I just don't understand why

[Blue_Roses]

the primaries can't all be held on ONE day instead of spread out the way it is. My primary isn't until May. What's up with that? By that time this race will be well underway. It's no wonder people don't get fired up for primaries.

I never threw my support behind ONE candidate, until today, because not only did I like so many, I just thought, "what's the use...," I can't vote for them anyway until 3/4 way through this thing.

Anybody else feel somewhat left out today from not being able to vote this early on? How can we change this so this can be fair to everyone voting in the primaries?

[Skittles]

1. I think it STINKS

we did NOT end up with the best candidate and I and MILLIONS OF OTHERS could not even PARTICIPATE.

[mhr]

2. The DLC Structured The Primaries This Way To Diffuse The Parties Left Wing

eom

[Foswia]

21. The DLC did the Primaries this way so they could WIN. Before we just lost

[JI7]

3. it would be too media driven and lack one on one

with voters. it would all be about tv ads.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I think a one day primary is fair

Maybe hold it a month before the convention or something, so that candidates still have time to get out and stump, yet delegates have time to get themselves together too.

[IrateCitizen]

5. Because then it would just be a cash race

The whole point of stretching out the primary season is to enable candidates to garner support and momentum throughout the process. This helps out candidates who may not be able to raise as much quick cash, but instead rely more on energizing the grassroots.

This year, Terry McAuliffe and the bigwigs at the DNC deigned to shorten the primary season, so that we could get a challenger out as quickly as possible. Of course, the side affect to this was that it could possibly result in the race becoming even more of a "money primary" than a "message primary". And it also leaves our nominee as a sitting duck to Bush's $135 million in primary funds prior to the convention -- so I obviously think that it was a huge blunder on the DNC's part.

[efhmc]

9. Actually Terry said on Sat. that the repukes have 200 mil already.

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Clearly some sort of campaign finance reform would be in order.

[Loonman]

6. It was a plot formulated in the past via time travel to cheat Dean

Yep.

[DNA]

7. I heard a woman

Republican woman talking about changing the primaries every year so that no one state or states would always be first. That way Ohio would get a turn being first, and Colorado, and Washington, and Hawaii, and California, etc. Iowa and New Hampshire are in most ways not representative of the rest of the country, yet they always get to set the tone. I think this woman's proposal makes sense. It's the DNC and RNC who don't want it this way. The party leadership want a clear and absolute frontrunner, and the leadership of the DNC definitely did not want Dean. I didn't vote for Dean, but I know he was given a raw deal. In terms of popularity he was the frontrunner until the leadership and the media did a number on him and his supporters. As I said, I'm not a Dean supporter, but I know fair when I see it and what happened to Dean wasn't.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Two problems...

and the obvious one is money. Campaigning in 50 primaries simultaneously would cost a lot, and probably not get much better results. Candidates would pick and choose which states to work, and the results could be as skewed as they are now. And, for the "lesser" candidates, there would be no chance for them to get a good showing somewhere and pick up more support.

The main problem, though, is that while the DNC may try to get things changed, it's entirely up to the individual states to set their primary dates. This is usually done by the legislature, so Republicans do have a say in it.

If you think you got it bad, Joisey's primary isn't until June!

It has been, btw, state Democrats who have kept it it that way. Republicans have been trying to get it pushed up, but the Democrats are more interested in not having to get on a bandwagon too early.

[Blue_Roses]

10. interesting

thanks:)

[JI7]

11. some republicans try to end primary in their states also

i think republicans in a few states attempted to end the democratic primary in their state entirely also. i think they tried it in arizona, but they finally got the democratic governor napolitano who vetoed it. also, for the present time iowa and new hampshire will continue being the first caucus and primary states because they are swing states and any party that ends their first in the nation status on primaries will probably lose those states in the national elections for some time.

[paulk]

12. that did happen in Colorado

Gov. Owens (R) got the primaries canceled to save money, saying our primaries were scheduled too late to make a difference anyway. That he was right doesn't make it any better.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Yes, I feel left out

and pissed as hell that I live in this country and have NO say in who my presidential candidate should be. We should have a 1 day election...just like the GE and EVERY citizen should have a PAID day off of work to go and vote. If you DON'T vote...you don't get paid...you have to take your voting stub to work as proof that you did vote. NO media coverage allowed until the last poll has closed so they can't skew the election with their spin. I'm sick of this shit. :grr:

A 1 day primary election would be VERY easy to do. Enough of this bullshit of "part" of this country choosing our candidates.

[jansu]

14. Keep it the same, but results are not released until after the last one!

Another way of holding it, is still have it spread out, but NONE of the results would be released until after the last Primary! No exit polling would be allowed. Would take work to keep it secret, but might be worth it! Make it a huge fine for any media or campaign to report polls. It should not be about polls or early results. Let us all decide!

I agree with you! What is it with having to see a candidate, like a rock star....in person. Read their position papers and make up your mind based on their voting record, beliefs and positions. All these meetings they hold in towns and States, reminds me of Cult followings. All this adoration. We don't need it, if we are truly voting for the best. Not just the most likeable or beautiful!

I am tired of never having a voice in choosing who the nominee is! If this is Democratic, then everyone of us must have a voice in that choice!

[woofless]

17. You could always move to Iowa.

Grow corn, or somethin'.

[jansu]

18. Been there several times....not for me!

I like the mountains, the ocean and the great difference in the planet that I get where I live! In one day, I can go from the ocean, to the desert, to the all year round Snow covered mountains!

[PurityOfEssence]

15. That's even worse

It should be evenly spread out until at least June, and there should be at least a month break after the first one or two for readjustment.

Stampeding to a decision is never healthy. It reminds me of religion.

[Kathleen04]

19. I would be happy with a one day primary

Instead of spending 1 year...2 for some candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire..they could spend the time going one-on-one with voters in the states that they think they would do well in. It would be the ultimate in "cherry-picking" but there could also be nationally televised debates in different states.

With a combination of national exposure, grassroots organizations in states, travelling all over instead of spending so much time in Iowa and NH, putting up ads as they can.

I think we should hold them all on March 2nd.

[sandnsea]

20. I advocated in other ways

I still haven't voted, but I still helped elect my candidate. People are completely missing the political process. Hell, I insisted that people in IA, NH, TN, MN, and wherever go out and vote because I COULDN'T. I don't know how many extra voters I got that way, but even if it was just two, it was two votes in addition to my one vote alone.