Sam Brownback Ending Presidential Bid

[Irish Caesar]

Due to how wide his stance on certain items varied from the average voter's, I don't think Brownback mountin' a surge in the polls was realistic. His campaign was basically stalled and there wasn't even much of a chance for him being tapped for the bottom half of the ticket.

This would have passed for tired humor if Larry Craig was running for president, but I can't let it pass here.

Sorry.

 

[The Yankee]

"His supporter was devastated."

-Bill Maher tonight on Brownback's decision to end his run, presumably referring to our very own VRWCAgent.

 

[bhsup]

Devastated, yes, but ya can't keep a good VRWCAgent down, not when Romney is in town!!

 

[Stewbert 08]

ROFLmney.

 

[intj_rational]

Wow.. so far it's been Republicans that have ended their bid for presidency? It seems like Democrats have lesser problems raising funds.

 

[IglooDame]

Heh... yep.

Okay, who's next of the Republicans? I'm thinking about going for the longshot and picking Fred Thompson.

 

[bhsup]

What kills me is that I really don't even want to follow the race yet. The election is -still- over a year off. I cannot help but pay attention because I like politics, but dammit I sometimes wish Iowa, New Hampshire, and all those other early States would stop being so ridiculous about being first and just set the damned primaries/caucuses in August of the election year. Then have the conventions in late September and just a 1 1/2 or so of true general election campaigning.

 

[IglooDame]

What kills me is that I really don't even want to follow the race yet. The election is -still- over a year off. I cannot help but pay attention because I like politics, but dammit I sometimes wish Iowa, New Hampshire, and all those other early States would stop being so ridiculous about being first and just set the damned primaries/caucuses in August of the election year. Then have the conventions in late September and just a 1 1/2 or so of true general election campaigning.

You're going to get your wish in 2011-12. The national committees (particularly the DNC) are coming down with pretty big hammers this time around on Michigan and Florida and other states that want to jump ahead, but I'm guessing that it's with an aside to Iowa and NH saying "we're protecting you now because we have to, but after 08 we have two years to beat you into submission."

 

[bhsup]

Well, that takes care of the caucuses, but the committees have no say about States that do primaries. Those are determined by the elected general assemblies of the States in question. Course, I wish every State did a caucus anyway, but oh well.

Still, thanks for the info. I didn't realize it had become an issue.

 

[IglooDame]

Well, that takes care of the caucuses, but the committees have no say about States that do primaries. Those are determined by the elected general assemblies of the States in question. Course, I wish every State did a caucus anyway, but oh well.

Still, thanks for the info. I didn't realize it had become an issue.

Whaa? It is my understanding that the respective national committees can make the rules nationwide - their state parties run their own primaries (or caucuses), but if they go outside the NC rules, the party can refuse to seat the delegates no matter how those delegates are actually chosen.

But back sorta on topic - I thought you'd go for Huckabee if Brownback dropped, any particular reason that you're opting for Romney instead?

 

[bhsup]

Have to boogie to work, so I'll get to the Romney/Hockabee thing later.

But as for the primaries/caucuses, the committees only have any authority over caucuses. A primary is determined by the elected legislature and made an actual election which people vote in, governed by the laws of the State. The DNC and RNC have no say about that, short of I suppose possibly saying they would withdraw support from any elected official who voted to make it earlier than they like.

 

[The Yankee]

I'm not sure I get the Romney thing either. That and the Values Voters crowd narrowly voted him in first (granted, it was about 28%, but still).

I say Duncan Hunter calls it a bid next.

 

[IglooDame]

Have to boogie to work, so I'll get to the Romney/Hockabee thing later.

But as for the primaries/caucuses, the committees only have any authority over caucuses. A primary is determined by the elected legislature and made an actual election which people vote in, governed by the laws of the State. The DNC and RNC have no say about that, short of I suppose possibly saying they would withdraw support from any elected official who voted to make it earlier than they like.

If you have a supporting link I'd appreciate it, because from what I understand, the difference between a caucus and a primary is who runs the election process, but the extent of the national committee's control is effectively the same for both - witness both Florida and Michigan being told by the DNC that their delegates will not count (and any candidates campaigning will get dinged) if they hold primaries before the DNC says they're allowed to.

 

[Bill3000]

I've come to the conclusion that the idea of primaries is stupid. Let the parties decide who they think will best represent the party enough while at the same time receiving the most support from the total voting populace, as well as people who would be the most practical, not some fringe part of society that are active voters.

 

[bhsup]

If you have a supporting link I'd appreciate it, because from what I understand, the difference between a caucus and a primary is who runs the election process, but the extent of the national committee's control is effectively the same for both - witness both Florida and Michigan being told by the DNC that their delegates will not count (and any candidates campaigning will get dinged) if they hold primaries before the DNC says they're allowed to.

Ah, okay I see what angle you're coming from on this. Yeah, they could deny the delegates at the convention, that's completely under their control. I was simply trying to convey that if a State holds a primary rather than a caucus, the respective party committees really have no say in the date set as it's determined by the State government.

I have to kind of wonder, though, if any party's national committee would truly dare risk that. Can you imagine the backlash from the voters? "Oh, our votes are not good enough for you? Fine, screw you, we'll not vote for you again."

I've come to the conclusion that the idea of primaries is stupid. Let the parties decide who they think will best represent the party enough while at the same time receiving the most support from the total voting populace, as well as people who would be the most practical, not some fringe part of society that are active voters.

Indeed. In my youth, I used to have this idealized view that primaries were the best route, but it only took a couple of elections to get me to change my mind on that one. As you said, let the parties decide on their own who their candidates are.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Wow.. so far it's been Republicans that have ended their bid for presidency? It seems like Democrats have lesser problems raising funds.

Well, yes, except for Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

I have to kind of wonder, though, if any party's national committee would truly dare risk that. Can you imagine the backlash from the voters? "Oh, our votes are not good enough for you? Fine, screw you, we'll not vote for you again."

Yep, no idea why they're doing the whole "we're discounting your delegates because we say so" thing. Just seems like bad politics, especially since it's only politically significant states they're flipping off.

 

[The Yankee]

Yep, no idea why they're doing the whole "we're discounting your delegates because we say so" thing. Just seems like bad politics, especially since it's only politically significant states they're flipping off.

Because they insulted the gods that are Iowa and New Hampshire! Now bow down before these two states!

 

[Irish Caesar]

Because they insulted the gods that are Iowa and New Hampshire! Now bow down before these two states!

They're threatening sanctions against New Hampshire, too.

 

[IglooDame]

They're threatening sanctions against New Hampshire, too.

Yeah, the RNC is (I just learned today). Should get very interesting soon.

 

[The Yankee]

They're threatening sanctions against New Hampshire, too.

For insulting the King God of Iowa! Note the pecking order of holiness!

I don't think New Hampshire has set a date. There are still rumblings that it could be in December.