am i crazy to be getting upset???

[bearfartinthewoods]

as mad as it made me to see my vote made irrelevant in the primaries because the nomination is always settled by the time i get to vote in PA., i got used to it.

as mad as it made me to see our selection for the candidate for the most important job in the world overly influenced by a couple million people in vermont and iowa, i got over it.

now, because of this new internet approach to campaigning, i'm am seeing my vote dispatched by a hundred thousand internet users.

should i be upset?

should i be upset that the primaries are now irrelevent because of polling that is done four months before the first vote is cast? am i foolish to worry that the canndidate's worthiness and positions can be secondary to the fervor of those who log on in his favor.

can i worry that meet ups are replacing voting booths?

am i wrong to wonder if the quality of the campaign may soon surpass the qualities of the candidate?

i feel so disenfranchised and i haven't a clue as to what to do about it. tell me why i'm wrong...please?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. I'd rate this post as decidedly anti-Dean

(the Vermont instead of NH reference is a sure clue).... however, you have my complete sympathy. But don't worry. There is a long way to go and not a single vote has been cast.
Kerry's got legs and he plans to use them all the way to Boston.

[mdmc]

3. Clark and Leiberman are punting IA

so they must concentrate on later primary states.

[bearfartinthewoods]

7. would it matter if i swore on my best dog that i'd be posting this

no matter who was in the lead? because it's true. the process, flawed as it is, used to mean something. the vote is there for anyone who chooses to exercise it.

now, only the internet savy seem to matter. what about people who don't focus on the race a year+ out? what about people who are too busy or too elderly or too poor to be on the net. if the candidate is chosen before they have a chance to vote, why shouldn't we all be concerned about that?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. I think there have been proposals for a national primary

or series of. The super Tuesday idea was good I think. This year is ridiculously front loaded.
Look at what's going down March 2:
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington Primaries.
I'd say that's about half the delegates. With several key contests in the month before. And NH only 5 weeks previous on Jan. 27

http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/dem_sched04.htm

[mdmc]

2. I live in NY

so I am in the same boat.
There are many ways to remain "enfranchised."
1] Become a national delegate.
2] You can carry nominating petitions to get your candidate on to the states primary ballot. Even if you lose, at least people will get the opportunity to support you.
3] You can write letters or voluenteer in IA or NH. Folks up in Nashua will look at you funny if you tell them that you traveled from PA to persuade them to get out and vote! Its fun.

The quality of a campaign IS an indication of the quality of the candidate. Raygun had a 'quality' campaign and administration. His staff helped him do what he did. Dig it...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. IF you weren't getting upset, I'd be more worried

Campaigns are taking the role of rock concerts lately. Frankly, the fact that a qualified candidate Like Bob Graham had to drop so early in favor of candidates with NO political track record (even though I don't dislike them) is a cause for alarm.

Now you know how I feel seeing Arnold use a Hollywood movie release campaign to seduce voters into voting then hoisting his true agenda (void of a TRUE budgetary solution as he has NOW admitted before he is even sworn in) on the public and getting away with it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Re: Graham

It's almost heartbreaking. If I never saw Graham speak on TV and simply read the papers I might have voted for him in another day and age. He and Kerry had the deepest resumes and experience- really Graham more so due to his having been governor of Florida.

[Bandit]

9. Graham has positioned himself quite well~ Don't pity him

He will be in the next Administration have no fear.

[MGKrebs]

6. Look on the bright side,

if my experience is any indication, the people who are going to meetups (and perhaps participating electronically) are getting informed and involved. Not just getting the feeding-tube news from the TV. This seems like a step in the right direction.

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. it depends

to how many different candidate's meetups are they going? to how many blogs are they logging in? are they reading or learning about all the candidate's or have they been scooped up into the fervor of the best managed candidates?

the word phenomena keeps surfacing. and now juggarnaut. is this healthy? we're talking about a country that routinely goes wacko over the newest tv phenom. remember survivor? who wants to be a millionaire or marry a millioner or marry the gal that was rejected by a faux millionaire?

we, as a country have made getting swept up a national pastime and now this acceleration of the process could make it uncool to even be still pondering who to support at this still early date.

six months ago, i was castigated, here, for not declaring who i supported. that's a year and a half out. that's months before most of the candidates had even declared. and the pressure was on to decide. we have a situation in which most dems can't name more than one or two candidates and i'm worried that it's all over but the formalities. i wonder if all the people who won't be involved in the choice will also feel uninvested in the election as well.

[Bandit]

10. We live in a new age ~ Get used to it

You think Bush* didn't have a juggernaut in place to overwhelm any "Good" candidate. At least we have nine candidates working toward a goal a year in advance of any elections. That is a good thing IMHO. It takes a lot of people working hard to penetrate the Media Bias that we currently have in place. If not for the internet most information on any of our candidates would never make it into the light of day.

[jafap]

12. it did not seem to hurt the Republicans

Back in 1999 I was kinda disgusted how Elizabeth Dole dropped out of the race before a single vote was cast. People who give $$$ matter more than people who only cast votes.

Most of the races that I can remember have been decided early. I cannot even remember the 1992 primaries. Who did Clinton beat? Jerry Brown?

Also, those of us without law degrees are not that concerned about a candidates "political experience". Certainly we have had Presidents in our country who had no political experience. For example, Grant and Ike.

At least if the internet makes the difference, then people from all over the country get to decide, not just those with money or an early primary. As far as old people being disenfranchised - ha! ha! and double ha! AARP rules the legislative process even more than Israel does. They may not get to decide who the candidate is, but you can be sure that whoever it is will jump when they say "how high?" (sic)

[blm]

11. The internet does help to generate press, because they are linked.

That does leave out an entire portion of the citizen electorate. Nope...you're not crazy. Actually, this quite a thoughtful post.

[stickdog]

13. Of course you're not crazy. You're for the establishment and Dean

is beating the establishment.

I'm against the establishment, so I think Dean's grassroots campaign is the best thing to hit this nation since Harry Truman.

[bearfartinthewoods]

15. ok...my best dog and all the cats.

try to imagine a subject that is not focused on a particular candidate.

[demrebel]

16. Your upset with the clintons trying to mess up Dean like me

We need to tell the clintons they are retired and take their bush like military general and go somewhere. Let us all get behind Dean and have a real left vrs rigth election.

If we all got behind dean now, he would have money to go against bush. No many of you listen to the lying Clintons with this pro war general that is a bush lover and we waste our money.

Would someone have the backbone and take on the clintons. You would zoom in the polls. Remember what happen to clinton when he took on Jesse Jackson. We need to root out the has been bush look a likes and put up young smart (no lawyers)people who stand for what dems believe.

[blm]

17. Why would I, a longtime liberal, get behind a centrist like Dean?

Dean is one of the Dems who pulled the party rightward throughout the 90s. He even pushed for electricity deregulation. This act he's playing out as the outraged populist is a new one for him. His governing style for 11 years was as a compromising centrist.

I prefer someone with an actual record as a progressive and liberal. No 10 month old conversions for me.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. Why would liberals vote for a right-winger like Dean?

Sure he's a social liberal, like everyone here on DU, but Dean has a long history of pro-corporate right wing economics - what possible reason would I have to vote for him?

[blm]

21. heheh...same page....

but, something tells me this is just an opportunity to bash the Clintons and using Dean as a smokescreen.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi demrebel!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Ardee]

24. well ytou are one third right anyway

Only one Clinton is retired, one is a senator you might have noticed and the younger has just begun a promising career.

Dare I say that you are also mischaracterising Dean as being on the left as well. Please,please google up his record as governor and you might understand that he is a firm centrist. There are candidates who are really left of center in the race, Kucinich and Sharpton come to mind.......With Dean we get a race to the center, one in which I believe Bush will have an advantage.

[janekat]

20. The primary system has always been really screwed up

n/t

[Tansy_Gold]

22. The primary system IS screwed up, but is it any worse. . . . .

. . . . than having The Nominee chosen by a few power players in a smoke filled room with virtually no input from the voters?

Let's face it, that's what the BFEE did in 2000. They chose the monkey boy and made sure he got the nomination.

Now, are the Dems going to take the moral high ground and allow "the people" to select the party's nominee via the primaries, or are they going to work for a victory via concerted and focused effort?

I've advocated for some kind of hermaphroditic compromise, in which party leadership offers the second tier candidates both a voice and a position in the campaign and the administration, as well as narrows the field to the truly viable candidates, and maybe even trims one or two of those.

The October 9 "debate" was such a circus because there were too many candidates, too many issues, not enough focus. A shambles. And worse, too many candidates -- after all, they are vying against each other -- bashing their fellows instead of bashing the real enemy. Eventually, one of these people is going to be "our" nominee, and we are all going to have to get behind her or him, but the animosity is already growing. "I could NEVER vote for Dean" or "I can't support anyone but Kucinich."

I think that the polls right now are misleading, and they may be our salvation and/or our downfall. While we get individual state polls -- Dean is ahead in one state, Edwards in another, Gephardt in another,etc. -- I haven't seen (maybe it exists, but I haven't seen it) how the candidates are faring in terms of convention delegate votes. That's the crucial issue.

Depending on how those delegate votes shake out, we could end up with something not too different from the 2000 national election: A candidate who gets more popular primary votes but not a clear majority of delegate votes. And if there's no majority for a pre-convention guarantee of a first ballot nomination, all the primary votes could be effectively nullified, and the whole thing turned over to the delegates.

Is that a good thing? I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. Is it a bad thing? Well, I think it has inherent weaknesses for the home stretch campaign of Labor Day to Election Day. I think we've already spent a lot of money and a lot of energy that will be badly needed and never recoverable come next September and October.

If we go into the July convention without a nominee, what kind of animosities and "I refuse to vote for X no matter what!" attitudes will have been solidified by then? The internecine fighting is what scares me more than anything -- it's suicide, and the Pukes will lap it up. (pun disgustingly intended) And every dollar that's raised and spent now will not be available for the run for the roses.

I don't have an avatar and I don't think I've come out particularly strong on this board for any candidate. Do I have a favorite? Yeah, sort of. Are there any I couldn't support and vote for next November? Nope, not a one. Do I think the present system is flawed. Absolutely. Do I have a perfect solution.

In my dreams.

Tansy Gold

[Eloriel]

23. I don't know how you can possibly claim, as you did downthread

(or upthread from here) that your post has nothing to do with Dean.

now, because of this new internet approach to campaigning, i'm am seeing my vote dispatched by a hundred thousand internet users.

should i be upset?

should i be upset that the primaries are now irrelevent because of polling that is done four months before the first vote is cast? am i foolish to worry that the canndidate's worthiness and positions can be secondary to the fervor of those who log on in his favor.


There is no candidate other than Dean who fits this -- not even Clark.

Further, it's so totally off-base that it's not even funny. Dean couldn't capture the internet were he not a viable candidate that is waking people up, energizing them (and not just the base, but pretty much across the political spectrum), and empowering them. THAT is Dean's appeal. The internet just happens to be a tool he and Trippi have been smart enough to capitalize on.

Several other candidates have been trying this new-fangled internet approach and it's not working for them. Why? They're not Dean. It's about DEAN who happens to use the internet well. It's not about the internet which just any old candidate could use to as much advantage as Dean.

Furthermore, Dean's success isn't JUST the internet. Not by a long shot. People seem to want to think he hasn't been out there for well over a year hoofing it, working the early caucus and primary states (and a bunch of others), doing the retail politics right along with the growth in the internet phenomenon.

You know what's happening right now in the Dean campaign? Thousands of letters and soon to be hundreds of thousands of letters -- handwritten letters -- from Dean supporters in other states to Iowa and New Hampshire voters. I sent several off myself today. Now, the internet makes that real easy (and cheap!) to organize, but this is taking it to the streets (or mailboxes, as it were), not cyberspace.

They've organized a number of canvassing expeditions in IA and New Hampshire -- people from other states coming up to help. There were the "Texas Rangers" a few weeks ago, several hundred of them that took buses up for a weekend of canvassing.

Here in Georgia there are canvassing days in several counties scheduled this month.

Rest assured, my dear, the internet is not stealing your vote.

You know, sorry to be peevish, but I see so many totally wrongheaded ideas here on DU about Dean and especially his campaign and I'm thoroughly tired of it. Frankly, I wish people would get a farking clue before they start spouting off.

Eloriel

[JNelson6563]

25. it's about time!

now, because of this new internet approach to campaigning, i'm am seeing my vote dispatched by a hundred thousand internet users.

We Dems stood idly by while the Rs took TV and talk radio. We have seized the internet. Sure beats what we did before this (that would be caught unaware and impotent).

Dean's campaign has made the most effective use of this among other good choices. If it had been your candidate you'd be rejoicing. Not lamenting.

Julie

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

27. thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNET ;-)

:bounce:

peace

[Upfront]

28. Wake Up.

What is, is. Face facts and get on board the Dean train.