Biden will NOT appear on NH primary ballot

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does New Hampshire have an "Uncommitted" option? That could just be the de facto option for Biden delegates.

[🇺🇦 Purple 🦄 Unicorn 🇮🇱]

The University of NH poll says Biden could still win by a lot, even if he's not on the ballot, because voters will simpy write-in his name.

Phillips would need to make a strong case to win NH over the next 3 months to prevent it. He's wealthy and can run millions of ads, but so have Burgum and Scott and Vivek and Trump is still far ahead.

[DaleCooper]

Democratic primary voters are obsessed with electability. Biden will win easily by write-ins.

[LastMcGovernite]

The fact that all primaries are not held on the same day is ridiculous.

Not defending the current system but I’ll push back here. A single day national primary necessarily means that only candidates who a) already have enough major institutional support to campaign everywhere at once  or b) are billionaires who can afford to throw away an absurd amount of money on a vanity campaign have any chance of winning. It could ultimately be more expensive for campaigns than the general election, as in a primary you don’t have the expectation of safe vs. swing vs. states you have no chance of winning.

My idea for a primary structure would be somewhere in between. Five voting days with 10-12 contests each, spaced about a month apart. The contests on each day would be selected by random drawing in the fall before, drawing from separate pools to ensure a mix of small/large, red/blue states on each voting day.

That way you get rid of the absurdity where a couple states get perpetual dibs on being first in the process, you still give smaller campaigns enough of a runway to potentially break through, and you streamline the process so you don’t have a new contest with completely different structure every week.

Or something like what Larry Sabato proposed in "A More Perfect Constitution," where the first four primary states were constantly in rotation, among states with 10 or fewer electoral votes, one in the NE, one in the Midwest, one in the South, one in the West.

[ProudModerate2]

Love to see Dark Brandon get his revenge on New Hampshire!

Biden is bitter about coming in 5th place.

[The Mikado]

New Hampshire filings as of 10-24-23.

https://www.sos.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt561/files/documents/2023-10/cumulative-filings-10.24.23.pdf

Terrisa Bukovinac  DEM
Mark Stewart Greenstein  DEM
John Haywood  DEM
Tom Koos  DEM
Paul V. LaCava  DEM
Jason Michael Palmer DEM
Mando Perez-Serrato  DEM
Donald Picard  DEM
Paperboy Love Prince  DEM
Marianne Williamson  DEM


Scott Alan Ayers  REP
Ryan L. Binkley REP
Doug Burgum  REP
Robert S. Carney  REP
John Anthony Castro  REP
Chris Christie REP
Ron DeSantis  REP
Nikki Haley REP
Asa Hutchinson REP
Peter Jedick REP
Mary Maxwell REP
Glenn J. McPeters REP
Scott Peterson Merrell REP
Mike Pence  REP
Vivek Ramaswamy REP
Tim Scott REP
Samuel Howard Sloan REP
David Stuckenberg REP
Rachel Swift  REP
Donald J. Trump REP

https://www.sos.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt561/files/documents/2023-10/cumulative-filings-10.26.23.pdf

Updated today. One day left.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

The University of NH poll says Biden could still win by a lot, even if he's not on the ballot, because voters will simpy write-in his name.

Phillips would need to make a strong case to win NH over the next 3 months to prevent it. He's wealthy and can run millions of ads, but so have Burgum and Scott and Vivek and Trump is still far ahead.

Member of Congress from Minnesota stakes a campaign on winning New Hampshire against a sitting President who's only on the ballot via write-in? Where have I heard that before?

[Bush did 311]

The whole primary process is antiquated. I agree with single day honestly. Having such long tedious contests over a full year from the beginning of the primary to the general election is a psychological drain.

Also all primaries should be open, no caucuses since those are dumb, and either IRV or ranked choice. I also think voters should pick the VP--whoever gets #2 maybe.

[The Mikado]

https://www.sos.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt561/files/documents/2023-10/cumulative-filings-10.27.23.pdf

Final ballot:

Dem:

President R. Boddie (auspicious first name!)
Terrisa Bukovinac
Eban Cambridge
Gabriel Cornejo
Mark Stewart Greenstein
Tom Koos
Paul V. LaCava
Star Locke
Frankie Lozada
Stephen P. Lyons
Raymond Michael Moroz
Derek Nadeau
Jason Michael Palmer
Armando "Mando" Perez-Serrato
Dean Phillips
Donald Picard
Paperboy Love Prince
Richard Rist
Vermin Supreme (hello, old friend!)
John Vail
Marianne Williamson

GOP

Scott Alan Ayers
Ryan L. Binkley
Doug Burgum
Robert S Carney Jr.
John Anthony Castro (dude running for President solely to have standing to sue Donald Trump)
Chris Christie
Ron DeSantis
Nikki Haley
Asa Hutchinson
Peter Jedick
Perry Johnson
Donald Kjornes
Mary Maxwell
Glenn J. McPeters
Scott Peterson Merrell
Darius L. Mitchell
Mike Pence
Vivek Ramaswamy
Tim Scott
Hirsh V. Singh
Samuel Howard Sloan
David Stuckenberg
Rachel Swift
DONALD J. TRUMP

[emailking]

It's easy to get on the primary ballot in NH. Here's a cool video on it

https://www.instagram.com/p/CywfQ9XsN6F/?hl=en

[Alben Barkley]

Primaries are under no obligation to be "democratic."

Yes they are. The whole point of primaries is giving people a say in who their party runs in elections!

It was better when the party bosses in smoke-filled rooms decided the nominee.

No it wasn't. Jim Crow, Tammany Hall, etc.

Furthermore, a single day national primary just ensures the largest states and the candidates who can afford to advertise in them decide the nomination.

That's how it'll go no matter how it's arranged in a post-Citizen's United system. Ranking states artificially is far more unfair.

1. Political parties are legally private clubs. They are under no obligation to hold primaries or allow "the people" to have any say whatsoever in who they nominate.

2. Rattling off inflammatory buzz words doesn't make you right. I'll take FDR, Truman, Stevenson, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey over McGovern (who f--king lost the 1972 primary vote to Humphrey but won because he basically rigged the primary system he concocted to favor him), Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, and Biden. This has f--k all to do with "Jim Crow" especially, you're just trying to force a racial element where none exists. The fact is political party elites are better-positioned to know who in their party is the best candidate for the nomination than the average voter.

Never mind that this system would have avoided Trump entirely if the Republicans also stuck to it.

3. Again you are just throwing out buzzwords. Citizens United has f--k all to do with a national primary. I remind you that Hillary Clinton was literally the target of the Citizens United case; she lost in 2008 in large part because of Obama's strength in the Iowa caucus. Without his ability to apply retail politics in a small state, Hillary would have had the nomination locked up. Ironically this would be true either in a national primary or in a "smoke-filled room," so you're just advocating for a system that would bring the biggest names with the most recognition and deepest pockets to the top every time. Bernie Sanders would be a no-name no one has ever heard of under such a system. Somehow I doubt you would like that...

[Sumner 1868]

1. Political parties are legally private clubs. They are under no obligation to hold primaries or allow "the people" to have any say whatsoever in who they nominate.

The exact argument the Texas Democratic Party made for their all-white primary until the Supreme Court made them stop in 1944.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright

2. Rattling off inflammatory buzz words doesn't make you right. I'll take FDR, Truman, Stevenson, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey over McGovern (who f--king lost the 1972 primary vote to Humphrey but won because he basically rigged the primary system he concocted to favor him), Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, and Biden.

Every single person from 1932 to 1964 you listed would have won a national same-day primary except Adlai Stevenson, who was well-known to be less popular than Kefauver but pushed through so Dixiecrats and mob-tied urban bosses wouldn't bolt. And regarding the 1972 primary, your point about the McGovern-Fraser rules actually makes the case for a national single primary, since that particular electoral result would not have occurred under such a system.

This has f--k all to do with "Jim Crow" especially, you're just trying to force a racial element where none exists. The fact is political party elites are better-positioned to know who in their party is the best candidate for the nomination than the average voter.

We're talking about the history of party politics in this country. You can't seriously discuss this without mentioning Jim Crow - especially when we discuss the Democratic Party. A major reason the DNC smoke rooms were abandoned is by then most of the party wanted to phase out the Dixiecrat bloc permanently. As for party elites "knowing better" than voters, why did they go all out for the unelectable Stevenson?

Quote
Never mind that this system would have avoided Trump entirely if the Republicans also stuck to it.

Very unlikely.

3. Again you are just throwing out buzzwords. Citizens United has f--k all to do with a national primary. I remind you that Hillary Clinton was literally the target of the Citizens United case; she lost in 2008 in large part because of Obama's strength in the Iowa caucus. Without his ability to apply retail politics in a small state, Hillary would have had the nomination locked up. Ironically this would be true either in a national primary or in a "smoke-filled room," so you're just advocating for a system that would bring the biggest names with the most recognition and deepest pockets to the top every time. Bernie Sanders would be a no-name no one has ever heard of under such a system. Somehow I doubt you would like that...

Assuming Clinton would have won a national primary in 2008 due to her narrow plurality in the popular vote is a big assumption. But in any case, what are party elites but people with deep pockets?


Out of curiosity, are you against the 17th Amendment?