Wow! I actually agree with Lanny Davis on something! In Utah, we have caucuses. To participate in the Republican caucus, you have to be a registered Republican. If you’re not, you don’t participate. As a registed unaffiliated voter (and a nominal Republican), this takes away my right to participate, since I won’t got to the Democratic caucus. (To the Dems credit, anyone is welcome to come and participate, regardless of registrated status). Those who attend the Republican caucuses are (by a large majority) at the extreme end of the right spectrum. This means we primarily have ultra-conservative candidates on the ballot at every level of government. If we had primary elections, with no caucuses, we would get better representation. Good luck in your efforts, Lanny.

Wow!! When I started to read this I thought “here we go with more of the same from Lanny”, I was so wrong!!! I am truly impressed and agree with him 100%. I am all for changes that make the system more user friendly and that will involve more people. The percentages that he quotes are embarassing and I’d say we should all be ashamed but I think the folks to make the rules are the ones who should be ashamed………..what were they thinking? I hope more people respond and the the leadership takes some action but I’m not holding my breath.

“*Abolishing proportional representation and requiring winner-take-all for winners of state primaries (bringing the nominating system into alignment with the electoral college system for electing presidents – isn’t that what this is supposed to be all about – electing a president?”

Some states allow for their electoral votes to be split during the national election. These rules should be extended to the primaries. If it is good for one, then it is good for the other.

“*Limiting primaries to pre-registered Democrats, rather than allowing Rush Limbaugh and others to encourage independents and Republicans to do same day re-registration, motivated only by mischief to muck up the Democratic results;”

Some states do not require their voters to register for a party in order to vote in primaries. Instead, a voter has to declare that day which party the will be voting for. Seems to me that is the truly democratic way to do it.

So you’re advocating that they essentially adopt the Republican system because it’s more democratic?

I love the regional primary idea. Both parties should adopt it.

Finally, something that makes sense:

One final rational, sensible, and fair idea: Why not have five regional primaries, starting on February 1, and the first of the month through June 1, with the order rotated every four years so everyone gets a chance to go first?

This makes a lot of sense, instead of the nightmare of “who is on first…” and the make or break early primaries.

Mr. Davis - We can disagree on issues but we can agree on process. I hope the Republican party takes these as well. Especially the regional primary system with two modifications: 1) do a primary every 2 weeks so the whole thing is done in 10 weeks. 2) start them around the end of April so they finish around July 1st. One and a half to two months between the primaries and the Nat’l convention should be plenty of time.

I agree with your 5 primary dates (hopefully evenly distributed across the national landscape, 10 per date) comment with the states in each rotating each election. However, I disagree with your winner-take-all comment. The electoral college was set up so EACH DISTRICT would receive an equal vote for president, regardless of state location and EACH STATE was to receive two votes for the president. Ideally, each congressional district should get a vote for president/candidate and then each state can award its two votes to the majority winner. If you truly want a democratic election where everyone’s vote can count, this is how it must be done and is the basis of the electoral college system. Doing otherwise, ie., your winner-take-all system, deprives those districts which vote for one candidate or the other overwhelmingly, in primaries or general election, their vote when the other districts in the state go for the other candidate. This happens every election in winner-take-all states, to candidates of either party. Look at the history if you doubt it. Let EVERY DISTRICT regardless of party orientation (everyone knows gerrymandering is done to limit one party or the other’s influence) cast their electoral vote and “let the chip’s fall where they may” while the states cast their 2 votes on a winner-take-both format!!!

Once again I find myseld agreeing with Lanny Davis! Wow two articles in a row and I’m a republican.

Lanny Davis is a fine one to call someone or something else elitist. Every time I see him speak
or read what he has written, his is convinced he knows what’s best for everyone else. After failing
to change the world under Brother Bill, he tried to get Hillary installed to try again. Sorry Lanny,
we ain’t buying.

This makes the most sense of anything I have heard lately.
Keep up the good work and get the message out.

I completely disagree. Why should someone who won’t otherwise associate with a group, who won’t contribute either in time or money, have a say in what a party does? As an unreasonable example, should people from, say Iowa, be able to vote for candidates for San Francisco City Council? Here, the perfectly good reason why they shouldn’t, is distance; Iowans live a long way from San Francisco. But people who distance themselves from a party by declaring they are independents shouldn’t have a say in a party, either. Equally, they people who do associate together by declaring their affiliation and contributing time and money should get all the say, or at least get a say in who else they’re going to allow, or who can be a candidate. Any group of people who gets together and - somehow - selects someone to be a candidate for president should be allowed to do it however they want. If they want to do it in smoke-filled back rooms (okay, even smoke-free back rooms, it’s harder and harder to find somewhere that will let people smoke) then that’s their right. If a political party wants to select its candidate in outrageously unfair ways, it’s their right. Members of that party that feel left out can leave. You and I don’t have to vote for that candidate. Effective party leadership will be aware of that, ineffective leadership will see their unpopular candidate go down in defeat.

Is what the Democratic party doing unfair and eletist? So what if it is? Seriously. The right to assemble, and the right to free speech also guarantee that those who feel treated unfairly can leave such a party and join another, or form their own. The fundamental and essential fact that anybody can come together to form a new political party.

It’s their right.

When has the word democrat ever had the meaning of Fair play.

Mr. Davis,

I do agree that the caucus system tends to dissuade voters from the primary season and also that the “superdelegate” votes are also unable to use their voice to fairly pick a nominee.

However, the stakes of the Democratic Primary are only an issue within the Democratic Party. This is not an issue of “gross violations of the one person-one vote principle” as the ‘voters’ within the primaries are not choosing their president, but the candidate they would like to see the Democrats back in November. The constitution is noticably silent on the issue of political party selection process.

During much of the drawn out and tiresome Obama/Clinton primary fight, I was struck at how many Democrats supporting Hillary and Obama alike didn’t understand that they weren’t choosing Bush’s successor, just the opponent to the Republicans. Regardless of the fairness and utility of the caucus system, this is not a constitutional issue, merely a political one.

LOL LOL LOL
Welcome Lanny to independendant thinking.
Just don’t fall to far right every will think you lost your marbles.
I watch both parties in this country do some really stupid things.
Any more they are both just different sides of the same coin.
I refuse to register for either party.
They both suck at there core and have elilist in them and running them

I agree with Matt. Each District should get an equal electorial college vote and the State would then give the majority winner its two votes. That is truly democratic. This will never happen though, as the Democrats would easily lose at a third of their electorial college votes from California and New York, and would probably never win another presidential election again. Democratic…blah.

Why can’t we just have a national primary and every state vote for a candidate on the same day? By the time my state voted, the person I wanted to be my candidate had already dropped out.

I agree with Lanny on all his points in this article.

But, the words “rational,” “sensible” and “fair” are also oxymorons when associated with the Democratic Party in general.

And, based on the positions they’ve taken as a Party since the 1960’s, I don’t think the Democrats have the capacity to be embarassed by anything they promote or come up with anymore.

Mr. Davis,
I am a registered Republican because where I live in Ohio only Republicans offered more than one candidate in the primary for the majority of offices. In reality I am what your buddy Limbaugh calls a “hethan moderate independent Methodist.” I don’t care for him and to show I can’t stand Democrats either I believe Bill Clinton is the WORST President this country has had in my lifetime. That said, I agree whole heartedly with your column, which is hard for me to believe because when you, Carville and the rest were in the White House I did not believe there was a brain cell among you. I believe the entire Presidential election system is one big JOKE that needs to be taken out back, blown up and start over again and this time keep the Bushes, the Clintons, the Chaneys, the Howard Deans and whatever Einstein is running the Republicans out of the discussion. If that means chaos in November SO BE IT.

Allow me to be a little cynical. The rules for this year’s primaries were set and agreed to by all parites before the primaries started. Now one side doesn’t like the outcome (i.e., the Senator Clinton supporters) and wants to change to a primary system that their candidate would have won under.

Sorry Mr Davis, but Senator Clinton got outplayed by a candidate and team that read the rulebook, found out how to win within the rules, and executed a beautiful game plan.

I’m sort of reminded of the historic first meeting between the football teams of the established New York powerhouse United States Military Academy at West Point and the upstart midwestern school, Notre Dame. West Point had an overpowering running game and the best offensive line in the country; they were the odds on favorite to win. But Notre Dame had studied the rule book and found a previously unused but legat offensive strategy — the forward pass. Army was caught flat footed and soundly defeated. There were some cries from the sidelines that Notre Dame had cheated, but all they had done was find a way to win within the established rules.

So, Mr Davis, instead of trying to rewrite the rulebook and declare the forward pass to be illegal, use the off season to build your passing game and defense. There’s always next (4) years.

Prattville, AL

What an irony that the Democratic Party which pretends to value “equal rights” in everything, deliberately concocted a convoluted selection process which gives preference to certain congressional districts, and by extension, certain minority groups/ special interest groups(re:”proportional representation”). The caucus system, used by some extent by both political parties, is an outdated, elitist exercise in insider party manipulation. And, wow! How Obama manipulated it! If the Democrat primary selection process had been more similar to the more democratic Republican process, Hillary Clinton would have been nominated fair and square.

Just how is the Republican system more democratic when a candidate can win 51% to 49% in the vote but takes 100% of the votes of the State? What’s democratic about that? OK it mirrors what happens in the Preseidential elections but then GW Bush got elected by getting fewer votes than Al Gore in 2000 - democracy eh?! Still….it suits the Republicans at the moment so they are fine with it……no doubt they’ll steal another election as well.

LANNY DAVIS’ ARTICLE ON CAUCUS AND THE CHANGES PROPOSED IS PROBABLY THE MOST ON TARGET THING I HAVE READ DURING THIS CAMPIGHN–IT’S CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO WAS WATCHING THAT OBAMA WON THE NOMINATION DUE TO CAUCAS’—BETTER GRASS ROOTS ORG. ON THE GROUND THAN CLINTONBUT WITH THE ARM TWISTING AND BASIC FOREMAT IT WAS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS THAT WE ALL BELIEVE IN IN THE US–CLINTON GOT THE SHAFT—–AND I’M A REPUBLICAN

Party nominations have nothin to do with your voting rights. Since you are voting as a Democrat and not as a Citizen, I think the Democrats should be able to make whatever rules they want. And then the Lord Obama spoke and declared all primaries will be cacuses.

Two thoughts.

First, Mr Davis is obviously saying “if the Democrats had done it this way then the right candidate would have won”. Given the history of the Clinton camp in trying to change the rules on the fly, one has to assume that if the Democrats had used all of Lanny’s rules and some other candidate had taken advantage of them to win then this article would have been vastly different.

Second, he complains about the caucus system by saying that it violates “one person, one vote” then turns around and recommends winner take all primaries. In that system the voters for a 51-49 loser would all be disenfranchised. Where is “one person, one vote” in that system?

Your candidate lost because her campaign was outplayed and because the American people rejected the sense of entitlement displayed by the Senator and her husband.

Colorado’s caucus system is very democratic and open, or it was when I lived there 20 years ago. All cauceses are held the same evening, both Republican and Democrat. The local newspapers carry an announcement by the Registrar of Voters telling where each party’s precinct meeting is. In our little town, it was always at somebody’s home. True, usually only a handful of folks showed up at our precinct’s Republican caucus, but every time the precinct captain announced some meeting or other and asked, “Can anybody attend that?” I held up my hand. Involvement was so easy. I got to go to a bunch of meetings as a delegate just that way, all the way to State Republican convention. It was easy to get friends and other family members involved that way, too. The only time being available didn’t work for me was when it came to national convention, and that was highly competitive; those positions went to the party office holders. But the rest of the time being involved was truly easy and enjoyable. Now I live in Missouri, where the system is different. I don’t know when or where the caucus is, but it seems to be a big meeting where I’d be an anonymous ant. I like Colorado’s system better.

Uh oh…seems like consensus is really a possibility in the USA. I ‘ve been down with two Lanny Davis pieces in a row and may be falling in love with Susan Estrich. Yes, I still disagree with the overall views they may have, but at leat someone can put forth their opinions without a bunch of buzzwords and meaningless rhetoric. Cheers to both!

I hold a completely different opinion - that primary elections are nothing more than excuses for the political parties to stick their hands into the public purse and be subsidized with tax money for their private functions.

As private associations, political parties can choose their representation and structure their candidate nominating processes *within their own organization* however they wish. Unfortunately, the two wings of the national political party have clamped down on the existing *public* nomination and candidacy processes and use every trick in the book to prevent any real competition or challenges to their hegemony from emerging from the populace.

The best of all possible worlds would be for every party to choose their candidates how they wish - convention, caucus, or even a primary election *that they themselves pay for in toto*, with few restrictions and a very low threshold for getting on the general election ballot.

In southeastern Idaho we held the caucus in the mid-late afternoon. People showed up as they got off work or they left an hour early. It was an amazing experience. Old and young were there together. Debates and discussions were going on all over the place. Having lived in Idaho my whole life I was amazed at the cross-section of the population. No one left out and due to great advertising the turn-out was a record and far beyond what the organizers assumed was possible. The Republican primary, on the other hand, wasn’t advertised until right before it happened. Rumor has it that they were concerned that Democrats and Independents would stop by and try to interfere with the voting. While it may be different in other states, what we had in Pocatello Idaho was a democratic assembly in the purest form I have ever seen in my 37 years.

Come on FOX, your obfuscatory tactics have got to be better than this. Stick with your crusade against the far left and leave the regular democrats alone.

Constantly saying doesn’t make it true…. “Bush Stole the Election”:

Bush lost the popular vote by about 500,000, won the electoral college by 5 votes, and carried more states (30 to 20), carried more counties.

Per the constitution, only the electoral college counts. In grade school we discussed scenarios like this, and it has happened before. No stealing here, a low probability outcome of the system.

Gore on the other hand, had lawyers on jets flying into to take the FL election to court in select counties. Gore’s people on site were then changing the counting system after every recount. Gore lost every recount. Gore lost the independent newspaper recount. Gore lost in the courts, Gore lost in the Supreme court. Bottomline, GORE LOST. Gore tried to manipulate the system and LOST.

HE LOST: Get over it… move on……

I find myself agreeing with most of what Mr. Davis says. The Primary systems is supposed to be used for voters to pare down choices for party candidates. Thus the most fair method is to have all eligible voters go to the polls and cast a ballot. Voters who are registered in accordance with state laws should be able to vote in whichever, but only one, primary they choose. Here in South Carolina, I am allowed to vote in either primary but if I vote in the Republican primary I can’t vote in the Democrat primary.
What I find interesting about this article is that Lanny Davis did not recommend such changes until after Senator Obama secured the nomination rather that Senator Clinton. I wonder what Mr. Davis would say about the Caucus system if Senator Clinton had secured the nomination.

I’m all for revamping the primary system. The idea of running for President from the 1st day you get elected as a senator, governor, etc is ridiculous…..this election cycle has been entirely too long and drawn out…..let the candidates file,
have about a 2-3month period campaigning……but all the names from both parties on the same ballot….let each state vote and pick the nominee the same day, much as done for the general election…..then send that person to the party convention to get fine tuned…..then have the general election. Primaries done in one day nationwide…..General Election done in one day nationwide….
I’m sick to death of the nominess being chosen before our state ever gets to vote…..and I’m tired of the northeastern states selecting our candidates…those folks are not more important than we are!!!!

Well, I agree with Michael Lane’s comment. I’ve also been very surprised by my reaction to recent pieces by both Davis and Estrich. Just goes to show, there can be fair assessments from either party. And for the record, Lanny is right on target with this one.

Just a question: Would Lanny still call for abolishment of caucuses IF Hillary had won them and the nomination? Don’t think so…

As a conservative Republican, I am surprised to agree with everything Lanny Davis said (except for his gratuitous comment about Rush Limbaugh). At the same time, I hope that the Democrats don’t listen, because the current system encourages the nomination of extreme candidates lacking broad appeal, such as Obama. This system helps Republicans.

WOW, I agree with Lanny Davis! What is this world coming to.

Actually, I think it should be one state one vote. Then all area of the country are truelly represented.

I’m in total agreement with a rotating regional primary scenario. This should be adopted by both parties. I’m stunned by the statistics concerning the caucuses turnout. Given the dismall turnout they generated, our elected officials need to understand that something is broken and in need of repair.

Is there like a special Understanding Caucuses 101class offered at any colleges and universities? How does anyone understand this mess and how many shots of bourbon did they do before they wrote these silly rules up?

I agree in theory. however all “extremism in this country must stop. We must stop having one party that tries to take everything away and reserve assistance for the few “elitists” and we should not have a party that tries to give everything away and spends more on foreign assistance than domestic.

We need a party that is willing to take things on a “case by case” basis. That was tax paying citizens are taken care of before we release one dollar to aid foreign countries, and certain special interest programs…and of course making war for the intended benefit of all (E.G. Iraq).

The money we spent on war would have fixed social security, yet all these years the government has been saying the money is not there, yet we can start and fund a war that will last over a decade.

we need to stop direct corporate lobbying. we need the companies and industries to approach the people to get laws changed and for them. They need to start doing something for the people instead of the politicians pocketbook.

I did not know the Democrats’ process was so convoluted. No wonder they nominated a totally unqualified candidate. Maybe Obama’s experience prior to politics as a community organizer helped him win. Too bad that experience is not so relevant for economics, or he might know his tax increases would wreck the economy.

The undeniable key to this article and the practice it dedcries is simply that the Democrat Party is not democratic. It is NOT the DemocratIC Party. No surprise here.

Lanny,

Wow, that simple majority thing, you mean like the one in the Constitution that says you only need 51 members of the Senate to affirm the Presidnts choice for a Supreme Court Justice? Why change one & not the other?

What a Maroon!

Dems, vote early, vote often, never show ID!

Of course Bob - Bush didn’t steal the election, disenfrancised voters, rigged polls in Florida where the governer was, oh Bush’s brother, people turned away from polling stations, a Republican party funder owns the company that makes electronic polling machines but won’t let these be independently tested because that might reveal “manufacturing secrets”, I’m sure it would - the Republicans are crooks.

Absolutely agree, but then that would leave the elitist with less power wouldn’t it? Hail, the not-so-great democratic process! No wonder common Americans feel they are beneath the political caste system. And oh, how our “leaders” love it so.

Yes, I agree with Lanny that its different, but I don’t know if its unfair. Objectively, I think that if the voter turnout in the Primary was 70 or 80 percent, then I’d agree. But with voter turnout still around 50%, I don’t agree that its unfair. From my perspective the people really charged up by the candidates attended the Caucus - I don’t find our participation undemocratic. Subjectively - our Texas voting system allowed me to vote against Hillary twice in 1 day; once in the primary then again that evening in the Caucus. Few events this year have given me more pleasure.

Has anyone gone back to see if Hillary would have won the nomination under Lanny’s new system? I suspect that his motives are not pure, given his past.

I think it’s funny that the Democrats are exploiting the link between John Mc Cain and oil companies. Why don’t Republicans take the same tack with Democrats and Hollywood? If I had to give up movies or gasoline I know which one I’d pick. I can’t wait for Leonardo DiCaprio to be appointed Secretary of the Interior.

Good ol’ Lanny…. always and ever the lapdog of the Clintons. The Caucuses were just fine, the superdelegates all just wonderful people, the proportional allotting of delegates all just fine - back in February when his gal Hillary was winning… Now…. not so much. Geeeze, what a whiny, sniveling little man…

While I agree the Democratic Caucuses need to go. I think all caucuses should go. Including the Republican ones. In my state the Republican delagates are not pledged so you vote at 7pm and its a worthless vote — unless you are picked to go to the next level.

I think all presidential candidates should be decided by a primary. Maybe the GOP should be innovative and upstage the Democrats by proposing to do away with it in their own party.

A sensible Democratic recommendation? What’s this? If this had been in place, the “annointed one” wouldn’t be the Democratic candidate.

Kudos to Lanny for stating the obvious. Unfortunately, the elite don’t wand nor do they understand the democratic system.

I agree that rotating regional primaries make sense … again, the elite will also ignore this practical idea because it makes sense.

Come’on Lanny, why don’t you admit that the only “reason” this issue is now on the table is Hillary didn’t make it to the top. Barack and the fact that the National Media “ordained” him and his message, then turned and threw Hillary under the bus.

The Democrats started this crazy scheme anyway to ensure the “picked one” by the DNC actaully won, in other words the Demiocrats themselves “rigged” it to thier advantage, BUT, this time it did not work and Obama cleaned her clock.

Now I know you are really worried since Obama has broken from the main DNC party wishes and has begun his “walk on the water” to assume his (in his mind anyway) rightful place as the Savior of the World and The Messenger of Peace. Barack does NOT need the DNC, but the DNC really need him. Good Luck Lanny, soon your pipe dreams may become reality.

I like the current system of democrat kaos. Lanny does not like the results…now. He did not complain about the current democrat kaos when his buddy Bill was winning with the current democrat kaos. LANNY!!!!…stop whining and work with in the current democrat kaos system!!!

I think the knock on caucuses is because Clinton lost most of them. A caucus system also allows more flexibility down the road if an early front runner or second place finisher fades. In my county in Iowa we had almost 15,000 people participate in our caucus which was about 10 times as many as in our primary the following June (although we didn’t have many contested races this year). As far as winner take all like the electoral college I am a firm believer in abolishing the electoral college which has thwarted the popular will in four different elections and is the equivalent of what we used to have in state legislatures when each county had a representative or when the English parliament was based on populations that had changed and the rotten borough system existed. By the way, I see there’s at least one Republican on here that follows the practice of referring to the country’s oldest political party as the Democrat party when in fact the correct name is the Democratic Party.An Irishman should know better.

Interesting… While some of the points made are valid, and I agree with some of them, I question the true motives behind this piece. Bill Clinton was selected as the Democratic nominee in 1992 and 1996 after having won some caucuses himself. Hillary Clinton, Mr. Davis’ candidate, would’ve won this year if she actually contested the caucuses, instead of letting Obama reel off 11 straight wins. I guess this is how the Clinton camp rolls. If they can’t win, then bend or change the rules so you can win.

OK…I live in WA State where our current Gov. did the SAME THING Gore did in FL, and she got the office. Guess what, they recounded SEATTLE??? How about a statewide recount since she is supposed to lead the whole state (she has yet to do anything that I am aware of). Maybe FL should have had 1 state wide recount and been done with it. Now, whatever happened to the one person on the ballot with the most popular votes of eligble voters is the winner in office, and the second is well, the loser. Or in the case of the President, the VP?? One person-one vote. All the way from the primaries to the general election. Everyone should vote in a national primary, say, on the Friday before Memorial day. Make it a federal holiday so EVERYONE has the option to show up, and we get a 4 day weekend. We can call it Use Your Right or Shut Up Day. Make it kid friendly so that KIDS CAN SEE THEIR PARENTS VOTE!!!! We have mail-in ballots in our county, and I sit with my kids when I fill it out, and they go with me when I drop it off. Lead by example. Then there is plenty of time for the ratings boost before November 5. Because I don’t know anyone who takes all those ads seriously. It’s more like a elongated boxing match, without the blood or sweat.

Mr Davis ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL!!!!!! WHO ARE YOU TO TELL TEXAS WHAT TO DO ???? If Hillary had won the nomination, we would not be hearing anything about this from you.

Lanny,
Whatever process the Democrats used to come up with the marxist, ‘empty-suit’ Obama as their nominee needs to be… changed / fixed / revamped / in a hurry.

lanny Davis is right on….Good logical ideas….and I am a republican.

Wow! Lanny Davis actually agrees that the Superdelegates are a bad thing. Wait a minute, that’s right. His former boss won the popular vote, but because of the Superdelegates, the Dems are going to run the Obamanation. I wonder if Mr. Davis would be making these same assertions if Hillary had gotten a majority of Superdelegates.

WOW!!! How short memories are! Republicans bent the rules and STOLE two elections running! If you don’t support your party then you have no right to vote in a primary, PERIOD!!! Lanny has sold out.

The superdelegates are a bad thing, yes. But the caucus system doesn’t have to be.
Lets face it, some people are paying attention and some people aren’t. People who aren’t paying attention can be conned into voting for, or more often against a candidate based on essentially lies. These are those who get the ballot in the mail and for the first time maybe absorb more than a soundbite about them.

This hands a great deal of power to the corporate media. There is a place for those who read deeper on a regular basis to play a larger role. The caucus system strikes that balance.

The problems come when government is so large, and most people so apathetic, that corruption can play a role.

It is good to remember that the parties are private groups that get together and support a candidate for office. They traditionally had no government influence on them, and the natural death they succumb to when their policies are disastrous, would give rise to another party.

The case we seem to have today is that BOTH parties are owned at the national level by the same group that seems to run the media. If we let the internet decide, we may have the Constitution party running against the libertarian party, with the greens as the spoiler.

Too bad the programmable voting machines won’t let us do that.

Here in Chicago we are encouraged to “vote early and vote often”. Even the dead vote Democratic (usually the swing vote).

All states should have primaries. Winner take all. The DNC had no right to tell any state when they can have a primary. We should do away with districts to. Have all the primaries on the same date. we will know who our candidate is and we won’t have to listen to it for weeks. We should do away with the electoral vote. Popular vote should win.

I DON’T UNDERSTAND,SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY ECONOMICS’HEALTHCARE ALL THE ISSUES IHEAR MEAN ANYTHING WITH ,RUSSIA AND IRAN AIMING NUKES AT US WHICH THEY WILL USE DON’T EVEN THINK THEY WONT I HAVE BEEN STUDYING THIS SO CALLED RELIGON FOR YEARS
OR GOVERMENT OR WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.I READ WALID SHOEBAT WHO IS A FORMER PLO TERRORIST.HE CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY AND STARTED TELLING SOME OF THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS. TAKE THIS IN IF NOTHING ELSE STICKS. THERE IS A WORD USED BY THE MUSLIMS.THE WORD IS CALLED “HUDNAH” THIS WORD GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO LIE OR SIGN A
TREATY.ANYTHING DONE TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF ISLAM. IS OK MAYBE ITS TIME TO HAVE WALID ON AGAIN .OBAMA IS AN EMPTY SUIT. HE IS AN ELIEST THE AVERAGE HARD WORKING BLACK FAMILY WILL SEE NO IMPROVEMENT IN HIS LIFE. HE HAS NO MILITARY KNOWLEDGE
A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A VOTE FOR DESTRUCTION OF OUR WAY OF LIFE.I PRAY HE DOES NOT MAKE
IT.

“*Limiting primaries to pre-registered Democrats, rather than allowing Rush Limbaugh and others to encourage independents and Republicans to do same day re-registration, motivated only by mischief to muck up the Democratic results;”

Don’t lay this all on the Republicans. How do you think we got John McCain as the Republican Nominee?

Hey Lanny,
People are always criticizing your ‘golden-boy’ Obama for being inexperienced. But he has actually sponsered a Bill in the Senate. Lanny, why haven’t you wrote on this. Why Lanny , have you not told the American people about (S.2433) Obama’s “GLOBAL POVERTY ACT”??? Obama wants to end global poverty and you don’t announce this nobile gesture to all of America??? Lanny, please tell America how Obama’s Bill will TAX them $845 BILLION DOLLARS. Tell them how this money (above & beyond the 300 billion we already provide in foreign aid) will be dispersed by the United Nations to any dictator or rouge nation they choose. Oh Lanny, tell them how Obama has ‘locked’ this Bill to the U.N.’s ‘MILLENIUM DECLARATION’. And that this will make America subordinate to U.N. doctrines & mandates. That this bill will strip the USA of it’s Bill of Rights & Constitution, weaken us, bankrupt us, disarm us, and eliminate American Justice replacing it with UN International Law. So Lanny, if Obama’s Bill is such a good thing, then why has it been ‘hush-hush’ from the liberal news-media and Democrats as it is being secretly & quietly rushed thru Congress??? Tell us Lanny…Why is Obama out to destroy America???

LANNY DAVIS MAKES THE MOST SENSE AND IS A WEALTH OF INFORMATION!
Obama became the nominee by default! Even with him outspending the strongest candidate “Hill”, 4 to 1 in ads and the unreliable caucas and biased media, she caught up with him in the popular vote! The Party took her full earned Fl., (leaving only half) delegate credits away, sharing them with Obama and even awarding him some MI., delegates, when he didn’t earn run! Clinton was ambushed and the unfair Democratic system is a disservice to America. How can we have confidence in such an unrealistic process? The “Popular” vote should win, not an unrealistic proportional, distribution count which favors one opponent over another or decided by an undemo-cratic RULE, not to include all votes of two important states! For shame!

The Clintons and Laney Davis should retire from politics they are the most set of bitter people I have ever seen. You must learn to take your