It seems the Deanster forgot that the state governments schedule their primaies - not the DNS chief screamer.
Posted on 08/19/2006 6:13:04 PM PDT by JohnLongIsland
CHICAGO, Aug. 19 — The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to penalize 2008 presidential candidates who defied a new nominating calendar devised to lessen the longtime influence of New Hampshire and Iowa, the two states that have traditionally kicked off the nominating process.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
an oxymoron if there ever was one
They are already the "cut and run" pro-criminal, pro-pervert party. Are they really going to actively become the anti-white-people party? And punish their own candidates? Does this make an iota of sense?
Please don't editorialize with the publication name
Let me get this straight. In 2004 the primaries were so front-loaded that we knew John Kerry would be the Democratic nominee, and since that didn't get him elected, the Democrats are now trying another way to lose?
Complete control from the top is the liberal way.
Screw The Little People and Their primaries.
LOL - they threaten a "nuclear option" to keep New Hampshire in line and not try to get back before Nevada. Wouldn't be a hoot if NH moved their primary anyway? The RATs would then have to explain why they were erasing the "will of the people," essentially refusing to count the NH ballots when they strip away the NH delegates.
They really want to make Hillary their candidate.But they have a problem.A recent poll of New Hampshire democrat voters revealed that more than half would never vote for her.A early loss for her might be the end of her chances-so expand the number of states so she can maybe carry a few states on the first primary.And end up not looking like the total loser that she really is.
If, and I do mean IF the RNC plays this right, they can help themselves in these two states by blasting the 'rats for trying to "weaken" the impact of the Hawkeye Cauci and NH primary...
The real problem is the ideology of the party. But they haven't figured that out yet.
I have never understood why citizens think it is a good idea that a very few States seem able to pick candidates. I think all these elections should be held Nation wide on the same day. That would be a more fair system.
It seems the Deanster forgot that the state governments schedule their primaies - not the DNS chief screamer.
My wife just scowled this evening as she ordered fresh Vermont turkey at dinner and I remarked that I was surprised it was on the menu since I thought Howard Dean was at some big meeting in Chicago - she'll get over it......
Is this Howie's idea of uniting the party, in order to build it up at the state level? I guess the logic is that NH doesn't much matter, but the other states are ones the Dems need help in, so they give them more prestige and a greater voice in choosing the candidate. But, how is that going to help the party? I have a feeling that even if the primaries were held on one day or on fifty successive ones, the choice would ultimately be the same. I mean, they're Democrats.
Kerry won't be nominated again, I'm sure of that. First, there seems to be a rule that once a major party's nominee loses a presidential election, he is never given a second chance. The last candidate to get a second chance was Richard Nixon, in 1968. Second, we all know that Hillary's going to run, and a candidate who isn't supported by the Clinton cabal is likely to suffer some kind of "political accident" if it looks like he's going to win. It happened when Howard Dean was the frontrunner in the last election; while Dean was bashing President Bush for acting unilaterally in Iraq, somebody leaked a letter that Dean wrote to the White House in 1995, praising Bill Clinton for his unilateral action in Bosnia! After that, Dean's campaign started to go downhill, though most of us didn't see it happening until he made his primal scream in Iowa.
I agree; until recently I lived in Florida, and while the Florida primary comes earlier than most, the candidates were already picked by the time we got to vote. I've been voting since 1980, but my vote has never counted in a primary election; in 2004 I wasn't allowed to vote at all, because Bush was the only Republican candidate. What's more, Iowa and New Hampshire are two small states where the voters are mostly white, non-Hispanic farmers--no longer a good sample of America as a whole. My suggestion would be to have the first primary in one of the "battleground states," like Ohio. Or maybe Pennsylvania, since the country was born there in 1776.
New Hampshire objected loudly to the lineup and has threatened to leapfrog over the other contests to retain its pre-eminent role.
From the article you posted to...THAT says it all...Dean the flipping idoit will not in the end be allowed to crap on state laws and above all DISS the Clintononi family...
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.