The Seattle Times has some harsh words today for the Democratic party's actions regarding our state's potential Presidential Primary:
Ok, it's official. State Democratic Party insiders don't give a damn about ensuring Washington's unique assets, and challenges are on the radar of presidential candidates.
The editorial also discusses when to hold the election itself. Clearly, anything after February is likely to be near meaningless based on the current schedule of states. Some might say go earlier than the virtually national primary looming on February 5th, but that gets complicated because of national party restrictions and could set off a chain reaction of states moving that will have Iowa caucusing in December. I'm not kidding.
It would seem though that the February 5th date in question is so overloaded it would actually be worth holding our state's primary a week or two after on the hope of becoming a battleground if by chance a nominee isn't decided based on mixed results on uber-mega-super Tuesday. It's a bit of a chance, but the odds of actually getting attention with that huge slate on February 5th don't look good.
Thoughts?
Posted by Eric Earling at May 01, 2007 07:45 AM | Email ThisAnd what a vapid POV...I hate primaries...Give me a caucus filled with activists any time. Lincoln and Roosevelt (both)weren't primary products, and the republic survived. Iowa seems to attract a lot of attention from candidates with its caucuses, why not Washington?
But this notion that we have to hurry up in a rush to judgment? This, too, is foolish policy. At the rate we're going, we'll eventually start the nominating process the day after an election. This is Chicken Little thinking..."The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Let the political parties - and ONLY the political parties - determine what's an appropriate nominating process for each of them, and then ONLY let those who are willing to identify with a political party participate in the selection of that party's nominees. Political carpetbaggers need not apply.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on May 1, 2007 07:56 AMOnce they complete their election scams to take office, they ignore the will of the voters; or, instead, they whine and snivel like cut cats over, say, an Eyman initiative... because they never give a rip about the fact that the PEOPLE pass these things... and the dems busily put emergency clauses on bills; while looking at various ways to make our cherished process even MORE difficult.
How often has dem leadership told us we're too stupid to understand the issues, and that we shouldn't be allowed to vote? How many times have democrats introduced bills to severely limit or even eliminate this process?
Is it any surprise, then, that the dem leadership would completely ignore even the will of their OWN people when they don't have to?
Posted by: Hinton on May 1, 2007 09:41 AMEspecially with the Rs.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2007 09:41 AMIf the parties want money to run a primary, though, then I should get a right to vote even though I am not a registered D or R.
I think the parties have every right to pick the candidate of their own in the manner they choose.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2007 10:07 AMWe should have canceled the primary and saved the money when we had the chance.
Posted by: Giffy on May 1, 2007 10:37 AMI don't know why Stefan is so big on keeping it around. Besides with mere 11 electoral votes it's not like we're actually an important state.
But then again, I have for several years wanted a national primary date. Let Iowa and NH have their special dates, and then everyone else on the same date after that. Now, I would prefer more time between them, maybe the end of February, but this'll do.
As to the primary, I like how it is done right now. The masses get a voice if they choose to vote in the GOP primary, but the main voice is reserved for those who actually choose to get involved.
Dick Muri
Vice President South Sound Ronald Reagan Republican Club
Republican Precinct Officer 28-451
home - 116 Lila Street, Steilacoom, WA 98388-1418
home - dickmuri@aol.com, home - 253-581-5609
http://www.ronaldreaganclub.net
We had a straw poll in the Snohomish County caucuses earlier this year. Thompson won with 31%, followed by Mitt and then Newt.
Posted by: pudge on May 1, 2007 07:46 PMWorld without end, amen.
Posted by: Jericho on May 1, 2007 09:00 PMWhat are you smoking, and can I have some?
This state's republican party needs to get more people into the habit of voting for republicans, not less people, hence get even the democrats to vote in the republican primary what's the worse that could happen? Giuliani wins the primary rather than someone who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to carry this state in the General Election.
Caucuses might be an option for the parties, but it really isn't a smart one for picking statewide candidates. Those who attend them get big headed and think they are the ones who should choose the candidate, not realizing that maybe it's the people who actually will be voting in the general election that should be choosing, if they want their candidate to win (this holds more true to a minority party such as ours.)
Posted by: Doug on May 1, 2007 10:36 PMIt doesn't matter if our state's voters pick someone "electable" in this state, if that person has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination. (I also think that Fred Thompson is eminently electable in every state outside of the Northeast, including Washington, depending on who he is running against.)
It's odd that you say "This state's republican party needs to get more people into the habit of voting for republicans" and then in the next breath talk about people supporting someone who disagrees with many fundamental planks of the Republican platform. I am not going to say he is not a Republican, but he certainly does not well-represent Republicans across the country.
I don't believe Giuliani seriously thinks he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. I've thought from the beginning that he is running for VP. The GOP simply will not nominate someone who is either anti-gun or pro-choice, let alone both. He wants to license gun owners, for crying out loud. He cannot possibly be nominated, unless everyone else drops out. And even if he does, hell, I'll run against him and win.
Also, your entire post is based on the erroneous claim that the Republicans don't support a presidential primary in this state, since as you well know, that is false.
I don't believe those attending the caucuses in this state will choose the most conservative candidate that has a sufficiently reasonable chance to win rather they will pick the most conservative candidate that has at least a remote chance to win.
I only use Guiliani as an example, the exercise was to show that a primary, which draws a larger and more accurate sampling of what the general population wants to vote for, would result in a candidate with a far more reasonable chance to win in the primary.
The McGovern election and the Robertson elections are great examples of a party's voters being 'turned off' because of the nomination process/results when it came time for the General election. In a state where 30,000 votes can make a difference, we don't need to be turning off our republican general election voters because you want to find someone who sticks to the party platform - which of course you probably can't find an elected official who ever did.
Posted by: Doug on May 1, 2007 11:50 PMYes, I agree. And that man is Fred Thompson. He is the best candidate in the field to win the election, and one of the most conservative. Maybe he doesn't have as good a chance as some others to win in Washington itself, but would you rather win Washington or win the Presidency?
I hope it's the latter ...
those running the state party who want to ignore the primary election don't feel that way
Please, please, stop repeating this. It's not true. The state party is not being run by people who want to ignore the primary, and in fact, they are recognizing the primary, as they always have.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it, or drop it.
I don't believe those attending the caucuses in this state will choose the most conservative candidate that has a sufficiently reasonable chance to win rather they will pick the most conservative candidate that has at least a remote chance to win.
Shrug. All the polls I see among activists show Fred Thompson winning by a wide margin, and he has an excellent chance of winning the electoral college.
There is no reasonable comparison between Fred Thompson and Pat Robertson. If I were talking about Newt Gingrich, that would be a different story (although he is not nearly as poor a candidate as Robertson, either).
I would have supported Newt in earlier polls if not for the fact that I don't believe he has a good shot at winning. Electability is a significant factor for many (though certainly not all) caucus participants. And Thompson is very electable.
In a state where 30,000 votes can make a difference, we don't need to be turning off our republican general election voters because you want to find someone who sticks to the party platform - which of course you probably can't find an elected official who ever did.
I never said anything about sticking to the party platform. What I said was that we cannot -- and I don't simply mean I don't want it to happen, I mean it is not possible to -- nominate someone who significantly disagrees on fundamental planks of the platform.
For example, we could not nominate someone who wanted to abolish all private property rights. That would utterly destroy the Republican party, even if it somehow happened. Half the party would leave the party, overnight.
It's one thing to favor embryonic stem cell research. It's quite another to want to force all gun owners to be licensed. Giuliani literally has no chance here, once his views become known (and they will). He will not be nominated. And frankly, I don't think he even has a reasonable chance of winning a partisan (non-blanket) primary in Washington, for the same reason.
I suppose if the rest of the vote gets fractured, he could pull out a victory, but that can't happen nationwide, because even though the frontloaded primary season will allow for significant fracturing of the votes, you need half to get the nomination. So he could be winning on the way into the convention, but the rest of the votes would coalesce around someone else.
I know you were just using Giuliani as an example, but so am I: he is someone who could possibly win the primary, but he has no chance of winning the nomination. I concede it would be bad for the party to nominate a Pat Robertson (though I assert it won't happen), but I think it would be equally bad to nominate a Rudy Guiliani: it would be a lost cause, and would alienate a huge percentage of the Republican activists without whom the party would be dead.
I am hoping to be a delegate to the national convention, and I've got a good shot at it, being the 39th LD chair in Snohomish County. It's gonna be a load of fun ...
In early March the GOP executive board almost unanimously chose to ignore the primary, that decision doesn't go into effect until the whole committee votes on it. Proof enough that the GOP leadership or a majority in it wants to part with the primary.
"would you rather win Washington or win the presidency?" - Washington state is worth 10 electoral votes last time I looked. That could be just enough to win the presidency. Your question should be Would you rather win Washington with a less conservative candidate or try to win the Presidency with a more conservative candidate. Polling data will be available that will show how each candidate fairs against each potential Democratic nominee. Come 2008, the Republicans should have chosen the most conservative candidate that is shown to have the most likely ability to beat the Democrats most likely potential nominee.
Currently, Fred Thompson doesn't have an excellent chance of winning the electoral college. Something could change by January, but if it doesn't the Republicans would be foolish to risk it unless he had a reasonable chance to win.
As such, your activist polling is biased towards a minority of the general electorate and as Thompson may poll in activist circles as having a good chance to win the nomination it begs the question, Would you rather have Washington nominate the candidate who wins the nomination or nominate the candidate who wins the general election?
Don't fret about the Presidential nominee's specific stances on a few issues like gun control or abortion. That is why we have a Senate, to ensure that the President toes the party line, he himself doesn't have any power to affect gun control or abortion without willing accomplishes in Congress. A bigger worry is when the President doesn't toe the party line on stuff such as spending and increasing the size of the Federal government, because it is too natural for Congressional members to go along with that.
That is somewhat of a misrepresentation of what happened. They did not choose that, because no choice was made. They informally arrived at a consensus, and that was only because the legislature was considering canceling the primary.
The Executive Board does not make this choice, as you point out, and I fully expect that if there is a primary -- which I expect there will be -- the GOP will allocate in part based on its result, as it always has.
"would you rather win Washington or win the presidency?" - Washington state is worth 10 electoral votes last time I looked. That could be just enough to win the presidency.
It's been awhile since I took math class, but no, I am certain it requires 270, not 10!
Your question should be Would you rather win Washington with a less conservative candidate or try to win the Presidency with a more conservative candidate.
I thought my point was obvious: you are focusing on WA, but WA is only a small part of the equation. We won the last two Presidential elections without WA, after all. This is not about conservative vs. less conservative. Thompson is more conservative than Romney and McCain and Giuliani, and I think he has a much better chance of winning nationwide than any of them. While they may all have a better chance of winning WA, any GOP candidate is still a major longshot to win this state.
Come 2008, the Republicans should have chosen the most conservative candidate that is shown to have the most likely ability to beat the Democrats most likely potential nominee.
Exactly. And that person very well might be someone different than the voters of Washington would select.
Currently, Fred Thompson doesn't have an excellent chance of winning the electoral college.
Yes, he really does. Better than any other GOP candidate.
You're looking at national polls. Those are meaningless. Most people have either never heard of Fred Thompson or don't know anything about him. If he runs, that will, obviously, change, and he will immediately become the frontrunner as people see him for the first time as a candidate.
Would you rather have Washington nominate the candidate who wins the nomination or nominate the candidate who wins the general election?
The latter, of course. Which is why we should support Thompson.
Don't fret about the Presidential nominee's specific stances on a few issues like gun control or abortion. That is why we have a Senate, to ensure that the President toes the party line, he himself doesn't have any power to affect gun control or abortion without willing accomplishes in Congress.
Wow. Um, no. Not even close. Most of what we are seeing in the fight over gun rights are court battles, and the President directly influences through policy and appointment which cases will be argued, and how they will be argued. That's one of the things I loved about Ashcroft, as he made protection of individual gun rights a priority.
And worse, right now, Bush would veto the AWB that is working its way through Congress. Giuliani would sign it. Sure, if the GOP takes the Senate back, this could be fixed, but that's a big If. We can't take that chance.
I was told I should vote for Kerry in 2004 because if Kerry won, then he would be stifled by a GOP Congress and we would probably spend LESS money than under Bush. That's true, but only a given for the next two years. If Kerry were President now, and had a Democratic Congress, we would be spending MORE than we are under Bush.
If Giuliani were the only candidate who could win, you may have a point here. Better him than a Democrat. But he has a WORSE chance of winning the Presidency than Thompson does.
The republican party operatives in this state will someday realize that when 30% or more of the electorate are independent voters and only 10-15% are activist Republicans, that the Republican candidate will only win if they appeal to a majority block of the independent voters. The Great Communicator was able to do that, we haven't seen anything like that since. Romney won't, Thompson won't. Giulliani, (assuming he was further to the right) would have been the type of character that could appeal to the independents while retaining a conservative nature like the Gipper. We are probably still searching, though time is running out and we'll have to go with electability this election cycle if Iraq doesn't turn around quickly.
Same thing with statewide politics, the Republican candidates are hamstrung in this state by the pervasive appearance that in this state Republicans are against public education (i.e. the children), and against public services. Rossi, bless is heart, is our Communicator, and I'm hoping that Zarelli fellow gets some more air time at some point.
Newt even figured it out, yes you have to get out the base, but you have to have a big picture that attracts independents to vote your party. The Contract of America wasn't about abortion, gun control, charter schools or the like, it was about things the average citizen could comprehend - - much like having the ability to have their vote count. This state's republicans should take this opportunity and ride it and not squander it.
Posted by: Doug on May 2, 2007 07:59 PMThat's fine.
National polls as a whole are fairly accurate if you add about 3% for the Republican candidate.
No, they are not. Not this early, not at all. In a Feb. 2003 nationwide poll among Democratic voters, Hillary had 40 percent, Lieberman 15, Kerry and Gephardt 11, Edwards 7, Dean 3.
As you know, less than a year later, the results were completely different, except with respect to Kerry. He was on top, Edwards and Dean were right behind, and Gephardt and Lieberman nowhere to be seen.
And the parallels are obvious: Dean and Edwards were, like Thompson, not well known nationwide. But they gained a big following along the way. Thompson will do the same, but better, because he is a much better candidate. Things are going to change a lot if Thompson gets into the race and gets some exposure.
When you get close to the election, yes, polls are accurate. But not now.
Since Rudy is the only candidate so far who beats the Democratic frontrunners, and since he outpolls Thompson 3:1, currently he has the better chance.
I disagree entirely. There is only one advantage Rudy has over Thompson: he is in the race now. If Thompson joins the race soon, he will be the frontrunner within two months.
Neither Thompson nor Romney will gain enough to overtake the Democrats once they are more known, unless outside events help Republicans as a whole.
I disagree entirely. Thompson will beat most Democratic candidates head-to-head, regardless of events.
The republican party operatives in this state will someday realize that when 30% or more of the electorate are independent voters and only 10-15% are activist Republicans, that the Republican candidate will only win if they appeal to a majority block of the independent voters.
Yes, and that is why Rossi is such a great candidate. But this is not a statewide office. Again, our goal is not to win WA for the Presidency, but to win the Presidency. Ideally, we would do both, but if we had to pick one, it would be the latter.
I agree with you on the principle of appealing to independents, we just disagree on who will have appeal. You seem to assume that because I support Thompson, I am willing to support someone without broad appeal. No, I think he has the broadest appeal.
The Great Communicator was able to do that, we haven't seen anything like that since. Romney won't, Thompson won't.
I was talking to a friend of mine who lives in PA. He lived in WA for years. He is a very typical WA independent voter, in many respects. Fiscally conservative, believes in civil rights and gun rights, hates party labels. His preferred candidate is Fred Thompson because, he told me today, he is so much like Reagan (and he wasn't talking about the acting thing, either).
Ronald Reagan's broad appeal is precisely why I believe Thompson is the best candidate. Thompson is the first potential GOP candidate in a long time that is experienced, and is a principled conservative, and has a strong and clear foreign policy, and communicates not only conservative principles but well-explains to citizens why and how his policies flow from those principles, and so on.
So, I just could not disagree with you more when you say Thompson won't do that. I was saying in February to my PCOs that what we really needed was a Reagan, someone to carry the conservative banner. And when I saw Thompson on TV saying he was considering running, the first thought to cross my mind was, "that's it."