Which Democrat would you vote for in the primary?

[RedImperator]

I'm a Richardson guy, but 1) New Jersey has closed primaries, I registered as a Republican when I was 18, and I forgot that with the primary moved up to 5 February, the deadline for changing my registration moved up, too, and 2) Bill Richardson will be out of the race by Super Duper Tuesday. I think he'd make an aces Vice-President for Obama or Edwards, though.

Of the top three, I support Obama.

[Mr. T]

Will Edward's even be a good Veep candidate for Obama though? He definitely wasn't able to put any Southern states in play for Kerry, I remember alot of talk about "where is John Edward's?" during the 2004 campaign, and his debate performance with Cheney was just mediocre, not bad but not good either (well. all I remember is Edwards flirting with the moderator).

I suppose Obama/Edwards might work in that two very young looking candidates is bound to signify change for an electorate that wants it. Although there youth might also highlight inexperience so Obama may opt for an older face with more experience.

[CmdrWilkens]

I also noticed that Edwards was trying to be all, "Look! I'm a change candidate too! Obama and I like change!" So I think he's trying to be Obama's veep. It's not quite kissing Obama's ass, but it's close. I actually think Richardson would be a good veep for Obama. Line-item-veto power fantasies aside, he complements Obama well.

On Edwards I actually don't think he's aiming for the number 2 spot. I think he realizes, as much as anybody out there, that he stands no chance while both Hillary and Obama are in the race. He can't out "change" Obama and he can't out "experience" Hillary. That leaves him only one option: get one of them knocked out while racking up 2nd place finishes and accumulating enough delegates to make a late surge. Right now since he is both tempermentally suited and momentum suited for it he's going with "I can be an agent of change too." So his whole idea is to get the entire Democratic electorate on the change bandwagon to knock Hillary out THEN try to take down Obama by scooping up all of Hillary's previously pledged delegates. I don't think its the greatest strategy but its Edwards only chance at the top spot and having already run one time in the 2nd slot (and without ANY geographical or resume bonus to add to an Obama ticket) I think that's the only prize he would settle for right now.

[Durandal]

That sounds all right, but I don't know how you get clear enough language so that line item vetoes only work if the provisions in the veto aren't "related to the bill". Other than that, Edwards' idea does sound okay on the surface. I'm not sure what such a limited idea of a line-item veto actually changes, though. What's the point of the president vetoing certain provisions if Congress can push them through with a simple majority? Presumably Congress voted to amend the bill in such a way in the first place. Why would they change their minds?

Because the majority is not static; it shifts across each provision of the bill. A congressman could vote for a bill in spite of some piece of it that he doesn't like if the main idea is important enough. Normally these kinds of provisions are pork or other wasteful spending. So if the single item comes back from the president that he didn't like, he has the opportunity to vote against it.

But if the people who voted for the bill happened to like every part of it, then they can override the president with a simple majority for each vetoed provision.

This solution cuts down pork and encourages Congress to write lean, short legislation. It also limits the number of laws they can pass in a term by forcing them to bundle legislation more concisely and coherently.

I know, it seems like a pipe dream. But it's my pipe dream, dammit.

At any rate, a constitutional amendment would be required for the President to have a line-item veto.

Not necessarily. Edwards' solution would leave Congress' check on the Executive Branch intact by allowing them to override vetoed items with a simple majority.

Apparently the Congress actually gave President Clinton the power to do this in the 90s (Congress willingly giving up its own power? The mind boggles), and the Supreme Court struck it down, 6-3, for once not on the court's left-right political lines (Scalia, Stevens and O'Connor dissented). Link

It was probably a long-term bet. They figured that they were going to have their boy in the White House soon enough, so he could trim out any bill provisions inserted by Democrats.

[CmdrWilkens]

At any rate, a constitutional amendment would be required for the President to have a line-item veto.

Not necessarily. Edwards' solution would leave Congress' check on the Executive Branch intact by allowing them to override vetoed items with a simple majority.

The problem lies in that anything relating to a line-item veto is outside the rather explicit constitutional instructions for enacting a bill. Right now the President signs it, sends it back, pockets it or lets it pass by inaction but has no other constitutional options. Adding a line-item veto would require an alteration to the process for enacting a bill which means a constitutional amendment.

[Straha]

And it's time to see how SD.Net did compared to New Hampshire in the Democratic Primary:

Code: Select all

Contenders                           SD.Net                                 NH

Biden                                   2.45%                                  0.22%
Clinton                                 4.29%                                39.07%
Dodd                                    1.84%                                 0.07%  
Edwards                                4.90%                                16.94% 
Gravel                                   1.84%                                 0.14%   
Kucinich                                 3.68%                                 1.36%
Obama                                 72.39%                               36.47%   
Richardson                             8.58%                                 4.61%

The castration vote in SD.net has been removed from the percentages listed here, with its absence accounted for in the calculations. The votes for other candidates in NH (presumably those who advocated castration as their percentages were perturbingly similar) have been removed as well but the percentages have not been changed to account for that. Straha bad math margin of Error: 2.4867%

[Feil]

Didn't Dodd withdraw from the race after Iowa? The people who voted for him in NH must have been idiots...

[Honorable Mention]

If I was a registered Democrat, I'd vote for Obama. In fact, barring a Ron Paul Republican nomination (ha), I'll vote for him in the general should he get the Democratic nomination. All candidates besides those two are status quo candidates, in my opinion.

[Dalton]

Didn't Dodd withdraw from the race after Iowa? The people who voted for him in NH must have been idiots...

Biden and Dodd might have withdrawn but they were still on the official ballots. Either they didn't know, or they wanted to support them even after they withdrew. Either way, it makes no sense and just draws votes from other candidates.

[Mr Bean]

Thread unstickied