Deal Near on Democratic Presidential Schedule

[madfloridian]

A plan to shuffle the 2008 Democratic presidential calendar is gaining momentum

A plan to shuffle the 2008 Democratic presidential calendar -- placing several states between the traditional Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary -- is gaining momentum on a commission studying the party's nominating process.

A consensus is developing to recommend scheduling nominating contests in two or possibly three states in the days between Iowa and New Hampshire, according to some members of a Democratic National Committee panel looking at ways to revamp the nominating schedule.

"It is getting to be a done deal," said Mike Stratton, a member of the 40-person commission headed by Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) and former labor secretary Alexis Herman. The commission is to make a final recommendation to the DNC at its Dec. 10 meeting.

If such a recommendation were adopted, it likely would diminish the influence of two small states that for decades have enjoyed outsized influence in picking presidential nominees, and would cause aspiring presidential candidates to rethink their strategies about travel and spending, and potentially even their campaign messages, in pursuit of the nomination.

Note that the committee itself played the major role, and so far Governor Dean's role has been minor in this. The committee was appointed by Terry McAuliffee.

Whatever the ultimate result, the commission will forward its recommendations about the 2008 calendar to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who would then refer the proposal to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Dean has played a low-profile role in the negotiations thus far, according to commission members, choosing to wait until the commission produces its final report.

[Bjornsdotter]

1. Good

I had wished that the states all voted the same day....of course in my case it was sour grapes. I felt that Dean would have won the nomination if that were the case.

However, I'm glad they are working on changing it a bit...I think it can only be for the better.

Cheers!

[Yupster]

23. I wish they'd do a lottery

Pick the different times for the votes, and then pick the names out of a hat each four years to fill the spots.

That way no single states get the best spots each cycle, and it would be a big publicity event when the lottery happens.

[rfkrfk]

25. I'm goin to trust a 'lottery', yeah right n/t

[ProudToBeLiberal]

31. paranoia is rampant these days

:eyes:

[rfkrfk]

32. DNC will set dates, except for Iowa and NH ...

Iowa and NH, will change dates, if needed

[drfresh]

35. That's a pretty good idea

The more chances to get in the headlines, the better. And its silly to keep it always Iowa first and then NH. Lets mix it up a bit.

[Pirate Smile]

2. They aren't naming states but it looks like Michigan and a SW state

with a large hispanic population - Arizona, New Mexico?

What would the requirements be for the other states - which demographics are they looking for in the others?

Interesting!

[punpirate]

9. New Mexico would be likely...

... since Arizona is still a Republican state, as far as national politics go. The NM Democrats held a presidential candidate referendum in 2004 in January, I think it was, with all other candidates in the usual primary in June. It would logical for New Mexico to be a consideration, given that and Richardson's closeness to the Clinton/McAuliffe brand of Demo politics.

[Pirate Smile]

10. So that gives us New Mexico and Michigan. Who or from where would

the third state come from?

I'm trying to remember from the meeting on C-span when they discussed this but my mind is blank.

Could Nevada also be in the running with New Mexico and Arizona?

I agree that New Mexico seems most likely for a SW state.

[Nevernose]

42. Nevada's stsate machine is little more than a shambles

So while there may be good reasons -- it'll get a lot of press, immigration won't be quite as much of an issue, plus you'd really only have to campaign hard in a couple of places (Vegas and Reno) -- New Mexico campaigning will have more effect on AZ and CO voters, go farteher towards attracting swing/moderate/rural voters nationwide, and more importantly they have a state machine left.

[lastliberalintexas]

51. Hopefully from the South

Especially South or North Carolina or Louisiana or Arkansas- all states with substantial African American populations. We white folks have had Iowa and New Hampshire for decades, so it's time for the Hispanic/Latino and African American populations to have states up front as well. Particularly AA's, since they vote something like 95% Dem.

[countmyvote4real]

3. The national election and primaries for POTUS should be

handled, administered and counted equally and likewise across the country. Enough with indiviual states' ability to steer a national election with their state loopholes and partisan overseers ala Katharine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell.

[serryjw]

4. I was never happy with what happened to Kerry

After Iowa he was our nominee and everyone else was running against him

[Skink]

5. Let's drop Iowa and start in a progressive state..

Like Vermont.

[serryjw]

13. It makes sense to start in a caucus state

It is positively grueling. They take it so seriously, you have a good idea whom can last. BUT To anoint a nominee after New Hampshire is sheer stupidity.

[Skink]

20. In theory yes but with less than 10 percent participation

I see no relation to democracy at all.

[serryjw]

33. Wikipedia said

100,000 participated is that 10%. What kinda turn out do we get in primaries in other states?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

[blm]

49. Could a primary candidate reach more than that PERSONALLY in larger states

as they are able to do PERSONALLY in smaller states?

What seems to be missing here is the fact that people become more personally involved and are put on the hot seat more when they are being judged on the ground 24/7.

In larger states, the intense scrutiny and grilling would give way to larger dependence on money and ad campaigns.

[XemaSab]

59. I live in California

and while it seems like all the other little states pick first, I know that this is how it should be. Many of the people I talked to in Iowa and New Hampshire had been to see ALL the candidates personally, and had had the chance to ask questions of them.

This is better than an election based on millions of dollars in advertising in Sacramento, the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego.

[bobbieinok]

63. my experience in IA caucus and OK primary

in IA candidates HAVE TO MEET the voters

in OK we're lucky to see 1 or 2 in person where we live.....everything's done with ads......also OK is on super Tuesday and doesn't have a lot of electoral votes so it really gets little attention

son and his wife in IA said they had many opportunities to see and question the candidates

also there's lots of 'wheeling and dealing' with your neighbors as you work to get the necessary number of voters for your candidate so that he/she will go from the caucus with at least one vote

[XemaSab]

64. And would you say

that's a good thing or a bad thing?

I think meeting the candidates is a good thing, but the caucus system itself is... more than slightly odd.

[bobbieinok]

65. IA caucuses were great, but that may be b/c of '1st in the nation'

growing up I was taught that caucuses were bad, that small groups of people run things, etc

in IA I learned a lot attending the caucuses (from 72 to 88)....I learned about the party, how to work with neighbors, how the 'McGovern rules' of proportional representation work (each caucus had to send to the district a group of delegates proportionally representative of the age, sex, race mix in attendance)

also each caucus discusses and then votes on the items it wants to have included in the platform........I remember there were complaints from older attendees that the younger ones were able to stay longer and thus put in things like 'legalize marijuana' that would not have been approved if all attendees had stayed to the bitter end

democratic politics were much more interesting and exciting in IA than they are in OK...and intensely more personal and involving

[countmyvote4real]

12. To Kerry? Seems like Kerry came out OK from that process.

n/t

[serryjw]

14. I said "I wasn't happy"

F*CK Kerry!

[countmyvote4real]

8. I understand now.

Before, you were so diplomatic (smudge), I couldn't tell. Yeah, I hear ya. now.

[skipos]

19. Yes, that was bad.

I think ABB fever didn't even allow voters to consider nominating anyone else.

[second edition]

47. Actually, I don't think most people just voted ABB.

Some did, but by the time people got down to business, they became serious about there votes. I have never seen a poll that reflects that what votes Kerry received were ABB. On election day, people voted for one individual or another or they didn't like both and didn't vote. IMO, Kerry received more votes than any other candidate would have, because they were voting for the man, not necessarily against Bush by that time. Sure, I bet your vote was all about ABB, but your were in the minority.

[skipos]

52. Here is an exit poll for you

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Your vote for President was mostly
For Your Candidate 69%. Of those votes, 59% were Bush, 40% were Kerry.
Against His Opponent 25%.Of those votes, 30% were Bush, 70% were Kerry.

As you can see, there was a lot of ABB.

My math might not be great, and I am not saying that this exit poll is perfect. 120 million votes, 25%, or 30 million, were "against the opponent." Of those, 70%, or 21 million, were for Kerry. So out of 59 million votes for Kerry, 35% were ABB. No majority, but a big chunk of voters.

The biggest flaw in ABB, is that after Iowa, I think very few people stopped to consider if Kerry was *the best* candidate to beat Bush. If Kerry didn't win Iowa, I think we would have had more time to get to know all the candidates to pick which one was the best.

[second edition]

46. Kerry would have come out ahead in any state chosen.

Iowa, simply because it leans conservative, did not ruin Dean's chances, Dean ruined Dean's chances. Why is always necessary to make excuses for Dean's loss? Picking what some term a "progressive state" will not produce a better well rounded acceptable candidate. A Progressive may like the choice, but chances are a majority of moderate voters won't. You have to take into account the attitudes of the country as a whole- not just your ideals.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. I almost completely disagree with this post.

:hi:

[Orangepeel]

26. I tend to agree, b/c the supposed benefits don't seem to be working

it is supposed to work like it did on "The West Wing," where the door-to-door aspects of campaigning in a small state allows an underfunded candidate to compete and use the initial primaries to build momentum.

But, it doesn't seem to work that way. If only big moneyed candidates are going to be competitive anyway, then the benefits of holding initial primaries in the "retail politics" states don't compensate for the unfairness (and other negatives) of cutting the rest of us out of the process.

[Straight Shooter]

6. It's about time they did this.

Personally, I think the selection of which states should have the honor needs to be rotated, and expanded from two to ten. At least every 20 years a state will be in the spotlight and get the attention it deserves from the candidates, instead of this media circus we've been enduring all these years.

That's wishful thinking, I know, and probably not practical.

[crispini]

39. I agree with your post.

We need to "mix it up" so to speak. Allowing Iowa and NH to practically pick the nominee simply doesn't seem fair.

[obxhead]

7. Should we worry about this?

Any change brought about during the current admin has me terrified, as it will not likely be good for "socialist" thinkers.

[crispini]

38. The current admin? They have nothing to do with

the timing of Democratic primaries.

I think it's a good thing myself.

[lwin]

11. Let's have a real blue state kick things off...

California.

It's outrageous that one of the bluest states in the nation, with the largest State Dem Party, is so late in the primary races that our votes mean nothing. Of course you all love our cash to finance the elections, yet we've received just about no help in return from the DNC or other states in fighting our Special Election.

I don't mean to complain, but honestly, it gets a little old being treated as the cash cow.

[WI_DEM]

22. California? then the only candidates we would have are Clinton and Kerry

because CA is a huge media state and an expensive state, the kind of retail campaigning you get in Iowa, NH or other smaller states can't be done there. It would eliminate candidates who have less money and give an enhanced position to those who do. Furthermore if candidates are spending a fortune up front in a mega-state like CA they will blow a great deal of their budgets and have less $$ down the road if they take public financing for their campaigns.

[calimary]

58. Wrong in Kerry's case. California belonged to Howard Dean.

This Californian's heart STILL belongs to Howard Dean.

But it's ONLY California.

ONLY the state whose economy is, what? The fifth or sixth largest in the WORLD????

ONLY the state with the biggest delegation of congressional reps and electoral votes, in the NATION?

ONLY the state with the biggest population in the COUNTRY?

ONLY the state with the most explosive growth in population of the largest and fastest-growing minority - in the NATION?

You know what they say about our state - "as California goes, so goes the nation." It'd be nice if WE led the way, and put OUR stamp on it for a change. This is one Californian who's tired of being served leftovers. I think it's long past time we were shown to a place closer to the head of the line. Size seems to matter in other - ahem! - situations. Why not here, too?

[99Pancakes]

30. Had California voted first

Dean would have been picked. Would that have changed the way things went? I'd like to think so. I was like, "...WTF with this Kerry guy?"
Like cattle, we herded ourselves to the polls in CA to vote for this Kerry Whoever-he-is Guy when it was long a done deal. I remember being POed about that.

[theplutsnw]

41. Absolutely agree

[XemaSab]

60. This californian

herded herself to the poll to vote for Howard. And I'm proud of my vote!

[99Pancakes]

62. Moo!

Way to Go!

[nolabels]

15. String you along then string you out, How many more times?

and like damn are they not starting real early with this :shrug:

Sounds to like corporate America is afraid the cat will get out of the bag or something

[depakid]

16. Trapsing around Iowa in January

and putting that much emphasis on an archaic 19th Century process make NO SENSE at all.

I thought the new "motto" of the Dems is "we can do better."

[Mnemosyne]

17. .

:kick:

[louis c]

18. I Recommend a regional primary

Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin up first on the same day. Primary or caucus, which ever they prefer. Next up, New England, all six states on the same day. A week later a southern primary. Then out west. Don't you think the traditional "swing" states should be our barometer in nominating our standard bearer?

It has become ridiculous that potential presidential candidates are forced to pander to two states, Iowa and New Hampshire, which demographically are out of the nation's mainstream. We can choose a better and more effective way to pick the leader of the free world.

[Doremus]

27. Best idea of all. Of course because it makes sense they won't do it. n/t

[sandyd921]

34. I like this idea

Regional primaries would give us a mix of states with different characteristics (e.g., large, small; more rural, more urban, etc.). We'd be more likely to feel that the resulting candidate had had a fair outing and represented the consensus thinking of Democrats.

[wordpix]

36. I like your idea

[JudyM]

48. Great idea! Espec. in 2008, must get a viable candidate out there fast.

[wordpix2]

21. NY, MI and CA should be primary states. Let the better

man or woman who wins these states win the primaries. That would be truly representative of most of the people instead of tiny NH and Iowa choosing presidential candidates. We need some big states in between those primaries representing E, W and Central.

[rfkrfk]

24. NH will move their primary up three months, so what?

is there some reason that some of the caucus-states do not
challenge Iowa?, WTF, stand up for something


What moron state is currently claiming that
'we are the last caucus in the nation'?

[Miss Chybil]

28. Something's better than nothing, I suppose. nt

[ecoalex]

29. Primaries are how the DLC gets their man

Dean would of won the nomination, but he was scuttled by McCauliffe, and the DLC

[Miss Chybil]

55. I know how it works... nt

[NoodleyAppendage]

37. NC, KY, TN, MO, or some other non-Deep South Southern state is needed.

Early on, there is a MAJOR need to demonstrate the attractiveness of any Dem candidate in bordering Southern states. Deep South need not apply, as these states are too far gone anyway to count on during the general election. However, Red/Blue mixture Southern states like NC. could be quite helpful.

B

[stevedeshazer]

40. Fuck that, I'm going third party if that happens.

When I read that, quote, "It is getting to be a done deal" and there is NO, let me repeat, NO inkling what states will be in this proposed shuffle, I don't approve.

The West gets fucked over again.

I belong to the DNC, and this is the first I've heard of such a plan.

My feet are still sore from walking for Kerry. You mean to tell me we're going to be shut out AGAIN?

:grr:

[skipos]

53. Yeah! THAT'll show 'em!

[MarsThe Cat]

56. you can't have too big a state going early either-

California, for instance is way too big to go too early in the process-
and to much of the country, new mexico, one of the states being considered, would also be considered "the west" (albeit the southwest).

[mzmolly]

43. Awesome. We need a DIVERSE group of states invovled in

nominating our next President. ;)

[madfloridian]

44. This commission was formed in July of last year...met first in Dec. 2004

Let's clarify a little. This commission was set up by Terry McAuliffe in 2004. Please read the whole article to get the sense of it. This commission's meetings have not been attended by Howard Dean, and they will present the findings to him. I have no idea how the plans will go. It is not a sour grapes thing from the primaries, it was in formation as early as 2003...formed in July of last year by McAuliffe.

Here is the paragraph from the article clarifying it.

The DNC's Commission on Presidential Timing and Scheduling was inspired by a dispute in early 2003 when Michigan Democrats -- led by Sen. Carl M. Levin and Debbie Dingell, a lobbyist for General Motors Corp. and wife of Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) -- sought unsuccessfully to overthrow the privileged status of New Hampshire, saying that the state should not have sole claim to the national attention and economic advantages conferred by hosting the first primary of the presidential race. To placate this faction, then-DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe called for a comprehensive commission study of the calendar heading into the 2008 election.

Here is a complete list of the members and dates of formation.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/dnc2008cal1204.html

"In July, the 2004 Democratic National Convention passed a resolution calling for the creation of the Commission. In carrying out its work, the Commission will examine all reform proposals both incremental and substantive as well as outline steps for how those proposals would be implemented. The Commission is made up of a mix of DNC members, elected officials, representatives of State Parties, academics, organized labor officials, grassroots activists and other Party leaders."

[wiley]

45. Stick New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Arizona and New Mexico in there

Iowa and NH should be when a few other states have already voted. That would make it much more interesting.

[karynnj]

54. Although I would love it, NJ is unlikely

because to seriously campaign here you need 2 of the most expensive media markets, NYC and Philadelphia.

[oc2002]

50. they should put some southern states in there, like VA.

...that way the Dems get more coverage for free in red states, they could turn to blue...duh.

[XemaSab]

61. I've said before and I'll say again

I think Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina should all go first on the same day.

A month later, another 5 smallish states, representing different regions, urban/rural compositions, and political flavors, should go. Maybe Missouri, Minnesota, Nevada, Alabama, and Rhode Island?

Then one month after that, all the other states at once.

The idea is that different candidates appeal in different areas, so instead of two "winner takes all" states, several states are thrown into the mix. It would be difficult for a candidate to compete in all 5 states, but a solid "retail" campaign might win a state or two.

A candidate might only place first in only one of the first five states, but placing second or third in a few other states would also generate interest and momentum.

If a candidate totally washed out in all 5 states, then they're done, it's over, but again, a candidate might do better in the long run with moderate broad-based support than with strong local support.

I could see a scenario with those 5 states whereby Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark could all "win" a state and place strongly in one or two others, the aftermath of which would create momentum for the second round.

[ellisonz]

66. I think we should put two states before Iowa and New Hampshire:

Louisiana and New Mexico. Both are swing states and bombarding them with Democratic influence could matter in the next election. New Hampshire and Iowa are both contested states, any states that are added should be contested states. We also have to consider campaign costs, putting California out front would be a huge burden. But I do think California should be moved up in the order.

[Polemonium]

67. A step in the right direction, but 50 steps needed

Our nominee for national office, should be a reflection of national opinion. Democracy is inclusive, isn't it?

Picking a few more moderate states will keep the campaign focused on the middle. Ignore the left, you risk loosing. Ignore the right, you risk loosing. Play to the middle - you look like you stand for nothing. A campaign that fails to come up against the whole spectrum of potential voters early and often, will often flounder later.

I don't expect it to happen quickly, but deeply believe that all 50 states should have primaries / caucus' on the same day.