The DNC has voted to place the NH primary three days after Nevada. It has gone so far as to threaten to remove delegates from any state which violates this new calendar. Not only is this a blatant violation of civil rights, but also a violation of NH state law, which mandates that our primary be first. Convenient, I know.
Our governor has declared that no convention has the right to set our state's primary date, and no convention will ever upset our primacy.
What are your feelings on this issue, if any at all?
It is not a violation of civil rights as nowhere within the Constitution is the right to a primary established. They are wholly created out of party rules to allow party members to choose a candidate. Thus, of course, because the thing's very existence stems from their own rules they can establish which primaries are "valid" and which are not (to send delegates). There already are non-binding primaries.
As for NH, I know it stinks for you guys, but you really ARE still the first primary. Caucuses really stink, and so long as you don't repeat the process of 04 of rubber-stamping the Iowa winner you still have a great impact. The point of inserting the Nevada caucus is that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of a huge voting block that's even huger in the Democratic party.
The DNC has voted to place the NH primary three days after Nevada. It has gone so far as to threaten to remove delegates from any state which violates this new calendar. Not only is this a blatant violation of civil rights, but also a violation of NH state law, which mandates that our primary be first. Convenient, I know.
Our governor has declared that no convention has the right to set our state's primary date, and no convention will ever upset our primacy.
What are your feelings on this issue, if any at all?
DNC vs NH, eh?
First Joe Lieberman and now this...
When the DNC shoots themselves in the foot, they really know how to shoot themselves in the foot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you can't laugh at yourself, then you don't know a good joke." ~BigGator5
I think the DNC is losing their grip on reality. Raise your hands if you agree with me.
*waves both hands in the air frantically*
No, really, I'm just drying my fingernails...:emo:
Wouldn't be surprised to find out that the primary is being forced on a Jewish holiday...or some other date that is impossible for a significant minority of partisans...dumbasses.
Some traditions are made to be broken. New Hampshire, no offense T2, isn't a significant enough state to hold a first primary, since it's pretty much whitey town. Nevada has a significant Hispanic population, and they were planning on putting South Carolina one of the first too, since they have a big African-American population. Things change, and the party needs to widen their demographic.
Even though I live in New Hampshire, I don't really care about Nevada having a caucus before us. It's just another caucus like Iowa, not a primary. And it's just the democratic one; nothing's been said about the republican one so far. I notice Mortal Wombat has already mentioned the non-diversity argument, which is true and a good point, but no one's mentioned the argument that people in NH have a better chance to actually meet the politicians in person rather than just watching them speak on TV or an airport runway. Still, New Hampshire's had the first primary for long enough. I'd be ok with letting another state have a turn. I personally think the primaries should be done like the national elections: everyone votes on one set date rather than a bunch of dates. There could be a bipartisan Senate comittee set up to regulate it and set the date so we don't have all the states and political parties fighting amongst themselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Warning: All info in this user's sig and profile may be woefully out of date.
500 character limit! Latest [499] Thread
Thanks to Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe (Nex3 & R&Doom) for avatar enhancements and banner creation.
When the DNC shoots themselves in the foot, they really know how to shoot themselves in the foot.
Yeah, those crazy Democrats. Getting national attention for their own message on a safely Democratic seat and then nominating that guy who agrees with more of their platforms. Putting in a caucus (so not breaking NH's "tradition" of first primary) that represents the West, blacks, latinos, and the lower-to-middle class Nevada as opposed to the affluent, Northeastern, white, New Hampshire. How dare they use national opinion to guide the nomination of a candidate for a national office.
Incompetent fools. They hold the state by a string and yet they toy with it. There will be hell to pay for the Democrats next go around.
New Hampshire is very tough to be a Democrat in to begin with. If you're far enough along in the state to be registered you aren't jumping ship because your state has to wait 3 days to get national attention. And again, New Hampshire hasn't done anything revolutionary anyways, in 2004 they just rubberstamped the results from Iowa anyways.
I think the DNC is losing their grip on reality. Raise your hands if you agree with me.
Explain to me how making primary voters have to wait a little for their national attention so the largest base the Democratic party has gets represented in a candidate is "losing their grip on reality"? There's a reason states in the West with growing Latino (and I'm not talking about illegals) populations vote Republican despite the massive majority of Latinos for Democratic candidates. When you elect a MA Senator who can't speak and doesn't campaign in the West coupled with a Southern one-term Senator who only tries (and fails) to break up the South a bit the Democratic party loses. When it plays to states like Colorado and the more traditional West where it has the social situations for some blue states you can win.
*waves both hands in the air frantically*
No, really, I'm just drying my fingernails...:emo:
Wouldn't be surprised to find out that the primary is being forced on a Jewish holiday...or some other date that is impossible for a significant minority of partisans...dumbasses.
It is not a violation of civil rights as nowhere within the Constitution is the right to a primary established. They are wholly created out of party rules to allow party members to choose a candidate. Thus, of course, because the thing's very existence stems from their own rules they can establish which primaries are "valid" and which are not (to send delegates). There already are non-binding primaries.
As for NH, I know it stinks for you guys, but you really ARE still the first primary. Caucuses really stink, and so long as you don't repeat the process of 04 of rubber-stamping the Iowa winner you still have a great impact. The point of inserting the Nevada caucus is that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of a huge voting block that's even huger in the Democratic party.
i agree. there is nothing in the constitution hat establishes a right to a primary. this is unfortunatly not a violation of civil rights.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Created By: FPM
American and Proud.
Quote from Prizm »
Doesn't America have the right to be a bit self-centered? I mean, American culture is THE dominant culture in the world. Every country is hugely affected by America economically, culturally, and politically. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, it would explain why we're self-centered, wouldn't it?
i agree. there is nothing in the constitution hat establishes a right to a primary. this is unfortunatly not a violation of civil rights.
I continue to be baffled. What is unfortunate about the DNC ensuring that the entire party, and not just the Northeastern white part, is represented in it's candidates for president (and given the VP is usually someone who does well in the primary chase) and VP?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The DNC has voted to place the NH primary three days after Nevada. It has gone so far as to threaten to remove delegates from any state which violates this new calendar. Not only is this a blatant violation of civil rights, but also a violation of NH state law, which mandates that our primary be first. Convenient, I know.
Our governor has declared that no convention has the right to set our state's primary date, and no convention will ever upset our primacy.
What are your feelings on this issue, if any at all?
As for NH, I know it stinks for you guys, but you really ARE still the first primary. Caucuses really stink, and so long as you don't repeat the process of 04 of rubber-stamping the Iowa winner you still have a great impact. The point of inserting the Nevada caucus is that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of a huge voting block that's even huger in the Democratic party.
First Joe Lieberman and now this...
When the DNC shoots themselves in the foot, they really know how to shoot themselves in the foot.
Save Stargate: SG-1!
Sign the Petition!
Save Stargate: SG-1!
Sign the Petition!
*waves both hands in the air frantically*
No, really, I'm just drying my fingernails...:emo:
Wouldn't be surprised to find out that the primary is being forced on a Jewish holiday...or some other date that is impossible for a significant minority of partisans...dumbasses.
500 character limit!
Latest [499] Thread
Thanks to Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe (Nex3 & R&Doom) for avatar enhancements and banner creation.
Yeah, those crazy Democrats. Getting national attention for their own message on a safely Democratic seat and then nominating that guy who agrees with more of their platforms. Putting in a caucus (so not breaking NH's "tradition" of first primary) that represents the West, blacks, latinos, and the lower-to-middle class Nevada as opposed to the affluent, Northeastern, white, New Hampshire. How dare they use national opinion to guide the nomination of a candidate for a national office.
New Hampshire is very tough to be a Democrat in to begin with. If you're far enough along in the state to be registered you aren't jumping ship because your state has to wait 3 days to get national attention. And again, New Hampshire hasn't done anything revolutionary anyways, in 2004 they just rubberstamped the results from Iowa anyways.
Explain to me how making primary voters have to wait a little for their national attention so the largest base the Democratic party has gets represented in a candidate is "losing their grip on reality"? There's a reason states in the West with growing Latino (and I'm not talking about illegals) populations vote Republican despite the massive majority of Latinos for Democratic candidates. When you elect a MA Senator who can't speak and doesn't campaign in the West coupled with a Southern one-term Senator who only tries (and fails) to break up the South a bit the Democratic party loses. When it plays to states like Colorado and the more traditional West where it has the social situations for some blue states you can win.
What the hell are you talking about?
i agree. there is nothing in the constitution hat establishes a right to a primary. this is unfortunatly not a violation of civil rights.
Created By: FPM
American and Proud.
Rock|on.|Sad|but|true.
I continue to be baffled. What is unfortunate about the DNC ensuring that the entire party, and not just the Northeastern white part, is represented in it's candidates for president (and given the VP is usually someone who does well in the primary chase) and VP?