Political junkies like me who are old enough to remember the drama of political conventions have secretly held onto a dream, a wish, for 2008--brokered conventions.
I have become convinced that the absolute best thing that could happen for American politics in 2008 is for the choice as to who will head the Republican and Democratic tickets to be made at the respective political conventions this coming summer.
For the past 15 to 20 years, political conventions have become all but obsolete, with the choices for the two Parties being made by the primary system in the various states long before the time for the conventions.
Thus, the conventions have become nothing more than a coronation, a showcase, a week-long political commercial for the already-agreed-upon candidate.
The drama is entirely gone.
This year may change all of that. Despite Hillary Clinton's desire for the Democratic National Convention of '08 to be her coronation, that is highly unlikely given her strong opposition from Barack Obama and John Edwards.
In like manner, as Rudy Giuliani's star fades and Mike Huckabee rides a tide of near-cult-worship, GOP conservatives are left unimpressed. They want to vote for Fred Thompson, but somehow the highly unrealistic expectations placed upon Thompson have tended to hurt him severely.
They may yet decide that he is their man in the long run.
But this decision may well not happen until the GOP National Convention in the summer. Fred appears likely to win South Carolina. He could win in Iowa, but at present it appears either Huckabee or Romney will win, although male voters in Iowa have recently turned away from Huckabee. In New Hampshire, John McCain appears to be surging to the head of the pack.
This could well set up a trend that will continue right up to the Convention--the primaries will be split between 3 or 4 candidates, perhaps even 5, meaning that the decision will have to be made at the Convention.
My, what drama. I love it.
If this scenario is played out, it will mean that deals will have to be made. Compromises will have to be negotiated. Behind-the-scenes power plays will be the order of the day, just like in the old days.
I am reminded of the high drama of the 1980 Republican National Convention, when nominee Ronald Reagan offered the job of running-mate to former President Gerald R. Ford as a means of healing a rift in the GOP.
At first Ford took the offer very seriously. It became the talk of the nation.
And then Ford dropped a bombshell. He told Reagan that he would accept only if Reagan would agree to make Ford a 'co-President,' sharing the duties of the office together.
Wow. The Ford ultimatum dominated the news for days. It was Walter Cronkite's dream.
Then Reagan made the only decision he could. He turned down Ford's offer for the sake of the Constitution and common sense. George H.W. Bush was chosen as his running-mate, and the two went on to beat Jimmy Carter in a landslide.
With the great fluidity of the electorate leading up to the primaries this year, and as no clear front runner is apparent, perhaps this is the year that the political convention will return to politics as a relevant and needed entity.
Showing posts with label Presidential elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential elections. Show all posts
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
'08 Nominees Chosen by Thanksgiving?
In a display that gives one reason to wonder if Party leaders in the various states have taken leave of their senses, the South Carolina Republican Party announced on Thursday that it will move up its GOP primary to Jan. 19.
This action will set into motion yet another chain of events that will result in the move by other states to schedule their primaries earlier.
New Hampshire will surely be the first to make the move. By state law their primary must be the first in the nation, meaning that the New Hampshire date will more than likely be set for Jan. 12.
Iowa, however, is bound and determined to protect its status for having the very first shot at voting by scheduling their time-honored tradition of holding caucuses before the New Hampshire primary, meaning that in all likelihood the Iowa caucuses will be scheduled in December.
We have already been through this before, resulting in a ridiculously early round of caucuses and primaries--the earliest in U.S. history. The question becomes, will the other primary states follow suit and move up their dates, thus prompting South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa to move up their dates even further?
If that happens, it is entirely possible that the nominees for both Parties could be chosen by Thanksgiving.
Far-fetched, you say? Well, who would have thought we be looking at having the Iowa caucuses in December?
In case you are wondering who is to blame for this blatant game of oneupmanship, look no further than the state of Florida. Defying Republican and Democratic National Committee rules that forbid state primaries before Feb. 5, Florida Republicans and Democrats decided to move their primary to Jan. 29.
The penalty for defying the rules is that the RNC and the DNC withhold half of the delegates of the offending states to the Party Conventions, meaning that those states' voting power at the Conventions is greatly diminished.
These states, however, believe that whoever is their Party's nominee will take over the national committees before the Party Conventions, which means that the rules will not be enforced.
Thus, yet another piece of the drama, credibility, and necessity of the Party Conventions is nullified.
And in the end the Parties lose, the candidates lose, and America loses.
To prevent the present undesirable state of affairs in which voters are already growing weary of the process, the national committees of the two Parties should immediately enforce the rules rather than wait until the Conventions. The penalties for moving up a primary to a ridiculously early date should be immediate and devastating.
And it should not be dependent on who is in control of the committee at any given moment in time.
Perhaps the DNC and the RNC should inform the various states that NONE of their delegates will be seated at the Conventions unless they adhere to the Feb. 5 requirement.
Then we could all watch at how quickly the various states decide to move their primaries to later rather than earlier dates.
Part of the allure of American politics is the drama inherent in the process. Through the years we have just about removed all of that drama, and the voters are yawning and going back to sleep.
Just what, exactly, are the candidates and the voters going to do if everything has been decided by Christmas? This will mean we will have to wait another eleven months for the general election. Such a situation will be ripe for even more trivializing of the political process by the tabloid-driven mainstream media.
It simply does not take eleven months to discuss and debate the issues related to a national election. Many have suggested that the present practice of having one or two debates by the candidates of the two major Parties is not enough, and that a series of debates will be much better.
But even that is a far cry from being forced to endure nearly a year of campaigning.
What do you talk about when you run out of things to talk about?
Nothing of any importance, that's for sure. And this is why I maintain that the stage is being set for tabloid journalism to have a field-day during the 2008 election cycle.
This action will set into motion yet another chain of events that will result in the move by other states to schedule their primaries earlier.
New Hampshire will surely be the first to make the move. By state law their primary must be the first in the nation, meaning that the New Hampshire date will more than likely be set for Jan. 12.
Iowa, however, is bound and determined to protect its status for having the very first shot at voting by scheduling their time-honored tradition of holding caucuses before the New Hampshire primary, meaning that in all likelihood the Iowa caucuses will be scheduled in December.
We have already been through this before, resulting in a ridiculously early round of caucuses and primaries--the earliest in U.S. history. The question becomes, will the other primary states follow suit and move up their dates, thus prompting South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa to move up their dates even further?
If that happens, it is entirely possible that the nominees for both Parties could be chosen by Thanksgiving.
Far-fetched, you say? Well, who would have thought we be looking at having the Iowa caucuses in December?
In case you are wondering who is to blame for this blatant game of oneupmanship, look no further than the state of Florida. Defying Republican and Democratic National Committee rules that forbid state primaries before Feb. 5, Florida Republicans and Democrats decided to move their primary to Jan. 29.
The penalty for defying the rules is that the RNC and the DNC withhold half of the delegates of the offending states to the Party Conventions, meaning that those states' voting power at the Conventions is greatly diminished.
These states, however, believe that whoever is their Party's nominee will take over the national committees before the Party Conventions, which means that the rules will not be enforced.
Thus, yet another piece of the drama, credibility, and necessity of the Party Conventions is nullified.
And in the end the Parties lose, the candidates lose, and America loses.
To prevent the present undesirable state of affairs in which voters are already growing weary of the process, the national committees of the two Parties should immediately enforce the rules rather than wait until the Conventions. The penalties for moving up a primary to a ridiculously early date should be immediate and devastating.
And it should not be dependent on who is in control of the committee at any given moment in time.
Perhaps the DNC and the RNC should inform the various states that NONE of their delegates will be seated at the Conventions unless they adhere to the Feb. 5 requirement.
Then we could all watch at how quickly the various states decide to move their primaries to later rather than earlier dates.
Part of the allure of American politics is the drama inherent in the process. Through the years we have just about removed all of that drama, and the voters are yawning and going back to sleep.
Just what, exactly, are the candidates and the voters going to do if everything has been decided by Christmas? This will mean we will have to wait another eleven months for the general election. Such a situation will be ripe for even more trivializing of the political process by the tabloid-driven mainstream media.
It simply does not take eleven months to discuss and debate the issues related to a national election. Many have suggested that the present practice of having one or two debates by the candidates of the two major Parties is not enough, and that a series of debates will be much better.
But even that is a far cry from being forced to endure nearly a year of campaigning.
What do you talk about when you run out of things to talk about?
Nothing of any importance, that's for sure. And this is why I maintain that the stage is being set for tabloid journalism to have a field-day during the 2008 election cycle.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
When Elephants Fly
The GOP finds itself in unfamiliar territory during this election cycle. Fundraising by Republican candidates has lagged far behind that of the Democrats. Some sources suggest that Democrats have out-raised Republicans 10-to-1.
Normally it is the Democrats who are lagging behind in fundraising for the Presidential election.
This raises several uneasy questions for the GOP.
Is George W. Bush now so thoroughly unpopular with the electorate that a Republican will be elected to the White House in 2008 only when elephants fly?
Is the electorate, including most Republicans, terribly unhappy and unmoved by the slate of candidates put up by the Republicans so far?
Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so wildly popular with the electorate in general that people are hypnotically opening their wallets and purses to empty their pockets into the coffers of the Democrats?
The obvious fact is that an unpopular President can potentially be a significant liability in an election.
Richard Nixon's standing with the public had so deteriorated in 1974 that the midterm Congressional elections that year proved to be a near-death march for the GOP.
Jimmy Carter was such a joke in American politics in 1980 that Republicans swept to power in the U.S. Senate and succeeded in electing Ronald Reagan to the White House.
And who can forget Harry Truman's dismal approval ratings that nearly cost him the Presidency in 1948 and led to his decision not to run again in 1952? Democrats suffered in Congressional elections during the 50s for the first time since 1932.
The thing that sets this election apart from some of the ones cited above is that President Bush is not running. That fact may not be enough to save the GOP from some losses, however.
It depends on how much the electorate blames Republican Senators and Congressmen for the War in Iraq.
Although the Democrats have worked feverishly to distance themselves from their own votes for the War in 2002, the fact remains that the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were bipartisan decisions.
Thus, if the electorate is intent on fixing blame, it must go to BOTH Parties.
Despite widespread public disapproval of the manner in which the Bush Administration has conducted the War, voters will not necessarily hold that against GOP candidates.
The problem is that so far none of the declared candidates have energized the electorate.
Fred Thompson could change all of that. Rumors swirled that he would announce his candidacy on July 4, but this was merely a rumor. He chose that date to announce that his campaign headquarters would be in Nashville, Tennessee once he declared.
Thompson plans to announce in September, after the next Republican debate. This gives him a chance to stay above the fray and use his campaign exploratory committee to raise funds without the stringent federal regulations imposed on the fundraising of a declared candidate.
Ron Paul is another GOP candidate who could easily energize the electorate if he begins to catch on with the public. As an anti-war Republican, his views may resonate with voters who oppose the War in Iraq. Yet Paul is a dyed-in-the-wool stalwart of liberty that is entirely refreshing in modern politics.
Despite the success of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in raising campaign cash, this is very often no indication of how popular a candidate is with the electorate as a whole. It is not unusual for candidates with the most money to fizzle once the primaries are underway.
And we must remember that 48% of the electorate has an entirely negative view of Hillary Clinton. 50% say they will under no circumstances vote for her. Her negatives are higher than any Republican candidate. And with 50% of voters saying there is no way they would ever vote for her, all the money in the world will do her no good.
The same goes for Obama. He can raise money, turn heads, and attract attention like a Hollywood paparazzi magnet. Yet he barely registers 10% support among the general public.
My hunch is that neither Clinton nor Obama are nearly as popular as their campaign cash suggests.
And this means that elephants may well fly in November of 2008.
Normally it is the Democrats who are lagging behind in fundraising for the Presidential election.
This raises several uneasy questions for the GOP.
Is George W. Bush now so thoroughly unpopular with the electorate that a Republican will be elected to the White House in 2008 only when elephants fly?
Is the electorate, including most Republicans, terribly unhappy and unmoved by the slate of candidates put up by the Republicans so far?
Are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama so wildly popular with the electorate in general that people are hypnotically opening their wallets and purses to empty their pockets into the coffers of the Democrats?
The obvious fact is that an unpopular President can potentially be a significant liability in an election.
Richard Nixon's standing with the public had so deteriorated in 1974 that the midterm Congressional elections that year proved to be a near-death march for the GOP.
Jimmy Carter was such a joke in American politics in 1980 that Republicans swept to power in the U.S. Senate and succeeded in electing Ronald Reagan to the White House.
And who can forget Harry Truman's dismal approval ratings that nearly cost him the Presidency in 1948 and led to his decision not to run again in 1952? Democrats suffered in Congressional elections during the 50s for the first time since 1932.
The thing that sets this election apart from some of the ones cited above is that President Bush is not running. That fact may not be enough to save the GOP from some losses, however.
It depends on how much the electorate blames Republican Senators and Congressmen for the War in Iraq.
Although the Democrats have worked feverishly to distance themselves from their own votes for the War in 2002, the fact remains that the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were bipartisan decisions.
Thus, if the electorate is intent on fixing blame, it must go to BOTH Parties.
Despite widespread public disapproval of the manner in which the Bush Administration has conducted the War, voters will not necessarily hold that against GOP candidates.
The problem is that so far none of the declared candidates have energized the electorate.
Fred Thompson could change all of that. Rumors swirled that he would announce his candidacy on July 4, but this was merely a rumor. He chose that date to announce that his campaign headquarters would be in Nashville, Tennessee once he declared.
Thompson plans to announce in September, after the next Republican debate. This gives him a chance to stay above the fray and use his campaign exploratory committee to raise funds without the stringent federal regulations imposed on the fundraising of a declared candidate.
Ron Paul is another GOP candidate who could easily energize the electorate if he begins to catch on with the public. As an anti-war Republican, his views may resonate with voters who oppose the War in Iraq. Yet Paul is a dyed-in-the-wool stalwart of liberty that is entirely refreshing in modern politics.
Despite the success of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in raising campaign cash, this is very often no indication of how popular a candidate is with the electorate as a whole. It is not unusual for candidates with the most money to fizzle once the primaries are underway.
And we must remember that 48% of the electorate has an entirely negative view of Hillary Clinton. 50% say they will under no circumstances vote for her. Her negatives are higher than any Republican candidate. And with 50% of voters saying there is no way they would ever vote for her, all the money in the world will do her no good.
The same goes for Obama. He can raise money, turn heads, and attract attention like a Hollywood paparazzi magnet. Yet he barely registers 10% support among the general public.
My hunch is that neither Clinton nor Obama are nearly as popular as their campaign cash suggests.
And this means that elephants may well fly in November of 2008.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Save the Electoral College!
Washington, DC (TLS). Democrats on Capitol Hill are busy attempting to dismantle the Electoral College. Under the guise of 'democracy' and 'preserving the notion of election by popular vote,' the Dems are mounting a major effort to ditch the process by which the U.S. has chosen its Presidents since its founding.
But the problem lies not only in the concept itself but in the way they are going about implementing that concept.
The Constitution requires the states to ratify such changes to the U.S. Constitution. The last time such a thing was attempted, the measure failed to gain the approval of the required number of states.
This time, realizing that such a thing is likely to happen again, the Democrats in Congress wish to change the Constitution without the consent of the people. They want to ditch the Electoral College by introducing Congressional legislation alone, rather than by using the proper method of state ratification.
This is illegal and unconstitutional.
There is absolutely no doubt as to the reason for this massive push by the Dems. Democrat voters tend to inhabit large metro areas around the outer rim of the country, i.e., Boston, NYC, Miami, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and other cities around the Great Lakes. The vast American heartland, however, is a Republican stronghold. Many of these states are smaller in population compared to the massive metropolitan urban areas that tend to attract Democrat voters.
The result of a direct popular vote, therefore, will greatly curtail the influence of the more sparsely populated states. The large metropolitan areas around the rim will, in essence, invariably dictate who will be President in every single election, thus taking away the power of the vote from other areas of the country.
It is for this very reason that the Founders in their wisdom set up the Electoral College--which provides for a more equitable playing field. The Founders did not wish for Philadelphia, New York, and Boston to totally overwhelm and snuff out the voice of smaller states, such as North Carolina.
Today, Kansas, North Dakota, and Montana have a greater voice in selecting a President under the Electoral College system than they would in a direct popular vote. One can quickly see why the Democrats wish to do an end-run around the Constitution by passing this terribly misguided bill. If the Electoral College is dismantled, then NYC, Boston, Miami, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Chicago will be the ones choosing our Presidents. The rest of the country may as well stay home.
Not only that, but get set for a thousand years of darkness as nothing but ultra-Leftwing collectivists get elected as President.
Read the complete details on this vital issue here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55064
But the problem lies not only in the concept itself but in the way they are going about implementing that concept.
The Constitution requires the states to ratify such changes to the U.S. Constitution. The last time such a thing was attempted, the measure failed to gain the approval of the required number of states.
This time, realizing that such a thing is likely to happen again, the Democrats in Congress wish to change the Constitution without the consent of the people. They want to ditch the Electoral College by introducing Congressional legislation alone, rather than by using the proper method of state ratification.
This is illegal and unconstitutional.
There is absolutely no doubt as to the reason for this massive push by the Dems. Democrat voters tend to inhabit large metro areas around the outer rim of the country, i.e., Boston, NYC, Miami, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, and other cities around the Great Lakes. The vast American heartland, however, is a Republican stronghold. Many of these states are smaller in population compared to the massive metropolitan urban areas that tend to attract Democrat voters.
The result of a direct popular vote, therefore, will greatly curtail the influence of the more sparsely populated states. The large metropolitan areas around the rim will, in essence, invariably dictate who will be President in every single election, thus taking away the power of the vote from other areas of the country.
It is for this very reason that the Founders in their wisdom set up the Electoral College--which provides for a more equitable playing field. The Founders did not wish for Philadelphia, New York, and Boston to totally overwhelm and snuff out the voice of smaller states, such as North Carolina.
Today, Kansas, North Dakota, and Montana have a greater voice in selecting a President under the Electoral College system than they would in a direct popular vote. One can quickly see why the Democrats wish to do an end-run around the Constitution by passing this terribly misguided bill. If the Electoral College is dismantled, then NYC, Boston, Miami, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Chicago will be the ones choosing our Presidents. The rest of the country may as well stay home.
Not only that, but get set for a thousand years of darkness as nothing but ultra-Leftwing collectivists get elected as President.
Read the complete details on this vital issue here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55064
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)