Do the Dem 'powers that be' decide the ticket, or, the people?

[Sugarcoated]

Obviously I love Russ and the censure move. But I wonder, please wise Du'ers educate me on this, if his fellow Dems back away from him will he still be able to get a chance at being on the ticket? Could he overcome any bitterness this may have stirred up?

Maybe I'm naive, but always thought it was the people who chose.

[KG]

1. the ' people' decide nothing in this country.

[Selatius]

2. The people choose.....in theory anyway

But too many folks have simply become too reliant on the leadership for direction. If the leadership says you shouldn't vote for guy X because he's too radical, chances are a great number of people will believe it and vote for the "safe bet." It's really a give and take between the leadership and the people when in theory the leadership should never have so much influence over the people. Sometimes I think the power structure of the party has become too top-heavy.

The relationship between the people and the leadership was never supposed to be a co-equal or near co-equal relationship at all. In theory, the leadership is inferior and subordinate to the power of the citizenry. There should never be a question who holds the real power, but that's in theory only, not in practice.

[mod mom]

29. Tell that to Paul Hackett and the Ohio Voters who were denied the ability

to choose in a primary.

[BlueManDude]

3. I admire your belief in Feingold

but this constant talk of 2008 is annoying.

[bryant69]

11. I'm sure that Russ was at least partially thinking of 08

with this move, so it's totally legimate to bring it up.

The timing and the way he did it speak to a desire to shaft his possible opponents in 2008 - I'm glad he did it, but I don't think he's a political virgin.

As for who runs the party - naturally the people can vote for the nominee of their hearts desire - but, and this is a big but, the money men in the party have a lot of power. Someone who's broke and kept broke has a hard time getting their message out.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politcalcomment.blogspot.com

[hippiechick]

4. Nope, the 'leaders' with the bling bling make the decision ...

...and then just tell us that it was candidate so-and-so in a series of sweeping primary victories.

And we're supposed to believe it, and sign on for 6 months of legwork.

[400Years]

5. who chooses the chosen few?

the chosen few do.

seriously, yes we have the right to choose what candidate we want but in reality we are never given that choice.

[EST]

6. In theory, we do.

In fact, money does. By the way, on FSTV, I heard 60% of American adults have never read a single book. Small wonder we're in the shape we are in.

[TheWraith]

17. That factoid isn't true. NT.

[rinsd]

7. Do DUers equal the people is a better question....(nt)

[IsItJustMe]

8. I believe the media has more to do with it than anything else.

You get all of these political pundits going on all of these talk shows and they say this, that, the other, and come out with a poll; and before you know it the politicians and the voters are buying their bull.

I do believe that a good politician would be much better off using their own instincts.

I don't know why you would trust a media that said Iraq had nukes that were able to hit the US in 45 minutes. Kind of like the blind leading the blind.

[Warpy]

9. The people, if they are rich

Nobody wakes up one morning and decides to run for office above the level of city councilman (and sometimes not even that). He's approached by a group of businessmen who offer to back his run for office. It helps if he's wealthy in his own right, since he'll have to spend a fortune while he waits for donations to come in.

When we vote in the primary, we're choosing between cartels of businessmen. Do we want a candidate backed by banking, or would we prefer the one backed by the defense industry? Health insurance companies or agribusiness? That's the real choice we are making when we vote.

It was different for a short period of time when unions could counter these businessmen and propose prolabor candidates of their own, which is why unions had to be destroyed (if you didn't get that already).

We the people are now and always have been total chumps in this game.

[Yollam]

10. Sadly, people in Iowa and New Hampshire have a huge say...

Seems to me that the first primary should be in a more mainstream state like California.

[vssmith]

14. I agree!!

A small number of party faithfuls in Iowa got Kerry rolling in 2004 and he never looked back.

[FatDave]

24. Yollam, you took the words right out of my...fingers(?)

I've bitched for years that Iowa and NH get to choose the candidates. I bitched about it even when I lived in Iowa. Kerry was nothing until Iowa. Dean was the frontrunner by a sizable margin until then. And a good showing in IA usually carries over into NH. The primary system sucks.

But I don't think giving it to California is the solution either. Why not a series of nationwide primaries? Or every state hold their primary on the same day? Something can be done differently. Why should IA and NH get so much power?

Edit to add: By the time my state gets to have its primary, the decision's been made. Why do I get no say?

[Sugarcoated]

25. Things are pretty much done

by the time the primary gets to my state PA - it's ridiculous

[EST]

26. Yaaay! Same day primaries!

I'm for it.

[Yollam]

28. Your suggestion is fine too.

I just think that Iowa and NH are way too idiosyncratic to be the first primary states.

I mention CA because it has a huge population that better reflects the demographics that define America's future ( a lot of tech people, hispanic immigrants)

It would be great if the primary campaign didn't drag on as long.

[Sugarcoated]

12. I read that he generated alot of excitement in NH

rescently, alot of former Dean supporters attending his speeches. I feel a growing movement for Feingold, not just here at DU. What I'm trying to get at here is, if enough people want him to be president could that overcome the 'establishment'

[serryjw]

13. Around about way of answering your question

IF we learned ANYTHING from these 5 years it's not what you say but HOW you frame it. WE could sell the 'people' on FDR's New Deal liberal principals BUT OUR leadership chooses not to. The DNC raises money for campaigns, The DLC is the power that determines who will win..and it won't be a liberal. The majority of the power leadership in BOTH parties support corporate america..and that will not change until ALL Americans recognize they are getting screwed!

Professor Elizabeth Warren was on NOW with Bill Moyer many times. She has written about the two income lie and why we are in such trouble. This was written BEFORE the bankruptcy bill and the doubling of credit card balances now due monthly

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465090826/qid=1142454675/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-2086969-3439805?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. The Washington Elite decides. I'll give you a perfect example and THIS

is why I say THEY decide.

During the 2004 election primary, Terry McAuliffe was on Face The Nation talking about the primary race. During that conversation he said he couldn't wait to see JOHN KERRY debating George Bush.

Huh? The primary was STILL GOING ON and McAuliffe had already decided WHO HE WANTED US TO HAVE AS A CANDIDATE! We all saw how THAT played out, didn't we? Dean was trashed and Kerry was in like flint.:grr:

They choose for us.

[mattclearing]

16. He'll have to win the primaries.

He's certainly not going to be anyone's VP pick.

[Sugarcoated]

18. Why?

[TheWraith]

20. Wisconsin is a pretty safe state.

Feingold doesn't bring much to the table in terms of geography, demographics, and senators typically don't do well in presidential elections. If you were going to take a senator as VP candidate, you'd be better off with somebody like Barack Obama who could drive turnout.

[mattclearing]

21. Thanks.

Not to mention the fact that this broadside Censure move didn't endear him to anyone.

[TheWraith]

19. It's so hard to talk about anything here anymore.

It seems like DU has been overrun by negativistic paranoids of late. Everything is an evil conspiracy. I don't mean you, I mean most of the people who have replied to this thread.

To actually answer your question, it depends entirely on the rank-and-file reaction to Feingold, both in terms of primary votes and of money. Big donors can offer big money, but that's hardly the only way to raise funds.

Personally, I'm not sure how much support he's going to get. He strikes me more as a Dean type: beloved of the far left, but lacking the charisma and skill to make it on the larger stage. If he doesn't get average people behind him, he's a dead duck.

[mattclearing]

23. I think he has great charisma once people take note of him.

It's not like he's gotten national coverage before this...for a while people thought his first name was "McCain."

This censure move will get him coverage. I think he comes off much better than Dean on television, and I was a Dean guy.

He is certainly a great fighter. If you've seen Feingold in a debate, you know that he will be everything that Dems have ever dreamed of in a candidate...thoughtful, firm, and resolute.

He doesn't give any ground, and he sticks to his guns, which is rare on this side of the aisle these days.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. The $$$$$ decides the ticket in this oligarchy.

But, it keeps the people quiet to give them the illusion of democracy.

[derby378]

27. What Will Pitt told me once

Party leadership is integral in choosing candidates, where they will run and where the money goes. That has been the deal for 200 years. Like it or lump it, but that is the way it has always been on both sides of the aisle. Your idea that "the people" should choose is valid, but does not jibe with political reality. The people get to choose after the party leadership, which has a much better idea of the lay of the land and a better idea of resources to be allocated, etc, takes a look at that what and the where and the how. If you don't like this reality, stay away from politics, because it has always been this way and will always be this way.

I don't agree completely with Will, but he makes a good point. It is not in the best interests of the party for its leadership to endorse and nominate a candidate that the party rank-and-file are going to hate. But here's a radical idea: maybe "the people" should develop their own feel for the political terrain rather than relying on their leadership to do all the heavy lifting for them. Because of all the social and economic factors involved, however, this idea was pretty much a pipedream - until, that is, the maturation of the Internet and the rise of on-line blogging and activism. Now it's easier for Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else to stay in touch with each other and get the news not just from the other side of the fence, but of the fence beyond that, and the next fence, etc. Working together, we can develop our own lay of the land, and many of us have done just that.