It's the end of the world as we know it...

Politics, philosophy, the law, current events, left leaning debates, religion, baseball, football, pop culture, growing up Greek, random events in my life...whatever hits my mind at the time.

23.1.05

Alternet had this interesting article advocating that the Democratic presidential candidate should not essentially come from onlyNew Hampshire and Iowa, as they do not adequately represent the Democratic party.

"Democrats cannot continue to have two almost-all-white states – Iowa and New Hampshire – determine their presidential nominees. The next nominee must be able to activate and inspire a multi-racial, multi-cultural base. . . . The Democratic Party, however, has not carried the white vote since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. . . . I firmly believe the nomination process must incorporate more diverse states into the early part of the voting – and by early, I mean the very same days as Iowa and New Hampshire, if not before. There are several smaller states with large Latino populations that would be good choices – states like New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. These states have the added bonus of being swing states, which connects with an interesting idea put forward by Steve Rosenthal of ACT, to hold our early primaries in states which were close in the previous election. . . . The point is, our next nominee needs to be able to activate and inspire a multi-racial, multi-cultural base."

This is part of the problem. Perhaps voters in swing states should have an effective say. By the time I got to vote in Ohio, Kerry had already won. Everyone else had already dropped out. That makes little sense. It also makes it almost a waste to bother voting, if it's already been decided. So basically, Ohio chose the president, but not the Democratic nominee. The entire electoral system is basically pretty dumb.

There is a pungent smell of candles in my house. I lit every single candle that I have in my family room, which is twenty-two of them right now, by the way. And apologizing in advance to those with a Y chromosome, I have serious PMS today. Yesterday, I had a serious chocolate cravings (and I generally hate chocolate). Then I cried watching 50 First Dates on HBO, which is billed as a comedy. Today, I'm all nostalgic over - get this - the television show Greatest American Hero (I couldn't figure out why, but then it occurred to me that we were talking about it on Friday night at the bar. And on that vein, my coat still smells like cigarette smoke. I wish that Ohio would become like NY and not allow smoking in bars. My two cents.)

4 Comments:

  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Matthew said…

    I've long though that changing the primary /caucus set-up would do a world of good. In fact, I'd almost prefer it if held all of them on just one day (or perhaps spread it out over a three week period, with one day per week for the primaries / caucuses).

    After all, when it comes to the presidential, gubernatorial and Congressional elections, we simply let the candidates debate, we watch them, let them come speak to us, get that all out of the way, and then vote on one day.

    Why can't this work for the primaries and caucuses?

    Good post, Stephanie.

     
  • At 3:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree about having the caucuses on one day, or coming up with a better system. A delegate-heavy swing state such as PA should have been one of the first, in my opinion.

    I don't really think that it matters which state our next big candidate comes from. As long as he/she can relate to the masses, is of good character, sticks to the truth, and has a firm, appealing plan.

    http://pimme.blog-city.com

     
  • At 11:41 PM, Blogger Ontario Emperor said…

    I'm speaking as a Republican, but when you look at the Democratic presidential nominees who have been elected since Kennedy, one fact stands out. First, let's look at the three nominees who have been elected:

    Lyndon Johnson
    Jimmy Carter
    Bill Clinton

    Just for fun, let's throw in the one candidate that some people argue really won the race in 2000:

    Al Gore

    Now let's look at the losers:

    Humbert Humphrey
    George McGovern
    Walter Mondale
    Michael Dukakis
    John Kerry

    Notice that all of the winners were Southerners. Now look at the Republican winners from the same period:

    Richard Nixon, technically a New Yorker but more of a Californian
    Ronald Reagan, Californian
    George HW Bush, technically a Texan but perceived to be a New Englander
    George W Bush, Texan with an accent

    So a Republican from any region can win, but a Democrat has to be from the South to win. And it's not necessarily a conservative thing - some people argue that LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Gore were all flaming liberals.

    I don't know if this means anything for John Edwards in 2008; we'll have to wait and see...

     
  • At 12:15 AM, Blogger Me said…

    Matthew - I agree with the all on one day theory. O think that would be good. I just don't like what it is noe.

    But Ohio fits into that same category as PA. Delegate heavy swing state. But that is along the lines of what I was thinking too. Why do we all vote after it's all over? I agree about relating to the masses. Kerry never did. Dean managed to. Clinton managed to. You have to talk TO, not AT, your audience.

    Ontario, if you are right, then the fact is that the South really did win the civil war. Because if you are saying that you either have to be conservative, or southern to win, there is a problem with that. Anyone who thinks that Clinton was a flaming liberal is crazy. He was JUST left of center. They have no perspective then.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Site
Meter Blogarama - The Blog Directory Listed on Blogwise Listed in LS Blogs Blog Directory & Search engine

Days until Bush leaves office.
Designed by georgedorn and provided by Positronic Design.
Grab your own copy here.