presidential candidate election newbie questions

[alien1]

Hi!

I arrived in the US recently from Germany and can't find answers to two simple questions:

1. Who elects the Democratic Presidential Candidate and what are the rules for this election?

2. Nobody talks about alternative Republican Candidates. Does George W Bush have a "free ticket"? What would need to happen to see an alternative (or additional) republican candidate?

Thanks alot in advance!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Welcome to America!

1) Both Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates (and for that matter Libertarian and other third parties) are elected by delegates who attend the annual national conventions for their party.  How these delegates are elected depend on the state's system as well as the rules of their party.

Each state has either a primary election or a caucus.  The rules for each of these elections vary from state to state.  In some states, independents (or even members of the opposite party) can vote in either party primary.  In some of those states, those independent votes will count and in others the independent votes will be counted seperately from the partisan votes.  Some states (Tennessee for example), there is no partisan registration so people can vote in any primary they choose.

Republican delegates are chosen almost entirely from the primary-caucus system while Democrats have a rather un-democratic system of super-delegates who pledge their votes to the candidates.  These elite super-delegates constitute almost 40% of the votes necessary to get the nomination.  In both parties, party leaders including national committee members and state chairmen are also entitled to delegate status - in the GOP this accounts for around 6% of the delegates.

States are allocated delegates based on their vote for the respective party in previous elections, number of partisan elected officials, and overall population.  Both parties allow delegates for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa; although the latter three cannot vote for President in the general election.

Whether the delegates have to pledge their support to a candidate beforehand or not depends on either the party rules or the election law in the state.

The Green Papers has some excellent in-depth information on the delegate selection process in both parties. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04


2) In a political sense, President Bush is unopposed for the Republican nomination as no elected official or major figure at any level is challenging him.  However, in an official sense, the election process will be the same - there will still be Republican primaries and caucuses in most states just as if there were a competitive election.
In both parties, there are "no-name" candidates who will make it to the ballot in some states.  The only two no-name Republicans who are mounting any sort of campaign is Blake Ashby, a millionaire moderate from Missouri, and Bill Wyatt, an anti-war screwball from California.  Democrats have their own legion of no-names, headed up by Lyndon LaRouche - who is basically a fascist cult leader and conspiracy propagandist.  It is highly unlikely that any of these candidates will recieve even one delegate at their respective party's conventions.

[Ryan]

hmmm useful. Here's another question. What does it take to be considered "officially" running for the nomination.

I mean take the current democrat race. No one seriously expects either Kucinich, Sharpton or Braun to win either nomination or Presidency. Yet they are invited to all debates, used on all polls etc.

How come they are and LaRouche is not??? What qualifications could he possibly lack that say Sharpton has

[DarthKosh]

hmmm useful. Here's another question. What does it take to be considered "officially" running for the nomination.

I mean take the current democrat race. No one seriously expects either Kucinich, Sharpton or Braun to win either nomination or Presidency. Yet they are invited to all debates, used on all polls etc.

How come they are and LaRouche is not??? What qualifications could he possibly lack that say Sharpton has

Money and being on the ballot.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The DNC can keep him out of the process and they are absolutely right to do so when it comes to nuts... but you would think that Sharpton would qualify for "nut" status too.

According to Politics1.com, LaRouche has raised $5 million (which puts him in line with some of the other candidates)  He has ran screwy radio commercials in the past and actually managed to get 22% in the Arkansas Dem Primary in 2000 but the DNC refused to award him the delegates.  Normally I would oppose efforts to exclude people from the process and I would certainly jump on the DNC for doing so... but in this case, I think you have a valid exception.

Politics1.com has some great info on the also-running candidates below the spotlight:
Republicans: http://www.politics1.com/othergop04.htm
Democrats: http://www.politics1.com/dems04.htm

and a list of all the known 3rd party candidates:
http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm

hmmm useful. Here's another question. What does it take to be considered "officially" running for the nomination.

I mean take the current democrat race. No one seriously expects either Kucinich, Sharpton or Braun to win either nomination or Presidency. Yet they are invited to all debates, used on all polls etc.

How come they are and LaRouche is not??? What qualifications could he possibly lack that say Sharpton has

[NorthernDog]

2. Nobody talks about alternative Republican Candidates. Does George W Bush have a "free ticket"? What would need to happen to see an alternative (or additional) republican candidate?

If the incumbent President is unpopular but running for re-election, you will usually see a strong challenger in the primaries. This happened most recently to the first Pres. Bush in 1992,and Pres. Carter in 1980. The challeneger rarely wins the nomination but succeeds in weakening the incumbent nominee.

[Ryan]

hmmm useful. Here's another question. What does it take to be considered "officially" running for the nomination.

I mean take the current democrat race. No one seriously expects either Kucinich, Sharpton or Braun to win either nomination or Presidency. Yet they are invited to all debates, used on all polls etc.

How come they are and LaRouche is not??? What qualifications could he possibly lack that say Sharpton has

Money and being on the ballot.

As html pointed out LaRouche must have had more money than Braun did at the start of the campaign (he must be having more even now) He could probably show similar support (by way of signatuires etc) to Kucinich and he has about the same elective experience as Sharpton

So thats the process?? the national committees just randomly choose which of the various screwball and serious candidates they want to declare offcial and which remain only on the ballot???

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The DNC said that LaRouche was not a real Democrat... and the courts agreed.

[Ryan]

The DNC said that LaRouche was not a real Democrat... and the courts agreed.

Ok Ok I'm not by any chance a champion of La Rouche, I dont even know about him but he def. sounds like a nutcase.

What about all the other democrats that want to stand?? Is it decided solely by who the national party feels is fit to run??

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not even sure whether or not he's even a registered Democrat...

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I think Ryan is asking a broader question here

I could be totally wrong, but I think the DNC keeps tighter control over their primary process than we do - i.e sponsoring Debates, controlling what the state parties do, etc.  The Florida Dem Party wanted to hold some sort of straw poll and the DNC threatened them and they withdrew the idea.

As I recall, when the brouhaha erupted over keeping Alan Keyes out of a debate in 2000, the pressure was directed at the media outlet that was sponsoring the debate and not the RNC, leading me to believe that the RNC was not a sponsor of the debate and isn't as involved in its process as the DNC.

Either way, SOMEBODY has to control the process.  Could you imagine having a debate with all 42 people who are supposedly running as Democrats for the nomination?  Or the 22 Republicans?

[Ryan]

LOL that would be fun to watch (and thanks for noticing the broader question- I was beginning to wonder if I was asking it wrong )

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Well, LaRouche is a convicted felon. . . . so he can't really run.
That's why he's not included.

How does a conviction prevent someone from running for the Presidency? Anyone with the specific law, let me know.

[Gustaf]

Well, LaRouche is a convicted felon. . . . so he can't really run.
That's why he's not included.

How does a conviction prevent someone from running for the Presidency? Anyone with the specific law, let me know.

LaRouche's followers has a branch in Sweden as well, called the EAP, and from what I have heard they advocate the construction of a magnetic railroad, or something like that, to Mars, which kind of shows the nut status (and perhaps the difference between those guys and the others you mentioned here).

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Well, LaRouche is a convicted felon. . . . so he can't really run.
That's why he's not included.

How does a conviction prevent someone from running for the Presidency? Anyone with the specific law, let me know.

LaRouche's followers has a branch in Sweden as well, called the EAP, and from what I have heard they advocate the construction of a magnetic railroad, or something like that, to Mars, which kind of shows the nut status (and perhaps the difference between those guys and the others you mentioned here).

Gustaf, do you see an end to 'Politics of Personal Destruction' in America?

[Gustaf]

Well, LaRouche is a convicted felon. . . . so he can't really run.
That's why he's not included.

How does a conviction prevent someone from running for the Presidency? Anyone with the specific law, let me know.

LaRouche's followers has a branch in Sweden as well, called the EAP, and from what I have heard they advocate the construction of a magnetic railroad, or something like that, to Mars, which kind of shows the nut status (and perhaps the difference between those guys and the others you mentioned here).

Gustaf, do you see an end to 'Politics of Personal Destruction' in America?

I'm sorry, I'm not really familiar with the term "politics of personal destruction", what exactly does that mean?

[jravnsbo]

Essentially it means personal attacks.  Does the person have the internal qualities to lead and then when flaws develop they are amplified, sometimes VERY UNFAIRLY on BOTH sides.  It gets to the point where they seem like they want to destroy the man and not just him politically.  Like he is Hitler or something outrageous.



I'm sorry, I'm not really familiar with the term "politics of personal destruction", what exactly does that mean?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Gustaf]

Essentially it means personal attacks.  Does the person have the internal qualities to lead and then when flaws develop they are amplified, sometimes VERY UNFAIRLY on BOTH sides.  It gets to the point where they seem like they want to destroy the man and not just him politically.  Like he is Hitler or something outrageous.



I'm sorry, I'm not really familiar with the term "politics of personal destruction", what exactly does that mean?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, thank you. To answer Christopher's question, I think not, unfortunately. If you mean to imply that I am being unfair to LaRouche and tus engaging in personal attacks, as far as I can see we ARE talking about a nutcase, but I apologize if anyone felt offended. The sad truth is that American politics is way ahead of European and I see us going down the same road. Personal attacks (previously unusual in my country) is becoming increasingly common, as is money and advertising, at the expense of grassroot volounteer work. So I think we will get more and more of the bad stuff in politics. Which is another good reason not to put to much faith in politicians.

[jravnsbo]

yes we definately all need more statesman rather than politicians.

[minionofmidas]

LaRouche's followers has a branch in Sweden as well, called the EAP, and from what I have heard they advocate the construction of a magnetic railroad, or something like that, to Mars, which kind of shows the nut status (and perhaps the difference between those guys and the others you mentioned here).

In Germany too. Before 1990 it was called something like European Communist Party or something. Anyway now it's called Buergerrechtsbewegung Solidaritaet. I'd translate that as Civil Rights Movement Solidarity except that Buergerrechtler in a German context means East German 1980s dissident.
It's actually run by LaRouche's wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has been engaged with nutcase quasi-left outfits in Germany since as long as anyone can remember, certainly longer than she's been married to Lyndon LaRouche. Their most important claim at the moment is that the CIA did 9/11 all by themselves without any Arab help...Which is funny as back in the 70s many lefties, including my father, believed her to be CIA...Which was probably total bullsh**t as well.

[Gustaf]

LaRouche's followers has a branch in Sweden as well, called the EAP, and from what I have heard they advocate the construction of a magnetic railroad, or something like that, to Mars, which kind of shows the nut status (and perhaps the difference between those guys and the others you mentioned here).

In Germany too. Before 1990 it was called something like European Communist Party or something. Anyway now it's called Buergerrechtsbewegung Solidaritaet. I'd translate that as Civil Rights Movement Solidarity except that Buergerrechtler in a German context means East German 1980s dissident.
It's actually run by LaRouche's wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has been engaged with nutcase quasi-left outfits in Germany since as long as anyone can remember, certainly longer than she's been married to Lyndon LaRouche. Their most important claim at the moment is that the CIA did 9/11 all by themselves without any Arab help...Which is funny as back in the 70s many lefties, including my father, believed her to be CIA...Which was probably total bullsh**t as well.

I thought the "Swedish Connection" was kind of fascist, but with nutcases it's hard to tell....

[hoshie]

The DNC said that LaRouche was not a real Democrat... and the courts agreed.

This reminds me of what happened to David Duke when he ran for Bob Livingston's seat in Congress a couple of years ago. He was disowned by the GOP, who said: "There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman liked David Duke."

[ijohn57s]

Well, LaRouche is a convicted felon. . . . so he can't really run.
That's why he's not included.

How does a conviction prevent someone from running for the Presidency? Anyone with the specific law, let me know.

As far as I know there is no such law. LaRouche made another run at the Presidency this year.
Also, Eugene V. Debs ran several times despite having a conviction. (In fact, it seems that I read that he ran once while in prison. He said the first thing he would do as President would be to pardon himself.)

[minionofmidas]

Debs ran from prison in 1920.