If the primary election is meant to be settled well before the last race, shouldn't the DNC make some changes?

Question

It's pretty obvious (to me) that the primary election is really meant to be settled some time before the last race is run, and WELL before the convention. In this race we have two cunning politicians with solid cores of support. With their system of proportional allocation, weren't they pretty much asking for this to happen sooner or later? Hasn't it happened before? (I'm not that old, but I'm pretty sure it has.) The system that is in place has allowed this to happen. If they don't like it, shouldn't they change it? If they are in love with proportional allocation, they should make scheduling changes. (Not sure if they can do that without republican support, which they likely would not get, as this suits them just fine. Unless they can have the dem. primaries on their own schedule...) I'm not suggesting have them all in one day. That would be an enormous undertaking. But they don't need to be spread out over many months, two and three at a time.

Answer 1

I think that the idea of SDs is not bad --- to replace unelectable candidates right before the election, but you are right the execution sucks.



I think that SD leanings should not be public. I think there should be half as many SDs as there are and I think the convention needs to be in late June to allow more healing in case you have to do it.



I am actually OK with the SDs replacing BO if he seems totally and undeniably unelectable and there is an undeniably more electable candidate. In that scenario alone though. SDs are a doomsday scenario, not an "I don't like the results" scenario.



Today it seems that if anyone is unelectible it is Clinton, who even if she won every state that she trails McCain in by less than 5% in head to head matchups would only have 269 electoral votes --- one short of victory. Clinton's range is 193 electoral votes to 269. Obama's range using the same criteria is 230 to 373. He is simply a MUCH stronger General election candidate.



Amelia -- I will defend specifically Dean on this. The DNC rules are written so the party chair has next to no power. I think there is no question the SD system will be tweaked after this election where it took center stage as a potential lever to overturn the public vote, but no one in the party wants to fight that fight right now as it would be easy to interpret that as favoring one of the candidates over another.



BTW Natalie, thank you ever so much for telling me how blacks feel. Would you mind spamming your rant in every thread that has noting to do with racial relations?

Answer 2

The current system was put into place to right some of the glitches of mainly the 1972 race...that year the Democrats were deeply divided and had a riot at the convention as well...that was an exciting convention! My first time voting too! Yes some changes need to be made...and I hope no one decides to riot this summer...all that will be accomplished is injury and possible death...

Answer 3

The democratic party put the current rules into effect after they screwed up the 1968 election; only 40 years ago. Then changed them again after the 1972 election; creating the super delegates. The nut balls who voted and picked McGovern to loose 49 states were put into check by their party by creating the super delegates who were supposed to be sensible and not let the stupid party voters pick another goof ball candidate. That's how thy got into their current mess.

Answer 4

some what. As blacks we are dealing with race matters 24-7. we don't get an afternoon a relax. We adventure racism 24-7. rather some the time we are the only African individuals in a sea of whites. We stand tall and carry our floor. African individuals as a race are survivors. Our society reminds us that we are black and we are distinctive. we are 2d class electorate. i did no longer comprehend it might get whites so mad. the common white individual remark. i think of it has greater to do with the marvel jock radio, Fox information, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and so on. and so on. maximum whites I manage are very heartless and recommend. i'm no longer saying all whites are like this yet ninety 9.9% of the time they are. If I have been given right into a controversy with a white individual till now and get in touch with them a racial slur and vice versa. They called me the n-be conscious. It did no longer seem to difficulty them a racil white slur as plenty using fact the n-be conscious does for blacks. Whites have not been oppress like blacks and different minorities. i'm to unsure with reference to the common white individual remark rather harm them. i think of they made plenty ado approximately no longer something. they are nevertheless maximum folk. i comprehend that maximum white individuals do no longer desire a black guy for president. there are a number of racist that cover at the back of a working laptop or computing gadget. they are going to do something whether they are against McCain and war for one hundred years. they might quite vote for McCain than for Obama. they are going to block Obama any way they are able to so he won't be our next president. i think of people who wasn't going to vote for Obama already had hate or racism of their coronary heart. i think of it rather is so unhappy.

Answer 5

I say let the people make up their own minds without

party and media intervention. Voting registration is at

an all-time high so controversy is definitely a good thing.

Answer 6

Politics works mainly according to archaic rules. It's unfortunate that we have people in charge who don't have the intestinal fortitude to change them.