How dare Legislators, put my right to have a say in the presidential candidates at risk. Why wasn't changing the date of the presidential primary put to a vote. You have a lot of very angry constituents here in Michigan. I for one will remember my Representatives names and vote no on them and anything they push for a vote on . I will bad mouth them at every turn. That is ONE RIGHT of mine they will NOT take away.

Joan Davis

REGIONAL primaries, in this order...SE,Southwest,NW,Northeast.

1. IA & NH... If the DNC/RNC want to continue to honor these 1st 2 Northern states, fine. **That's why the Northern 2 weeks are set up to be the 3rd and 4th weeks. That still leaves 48 states up for grabs – 12 each week.

SE = FL,GA,SC,NC,VA,WV,KY,TN,AL,MS,LA,AR
SW = HI,CA,AZ,NM,TX,OK,MO,KN,NE,CO,UT,NV
NW = IN,IL,WI,MN,ND,SD,WY,MN,ID,OR,WA,AK
NE = ME,VT,MA,RI,CT,NY,NJ,DE,MD,PA,OH,MI

2. While a national 1-day primary is efficient for the voter, it would be a logistical nightmare for EVERY candidate – and cost-prohibitive for those with less-funds. *If voters REALLY want a choice within their party, there needs to be inclusion of candidates with more dynamic policies.

3. This 1 month whould shorten the nominating process enough that under-funded or less charismatic candidates have (at least the first round) to inform us about their POLICIES.

4. The 4 contiguous regions above also aid in the following ways...
A) more cost-effectiveness for candidates – allowing more to remain in the race longer, giving a truer test of "electability"
B) providing a better sense of regional preferences, as many neighboring states share similar ideologies.

Posted By John, Michigan : December 3, 2007 10:29 am

The DNC might be with in their rights, but not make it a smart political move move on their behalf. So they alienate two states that they need to carry in the general elections and in the process do nothing to help elect the Democratic canidate, big deal they were within their rights.

Let's screw everything up, the primary dates then can be determined by the date the state became a state of entry, that's your primary date. Think they would shout then.

LET'S ALL VOTE ON THE SAME DAY!!

I am sorry I thought the elections were held by state governments not the RNC or the DNC.

Keep it up and welcome in the GOP for another 4 years.

Iowa and New Hampshire being the first two states every four years is silly. These two states do not respresent the makeup of America. I do not understand why the primary calendar can not be changed to allow more states to have a say in the early process. But, it will be over by February 5, so Iowa and New Hamphire will not be able to hog the spotlight for too long.

These senator and governor candidates are not doing their jobs in their full capacity during this long campaign period. It is a disservice to the voters they represent.

Jaik, perhaps you remember that the Florida vote was being recounted by the Florida Supreme Court when the five Conservative Republicans on the Federal Supreme Court ordered that the counting of votes be stopped. As for Kerry in 2004, he lost Florida by 381,000 votes. He lost the general election by over 3 million votes. The professional politicians in the Democratic party are just as hungry for victory, power, status, and fame as are the Republicans. Your comment has absolutely no basis in reality, so I assume it was meant as sardonic or sarcastic.

Out national political parties need to be independent of state governments. Howard Dean is the best thing to happen to Democrats in a long time.

The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same."
Posted By Bob NY : December 1, 2007 3:35 pm

I highlighted the key words in your post: Republicans self-diagnose themselves as having better mental health. It would be interesting to see if statistics from actual health care professionals reflected that same trend – though I doubt many doctors bother to ask the political affiliations of their patients, so there probably isn't much data to work with.

I looked up the Gallup data, and if you lump together those who report their mental health as excellent OR good, 93% of Republicans view their health positively, while 83% of independents and 84% of Democrats do so. This is a much less significant difference, especially when you take into consideration the margins for error in polling.

My personal opinion is that Democrats and independents had a lot of reason over the last few years to feel frustrated and depressed, watching the GOP drive the country over a cliff. This would certainly account for some of the results. And, of course, the people still clinging to their GOP party identification aren't likely to be up for much self-analysis or introspection – otherwise they'd constantly be running into the cognitive dissonance of being associated with a party of fiscally reckless war-mongering radicals.

It would be interesting if Gallup could go back to their data from the 1990s, and see how the GOP identifiers reported their mental health during the Clinton administration. I remember the GOP faithful of those years as being driven completely insane by Bubba, accepting every rumor and innuendo about him as the gospel truth, regardless of any lack of proof. If Gallup found the GOP self-reporting of their mental health in the 1990s as significantly positive, we'd know that their current analysis probably isn't worth any additional comment.

What is there about wanting to be "first"? The most important is that people get a chance to meet the candidates and not by "long distance"

Later states might have advantage in that the issues are more crystallized,
the candidacies are more developed.

Best advice: Invest in the confetti companies. That is as much sense it all makes.

An even less reported fact is that, in Michigan, write-in votes don't count if the candidate has not officially registered a write-in campaign, meaning that I can't go vote for Obama even as a symbolic gesture - no one will count my vote.

Again, I agree that the calendar needs to change. NH and IA have been incredibly pigheaded about this, as has the DNC. But please, why did my vote have to be a casualty in this pissing match?

There is only one candidate who will restore the law of the land and lower the guns aimed at the people (like BLACKWATERS guns that are on hand to keep AMERICANS in line if need be, google blackwater hurricane katrina)

when you give up your liberty for safety YOU WILL GET NEITHER! (and the as the saying goes, you deserve neither)

Look at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Dick Cheney as well as Michelle Obama are members, Condi, Kissinger, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Guiliani, Richardson,

Look at their agenda, who began it, why it remains so hush hush? Cheney even mentioned that he went out of his way to hide the fact that he was a member while campaigning.

We have been told that people hate us for our freedoms, yet we have allowed this government (congress especially, they have laid down to bushco) to strip us of them.
It makes no sense and yet perfect sense at the same time.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK AMERICA NEEDS YOU!

VOTE 4 RON PAUL!!!!!

So you're effectively saying that, not only is it OK to disenfranchise the vast majority of the country, but it's actually a good idea. Instead of allowing voters across the country to have a say in the primary process, just hand the reins over to voters in a few states. Surely they'll have everyone's best interests at heart.

It reminds me a lot of Animal Farm: All voters are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Really what we're talking about here is discrimination. Let's give one group of voters more power than another. When will we wake up and realize that the government-sponsored discrimination is a really bad idea.

I'll vote for the first time this primary and in the general election and I sure as hell will be voting for state's rights, freedom, and liberty, ergo RON PAUL.

If you spread the primary season out over 5 months (January – May) and had 10 states per month, more states would matter and the candidate would have more time to spend in your state. Again, I think this should rotate so that each state has a chance to be earlier in the election cycle.

It would be detrimental to our country if the candidates only campaign through TV ads and stadium size speeches. They should have to work for it... go all over the country and meet people. It should be a process, not a one day event!

Pierluigi Rotundo

Democrats have a great opportunity this year. I'm afraid they may blow it like they did in 2004. Obama & Clinton attacking each other. Edwards saying some pretty nasty things. Then this...disenfranching people...if I were a resident of Michigan or Florida – I'd be pretty pissed off and may cause me to not vote at all...not what the party needs.

DEMOCRATS DON'T BLOW IT LIKE YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO DO...

The Democratic Party has the chance in the next election of increasing majorities in both houses of Congress, and retaking the White House. To do that we need Michigan and Florida. And not just Democrats, Independents as well. What is this lunacy doing to help party building???

I understand that each state chairman was given the chance to move their dates forward, and only Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. etc. etc. The fact remains that neither the DNC or RNC pays for the election; nor do they set state election schedules. That is the domain of the individual state legislatures and in some cases Secretaries of State. Until the DNC pays for the band, they cannot call the tune.

Regardless, this is a case of pique by the DNC against the individual states; it is extremely childish and it could cost the Democrats the election.

Fire Howard Dean and the Rule and Bylaws Committee NOW!

but i disagree that all primaries in one day would be a bad thing. with the campaiging starting roughly in 2006, what more do you need to know about the candidates? especially if you have primaries in the spring, that's plenty of time and plenty of time for the winners to prepare for november. plus i like the idea of making it a national holiday! hey, it could get more people to vote even.

"A roundup of Gallup health polls over the past four years finds that Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to report having excellent mental health.

The survey found that 58 percent of Republicans polled reported having excellent mental health. Only 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Independents reported the same."

FYI, to answer your question the DNC *did* take care of all this back in 2005/2006. All the states voted on a primary calendar, and every state had a chance to move their primary up.

The state delegates voted on a primary schedule and now some states (MI & FL) are not honoring the outcome of that vote.

*that* is why the state primaries will not count.

What would be fair, however is to rotate every election the 4-5 states that come first. So if we have Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada this election, next election it could be Michigan, Florida, New Mexico and Alaska (or something like that). Keep rotating until everyone gets a chance to be first.

Wouldn't this be possible? Any else see the logic or illogic in this argument?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071201/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

As far as I'm concerned, each state should be able to hold their primaries whenever they want to. Or have all states hold primaries on the same day just as presidential election is. How hard can this be...it's not "rocket science" to figure it out. And all Americans have the right to have their votes count. But if the DNC ok's Michigan and Florida...Obama and Edwards MUST be put back on the ballots! If the winner in those states later get the delegates by whinning and crying about it, then there needs to be a re-vote with all candidates put back on