I thought I'd drag this post back to the top of the page...

[FreedRadical]

Remember when we thought this???
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=174x5423






.PS.
I still suck at predicting the future...
Although I am digging that the nation is looking our way...
Reminds me of a 2pac song,,, All Eye's On Me,,,


:headbang: This Rocks!!!



:smoke:

[swishyfeet]

1. I've changed my tune a bit since then

I think those with big names and big $$ will dominate the primaries if we load them all up on one day. I kinda like the slow, get-to-know-ya retail politics of the small early states, even if we're not one of them. It gives everyone a fair shot in the beginning.

If we compressed the primary season, nobody would come to Oregon, there's just not enough voter density to make it worthwhile.

I'm back to GD: P to share in the love fest... my first time over here.

Dang, it's so quiet.

[Radio_Lady]

2. Yes, this primary election has been divisive, but interesting.

I'm still standing by my 1972 prediction that a black male would become President before a woman of any color.

That might come true before Thanksgiving!

(However, my prediction that it would be all over by February 5th didn't, so my current score is 1 - 1.)

[LWolf]

3. I still feel the same.

It's true that Oregon may put one candidate over the top, securing the nomination.

That would mean something to me if I liked either of the two candidates left by the time I got to vote.

Other voters narrowed the list before I ever got to choose. I ended up voting for someone I don't like, and don't really want to be POTUS. There weren't any other choices left on the ballot.

[FreedRadical]

4. I do give you that point LWolf...

From the start of this thing to this day, Edwards is the choice I never got to make. I have no other point to make on this.

[Athelwulf]

5. We were just (sorta) lucky, says I.

Of course, it's not often that a party is nearly evenly split between two candidates, thus drawing primary season out nearly to its maximum length. It's because this happened that Oregonians got a piece of that well-deserved attention we've been craving. If it were all settled before it was our turn, I doubt, for example, that Bill Clinton would have paid Klamath Falls a visit.

Yes, I say we were lucky. In either 2012 or 2016, we'll again be miffed that we have to wait until May to finally get to vote for the presumptive nominee. Our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has come and passed (unless we're surprised again).

But I say we're sorta lucky because, as far as I know, the race was pretty much decided for at least a week or two. Even before Oregon and Kentucky, it was mathematically impossible, or at least extremely implausible, for Clinton to have won enough delegates to win the nomination. But you can debate what effect that fact had on the whole process, considering Kentucky went for Clinton two to one on the same day Obama won Oregon three to two.

[Athelwulf]

6. I forgot to make a point.

Post 16 in the linked thread says, "Iowa and New Hampshire, please. Is tradition really that important?" I consider it a shame that Oregon is the very state where the presidential primary election as we know it was born, yet we're the last guys in line. Wikipedia is my source here; bother me later for a link if you're curious.

[pdxprog]

7. I hope this leads to a reevaluation of the whole scheduling timeline next time

I suppose the biggest losers in a non-drawn-out primary season would be the media, and maybe sometimes the mainstream candidates if there isn't an extended process whereby certain others can be systematically drummed out...
I'd love to see the whole thing condensed and ordered in such a way that the states who got a taste of relevance this time around can taste it every time. If not one national primary day, maybe a handful of regional primaries spanning a few weeks?

[Athelwulf]

8. An idea I toyed with in my head...

... is one where we split the country into regions that tend to vote similarly, or have similar concerns, or are simply in the same geographical area. Each region has the same number of states, and/or, if it can be managed, roughly the same number of delegates. But considering only states is probably good enough. Now, let's say for example there are five regions of ten states each. Then we compose five groups of ten states, with two randomly chosen states from each region in each group. Let's number the groups 1 through 5. Then we assign each group to one of the first five months of the year, and the states in these groups have their primaries and caucuses on the same day in their group's month. This gives the candidates one month to visit ten states, which is probably adequate.

It may be problematic to divide the country into equal regions. This may need to be slightly arbitrary. But once it's done, each state has an equal and fair chance of being among the very first states to participate in the primary season of any given year. They could be grouped randomly each year, or the states in each region could cycle through.