, it is important that the voting be simultaneous. So, if the polls are open noon to midnight in the East, that would adjust with the time zones going west, so that everyone gets to vote early at the same real time, and ends at the same time. Everyone would get a choice of voting during working hours or off hours.

And yes, you are right. Most of the poll workers are elderly women. Around here we call them "Q-Tips." Short, straight, thin, and with white cotton on top. To have them cover 12 hours would probably require two 7-hour shifts, overlapping at the change of shift.

Billybob

[Mark in the Old South]

I totally agree but I was under the impression that you believed the Demons would pick a better candidate. I doubt they will even with the single primary system. My point being they see the world through wavy glass spectacles. They have never faced reality because they see lots of voters who think like they do (sad to say many voters are bone stupid as well) but there is not enough to win elections without a third party to skew the results in their favor. They can only win if there is:

(1) Republican scandal
(2) a third party that is attractive to Republican leaning voters
(3) a national disaster that the Republicans mishandle
(4) they select a viable candidate who also appeals to Republican leaning voters.

They will not pick #4 because they just can not shake their Utopian illusions. #3 is out of their control and can backfire in making the Republican look heroic. That leaves #1 which is left to luck unless they can manufacture a false scandal, which can also backfire, see threads on memogate. And #2 which they can help along by grooming shills which is the most likely option they will try in 2008. Hillary is not called Lady Macbeth for no reason.

The question remains what will the Republicans do to counter this?

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you for that correction. You caused me to pop up and read a biography of Chester Arthur before replying to your post. Yes, he ran for reelection and lost the nomination. According to his biography, he ran to seem "not to fear defeat" but wasn't concerned about losing because he know that his kidney disease would be fatal, as it was in 1886.

But I will never again say that all incumbents who sought reelection were at least renominated. I stand corrected; thank you.

Billybob

[JohnnyZ]

I think that would be a very poor system.

Money and name ID would rule.

In the current system an underdog with a great message can win. In a national primary they would have no chance in hell. Advantage would go to governors of NY, CA, TX, cabinet members, prominent senators.

[Indie]

All candidates would have an incentive to go to all such states - in person, on TV, by Internet - because all such voting would matter.

The Founders would have loved this idea. Why weren't you there!? ;))

[raybbr]

I disagree with the national primary. I think there should be four regional primaries held starting in July and then every two weeks. That takes us into September giving the candidates time to lie tell us what they plan for us.

[Congressman Billybob]

I am in favor of "None of the Above" as a ballot option. Nevada is the only state, so far, to put that in its laws. Unfortunately it has no teeth.

An effective "None of the Above" option would declare the seat vacant, disqualify all the candidates on the prior ballot, and require a special election to fill the seat. In the toothless Nevada version, it is only a protest vote. If "None" wins, then the human with the second highest vote total, which could be only 25% or so, gets the job.

I'm with you that "None" is a great idea. Experience suggests it won't happen.

Billybob

[backtothestreets]

I'd be for a national primary if each state could only vote for residents within their state to go to their respective party national conventions where party delegates would pick the best candidates their parties have to offer. Each state would be limited to their two top picks from each party as candidates for president. State party delegates would be selected at the same time.

National conventions are now little more than Broadway plays with very little substance. They nothing more than a rubber stamp of policies agreed to before the opening act. This needs to be changed.