The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

In another article there was a quote from Clintons spokesman

"that doesn't mean a candidate's spouse can't campaign there".

Leave it to the Clintons to squirm out from under a pledge.

The Clintons are so smarmy.

I guess the rules don't apply to the Clinton dynasty.

Michigan's primary move could benefit Romney dramatically, potentially allowing him a 4-for-4 primary start. http://thealphastar.blogspot.com/

What a crummy way to pick a president. I am tired of Iowa and New Hampshire having such a large say in picking the country's chief executive. What about the principal of one person, one vote? Get rid of the electoral college, which is a holdover from the 18th century when Blacks counted as 2/5 of a person and had no civil rights. Get rid of the primaries and have a national election in the spring and a runoff election in the fall. Maybe in the end we would end up choosing between 2 Democrats or 2 Republicans. So what? It's time that a Hispanic voter in California counted for as much as a white voter in New Hampshire.

smihalus:

The primary is not the general election.

Repeat after me:
Michigan's 17 electoral votes are awarded in the November general election, not in the (whenever) primary election.

Now repeat it again, and again, and again, until you realize that the primary elections determine the party's nominee. No electoral votes are in jeopardy, because electoral votes are only at stake in the general election.

The general election is that election in November that determines who actually will occupy the office during the next term.

Since the subject of primary vs. general elections is covered in grade school, or at the latest, middle school civics, I suggest you go back to school until you learn exactly when Michigan's 17 electoral votes are determined.

Of course they should leave it up to me . . . I would have a rotating system, a lottery, 12 or 13 states in each of four monthly primaries beginning February through May. Why not? I just thought of it and it would work. This is why we need an Emperor to oversee our democracy. He could get things done and stop all the endless squabbling which wastes everybody's time. I could be it.

Michigan and Florida voters should pledge not to vote for any candidate which has pledged not to campaign in our two states.

Imagine if our two states were to do so. What would that do the chances of the candidates who came out ahead in the earlier primaries? Our votes might not count, but the opinions of the voters of two major state certainly will.

why not implement a rule that any candidate for president must spend a minimum of 2 days campaigning in each state, yes in all 50, in the 6 months before the first primary is held. That way no state gets totally ignored.

All I have to say is Go Granholm!! The candidates will come crawling back when they want our 17 electoral votes!

I favor moving Michigan to Canada, assuming Canada will have them.

"But in both parties, there's a belief that whatever penalties are meted out will be voided when the conventions gather next summer. The hope is that party leaders will want unity, not division, going into the general election."

This is not as likely as it seems. The only unity in restoring the delegates for the convention comes IF the winner in the primaries was also the winner in Florida and Michigan or IF the winner has a huge delegate cushion that would not cost that person the nomination if the renegade states' delegates were brought back into the fold.

To win the nomination you will need to have garnered your delegates in the beginning of 2008. For the Democrats, Florida holds 10 percent of the delegates needed; Michigan around 7.5 percent. When they hold their early primaries, they will not have delegates to award to the winner at that time. This can be an effective candidate sinker in a closely contested race.

For instance, (and oversimplified), if Edwards wins Iowa, and Hillary wins New Hampshire, and Obama wins South Carolina, their delegate counts would respectively be 56, 30, and 54. If say Hillary then wins in Florida and Michigan, the delegate count remains 56, 30, 54 - she will not benefit from wins in those states that do not have delegates to award.

After the dust has settled post Feb 5th, the candidate that has the most delegates AT THAT TIME will be perceived as the nominee. If that candidate was not the winner of Florida and Michigan, it is highly unlikely that the delegates would be restored in August because doing so runs the risk of causing that "division" that you say the parties want to avoid.

This primary season is doomed to chaos, it seems. I hope there is no long term damage because both sides are "right" in their own ways. It isn't fair that New Hampshire and Iowa get a head start in selecting our President, but it also is madness to let states leap frog one another indefinitely. In four years could we not hold a 50 state (plus the territories) lottery for, say, seven primary dates, beginning in February? We could devise ways of fairly rotating the results in future elections thereafter... Well, it's a thought.

Tell me WHY Demi-cracks are so whiny and unhappy about states, like Florida and Michigan, exercising their democratic right of choosing when to have nominating primaries.

Tell me WHY the Democrats are all pledged to boycott Florida and Michigan.

Don't the Democrats want those electoral votes in November 2008?

"Enough is enough with Moron states like Florida, Wyoming, Michigan and others and this perverted process of being "first". Voters are sick of it."

Hear, Hear, I'm from michigan and I don't give a damn about what "the" party says, they can both go crawl in a hole and don't come out till you've have begged for my vote.!!!

I don't have a problem with any state having a primary before dinky, unpopulated New Hamster and the yokums from Iowa. Heck, let 'um move up the primaries to 3 years before the election. Who cares? We have so many candidates, that'll give everyone enough time to weed through the riff raff and get rid of the chafe.

Regional primaries may be even worse. They would give the first region a massive advantage, because of momentum. How would it benefit the nation to be committed in advance to a New England favorite in 2012, a Southern favorite in 2016, a Midwesterner in 2020, and a Western candidate in 2024? We should either go to a national primary or return to the good old days of the smoke-filled room (now air conditioned). They did pretty well then.

Dems have refused to confront Republican shenanigans for so many years now that even Party insiders do as they please without fear of reprisal. Is anyone really surprised by this turn of events?

What a hell of a note. A GOP full of jackbooted thugs, with nothing but cowering rabbits in opposition. Anyone started listening for the whimpering (as opposed to the banging) yet?

The "I MUST BE FIRST" BS of state parties is making a further mockery of the election process. NOBODY wants primary elections so early. NO STATE IS MORE "SPECIAL" THAN OTHERS FOR THE PRIMARY. The endless series of "debates" in which the same-ol' candidates repeat the same-ol' canned statements over and over again is further turning-off the voters. THREE MONTHS of campaigning for the party nomination via a nation-wide primary, then THREE MONTHS campaigning for the election is more than enough time for any candidate to get their message to voters and to let voters know who they are.

Enough is enough with Moron states like Florida, Wyoming, Michigan and others and this perverted process of being "first". Voters are sick of it.

All these early primaries are why elections keep getting more and more expensive. Why not have the FEC instute a LOGICAL, RATIONAL, REGIONAL method of scheduling primaries? How about New England in March; the South in April; Mid-Atlantic in May; Midwest in June; and West in July? Then, each 4 years, rotate.

This encourages candidates to campaign in regions, instead of flying across the country 3 times a day. Give them incentives (bonus cash or free air time) if they use hybrid buses or other alternative vehicles to "green up" the campaigns.

"The leading Democratic candidates have all pledged to ignore Michigan, Florida and the other states who have scheduled votes before Feb. 5, in violation of the party's rules. They did so under threat from the party of losing any delegates they would win in a violating state."

This is not true and if you're responsible for covering politics for the Post you should know it's not true. There are no penalties to Dem. Candidates campaigning in early states. This was discussed early on but not implemented.

Wake up.