It’s that time, folks. 22 24* states (including mine) are holding their primaries today, which may mean that the contest is effectively over. But maybe not — polls show that Clinton and Obama are pretty close.
As Pam notes, it’s really unnerving that some states are effectively shut out of the process because they hold primaries after Super Tuesday. Even those voting today don’t have the choices that the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire did. Something is very, very wrong with the way that primaries are run in this country.
Me, I *do* get a chance to vote today, and I can’t say that I know who I’ll vote for yet. If I vote for Clinton, it will be because her health-care plan would actually cover everyone and she’s better on domestic issues. If I vote for Obama, it will be because he’s got a better grasp of foreign policy issues. But I won’t know until I actually pull the lever.
*Thanks to Blackbird for pointing this out. I stayed up way too late last night, apparently, and have lost my ability to count.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 25 comments }
If you are comparing Clinton and Obama’s health care plans, please read this post from Daily Kos. It does a good job of examing both plans.
*cough*foreign policy*cough*
Actually, since the race is so close, the later states like mine could become very important. My vote in March might actually mean something for once!
I’d like to see a national primary in April or May. Or regional primaries might be better so the smaller states won’t be overlooked.
Rah rah, historic election aside- whoever becomes the nominee and the eventual President is being thrown under the bus. With the shambles of the budget, a demoralized civil service and an over-stretched military, the next President is going to be making some pretty unpopular choices, anything they ran on will be pushed back until the rest is settled and they are going to be HATED in four years. A visceral hatred that makes the current Hillary bashing by the MSM and general assholes look like a lovefest.
If the Democrats are wise they toss Hillary under the bus because a certain segment already hates her and work on Obama’s credentials for 2012 when his oratorial skills will have a chance of keeping them in office.
Just saying.
Today’s primary will be the first time since I started voting — more years than I care to say — that I’ve had a choice of candidates. Moreover, California’s primary has traditionally been held in June. Feeling frustrated that a state with more citizens than Canada was shut out of the primaries altogether, the legislature bifurcated the primary into President (early) and state (June). But still, until now, all but one candidate had already dropped out.
I would like to see an interstate compact to randomize the dates of the primaries. Let New Hampshire go first if it must, but forget Iowa. Let California be second one year, New York or Texas the next cycle, etc.
I moved to Iowa in the summer of 2004; therefore, this was my first caucus. I saw McCain, Clinton, Dodd, and Biden once each; Edwards twice; Richardson three times; and Obama four times. I attended two meetings with Obama’s advisors and one with Edwards’s national campaign manager.
I was able to choose candidates (my first wasn’t viable at my caucus) based on their answers to my questions, as well as what I read about their positions.
Everybody should have the same opportunities that I had–though I’m reluctant to give it up!
I never understood why primaries are spread out like they are. Why not have all voting on the same day? We wouldn’t hold a general election where some states have the power to determine a winner months before others.
Also, I think it’s 24 states today, not 22. : )
Divide the country into 5 regions- Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, Southwest and Central. Give each region a week for an early primary and they can chose any two states to go first. Five weeks, 10 states, noone can drop out before this initial round is over. Last week all remaining states and territories vote in one Superdedooper Vote-a-palooza for the two biggest vote getters of the first round. Two weeks later the convention, much beer and confetti and the parties are ready to get to work on the national campaigns. Eight weeks and it is over. Personally I go with the no one can start campaigning until the first primary but I’m just tired of the unending political cycle that has developped.
Huh. It looks to me like Super Tuesday will be totally inconclusive on the Democratic side, and the people who vote afterwards will actually choose the candidate.
Republicans, on the other hand, might have reason to complain.
Ditto on everything. My state is holding a primary today too and ditto again because I’m torn — like Clinton’s healthcare plan, like Obama for foreign policy.
Ditto I think that primarys are set up in a way no rational person could understand.
States that vote in the primaries after Super Tuesday and aren’t swing states in the general election are in the worst situation of all. I’m thinking of my home state of Washington as an example. My votes in presidential elections have pretty much never counted for anything (which is admittedly a lot of why I’m more willing than others to support “dark horse” candidates).
How about next time, the primaries be held in alphabetical order. Screw Wyoming.
What would happen if, e.g., all the Dem. voters in Washington voted for Edwards?
Ya know, even if you say “candidates can’t drop out until after the first round of primaries”, they might still de facto drop out. OTOH, what is to stop people from organizing to promote a candidate even if s/he’s dropped out?
Perhaps if we want to have every person in every state have a real say (the same say that people in IA and NH currently have) we should stop waiting for it to happen and organize something that’ll force it to happen? If everyone in some late state were to vote for Kucinich, for example, that would really send a powerful message, wouldn’t it?
Nu? Why not just take the bull by the horns, not curse the darkness but light a candle and sundry other cliches? We want all votes to be heard? Well, maybe if the intertubes promote organization so that some chunk of votes is forced to be heard, it’ll make a difference?
The next President is going to be making some pretty unpopular choices, anything they ran on will be pushed back until the rest is settled and they are going to be HATED in four years. – Hawise
One of my cousins, riffing on the Mondale:Factory Whistle::Reagan:Miller Time analogy and the whole “mommy party/daddy party” meme (and this’ll tell you about gender roles and parenting in my family which, AFAIK, is stereotypically Jewish in this regard) says that one of the big problems the Dems. have is that having the GOP in charge is like when Mommy’s away and Daddy is left in charge — you party, party, party … but then the house is a mess, the dishes are piling up, you feel sick from eating too much junk food and you just can’t wait for Mommy to get back. Once Mommy gets back, she makes you clean the dishes, vacuum the rugs, mop the floors, eat right, etc … but then, who do you like? Daddy with whom you spent a week partying? Or Mommy who made you do what had to be done around the house?
Nu? The GOP gets into office and it’s tax cuts, porno (porn = that which appeals solely to one’s prurient interest => the GOP’s focus on teh hawt “illicit” sex as the sum-total of “morality”is pornographic, eh?), big spending on toys (weapons), etc. … so then we have a huge deficit, the economy is going down the tubes, etc. — so the Dems. come in and clean it up. But then, who do voters like more? The fun GOP or the tax-happy Dems?
Dammit, I counted 22 on that voter guide. I’ll go look again.
Okay, I’m confused. The NY Times has 24 states, but this USA Today article has 22. ???
I like that! But I never understood why we just don’t go vote at the same damn time anyway. Think of the money saved by the candidates alone.
Another late primary stater here. Indiana doesn’t go until May. We’re not a swing state anyway, and my votes (pretty much never Republican) have never counted for anything here.
There are 22 states with democrat primaries. But there are 24 states holding primaries (some are republican only, some democrat only).
When I’ve seen references to dividing the country into regions, the purpose has been to let one region go first each election cycle. I like Hawise’s idea of having one representative of each region hold their primary at the same time, because that ensures that candidates have a nationwide appeal.
Just a slight correction Hector B., I said two state per region. There is sufficient diversity in each region to justify using two. If each region is 10 states then you might have one state more agricultural and another more urban. Each candidate would save on travelling because they are only dealing with one chunk of the country per week, they could even carpool ;) You could focus on regional politics more than national ones in the primaries and hold the candidates feet to the fire in a more targetted way.
And DAS, I say vote Mommy in 2008 and then sell a Democratic daddy who will save the kids from having to eat their vegetables in 2012;)
West Virginia GOP is projected as a Huckabee win… he also got Maine last weekend. That was a big surprise; Ron Paul was thought to be ahead here. Dems are this upcoming weekend.
DUH… it was Romney, not Huckabee for Maine. Like it makes a snowball’s chance in hell’s difference! ;)
Her Iraq, Bolton and Iran votes are wack but I don’t think she’d start a war.
Comments on this entry are closed.