Dems modify primary calendar?

[welshTerrier2]

Dems have pushed Nevada and South Carolina up near the front of the primary calendar along with Iowa and New Hampshire ... the problem of the previous schedule was that some believed it lacked ethnic and other forms of diversity ...

i can agree the old schedule had some problems ... but i very much liked the "retail" nature of Iowa and NH ... adding two more states so early seems to cause a brand new problem and completely fails to address what i see as the most significant problem with the previous process ...

first, by stacking two additional primaries so far up front, once again the party is favoring insiders ... those with big name recognition and/or big bucks will have an easier time campaigning in four states, instead of just two, than "outsider" candidates ... this is just another case of the rich get richer and instead of opening up the process to new ideas and lesser known candidates, it stacks the deck ... the goal of setting early states with greater diversity is a good one; burdening "upstart candidacies" with four states instead of two was an unfortunate way to go about it ...

and second, and this is the real achilles heel of the whole process, most states are irrevelant during the primary process ... voters either don't tune in at all or don't tune in the way we would want them to because the nominee is often determined after just one or two primaries ... one of the key reasons for this is that once someone wins a primary, they tend to attract all the money ... big donors like to bet on the front-runner ...

Democrats talk often about campaign finance reform but what do they really offer within their own primary process? ... adding more diversity to the early states would be fine if the new rules also found a way to temper the overwhelming impact of the early states ... it is an extremely unhealthy state of affairs for the party to lock the later states out of meaningful participation in selecting the party's nominee ...

I don't know whether the party could enforce campaign spending limits in its own primaries but i don't see why they couldn't ... if we as Democrats believe that money should be removed from the political process as much as possible, we should put our money where our mouths are ... attracting the "big boys" should not be what putting our candidates' best ideas before all the voters is all about ... until we can get real campaign finance reform passed into law, we should at least try to impose it within our own primary process ...

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

Democrats shook up tradition on Saturday by vaulting Nevada and South Carolina into the first wave of 2008 presidential contests along with Iowa and New Hampshire — a move intended to add racial and geographic diversity to the early voting.

The decision by the Democratic National Committee leaves Iowa as the nation's first presidential caucus and New Hampshire as the first primary, but wedges Nevada's caucuses before New Hampshire and South Carolina's primary soon afterward.

The move also packs all four state contests into a politically saturated two weeks in January. The change means a potentially huge cast of Democratic presidential candidates could winnow quickly by the beginning of February. <skip>

Opponents complain that adding contests in Nevada and South Carolina crowds the early stages of the nomination process and the party's nominee could be determined by the beginning of February, before most states even get a chance to vote.

[napi21]

1. Ipersonally would prefer all primaries to be on the same day.

I don't care when. Maybe April some time.

It's always bothered me to be in a state where the decision was already made months before our primary finally rolled around.

Sure it would make it more difficult for the candidates because THEN they'd have to campaign in EVERY STATE! It's just so very unfair for the States whose primaries are in July or later!

[Sparkly]

3. Me, too.

I've heard the arguments that it's harder to do the meet-and-greets in so many states, but SO much of the coverage is national anyway. There's also the issue of advertising expenses, which would favor those with more money throughout. I guess the idea is that campaigning in a few small states in the beginning allows a better chance for those with less money? ... because it's more on-the-ground retail, rather than relying so much on tv ads...?

As I posted in another thread, I don't like or understand the special emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire. Is it merely a matter of tradition, or is there something I'm missing about those states?

[Stinky The Clown]

10. My darling .... we diverge on this point. Wanna talk about it over dinner?

[Sparkly]

11. I never talk politics with clowns.

:P

But really, WHY Iowa and New Hampshire??

[crispini]

15. You two! Get a room!

:P

[welshTerrier2]

5. OK, let's talk about that ...

here's my concern about a one day primary ... see what you think ... i think you've done perfectly identifying the main problem we now have but i don't think you've come up with the right way to solve that problem ...

first, as you've already pointed out, it almost guarantees the "front-runner" a lock on the nomination ... the big names and the big wallets are the only ones who have any chance at all ... from my perspective, while it's true that states that come later in the process would gain an equal say (a desirable goal), the reality is that all states would have a more of less equal chance (or maybe not - see below) of choosing the nominee ... however, that nominee might be a choice of just one person (What real choice is that?) or perhaps two people ... little guys could forget about even trying to run ... they would have ZERO chance to get known and get their message out and build support ... so, while you "equalize the states" with the same day primary, you give everyone LESS CHOICE ...

and, does it really equalize the states at all ... if every state held a primary on the same day, your goal being greater equity, where would you tell your candidate to campaign? in the little states? in the rural states? or would you seek the most bang for your buck in the massive media markets like NY and Chicago and LA?? maybe it wouldn't really be equal after all ... candidates would have to prioritize where they campaigned and much of the nation, by necessity, would become invisible to them ... again, this weakens the party by having our candidates key on the big population centers ... we should want the to bring the party and its candidates everywhere ...

and it's more than just giving away the store to the wealthiest candidates ... the problem with a one day primary is that we don't have the advantage of seeing our candidates react to evolving events over a period of time ... is the Israel-Lebanon war is on the front burner for a couple of weeks just before the Super Primary, that will receive a disproportionate focus ... it seems better to me to sort of "live with" our candidates as what's on the front pages evolves from one issue to the next ...

again, i think you've found the achilles heel on what's wrong with our current process ... but i don't think the same day primary is the way to go ... i'd rather come up with some rules to make the later primaries as relevant as the early ones ... one key way to head in that direction is to cap spending for all Democratic primary candidates ... it's our party; i don't see why we can't make whatever rules we want to ...

comments?

[crispini]

9. I agree with your take on the one-day primary.

I would like to see us rotate the first primary to give different states a shot at it. Of course NH would throw a fit, but that's life. :D

[napi21]

13. You have valid arguments, however, I can see a few changes

fixing some of them. If you think about it, the 08 election actually started the day after the04 election. Think about just how long we've been talking about who's the best candidate, or so snd so is the front runner!

I agreewe need to get to know our candidates, but why not start the campaigning a little sooner to give time for all potential candidates to campaign in all states?

I know I suggested a primary in April, but maybe it should be later than that. Maybe July?

here's no way I can think of to equalize the money, short of public financing, and I just don't see that happening. However, a candidate who can attract people can usually raise the money. Look at Dean! The internet has even improved that! I know I sent a small contribution to Hackett, and the first political campaign I EVER contributed to was Howard Dean.
I everyone thinks a one day primary can't work, maybe a compromise of all of them within one month? Divide them up between four weeks? Maybe even clustered by region of the Country to make it easier for candidates to campaign in many states that were close together, or divided by time zones, then there wouldn't be the gripeing about the media leaking info that affected voting in an area where the polls were still open?

I don't know, I'm just tired of my vote being irrelivant!

[Stinky The Clown]

20. :::urp::: ... Okay, we had dinner ....now let's talk one-day primary

This is a half-baked, wine enhanced idea .... but an idea nonetheless. NO idea of the details. Just the concept.

A one day primary. Coast-to-coast, winner take all.

But oh what a lead-up.

(In the 04 primary debates I can say, speaking just for me, that I *was* moved by several of the candidates, directly as a result of watching those debates. Kucinich's stock went up with me. So did Sharpton's. Mosely Braun's went down, as did Gephart's and Edwards'. My point is NOT to discuss these reactions - only to point out that they occured and they involved both the big and the lesser candidates.)

So I'd like to see a protracted campaign season, with the party buying the needed air time if the networks won't cover the events. (Some of the funding might come from the candidates themselves, but that's a detail I have not thought about further.) I'll start by postulating a series of eight debates, each on a given topic, each a week apart. This is hardly a hard and fast, well thought out plan ... just a notion.

I'd also like to see each candidate get some air time for whatever use he wishes to put it. Let's say 90 minutes. One or two candidates a night, each night, until they all get a chance. They can talk policy, they can show films, they can do shadow puppets. They could do card tricks. Its their time to use as they see fit.

There would be strict funding lmits. I'd like to see something like $500 per donor. NO corporate money and NO bundling. The party would provide each candidate some basic fund, but not enough to see them through the entire primary season. If they can't raise money from the grassroots, then they can't run. If any candidate uses ANY corporate money - in fact or in kind - they get disqualified from further participation in the process. No jets. No cars. no dinners. No nothing. Period.

As candidates start to drop out (I suspect the funding limits will cause some to do so), the schedule will be altered as needed, in accordance with some preset rules, to give heightened attention to the ones remaining.

In the week before the big vote, there might be a step-up of the debates. A 'parting remarks' kinda thing so each candidate can get out that last, final message.

And then we vote. All over the country all on one day. EVERYbody's vote matters.

Once we get that done and a winner is identified, our funding limits end and the corporations can have a free for all showering Mr. or Ms. Lucky with 'jewels and furs'.

(Yes, I want REAL campaign finance reform - like full and SINGULARLY public financing - but until the Repubs are under the same stricture, we'd be damned fools to not race for bucks right along with them. At least, under this system, our guy would start clean and hopefully more representative of the PEOPLE's wishes.)

This does not account for how a person would become an official candidate in the first place. There has to be *some* basic hurdle to be cleared. One notion (nothing more than a notion) is that they'd have to get some number of signatures from some minimum number of states, with a per-state minimum. If nothing else, this would demonstrate the candidate's chance for national appeal and suggest the existence of at least the makings of a on-the-ground organization.)

This also clearly gives up much chance for serious retail politics as we see now in New Hampshire and Iowa. I'm not sure that's much of a loss, to be honest.

Let's call this the Sparkly Fairy Princess/Stinky The Clown plan.

Criticize away .......

[xxqqqzme]

2. I do not see ANY diversity

in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada & South Carolina - I see white and rethuglican - the rethugs get to pick the nominee yet again. Until Democratic states are allowed to chose Democratic candidates, we lose over & over again.



Darcy Burner needs A LOT of work. I hope she has some savvy people giving her tips.

[Ninja Jordan]

4. uhh

Im pretty sure just the Dems in NV and SC are allowed to vote in the primary. Are you saying Nevada's latinos and SC's african-americans don't constitute diversity?

[crispini]

7. LOL.

Yeah, apparently someone has forgotten about demographics. :D

[Cocoa]

8. whether you see it, the diversity is there

Adding SC and NV increases the diversity greatly.

Wikipedia numbers:

South Carolina
* 66.1% White
* 30.5% Black
* 0.9% Asian
* 0.3% Native American
* 1.0% Two or more races

Nevada
* 65.2% White (not of Hispanic origin)
* 19.7% Hispanic
* 6.8% Black
* 4.5% Asian
* 0.9% Native American
* 1.4% Mixed race

New Hampshire
* 95.1% White
* 1.3% Asian
* 0.7% Black
* 0.2% Native American
* 1.1% Mixed race


Iowa
* 91.5% White, not of Hispanic origin
* 3.7% Hispanic of any race
* 2.2% Black
* 1.4% Asian
* 0.3% Native American
* 1.2% Mixed race

[xxqqqzme]

17. I stand corrected - that's some diversity!

white 66%; 65%; 95% & 91% - wow I was sooooo wrong!

get a grip there is more diversity in California and New Mexico than Nevada or South Carolina

[Cocoa]

19. sarcasm doesn't change the numbers

adding SC and NV greatly increases the diversity.

That's good, right?

[crispini]

6. It's a step in the right direction.

The southwest and the south -- geographic and racial diversity -- two big plusses.

Also, these are both fairly small states, population-wise, so they will be not too hard to campaign in, IMO. Yes, there will be flight between them to contend with, but good planning should overcome that.

No, it's not perfect, but it's a good change.

[welshTerrier2]

12. what are your thoughts on capping spending?

i can agree that it's a step in the right direction but it really doesn't do anything at all to address the greater problem of alienation experienced by almost every late primary state ...

seeking greater diversity is a good start but it seems to me they didn't address "the biggie" at all with these reforms ... if we don't try to "temper the impact" of early victories, the later states become irrelevant ... voters there tune out because the game is already over ... that's a real problem not just in terms of equity to lesser known candidates but perhaps more importantly in terms of having the party get a prominent presence in the later states ...

one solution i see is capping spending ... if we let all the money flow to the winner of the first, or maybe the second, primary, what's the point of tuning in three months later? the game is long since over by then ... but this wouldn't be true if we allowed candidates to receive unlimited funds but not spend them ... if real and reasonable spending limits were in place, the early winners couldn't manhandle the other candidates with their new found wealth ...

[crispini]

14. I like that idea.

I'm just not sure it totally deals with the problem of the later primaries becoming irrelevant. Because, for example, by the time you get to MY state, it seems like the VOTES are already there for the winner, regardless of the $$.

I would like to see the primaries packed closer together, and I would like to see them rotate, in terms of who starts and who ends. I'll buy your idea of spending caps too. :)

[lastknowngood]

16. Four republican strongholds picking the Dem nominee. Let's face

it we won't have a Dem running in 08 it will either be a Bidden/Hillary type with no pull for base.
I don't understand why the so called Dem leadership finds it necessary to suck up to repugs and "Conservative Dem's" and give the finger to the Dem base. The rethugs are constantly sucking up to their KKK Aryan nation moran base and they are winning. The Dem's constantly insult and ignore the Dem base are are loosing. You would think someone would catch on.

[Redneck Socialist]

22. Hardly republican strongholds

Iowa and NH have Democratic governors. NH went for Kerry, and anyway republicans don't get to vote in Democratic primaries. Why do you think so called blue state Dems have some magic ability to pick a winning national candidate?

[hijinx87]

18. I'm not sure why, but I think

I would rather have NH and iowa setting the front runner instead
of SC and NV.

[CrushTheDLC]

21. This is what they should do for the first primary

Four states. One from each time zone. Medium in population (i.e. California and Wyoming would both be out) Solid Blue states preferrable. Swing states possible. Any state that voted for Chimpy in 2004 NOT eligible, except for the Mountain time zone, where there's no alternative.

My suggestions : Washington, Arizona, Minnesota, Maine

Yeah, I know the Southerners won't like the choice of states, but there's no reason why these 4 states have to be carved in stone. In fact I would recommend a change every 20 years or so.

Can anyone come up with a good reason (other than their own state not being mentioned) why this plan wouldn't work?

[sandnsea]

23. I think they all agreed to public financing in 2004

I think Dean & Kerry only opted out of public financing for the later round of the primary when the actual candidate was chosen; to go against Bush. Otherwise I think they all adhered to the public financing limits and Edwards seemed just as capable to run in the end as Kerry was. Kucinich came to Oregon in May to run one on one against Kerry, he managed to get to dang near every town in the state. I don't think money is that big of a problem in the primary process since we do have public financing. Dean had a boat load and it didn't help. Kucinich had nothing but still managed to launch a respectable campaign in May.