MyDD :: Iowans: Keep Biden, Dodd and Richardson In The Race

Iowans: Keep Biden, Dodd and Richardson In The Race

by BigDog, Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:08:18 PM EST

What if Iowa sent along all the candidates to NH with momentum? What if even the most partisan supporters of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards agreed to knowingly split their votes and keep the top 5 or 6 candidates in a near dead heat in the race? Why? It's best for the Democratic Party and best for the USA.

Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have shown their expertise, ability and experience. The voters of the nation deserve to hear what they have to say.

Split your vote and keep these good candidates in the race. About 135,000 caucus voters will decide the shape this election.

Even if you are a bone-deep supporter of one of the top three, since your candidate will always have the ability to continue, split your vote and keep these other good men in the race. It's best for the Democratic Party and best for the USA.

The USA needs the most effective election in it's history. I don't believe we can afford to short change any candidate in a field that has so much talent and experience. How much more effective a choice could voters make when the candidates are campaigning as long as possible?

(Disclosure: Although my first campaign was in 1966, I have not endorsed nor do I work for any candidate at this time. I will write more about the benefits of a multi-candidate convention at another time.)

Tags: Biden, clinton, dodd, edwards, obama, richardson, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment

Why don't the two Super Bowl teams (none / 0)

... Just let the other team score and play to a tie?

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST

Re: Why don't the two Super Bowl teams (none / 0)

That's not good for football the way our second tier is good for our party.

The Wayward Episcopalian

by Transplanted Texan on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are advocating trying not to win (none / 0)

That isn't how the process works.

When would you advocate the gloves come off and someone start trying to win?

It doesn't make any sense.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are advocating trying not to win (none / 0)

Since we're talking about 2nd choice votes here (I believe), whatever decision the voter makes in that regard is going to benefit someone other than their preferred candidate. It is true that their 2nd-choice votes can indirectly help their 1st-choice, but I think that course of action just eliminates potential beneficiaries of one's 2nd-choice vote. For instance, Obama supporters probably don't want Clinton (or maybe Edwards) to do well, because it will affect Obama's ranking. However, among the candidates who remain, there might not be strong pro-Obama (or whoever) reasons for selecting a candidate. In that case, one might justifiably decide to support a second-tier candidate for more neutral reasons, such as that candidate's contribution to public debate or something like that.

Personally, the only second-tier candidate I would like to remain is Biden. My pro-Obama reason is that he probably takes more support from Clinton than Obama, but my primary reason is that I think he is the best second-tier candidate for those who may be unsatisfied with the top three. I also like Kucinich (not on issues so much as personality), but I don't think he's shown as much committment to campaigning.

by DPW on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sounds like (none / 0)

The diarist is probably concerned about how his/her candidate is going to end up after caucus night.

The best way to get the same result is to listen to people like Ted Strickland and move away from this caucus process. It reeks. Voting in public is unseemly.

by highgrade on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST

Re: sounds like (2.00 / 1)

AS I said in the diary...I don't have a candidate.

I have a concern about the process.

Also I have to go offline for a few hours. Thanks for the comments.

just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...

by BigDog on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sounds like (2.00 / 0)

It is true that a caucus is not an election. It is not intended to be and it is not intended to be secret.

The point of a caucus is for a political party to get together and pick a candidate. In this case they are getting together to decide how to allocate delegates to particular candidates.

Unlike a primary, a caucus involves public grassroots discussion of the positives and negatives of the candidates. It is not a secret ballot election; it is a forum for actual citizens to get together and build concensus around a few candidates that demonstrate broad appeal to the electorate in many geographical areas of a state.

I am not convinced that a primary of any kind is preferable to a caucus.

by d on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.