Open Thread: February 5th Primary

Bring it on! (0.00 / 0)

Texans for Obama is ready. 

We were already planning on sending our armies of volunteers to Iowa, and we'd love to also focus our efforts in our own backyard.  An early Texas primary would be very exciting!

Next Friday, we'll have 5,000 enthusiastic supporters in Gregory Gym, and we've already got more volunteer foot soldiers than we know what to do with.  Safe to say, we should have motivated precinct captains all over the state who will help us win the caucuses.

Down the road, we plan to not only win the Texas primary, but we also hope to make Texas competitive in the general election for the first time in decades.  With John Cornyn especially vulnerable at the top of the ballot, Texas may prove to be the big surprise of November 2008.

---

by: Texans for Obama @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 14:59:30 PM UTC

Presidential Primary as Party Builder (5.00 / 6)

If we're smart, we'll milk the excitement of the presidential primary to build the Texas Democratic Party from the ground up. 

The earlier the primary, the more likely all candidates will still be competing and their campaigns bringing people into the primary and the caucuses. 

Some members of the House are working on legislation to allow the Texas Democratic Party to more easily capture those folks names, emails and information as they support their favored candidate.  No matter which presidential candiate wins in Texas, the real winner would be the Party IF WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. 

You want an army of folks in every county for the fall of 2008 and the 2010 cycle?  Then let's make the search of national delegates not just about that narrow goal, but about building the Democratic Party lists for the future. 

---

by: Glen Maxey @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 15:22:15 PM UTC

Can I get an AMEN (5.00 / 3)

to that.

What we really need to energize the party here in Texas is some attention from the National party and National Candidates.

Living here in TX, I can't remember Ever seeing a Presidential Campagin Ad. Having High Profile Democratic Candidates giving TX some attention can only serve to energize the party and get people excited about the general in Nov.

This is just what we need to help energize our base. I think it serves to hurt Republicans, so I can see them shying away from it, they don't need help in turning out their base and we have a great deal to gain by turning out our own.
I can however see Tx Republicans possibly worrying about being "stuck" with a candidate that they believe is either too Liberal, too Northern, or too Morman for their taste and wanting to get their votes in early enough to help prevent that.
We'll see I guess. But in my estimation there is NO downside for Dem's.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 15:32:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AMEN!! <eom> (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Ki @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 20:18:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good idea (5.00 / 1)

This should be a bipartisan proposal

Conservative Yet Pragmatic

---

by: rightoftexas @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:10:20 PM UTC

... (0.00 / 0)

Who would be the early favorites to win each party's primary in Texas?  Has anyone ever bothered to form a stable infrastructure here for primary purposes?

---

by: Indigo @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:14:00 PM UTC

Edwards & Da Mayor (0.00 / 0)

John Edwards will win the TX primary. Sorry Obama fans. I enjoy your enthusiasm though.

On the GOP side I would say it will be Rudy Giuliani. He's already got Pete Sessions support in Dallas. John McCain is also doing a great job of shooting himself in the foot lately.

---

by: John McClelland @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:16:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even Though (0.00 / 0)

Richardson has strong ties to Texas, especially El Paso and the Valley, does that not help? What if Gore gets in? What about Clark and his military background? Vilsack has already spent some time here and has ties in Houston. 

With over 600 days until the first vote is  cast, this is still anyones race in my opinion.

Help build a progressive movement in Texas. Join Progress Texas.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:20:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Today's race (0.00 / 0)

Im dealing with who is running right now. Not fantasy land ;-)

---

by: John McClelland @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:24:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Richardson IS running (3.00 / 1)

And he's got good international credentials, which is what the mid-term elections were about (or at least the lack there of...)

I think it could be anybody's game right now and even next month is a political lifetime...

---

by: Sandra Ramos @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 18:18:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not a fan of Bill Richardson (0.00 / 0)

He supports the death penalty and also supports cutting back on the few procedural safeguards in place

He supports public school vouchers and charter schools

He's very pro-NAFTA and anti-Fair Trade

He supports medical savings accounts

He supports replacing judicial discretion with mandatory jail time for repeat offenders

He supports Bush's faith-based social services initiatives

He supports Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy

---

by: SouthTexasDemocrat @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 19:05:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the others arent running (yet) (0.00 / 0)

Gore- not running
Clark- shouldnt be running but still a maybe

Richardson has the best credentials of any candidate but lacks the charisma and national recognition to have any chance.

So, I stand by what I said before. Based on who is running, I believe John Edwards will win Texas.

---

by: John McClelland @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 19:40:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (3.33 / 3)

I think that Texas could have the potential of being one of the tightest on Early Super Tuesday (if Feb 5 is indeed the day we move to), for Democrats at least.  I see Edwards, Obama, and Richardson all playing well and, like it or not, Clinton does have the money so it's dangerous to count her out of any state.  I am really excited about this possibility, however.  Like someone posted upthread, I have never seen a political ad for pres here either, lol.  I wonder if Texas might be the breakthrough one of second-tier GOP challengers might be hoping for, like Brownback or Huckabee.  I've always imagined that the Texas GOP is too right for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney, but they're not dumb at all, so who knows....Anyways, this is an exciting development...

---

by: Indigo @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:27:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

as much as i enjoy your posts, john mc... (2.00 / 1)

keep the edwards inevitability comments coming. i look forward to enjoying your enthusiasm working with the obama team in the general.

i like edwards, but he has some major issues. while he has said his war vote was a mistake, his current rhetoric regarding iran is reminiscent of his iraq commentary 2002.

out of all of the candidates, i get the most excitement out of the idea of obama representing the us to the rest of the world. watching his speeches just make me cringe when i think of george w...

---

by: nickforobama @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:27:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would love to see an early primary (5.00 / 1)

That gives candidates here time to work on campaigns instead of against each other especially if there are run off elections.  I remember voting in the '04 primary and my candidate has already stepped down. LOL 

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:33:34 PM UTC

I prefer later primaries (5.00 / 1)

As long as we have early primaries, Texas should be near the front, no doubt about it.  In general, though, I think early primaries are bad for the national party.  I would rather not have a single primary until mid-summer.  Having a candidate essentially decided 8 months before an election leaves too much time to royally mess things up, as Kerry found out.

---

by: Wanderer @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:39:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Move it (0.00 / 0)

Any time would be better than now. Currently our primarycomes right in the middle of many Spring Breaks, we should move it to get voting participation up.
Edwards is a joke, he probably couldn't even win his own state. That goofy "thumbs up and head nod" tangent looks so freakin' retarded.

---

by: Sniper @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 17:50:39 PM UTC

Under the current system good but.... (3.00 / 1)

The whole system is screwed up.  We need a nationally mandated primary date later in the season which is the same for every state.  If it requires a constitutional amendment, so be it.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 18:14:52 PM UTC

Geez (0.00 / 0)

A February primary for state elections too?

It's the one thing worse than having the primary in March

---

by: RBH @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 20:09:13 PM UTC

2/5 an advantage? (3.00 / 1)

I have mixed feelings on it.  I think the advantage of an early primary is minimized if Florida, California, Illinois and others move up too. Texas will get a share of the attention, but we'll share the spotlight with at least two other "megastates".  In a split field, the nomination may not be decided later in the process, where a later primary might have more impact.  At this point, with so many states in flux, and with such a large field, it's impossible to predict what will happen.

A bigger concern is that a 2/5 primary for state offices would shorten the primary so that campaigns for state representative and other local races would effectively last 3-4 weeks (since it's very difficult to get people to pay attention to politics during the Holidays).  That's hardly much time for candidates to run a campaign, and will likely hurt lesser known challengers and benefit incumbents.

---

by: Byron LaMasters @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 22:35:00 PM UTC

Hadn't thought of that (0.00 / 0)

Good protection for the Iscariot Caucus.

---

by: George @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 23:15:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have mixed feelings, too (0.00 / 0)

To move the primary could hurt the party, too.  We certainly need a quality primary for the state legislative races, we don't want a primary race for 3-4 weeks.  That would be difficult and might restrict us from getting all the quality candidates we want for local races.

Another concern that I have is that since we are a more Republican state, moving up the primary would give a stronger pull to Republican presidential candidates than Democratic presidential candidates.  Granted, it would give some pull to both; but it seems like it might excite the Republican base here even more...

All in all, I like the Secretary of States' proposal for rotating regional primaries.  Unfortunatly, that isn't an option right now.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 00:04:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Berman's motives (0.00 / 0)

It may be that Berman wants to see something substantively different from the Alonzo bills move through the process.  But Berman so far has behaved as a petty partisan this session, and may give a hearing for a non-Alonzo bill with the exact same language. 

---

by: Boddhisattva @ Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:39:44 AM UTC

Early Primary? In principle, I'm ag'in' it (0.00 / 0)

Here's why:

When the primary is front loaded, only the most well funded candidates can compete; they'll spend their war chests to blanket the airwaves, drowning out the less well funded competitors.

I have a real problem with this when the elite, monied king (or queen) makers steer funding to their preferred candidates.

Think about how GW was able to use his war chest in 2K to swamp the "Straight Talk Express."

This strikes me as inherently undemocratic, turning the nomination process back into a process where money and back room deals are more important than the voters.

I agree, we need to change the primary process, but moving all of them up as early in the process as possible isn't the best solution.

Not, that is, if we value small "d" democracy, and wish to "vet" our candidates in a real primary process.

(For what it's worth, I'd like to see the primaries staggered, so there are small states and big states spread out, so that one candidate with money can't achieve a knockout blow in the beginning. I also heard an idea of cycling the states through a schedule, say, NY is early one year, CA another, and TX another - which I think is a good idea.)

---

by: jelyon @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 14:28:48 PM UTC