02-18-2004, 07:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2004, 07:10 PM by Occhidiangela.)
The time it takes to go to all those states? Do you see some problem with the grinning and gripping requirement? Are you suggesting that the primaries should take place without the candidates actually going out and meeting people? You are right, you are not from America. It is part of our thing: gripping and grinning.
See the post by DarkCrown with the nice link to the Primaries site.
Are you suggesting that the political elites of Europe, in their various parties, need not meet their huddled masses? Don't they? Is it all by proxy?
Could it be that the average European does not appreciate how big our country is, in acreage and in diversity of viewpoint? I doubt that, viewpoints vary plenty in Europe: lots of parties and agendas. (My fave was Bossi's move to get Northern Italy to secede and resurrect Padonia!) I imagine any European even modestly interested in politics would understand having to reach many constituencies . . . or maybe not. Maybe the multi party approach reduces the need to have to please variations on your own platform's theme to get a vote, you leave that to the coalition building process at the high end. Hmmmmm, food for thought.
May I ask why the local parties and local interests should not get their turn with the candidates? That process does some good things. It shows who has staying power. Look at what happened to Senator McCain in South Carolina. It shows who can plan and map out a strategy. It can show flash in the pan candidates for who they are.
Jack Kemp never got far in a primary.
It likely prevents a dark horse candidate coming from a smoke filled room, and replaces him with a Bill Clinton, a pure image no substance candidate who used hype momentum to win his party's nomination, even with his Jennifer Flowers scandal all over the papers. That was something a lot of people apparently wanted, a more Teflon president, like Reagan. :)
If any state's voters claim that their late place in the primary is a detriment to their influence, then perhaps there needs to be a lottery for primaries. :) Bugger New Hampshire, for example, I don't care what their voters think! Why not have primaries go from smallest to largest? The "biggest for last" may create more uncertainty, or may merely cater to the richest warchests.
Or, maybe, have mass debates to choose candidates, with one getting voted off the stage after each debate.
Maybe I am on to something there. Heck, most politicians are just a bunch of mass debaters anyway. ;)
See the post by DarkCrown with the nice link to the Primaries site.
Are you suggesting that the political elites of Europe, in their various parties, need not meet their huddled masses? Don't they? Is it all by proxy?
Could it be that the average European does not appreciate how big our country is, in acreage and in diversity of viewpoint? I doubt that, viewpoints vary plenty in Europe: lots of parties and agendas. (My fave was Bossi's move to get Northern Italy to secede and resurrect Padonia!) I imagine any European even modestly interested in politics would understand having to reach many constituencies . . . or maybe not. Maybe the multi party approach reduces the need to have to please variations on your own platform's theme to get a vote, you leave that to the coalition building process at the high end. Hmmmmm, food for thought.
May I ask why the local parties and local interests should not get their turn with the candidates? That process does some good things. It shows who has staying power. Look at what happened to Senator McCain in South Carolina. It shows who can plan and map out a strategy. It can show flash in the pan candidates for who they are.
Jack Kemp never got far in a primary.
It likely prevents a dark horse candidate coming from a smoke filled room, and replaces him with a Bill Clinton, a pure image no substance candidate who used hype momentum to win his party's nomination, even with his Jennifer Flowers scandal all over the papers. That was something a lot of people apparently wanted, a more Teflon president, like Reagan. :)
If any state's voters claim that their late place in the primary is a detriment to their influence, then perhaps there needs to be a lottery for primaries. :) Bugger New Hampshire, for example, I don't care what their voters think! Why not have primaries go from smallest to largest? The "biggest for last" may create more uncertainty, or may merely cater to the richest warchests.
Or, maybe, have mass debates to choose candidates, with one getting voted off the stage after each debate.
Maybe I am on to something there. Heck, most politicians are just a bunch of mass debaters anyway. ;)
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete