Dems to Study Possible Primary Changes

[question everything]

AP
Dems to Study Possible Primary Changes


By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

ORLANDO, Fla. - The Democratic National Committee formed a 40-member panel Friday to study whether to shake up the dominance that Iowa and New Hampshire wield in presidential elections.

Former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman and Rep. David Price, D-N.C., will lead the commission that is charged with studying the election calendar and recommending any changes.

Officials in Iowa and New Hampshire vigorously oppose any changes. They argue that voters in those states are uniquely engaged in the primary process and give candidates a tough vetting, while a national nominating process would focus on large cities and neglect rural areas.

The commission is the result of pressure from two Michigan Democrats — Sen. Carl Levin and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell — who contend that Iowa and New Hampshire lack the diversity to represent the country's interests and that no two states should have such influence on the presidential nomination.

(snip)

On the Net:

http://www.democrats.org


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=548&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20041210/ap_on_el_ge/democrats_primary

[scarlett1]

1. You beat me to it

I just read this on Yahoo and was about to post it.

It is about time for changes.

[JPace]

2. I'd rather see a shakeup in our voting system.....

as long as the repugs steal votes it doesn't matter who gets
chosen as our candidate....they will ultimately lose.

[blm]

3. Horseshit. The REAL problem is that Republicans own most of the media

and own most of the VOTING MACHINES.

Any commission, panel or high-paid analyst that hasn't figured that out by now is the problem, not the Democratic candidate or platform. They will use bullshit panels to move more to the center.

[SKKY]

5. I'm not an Oliver Stone-type conspiracy theorist...

...but I do believe blm has a point.

[Zhade]

42. What, you don't think all voters should have a say in primaries?

We saw the result of the front-loaded primaries this time. I see it as unrepresentative.

Is there any legitimate argument one could make against all primary voters voting on one specific day?

EDIT: I see post #4 makes one such argument.

[Citizen Kang]

4. It's not Iowa and New Hampshire's fault...

...that we got stuck with Kerry this time. It's the front-loaded primary process and the bias of the corporate media. Dems need to go back to the old primary system and Iowa and New Hampshire won't become as important again. A one-day national primary would be a bad idea, we'd get the flavor of the day without any idea of how that candidate can handle a long-term campaign. How many of you Dean haters would have wanted a one-day, national primary in December '03??

Go back to the elongated primary process that served Bill Clinton so well and the Democratic Party. Bill did not win Iowa or New Hampshire but still won the nomination. If we had the front-loaded primaries in 1992, who would we be stuck with??? Think about it.

[question everything]

14. Agree. Terry McAuliffe and other DNC leaders

wanted a quick decision, did not want the final candidate to go through attacks during the primaries that were going to be used by the pugs later on. Instead, we had a candidate who was not tested under fire. The swifters attack should have been anticipated and responded, immediately, the way the Clinton campaign did in 1992.

And it is really strange that the 18 million, or so, registered votes in California had no input; not during the primaries and not during the general elections, when it appeared that none of the candidates had bothered to visit.

[XemaSab]

30. Um

Dean spoke several times in California before the primaries.

[VegasWolf]

6. I'd rather see a shakeup in the Democratic "leadership" n/t

[SoCalDem]

7. My suggestion

Northeast is #1.. working counter-clockwise
Alaska is with #3
Hawaii is with #4

January ...#1
February...#2
March .....#3
April .....#4
May........#5
June ......#6

the regional approach has large and smaller population centers..righties and lefties... and staggering the months makes it easy as pie for the candidates to campaign in smaller geographical areas...cheaper for TV time too..

[utahgirl]

12. I like this idea

because it always annoys me that Utah gets left out of everything.

utahgirl

[SoCalDem]

13. My idea also shows regional strengths and the numbering

could change from election to election..

Thanks..I like it too :)

[question everything]

15. There are several secretaries of states - Republicans mostly, I think,

that have been pushing for such a system. With one correction - the order will rotate. Thus, if in, say, 2008 region 1 votes in January, in 2012 it will vote in June, and region 2 will vote in January, and so forth.

[elsiesummers]

17. Try one state from each of the regions, simultaneously, instead.

The problem with Iowa and New Hampshire is they only represent two regions on the first two (and most publicized) primary days.

We need a broad regional mix from across the country on each primary day, especially the first primary. Five to ten geographically heterogenous states on the first primary date, another five to ten regionally diverse states on the next primary date, etc., would offer regional balance. (Campaigning would be tougher, but so be it).

That way, even if your (my) state doesn't gain stronger representation, at least some state in your or my region does.

If you used your method, then whatever regions were first and second would have a disproportionate amount of say - just like Iowa and New Hampshire but with bigger numbers to reinforce the results. Or, conversely, the result for the North East primary, for example, might be used by pudits to claim that "the North East Democrats have proved by their voting that they are out of touch with every day Americans" - further marginalizing the most liberal points of view.

It isn't good for either "just the North East" or "just the South" or any other region to pick the candidate - and I fear that whichever groups went first and second would become some sort of self reinforcing twisted media storyline for the entire primary campaign. Funding might dry up for the candidates from the regions 5 and 6 primary, just because of a momentum shift.

Primaries segregated by region would also unnecessarily reinforce the red/blue story. The media might use this to sow regional discord for more exciting news.

I like your idea of more states on the initial primary day, but whatever choices are made need serious ironing out to avoid unintended consequences.

[SoCalDem]

19. The red/blue is sadly, a fact..

I would like to see exactly what suipport MY candidate might engender within a region.. It migt help us pick a better candidate if we "knew" that candidate "A" actually did well in region 2 & 4, but NOT in #1 & 5...

and with populations relatively "even" by region, the real support could be seen, as opposed to "teensy" NH & IA setting trhe stage and eliminating candidates who would do better in different areas..

Iowa has what??? 10 EVs and NH 4....So we are picking candidates for our whole country based on what the people of states who could give us 14 EVs??

makes no sense to me

[Just Me]

31. Your "targeting" is exacting!!!

We must have those numbers.

However, of equal importance, is DELIVERY of a CONCRETE HUMAN VISION.

The "vision" MUST be conceived FIRST.

The "targeting" is essential.

The "delivery" is EVERYTHING!

I suggest,...propounding and advocating a vision that this administration is obviously violating. That vision exposes the "devil", so to speak.

[XemaSab]

33. Hear, hear

Some of us cooked up a similar system in another thread a few days ago.... 5 or 6 small states in different regions on day 1, then the whole rest of the country 3 weeks to a month later.

I proposed New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire, but I think it's CRITICAL that the initial states be small, and candidates be forced to go all over the state to the small towns.

I think having the northeast go first is a bad idea just for this reason. The candidates would go to New York, Boston, Philly, DC, Cincinnati, and a few other big cities, and that would be it. Also, and I'm sorry if this is news, but big cities vote very differently than the rest of the country.

Having it focused on several small states also would enable a candidate to really develop a regional strategy, and would enable the rest of the voting public to "see" how a candidate's message plays in different parts of the county. For example, Edwards and Clark were seen as being able to theoretically pull support in the South, so why not throw them out there and see how they do?

If a candidate won one state, but tanked in the other 4, that's a big bummer, but if a candidate had solid support in all areas, then hey, looks like a winner. Like a candidate with 3 seconds and 2 thirds might be a better bet than someone who only was the first place winner in one state.

The idea behind the rest of the country voting a month later is to give time for the initial "spin" to die down, and for weaker candidates to drop out and people in other states and regions who had liked those candidates to really reflect on the remainder of the pool.

[scarlett1]

32. I like your suggestion, but

I think June is too late for Primaries. Maybe instead of 6 areas, 4 areas.

Maybe the NE line below VA and KY and possible pull in MI. The Midwest, area 2 on yours continue the parallel and include MO KS & CO Possibly WY and Montana. The West would include all Western states not mentioned and NM. The South All the states below KS MO KY and VA

I also like the rotating each cycle.

[Just Me]

8. If they don't quit appeasing the right-wing,...

,...and fail to passionately fight back,...none of the "logistical" shit really matters.

They have plenty of material with which to fight back. Just go across America and do a pictorial of the poverty and hardship that tens of millions of hidden Americans are suffering. It's a freakin' outrage and nobody has the guts to do an in-your-face reality show exposing this country for what it has become.

[bif]

9. Iowa got to choose the Dem candidate, and then they voted Republican

They should give you a clue that changes need to be made. How about a blue state goes first like New York or Michigan?

[Citizen Kang]

18. Iowa is about as Purple a state as there is

Gore won by only a few thousand votes in 2000 and Bush won by only a few thousand in 2004. Iowa is a good state to chose a candidate who will appeal to swing voters. Kerry couldn't do it this time and that's because his campaign sucked.

[ticapnews]

10. We need to extend the primary cycle...

I volunteered in New Hampshire for a week in January, and by the time of the primary, most natives absolutely despised us for "invading" their state. Speaking as a Mainer, I'll be happy to take over the burden for New Hampshire...we get a lot of the political ads here anyway, since the Portland media market extends into NH. We'll happily welcome the $300M political parties and candidates spent in NH between 2002 and 2004.

That said, we need to go back to the days when we had a real primary season. I often point out that the California primary wasn't until June, and when Bobby Kennedy won that primary in 1968 he still hadn't wrapped up the nomination. I was very dismayed this year because important states never had a chance to see the candidates or have a meaningful primary - for example, swing state Pennsylvania didn't have its primary until April 27, when the nomination was decided and no one cared anymore. We need to get states like that more heavily involved in the nominating process, if for no other reason than to get our candidates and our issues exposure in those states. It also gives us a chance to motivate the electorate and increases our fund-raising ability.

However, I fear the DNC will once again cave and fail to provide real leadership. We so need to get a new chair in place - and that person has to LEAD. We need change from the top down as well as from the bottom up. This is just one issue that highlights how badly we need change...

[JPace]

11. It's like they keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...

it is not going to make any difference. We need media outlets, we need a federal takeover of the voting process, we need many more think tanks, we need more skilled politicians.

[Just Me]

28. YES!!! We need to expose why REAL compassion in action is needed.

And until it is exercised at home,...it cannot spread around the globe.

95% of the commercials and sit-coms and dramas and et. al. on television shows a fantasy.

The "box" by which so many people judge their lives is a complete fiction relative to the majority of American people.

The "box" provides an excuse for failure to address problems,...and does so for purposes of convenience on behalf of those who either want to maintain their "status quo" or to remain in a state of denial or to live in fantasy land.

The corporate-controlled "box" is a manipulative device which operates in such a way as to control behavior in a profit-bearing way.

People are not humans,...they are "consumers" and their worth is only as much as the "stuff" they buy.

There is no fundamental human worth in this corporate-controlled society.

[bklyncowgirl]

16. Primary system needs reform

I think that the candidates need to be thoroughly tested under fire and a long primary season is a good way to do that. Bill Clinton in 92 is an excellent example. The campeign was long and no holds barred especially between Clinton and Jerry Brown but in the end Clinton's faults and virtues were pretty well exposed and guess what--he won.

I'd like to see them look at instant runoff voting as well. This would allow a test of the depth of a candidate's strength in the party.

This is not to dismiss the very real problems of voter fraud and media bias.

[floritexas dem]

20. Why can't we do both?

I totally agree that we need to overhaul the mainstream media and the country's voting system as a whole.

But why does that mean we don't need to do something about the primary system? I lived in Florida until a few weeks ago. Florida's got a lot of electoral votes. We got zero say, though, in who our candidate would be - everyone else had dropped out before our primary. Something needs to change. I would consider either the 6 region approach described above, or a more random set of 6 or so primary dates, with number of electoral votes roughly similar on all dates.

[David__77]

21. Beware anything written by Nedra Pickler.

She is an obvious right-wing acolyte.

[zacho]

22. Don't mess with New Hampshire

I want to vote (and organize) in the 2008 primary.

The most significant mistake that I will credit Terry McAulife with is putting the Iowa Caucus, the NH primary, and mini super Tuesday each a week apart.

I'd set it up like this:

Iowa caucus the second Tuesday in November.

NH primary: second Tuesday in February

Colorado primary Third Tuesday in March

Louisiana primary Fourth Tuesday in March

West Virginia state convention First Tuesday in April

Louisiana runoff election Second Tuesday in April

Montana and Virginia primary Third Tuesday in April

Alaska and New Jersey primary Fourth Tuesday in April

Nevada primary First Tuesday in May

Everything else First Thursday after the first Tuesday in May.

Convention in Nashville, week four in August

[nebraska007]

24. So you move everything earlier than New Hampshire...

What happens? New Hampshire and Iowa moves their dates back earlier.

[w4rma]

23. This would seem like a waste of time and resources, to me, but Pickler

wrote this article so I'm not sure about it's accuracy.

[hinachan]

25. Just change the Iowa caucus to a primary election

That'd prevent the sort of "WTF, my candidate didn't win, let's all throw our support to Kerry" crap which started our ill-fated falling into step behind Kerry to usurp Bush (hey, I'm as guilty of it as anyone, I confess!). Something as private as a vote shouldn't be done in this manner, with your friends and neighbors watching and trying to talk you out of your "vote".

[zacho]

26. Agree and Disagree

I think that caucii are good because they filter out less involved voters. On the downside it also gives more power to the party bosses and special interest groups. I would like to see a system like the one in the sixties where a combination of primaries, caucii, state conventions, straw polls, and runoff conventions as well as all assigned delegates being officially unpledged.

Add to my master schedule the Wisconsin primary right before the Montana primary.

[IndianaGreen]

27. What rural areas are these people talking about? The suburbs?

They argue that their voters are uniquely engaged in the primary process and give candidates a tough vetting, while a national nominating process would focus on large cities and neglect rural areas.

What rural areas are these people talking about? The suburbs? Why should two of the less populated states be wined and dined by candidates for over two years while the most populous states are presented with a fait accompli by the time Spring rolls around on an election year.

The commission is the result of pressure from two Michigan Democrats — Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell — who contend that Iowa and New Hampshire lack the diversity to represent the country's interests and that no two states should have such influence on the presidential nomination.

No shit, Jose! Let's make the process more democratic and while we are at it, let's spread out the primary season until June and let's lump the primaries into regional contests that are rotated every four years so that not one region of the country has a leg up on another.

These are probably the best suggestions to come out of the DNC in years!

[zacho]

29. Here's a novel idea.

DNC e-mail recipients can e-vote on a designated day. 400 or so delegates could be assigned to represent the results of the poll.

As for all of your rural complaints, the reason why I think NH and Iowa are good states for early contests, are because we are small states. This is a good idea because it minimizes the impact of television advertising. The reason I am afraid of a one day voting (or even giving the big states an early contest) is because actual politicing and campaigning is nearly invisible compared to the TV message.

[XemaSab]

34. Word

I went to Iowa and New Hampshire for a certain ill-fated candidate, and I really was impressed!

I met my guy in person in Oskaloosa, Iowa, where he was talking to a group of maybe 100 people. It's a really small town, but it was worthwhile for the candidates to go to towns like that and speak in front of small groups.

I talked to one woman in Portsmouth, and she said she liked Edwards because all the candidates had come to town, but Edwards was the only guy who stayed until ALL the questions from the audience had been answered.

I talked to quite a few people who had been to see all the candidates speak, and who really felt a sense of responsibility about having the first say in the nation. They're states where it's practical for the voters to go see all the candidates, and meet them, and ask questions of them, instead of just seeing them on TV or in a huge rally with thousands of people.

As a Californian, I feel sort of left out of the process, but I also recognize that it would be a shame if that personal, small-state touch were lost, and we'd get poorer candidates for it.

However, both Iowa and New Hampshire are HORRIBLY cold in January, so how about May primaries in balmy sunbelt and Southern states?

[IndianaGreen]

37. And how many electoral votes are there in NH and IA?

and how long shall we suffer the skewed results we get from two small states with overly large egos?

[XemaSab]

40. IA and NH

I'm not arguing so much for keeping it exactly as it is, as I'm arguing for the first state(s) to be small states.

I live in a small town in California, and I harbor no illusions that any candidates would come here. We're too small and out of the way. The closest they'd come would be Fresno, if I was lucky, and it would be a huge group of people, probably in the basketball courts at Fresno State.

Most of the candidates would focus on San Francisco, LA, and Sacramento, because that's where the population is and that's where the Democrats are. It makes perfect sense, but I've lived in those places and I know that only the hardcore political junkies would go see all the candidates because going anywhere in the Bay Area or LA is a giant hassle. So it would wind up with a few people seeing maybe one or two candidates in person, and the rest of the people seeing the candidates on TV.

Furthermore, it's where the population is and it's where the money is. Most of the candidates in the presidential elections come here to get money at zillion-dollar a plate dinners.

I love my state, but I also know my state.

I'm not sure that Iowa and New Hampshire do a terrible job of picking the candidates. I wasn't a Kerry supporter, but the people in both states put a huge amount of thought into who they'd vote for, and I'm sure it would be the case with any small state that was first in the nation.

They're both moderate, somewhat folksy swing states, but if California picked, the whole country would be hosed.

We voted for Gray Davis, Jerry Brown, Ronald Reagan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The only thing that picking a state with large urban areas would do is totally alienate us from the middle of the country.

Some would argue that the middle of the country deserves to be alienated, but Kerry basically completely ATE giant swathes of the west, and the ENTIRE south, to focus on the midwest, the northeast, and the Pacific Coast. If you look at the Blue/Red county breakdown, the Pacific states were decided by the Bay Area, LA, Portland, and Seattle, with a few progressive coastal counties with colleges and small populations thrown in. Kerry didn't even dream of being competitive in over 20 states!

Clinton got Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and GEORGIA... PLUS all the so-called "swing states," in either '92 or '96.

Bush pere got HUGE prizes that we've considered "safe" in the last two elections, including California.

Reagan in '80 got everything BUT Minnesota, Hawaii, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Maryland and GEORGIA.

Carter won it with the WHOLE south (even TEXAS!), but he didn't get California!

The only states that have stayed consistently red since '76 are Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Indiana. These 11 states have a whopping total of 63 electoral votes. (And Johnson got all those states!!!!!!) In the last election, we won counties in all states except Utah, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

The upshot is that we can fight in 39 states, but only if we pick candidates that are palatable to people in rural areas. Ergo, we should let smaller, rural states have first pick at our candidates.

This is by no means a call to move to the center. I think we should fight the progressive fight!

Know your values and frame the debate!

YEEEEEEEAAAARGH!



(On edit: Minnesota and DC have been our only "safe" states since '76. Woo-hoo! 13 electoral votes in the bag!)

[goforit]

35. The primaries were rigged.......just face the music .

[IndianaGreen]

38. Front loading the primaries was Terry McCauliffe's idea

and we paid dearly for this foolishness in November.

[Kimber Scott]

36. I don't like two states determining who our nominee is any more than

I like one state deciding who our president is. Something needs to be done to make the nominating process more than simply a game of follow the leader.

[renaissanceguy]

39. Amen.

What happened to the concept of "everybody's vote counts equally." We shouldn't focus on any one (or group of) state's decisions, and expect everyone to follow suit.

Support for Kerry was NOT based on his performance; it was on a superficial term called "electability," whatever THAT means.

Everyone's vote matters equally. I agree that instant runoff voting would be a great idea, as well. In fact, I think we should do that for the general elections, so we can give third parties a voice, too.

-----------------------
Buy liberal and progressive buttons, bumper stickers, and shirts at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Start the primary in a solid blue state and the candidates would

lean more liberal and/or anti-establishment.

:think:

[Eurobabe]

43. I think we should have regional primaries

rather than two white-bred states determining the candidate.