No it won't. By the time Indiana votes Pennsylvania will have long since been over. Clinton will have run out of firewalls and the nomination will be decided one way or the other by then.

Don't see why, Huckabee's no longer in the running.

Sitting in NC drumming my fingers.
....again.

ODDwhun: No it won't. By the time Indiana votes Pennsylvania will have long since been over. Clinton will have run out of firewalls and the nomination will be decided one way or the other by then.

We said that about Texas and Ohio.

blackminded: We said that about Texas and Ohio.

Yes, but with TX and OH Clinton had a strong lead in the polls and all she had to do was hold it, so she had a leg to stand on in calling them her firewall. IN and NC have both been polling strong for Obama for a long time. Plus neither of them fits her qualification for states that matter, they both have smaller population then the "Big" states, IN is a midwest red state, and NC has too many black people.

So, the Dems. are going to beat each other up while McCain wins the presidency I guess.

Generation_D: Don't see why, Huckabee's no longer in the running.

LOL. We won't matter come November (most of us will grudgingly vote for McCain), but we might actually have a say in who is on the Democratic ticket. It's very exciting for us. Usually, if a candidate visits Indiana, it's either a Republican on a fund raising mission (e.g., McCain last week), or they're practicing for Ohio.

BigDumbGuy: So, the Dems. are going to beat each other up while McCain wins the presidency I guess.

Apparently this is the Limbaugh strategy. Yep.

Isotope: Apparently this is the Limbaugh strategy. Yep.

Who?

I bet most of you voted Bush too.

How'd that work out anyway.

Vote for Obama, don't screw this up Indiana.

Isotope: BigDumbGuy: So, the Dems. are going to beat each other up while McCain wins the presidency I guess.

Apparently this is the Limbaugh strategy. Yep.

no. To both of you.

Washington Monthy has had a couple (new window) of different blogs (new window) about this very subject. He feels that historical data shows that these protracted primaries are actually beneficial.

After looking at the results, I kinda agree. It puts McCain out of the spotlight, and keeps the dems in the forefront. Back when McCain won the nomination, you could hear everyone say "So what? Let's get back to Ohio"

So, pretty much, don't get discouraged. As long as Hillary doesn't go nuclear trying to blow up Obama's campaign, there is no way this can go bad.

One thing I will say we should be vigilant of is Republican mudslinging making its way into our primary. For instance, Drudge's unsupported story about Clinton leaking racist pictures. If we as democrats, and as the Media, are careful not to let these fabricated stories [constructed to pit us against each other] get much traction, there is nothing the Republicans can do to win.

Wait, Indiana mattered at some point?

Indiana matters, Lord I can't go back there . . .


/ i'd apologize to R. Dean Taylor . . .
// if his song didn't suck.

Is there some reason y'all don't run party campaigning for a few months, then do the voting simultaneously in all states?

It seems to me that the current "one state at a time" thingy encourages the politicians to ignore large portions of the country.

Just curious, but why is there virtually zero polling data on Wyoming and Mississippi? I checked Rasmussen, etc and again - nothing.

Not to me!

/everyone who matters loves Ned Flanders

Indiana is a toilet.

/unproud hoosier
//Voting for Obama

Indiana is just a rubber stamp for whomever the Republicans decide to run. It's great that my backward, worthless state full of backward, worthless people finally gets to be useful as something other than a divider between Ohio and Illinois, but frankly the Democrats can do better than to want the help of a whole state full of Jerry Springer guests.

/used to work in the building where they film Jerry Springer, too.

mtman900: If we as democrats, and as the Media, are careful not to let these fabricated stories [constructed to pit us against each other] get much traction, there is nothing the Republicans can do to win.


Wrong.

We'll see a repeat of OCT 2004 in some fashion, where a "terror plot" is announced, the "news" media dutifully reports it despite any actual evidence (beyond what the Administration tells them) and the sheeple run screaming headlong into the arms of the candidate who promises to torture and bomb more people.

Unsung_Hero: Is there some reason y'all don't run party campaigning for a few months, then do the voting simultaneously in all states?

It seems to me that the current "one state at a time" thingy encourages the politicians to ignore large portions of the country.

What you've suggested is actually worse for large portions of the country.

The way it is, anywhere from 7, 5 and 2 days separate most election days, parsed over 6 or so months. The way momentum works, it's important for people to get wins sometimes; no matter how big or important the states.

So, over those days, the candidate is likely to visit the smaller states which are coming up next.

Now, let's consider something where every state goes at the same time.

First of all, they wouldn't be canvassing over the same 6 months, it'd be less time. Since the results of the smaller states will have no persuasion over any of the other states, the candidates will flock towards the states which give the most delegates. Therefore, the smaller states will certainly be ignored.

Trust me, if you're just worried about whether or not the candidates visit and pay attention to all of the states, the way we're doing it now is the best. If, however, you're more worried about fairness... there is much room for improvement.

JimmyReb: Wait, Indiana mattered at some point?


hates you

Apik0r0s: We'll see a repeat of OCT 2004 in some fashion, where a "terror plot" is announced, the "news" media dutifully reports it despite any actual evidence (beyond what the Administration tells them) and the sheeple run screaming headlong into the arms of the candidate who promises to torture and bomb more people.

I heavily doubt that's enough this time around. Guiliani was the candidate running on terrorism, and we see what that got him.

The republicans are losing ground on who is the best to lead this country, especially with regard to foreign diplomacy and war actions. By just keeping McCain out of the media and simultaneously keeping our noses clean, this election will be a cakewalk.

Or, hell, keep McCain in the media. I would blow up if we elected a guy who, if served both terms, would leave office at a young tender age of 80.

Also... sheeple? -20 points.

mtman900:

The republicans are losing ground on who is the best to lead this country, especially with regard to foreign diplomacy and war actions. By just keeping McCain out of the media and simultaneously keeping our noses clean, this election will be a cakewalk.

The key with McCain is to wrap things up on the Democratic side and engage him in a debate of ideas and policy. If you challenge him, he gets pissy and small. Keeping your cool while consistantly critiquing his platform will bring out the only part not to like about the guy. . his vindictiveness. It's what did him in during the 2000 election.

Unsung_Hero: Is there some reason y'all don't run party campaigning for a few months, then do the voting simultaneously in all states?

It seems to me that the current "one state at a time" thingy encourages the politicians to ignore large portions of the country.

i disagree with MtMan900. it would lead to large portions of the country being ignored, but not to any greater extent than in the general election. the real problem is money.

if we want every candidate to have a chance to win, we need to recognize that the way most Americans make voting decisions is based on what they see/hear in the media. commercials, basically. and direct mail. if we just have everyone across the country vote on one day, the one(s) with the most money would get their message out to the most people. reference Super Tuesday; candidates picked and chose states to compete in based on how much money they had, not on where votes matter or not.

if we had a national primary, we would also need public financing of elections.

Indiana is just a rubber stamp for whomever the Republicans decide to run. It's great that my backward, worthless state full of backward, worthless people finally gets to be useful as something other than a divider between Ohio and Illinois, but frankly the Democrats can do better than to want the help of a whole state full of Jerry Springer guests.

/used to work in the building where they film Jerry Springer, too.

Hell, Springer guests are the core target voter of the Democrats. Low-brow unemployables who respond to shallow political one-liners, class envy, and look to big government for their next hand-out. Springer himself is a democrat.

BTW Isn't Springer filmed in Chicago? Just saying if you hate where you live so much, cross the border to the bastion of intellect and fair politics that is Illinois.

Infinite Monkey
We named the dog Indiana.

MilesTeg: Hell, Springer guests are the core target voter of the Democrats. Low-brow unemployables who respond to shallow political one-liners, class envy, and look to big government for their next hand-out. Springer himself is a democrat.

Technically speaking, those people often vote against their own self interest because pro big-business Republicans are also willing to espouse bigotry in the same sorts of ways as the selfsame trailer park residents, and have less of a problem with guns, which are, of course, a big part of the Springer guest lifestyle.


MilesTeg: Just saying if you hate where you live so much, cross the border to the bastion of intellect and fair politics that is Illinois.

I assure that the very instant that I no longer have any obligations here (elderly relatives etc), I'm gone.

DarnoKonrad: The key with McCain is to wrap things up on the Democratic side and engage him in a debate of ideas and policy. If you challenge him, he gets pissy and small.

That may be true, and there will be plenty of that to go around in the last remaining 2 months between the convention and election. The point of now is to sap away all news from him and keep things positive and exciting behind Hillary and Obama.

DarnoKonrad: It's what did him in during the 2000 election.

Heh, I think that's actually the 2 black kids.

thoughtpol: if we want every candidate to have a chance to win, we need to recognize that the way most Americans make voting decisions is based on what they see/hear in the media. commercials, basically. and direct mail. if we just have everyone across the country vote on one day, the one(s) with the most money would get their message out to the most people. reference Super Tuesday; candidates picked and chose states to compete in based on how much money they had, not on where votes matter or not.

if we had a national primary, we would also need public financing of elections.

Once again, we run into the same problem.

With one general election happening at the same time, it would still be all about going where your campaign thinks the most delegates can be achieved.

So, once again, I disagree because the current process sort of amounts to an allotment of time which is best spent with the states whose primaries are coming up, thereby making it more likely that a greater number of states will be visited.

I happened to attend an Obama results watching party on Tuesday (South Bend).

The best thing about it was the pizza, alas. Knew OH and TX would go to her...nobody there believed me. I spent most of my time explaining how TX's voting was gonna work. Dang old people, crack an Economist sometime, sheesh.


/gObama

MilesTeg: Indiana is just a rubber stamp for whomever the Republicans decide to run. It's great that my backward, worthless state full of backward, worthless people finally gets to be useful as something other than a divider between Ohio and Illinois, but frankly the Democrats can do better than to want the help of a whole state full of Jerry Springer guests.

/used to work in the building where they film Jerry Springer, too.

Hell, Springer guests are the core target voter of the Democrats Republicans. Low-brow unemployables who respond to shallow political one-liners (turrists, tax-and-spend, gay agenda, family values), class envy (liberal elites?), and look to big government for their next hand-out (red states receive much more in benefits from the federal government per tax dollar paid than blue states). Springer himself is a democrat (I'll give you this one).

FTFY

*raises hand*

(Previously) registered Republican Hoosier voting for Obama chiming in.

/Indiana's only about 92% knuckledragger.

Generation_D: Don't see why, Huckabee's no longer in the running.

Brilliant. You've lived here, haven't you?

... and a great percentage of us are weird, run-on sentence-makers, evidently.

Generation_D: I bet most of you voted Bush too.

How'd that work out anyway.

Political letters to the editor are still running about 1 in 3 biatching about the damn liberals who don't properly worship our Dear Leader. And that's in a college town, although it's the engineering college town instead of the humanities college town.

Jaco Pastorius is my hero: Just curious, but why is there virtually zero polling data on Wyoming and Mississippi? I checked Rasmussen, etc and again - nothing.

For the first, no one cares. For the second state...we are afraid to know.

Unsung_Hero: Is there some reason y'all don't run party campaigning for a few months, then do the voting simultaneously in all states?

It seems to me that the current "one state at a time" thingy encourages the politicians to ignore large portions of the country.

This is a fact. Pisses me off because I live in Oregon. We have literally never had a say in which candidate is nominated by either party in my lifetime... and I suspect ever. So what's the point? I can't even engage in any of that cross-party shenanigans to get someone I hate nominated.

/There's no hate like disenfranchised hate.

If those Hoosiers back Obama, however, Bayh said he will remain committed to Clinton.

I thought democrats were for democracy.
Bayh FTL

Unsung_Hero: Is there some reason y'all don't run party campaigning for a few months, then do the voting simultaneously in all states?

Fundamentally, it's because political consultants have completely taken over (been handed, actually) the mechanisms of campaigning. It isn't about presenting ideas and offering information about the candidate it's about campaigning qua campaigning. This way gives the consultants more money, more power, more prestige.

May 20th primary, baby!

/*sniff* Oregon matters to me.

50 states, 180 days of campaigning. Roughly 3.6 days per state before you subtract rest and travel time.

Add in a rule about spending equal amounts of time in each state, and follow up with the voting when it's over.

You'd probably see the politicians visiting states in increasing probability of getting votes so they can claim their campaign has 'momentum' at the end, but other than that I think it might be an improvement.

Ignoring entire swaths of the country because 'they don't matter' should be the first sign the candidate doesn't deserve a vote. The winner represents both those who voted for them and those who voted for their opponents - and they need to listen to those people and feel responsible for them even when following their original agenda.

But hey, I'm a foreigner from a country with a parliamentary system that isn't significantly better or immune to corruption.

Not since the glory days of Dan Quayle ...

Fellow IN voters:

This will be my first primary voting. Do you have to be registered with a party or any such wackiness to ensure I'll get to cast a vote for Barack in early May? I hope not, I prefer my independent status...

lilbjorn: Not since the glory days of Dan Quayle ...

Well, that's what you get with DePauw grads.

/Go Wabash

likefunbutnot: Indiana is just a rubber stamp for whomever the Republicans decide to run. It's great that my backward, worthless state full of backward, worthless people finally gets to be useful as something other than a divider between Ohio and Illinois, but frankly the Democrats can do better than to want the help of a whole state full of Jerry Springer guests.

/used to work in the building where they film Jerry Springer, too.

I think your blanket statement is not entirely fair to the voters of Indiana. Yes, Indiana has voted a Democrat for president only once since 1940, but prior to that it was almost a 50/50 split. In a lot of the elections in recent years, the vote was actually pretty close (except in cases where the Democratic candidate wasn't very inticing... ahem, John Kerry). However, I think Indiana voters are more than willing to vote for a Democrat based on who they've elected governor. In fact, 3 of the last 4 Indiana governors have been Democrats, perhaps more moderate ones, but Democrats just the same. Some, like Evan Bayh, are even highly respected in Washington. Okay, so our current governor is a Republican... but I'm pretty sure most of us realize that Mitch Daniels turned out to be a bad choice. Anyway, even though Indiana has had 21 Republican governors it has also had 21 Democratic governors. So, I think the presidential race this year will be really close in Indiana (unless, of course, Hillary is the Democratic candidate... in that case I predict a 70/30 split for McCain).

/registered independent
//Indiana's primaries are closed
///Therefore, I have no say in the primaries
////I feel disenfranchised... perhaps I should sue! :-)

Banky_The_Hack: Fellow IN voters:

This will be my first primary voting. Do you have to be registered with a party or any such wackiness to ensure I'll get to cast a vote for Barack in early May? I hope not, I prefer my independent status...

Well, I was going to tell you that Indiana's primaries are closed, meaning that you can only vote Democrat if you are a registered Democrat or Republican if you are a registered Republican. That leaves us registered Independents out of the loop. However, surfing around a little now, I've found that most sites state that Indiana has an open primary. I was trying to find out definitively if that's the case and if so how exactly it works from the Indiana government website but, of course, that website sucks and I still haven't been able to figure it out. So, if I find something out for sure I'll post it here. If you happen to figure it out, please let us know.

/confused

jasmo: Banky_The_Hack: Fellow IN voters:

This will be my first primary voting. Do you have to be registered with a party or any such wackiness to ensure I'll get to cast a vote for Barack in early May? I hope not, I prefer my independent status...

Well, I was going to tell you that Indiana's primaries are closed, meaning that you can only vote Democrat if you are a registered Democrat or Republican if you are a registered Republican. That leaves us registered Independents out of the loop. However, surfing around a little now, I've found that most sites state that Indiana has an open primary. I was trying to find out definitively if that's the case and if so how exactly it works from the Indiana government website but, of course, that website sucks and I still haven't been able to figure it out. So, if I find something out for sure I'll post it here. If you happen to figure it out, please let us know.

/confused

I live and vote in Indiana. I *know* if you're registered as a Democrat or a Republican you can vote in either primary -- but not in both -- as in, you can't mix and match.

I *assume* registered independent would be the same.