6 Responses to “I thought the Dems hated having extra elections!”

1. tkaptain@sbcglobal.net Says:
   January 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am

   Personally I hate the idea for a lot of reasons, some selfish, some not. One, an early primary destroys fundraising for a legislative primary because no one wants to give money before Christmas. It also in the past has stopped a lot of contests from happening because unless candidates were annointed by the party establishment on either side, it was too hard to line up support for a race because, once again no one wanted to do anything until after Christmas. Beyond all of that though, I think the country is better off with the smaller states having the earlier primaries. The only way an outsider can win is by building his name recognition in a state where he doesn’t need a lot of money. The people pushing this idea are big donors in both parties and others who are hoping for jobs in the next administration. Yes an early Presidential primary would improve California’s clout and give a lot of important people a chance to cut deals with national politico’s, but it would effectively eliminate 90% of the candidates who are not well enough known to make their case early in a state the size of California.

2. hoover@cts.com Says:
   January 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am

   They finally found a government program they want to reduce,
   the public’s right to vote.

   The “costly election” argument served them well in 2003,
   as the Gray Davis recall passed by only a Million Votes.

3. douglas_johnson@alumni.mckenna.edu Says:
   January 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am

   Can you imagine turnout in the legislative primary? Can you say 20% or lower?

   And Tom’s right, only the top-dollar campaigns will be able to afford CA TV, so the other candidates will still largely ignore the state. It will be a battle over pre-existing name ID. Is that really good for the country?

4. steven_maviglio@yahoo.com Says:
   January 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am

   Democrats opposed the special election because the ideas were ill thought out and didn’t go through the legislature. The people of California proved them right.

   The Governor had it right yesterday: California is being used as an ATM for cash for presidential candidates and we get nothing in return. If we are going to be a player, we need to move up our primary.

   I lived in New Hampshire and worked on presidential campaigns there for years. It’s not exactly reflective of America. And a candidate should be able to prove they can run and win in a big state in a primary if they are going to be a general election candidate. NH and Iowa will still be important.

   The traditional primary will likely include a number of initiatives in addition to legislative and statewide races.

5. hoover@cts.com Says:
   January 18th, 2007 at 12:00 am

   Meanwhile, back in the land of 2003…

   “The cost of the Oct. 7 recall election, pegged just two weeks ago by many
   Democrats at about $30 million, has more than doubled, with estimates now
   predicting taxpayers could shell out up to $67 million.

   Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said that whatever the cost, it is a waste of
   taxpayer money…. “The fact is, whether it’s $50 or $60 or $80 million, that’s
   millions of dollars that counties hadn’t planned on spending and won’t be
   spending on police and fire and other measures,” Maviglio said.

   The new figures have angered some Republicans, who believe Gov. Davis
   is trying to use the cost of the election as a major part of his strategy to con-
   vince voters to reject his recall.”
   Modesto Bee, Aug. 2, 2003 Modesto Bee, Aug. 2, 2003

6. tkaptain@sbcglobal.net Says:
   January 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am

   As far as New Hampshire not being representative, frankly I think Mr. Maviglio is underestimating the voters of his former state. Although I didn’t always agree with their choices, I think they have done a remarkable job throught the years of clarifying the issues and eliminating candidates that weren’t really ready for prime time as well as raising up leaders of both parties. As a Democrat, I certainly realize Bill Clinton would never have been the “Comeback Kid” without the chance to make his case to individual voters in New Hampshire and I know that choice caused voters throughout the country to take a second look at a candidate the media had just about killed off. Although he could clearly have won big state primaries, the same was true with Ronald Reagan on the Republican side. His showing in a New Hampshire debate was a big part of voters giving him one more chance to make his case for the nations highest office. Things are a lot different when you get candidates out from behind the TV camera’s and make them meet with real people and engage in the interplay of competing in a small state primary. I think that’s an important part of our Presidential nominating process. Combining New Hampshire with the early caucus in Iowa and now the Primary in Nevada and I think you have a pretty good cross section of America and a fair starting point for all candidates to make their case and if they do well, to move on to the bigger states. Right now I think we have an excellent crop of candidates on both sides in this election and the field could still grow. To limit this race to the already famous would mean instead of having several choices, we would have two candidates on the Democratic side and maybe a third (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) with no one else having a chance. To me, that’s not good for the American people.