- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
- Size of Philadelphia government?
PA Primaries and the Machine
Submitted by TeddyP on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 3:52pm.
Given that Mayor Nutter and Gov. Rendell have endorsed Hillary Rodham-Clinton, does that mean that Brady's machine will be out there handing out "official ballots" with her name and all of their other cronies on them? Ouch. I guess that's what Rep. Brady meant when he commented that if we had his machine in Florida in 2000 we'd be saying "President Gore" right now. I hope that all of the educated voters that are out there step up to the plate and make a decision based on your own issues and convictions. Don't follow the herd into the cattle chute.
I am supporting Barack Obama this spring and will be encouraging people to look at his record thus far and words thus far and see if its a match for them. If they like one of the other candidates, that's fine, but comparison shop! Check out concrete things like their positions, voting records, and personal dealings. Weigh the intangibles: Do they look and sound presidential; Do they treat people respectfully; Do they give you the creeps when they speak (Ron Paul does that to me.. he sounds like "Beverly Leslie" from "Will and Grace"). Ronald Reagan was a very controversial man. A conservative to the core but he projected the image well. Clinton was less than perfect, but did a fair job overall and people connected with him. Find your connection with a candidate (preferably mine) and let others know!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
When did Bob Brady say that??!
That's awesome!
Next President Should Wrap Up the Nomination Soon
The next President of the United States, Senator Barack Obama, should do far better than originally projected in the 22 states that are voting on February 5 and wrap up the Democratic nomination soon. If Hillary Clinton is on the ballot in Pennsylvania, it is highly likely that much or all of the Democratic Party organization will not be supporting her because of the lack of support manifested in earlier voting states.
On Monday, February 4, I became the first delegate candidate in the Democratic primary to file in Pennsylvania. The fact that the February 5 primaries and caucuses occur before nominating papers are due, and that polls in the remaining states will be quickly available, will somewhat or greatly hinder the other campaign's ability to field a full delegate slate.
If there is a choice of candidates in the Pennsylvania primary, I would hope the vast majority of readers here would vote Senator Obama as the one most likely to transform American politics by involving record numbers of Americans in the political process, and in using his great persuasive powers for worthwhile and significant public policy changes.
Flip it around
As excited as I personally am for Obama and the idea that my vote here in PA might actually "make a difference" in the presidential primary even as late as in April (I'm quite not as confident as Rep. Cohen that Obama will sew it up), I am way more curious about how the excitement and new enthusiasm that Obama brings to thousands of new and infrequent voters in every race he runs in. I am excited how the Obama impact has a chance to deal a surprise to a number of ward-endorsed candidates who may be thinking that the ward leaders have wrapped up their campaign in a bow for them.
I'm very excited about some "sure things" suddenly becoming a lot less "sure" when voter participation shoots up to record numbers in this primary. Obama may make April way more interesting in a number of local races as well.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
sort of
unfortunately most voters don't vote down, they vote up. if you look at past elections, especially presdentials, you'll see a big gap between the vote totals in presidential races and those down ballot. Less frequent voters tend to sit out down ballot races, or i suspect, vote for incumbents because they know their names better.
This is by no means unchangeable, but it's hard for for primary challengers to address without having enough money to handle the challenges of finding and turning out infrequents.
Usually in a primary race, you are only looking at a universe of frequent voters, and then you do an ID (on phone or at door) and hope you find enough to then turn out on Eday. You can guess which frequent voters may be likely to vote for challengers (mostly by looking at divisions where challengers did well before and maybe using gender or race as an indicator), but generally you have to go out and find them.
The reality is most challengers don't have enough money or time to even reach all the frequents they could. So you throw in infrequents who Obama might pull in, and there's just no way to effectively communicate with all of them in advance of the race to make sure they vote for you without way more money than you would have needed with a smaller universe of voters (more voters total, means more doors to knock, more places to mail, more places to call).
Now if all the infrequents who come for Obama vote for challengers, that's great, but how exactly would an infrequent know who a challenger is (and in come case they may not know who the incumbent even is)? They might, but with the lack of media, and often even community buzz on local races, it's hard to get anyone to know who you are, particularly infrequents.
I am sure there are some cool ideas and strategies that challengers could come up with, but higher turnout in primaries is not necessarily a good thing for challengers, or at least an easy thing to deal with.