FYI, I think everyone understood the mis-speak regarding too many states. But it was a dumb moment that was not NEARLY as reported as if a Republican had stated it. Remember Dan Quayle? He was judging a school spelling bee, the word was Potato, the kid answered correctly. Mr Quayle's answer card had the answer with an e on the end (a sometimes accepted spelling) he told the kid (per the card) he was wrong and that was all she wrote for Dan Quayle, a mistake we all would have made and it was reported like he was a complete idiot yet Obama gets a darn near free pass when it comes to how many states we have.
I understand his error, I have no big issue with it, the reporting of these types of issues is shameful however. And some claim the media is unbiased?

h, regarding the smaller states having more impact,
Ricky touched on many of the issues. but if we had all or most primaries at one time, it wouldn't allow things to develop, it would also take away a great deal of importance from some smaller states, campaigning only in the larger "more important" states would be the norm while the small potatoes would be ignored completely. Not to mention the cost of these smaller states in two distinct different areas allows them to play their special role. It seems to work pretty well or so it would seem. But he is right, it may give them an unfair deal of power. That gives states like Delaware, Rhode Island, Wyoming, etc almost zero real importance.

rickyp wrote:Or is it possible to win the nomination and not be tied to the apparently minority position on these matters?

I actually think that the nominee is not goingto be tied to this minority opinions. I have explained this before but I believe it got buried in another thread as it was off topic.

To understand why the Republican "base" isn't going to be as important to picking a nominee there are two things we must remember. First is something like 20 states have open or partially open primaries. These states allow registered Independents to vote in the Primary and to choose which ballot to vote on. The second thing to remember is there is Obama isn't going to have a primary opponent. That means most (if not all) Independents (and perhaps some conservative Democrats) will be voting on the Republican Primaries.

Further thing to understand is the first three primaries, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina, have an open primary. That means coming out of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th contests Independents are going to have a large influence. Going into Super Tuesday the candidates most likely having the momentum will be those appealling mostly to Independents and, possibly, conservative Democrats.

Added to this, something like half of the Super Tuesday primaries are open. So the candidates with the Mighty Mo are going into the traditional decision day were half the states allow the type of voters that gave those guys the momentum in the first place to vote for them.

As for the primaries. First off it was 57 states not 54. As to how we get to that number, it is the non-state possesions, i.e. Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Solomon Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, Washington D.C. and American Samoa.

I can't tell if my namesake will run, but it should be good fun if she does.

$. Palin wrote:I can't tell if my namesake will run, but it should be good fun if she does.

I don't think she is going to run for two reasons. She hasn't done anything people planning to run do. Further, she can't win so why waste the time and go through the media hell again.

Actually, I have read somewhere that it is thought she just bought a house in Arizona (the buyers name was secret). The thought was that she did it to run for Senator John Kyl's Senate seat.

Someone on one of the Sunday shows seemed very skeptical about her running on the grounds that there are two "tell-all" books about her that are due to come out over the next little while.

archduke

I actually think that the nominee is not goingto be tied to this minority opinions

No? First I note you copped to them being minority opinions. Great.
Second, I understand your explanation about the primaries and independents. However the role of the Media and the pundits, and republicans in congress in focussing candidates on the core message is pretty clear.
Example: Pawlenty was castigated on Limbaugh the other day (according to a media blog, I didn't hear it) about comments from a few years ago about what he saw then as "the end of the small government non-intervention period". Apparently Pawlenty can tap dance.
Now, if he said that on tape anywhere (its quoted in a newspaper interview) you just know thats going to bite him in the ass with the core republican voter, if it hasn't already... And firebrands like Limbaugh won't let it ride... Now will his hard right opponents.
I'd like to think that you're right about the ability of a moderate republican to ride to the nomination by winning the independents in open primaries, but I think that the participation in primaries is mostly the hard core isn't it?
If the republicans tie themselves to Ryans plan to "fix" medicare, its a sure fire way to lose independents and even older republican voters. If every candidate lines up in suipport why would Independents even bother vopting in a primary? And I don't see any of the candidates coming out against Ryans plan. Do you? (I think only Suan Collins and Scott Brown are planning to vote against that and they are both being castigated as "unclean" by the faithful....)
Has anyone of the candidates for the nomination talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts? Again, thats an issue that Independents get behind. But no republican will stand for that consideration...
So they are tied to theose two issues already Archduke. Can they flip away from supporting the FIX or or the tax breaks now?
Yes, 57. And I thought one of the delegate selection events was "Democrats Abroad" .... So maybe there's actually 58 events for the dems?

tom

it would also take away a great deal of importance from some smaller states,

Yes but why should the smaller states have exagerated importance? What rationale constitutes a reasonable reason that a voter in new Hampshire should have the priviledge and the power afforded an early primary vote over a citizen of California ?
Shouldn't a voter in New York be as important as a voter in New Hampshire?
Forget the disparate importance produced by the electoral college and the enormous disparity of representattive power versus representation in the senate...
The primary system is fundamentally undemocratic and elitist when focussed on two small states early on.

rickyp wrote:I'd like to think that you're right about the ability of a moderate republican to ride to the nomination by winning the independents in open primaries, but I think that the participation in primaries is mostly the hard core isn't it?

I would argue that is limited to the closed primary states. For example in my home state of Pennsylvania, even though we are a purple state, we tend towards more extremists candidates because Independents are not allowed to vote. However, when Independents are allowed to vote in the primary, you see a larger turn out of them. Additionally, this is a Presidential election year which always see a larger turn out. Finally, two of the first three primaries (New Hampshire and Michigan) are in states were the Republicans tend to be more moderate even in the States extremes. Therefore, the moderate candidates will appeal to those states without tacking to the far right and will therefore have the momentum. Besides, who the heck else is going to get the vote? Even hard core conservatives are going to vote in the primary for who they think can beat Obama not who is the most conservative.

rickyp wrote:I'd If the republicans tie themselves to Ryans plan to "fix" medicare, its a sure fire way to lose independents and even older republican voters. If every candidate lines up in suipport why would Independents even bother vopting in a primary? And I don't see any of the candidates coming out against Ryans plan. Do you? (I think only Suan Collins and Scott Brown are planning to vote against that and they are both being castigated as "unclean" by the faithful....)

Well, I am pretty sure the Party is even backing away from the Ryan Medicare plan. However, if candidate spins it right, it won't piss off older voters because it doesn't effect people over age 55 and it won't be an issues for those under 55 because they don't vote based on medicare and what might be 10+ years from now.

rickyp wrote:I'd Has anyone of the candidates for the nomination talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts? Again, thats an issue that Independents get behind. But no republican will stand for that consideration...

Actually yes Republican voters would. Don't be fooled by what the pundits say. Also, the Bush Tax cuts aren't going to be that big of a wedge for Obama to run on. He agreed to extend them when he had overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate. He didn't even put of a fight. It will be too easy for the Republicans to spin as a negative against him.

Also the candidates are going to make appeals to the center because they know that is who is going to elect them. For example, Pawlenty made his announcement in Iowa yesterday. During his speech he said ethanol subsidies will most likely go away. He said this in Iowa. Another example is Huntsman. He is ignoring Iowa because he nows he has no chance in there. He is focusing on New Hampshire and South Carolina both of which allow Independents to vote and has been focusing on his message of fiscal issues.

Arch

During his speech he said ethanol subsidies will most likely go away. He said this in Iowa.

I noticed that.... Pretty ballsy.
Especially because the pundits seem to think Iowa is a Must Win for Pawlenty...

The Bush tax cuts have been extended till when? Could it be that Obama has timed the issue as a feature confrontation before the 2012? "Hey, I compromised once but the economy is moving and we have to address the budget deficit responsibly etc. etc."
I mean the cuts only directly affect 3% of the population right?

Here is part of Pawlenty's speech. In it he says he will go to Wall Street and talk financial reform and Florida and talk entitlement reform. So....

Beside, who the heck is Iowa going to vote for? Pawlenty is an evangelical Christian from the neighboring state? Do you really think they will vote for Santorum, Gingrinch or Bachmann? Hell, I come from Pennsylvania and voted for Santorum for Senate twice and I have never considered voting for him for President. With Huckabee and Daniels out, Pawlenty almost has a lock on Iowa. The only possible threat to him would be Sarah Palin.

As for the Bush tax cuts which part are you talking about? Raising the top rate from 35% back to 38% or taxing dividends and interest at capital gains rates or earned income rates. I am telling you the Bush tax cuts are not going to be an issue. Nobody and I mean nobody will vote for someone who says the are going to raise taxes. Even if it is only on 3% of the population. There is a great line from the West Wing (which I think was stolen from somewhere else actually). It went something along the lines of "The problem with the American Dream is everybody opposes taxes on the wealthy because they all think they will be rich some day." I don't agree that it is a problem but it is the truth. Obama can try to say I want to raise taxes on only the richest 3%. The spin is going to be Obama wants to raise taxes.

The vast majority of people are fine with tax increases on the wealthiest. They are also for ending the wars. But none of that translates into action by the parties.

After listening to Netanyahu's speech before Congress today, I'd say he could easily be the Republican front-runner if he could run.

Well if President Obama can be allowed to be Constitutionally electable... (Joke, people... Relax, I was kidding!)

archduke

I am telling you the Bush tax cuts are not going to be an issue. Nobody and I mean nobody will vote for someone who says the are going to raise taxes. Even if it is only on 3% of the population

.
The polling on this doesn't support your view. (All from before the debate in the fall.)
And between now and the end of the year, there weill be significant debate about cutting services and including medicare. Now if people are given the juxtaposition of ending tax breaks and cutting services? Which is how the debate will be framed.

I get it that Pawlenty is all about The Truth and telling American people the Truth. Its just interesting how he and his party will describe the truth...
One of the really interesting thing is how much of the deficit the Bush tax cuts are responsible for... If the Bush-era tax cuts are renewed next year, that policy will by 2019 be the single largest contributor to the nation's public debt -- "the sum of annual budget deficits, minus annual surpluses" -- according to new analysis from the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
chart here: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/

Hows Pawlenty on Bush tax cuts? (The name sure has stuck huh?)

bbauska wrote:Well if President Obama can be allowed to be Constitutionally electable... (Joke, people... Relax, I was kidding!)

Apparently he's Irish. Did the birthers think of that angle?

I wonder, perhaps one way to deal with the issue of some states having too much influence and others less...

How about if there were a lottery of the smaller states (say, excluding the largest 10) for which ones can hold a primary before Super Tuesday?