This May Be Progress!: Iowa & NH Primaries May Lose Status

[stopbush]

Looks like Ed Rendell & Carl Levin are tired of Iowa and New Hampshire picking our presidential candidates. It's about time someone of stature took up this issue. Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan and California (ie: the big blue states) should have priority in picking our candidates. Fuck Iowa and fuck NH!


Shaheen and Shumaker will serve on DNC nomination calendar commission

By JAMES W. PINDELL
PoliticsNH.com

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 – The Democratic National Committee formed a 40-member commission on Friday charged with making recommendations on how the party should go about nominating their party’s presidential candidate – and whether that process should begin in Iowa and New Hampshire .

Among those named were former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and former Ambassador Terry Shumaker, both from New Hampshire . They are expected to lay out the benefits of keeping the New Hampshire tradition of holding the first primary since the 1920s alive.

Countering them will be those from Michigan ’s DNC member Debbie Dingell and U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, who oppose the primary. Also aiding them is Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell who has been on record against the New Hampshire primary.

The idea of the commission was formed in February of 2003 when Dingell and Levin sent around a letter to Michigan Democrats asking them to hold their presidential caucuses on the same date as the New Hampshire primary.

more here:
http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2004/Dec/12_10dnc.shtml

[rabid_nerd]

1. Rendell is nore than on the record...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04349/426566.stm

HARRISBURG -- Gov. Ed Rendell thinks a populous state like Pennsylvania should be more of a player when it comes to picking the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates every four years.

So he's assembling a 13-member elections task force to study whether to move the 2008 Pennsylvania primary election up to late January or early February -- much sooner than the traditional primary in late April or mid-May.

...

[IrateCitizen]

2. This is good and bad...

Personally, I think that we should have a more diverse and populous state as the first one in the primary process. But I think that putting several big states together would be a disaster, because it would promote candidates who have a bigger war chest over those who might be able to establish broader grassroots support over time.

The idea behind the primary process is supposed to be momentum. Candidates who do well early on generate the momentum needed to raise funds and build larger support networks, while those who don't do as well fade away.

Prior to 1988, the primary season was much longer and more spread-out. This gave candidates the opportunity to focus on each state as it came around. Then, at the urging of the ascendant DLC, "Super Tuesday" was created in order to increase the impact of southern states and to make early fundraising a bigger priority in the process.

Personally, I don't think the early primary should be the domain of any one state. I think that we should rotate the early primary between several more populous states like NY, PA, OH, CA, MI and FL -- along with going back to the idea of a more spread-out primary process. There's absolutely no reason that we need to have a Presidential nominee chosen by March, as evidenced by this year's campaign.

[dansolo]

34. The first primaries should be geographically diverse

Personally I think that the first primaries should be a cross section of small to medium sized states from different geographical regions. There should be one state from the south, one from the northeast, one from the midwest, and one from the west, and they should all occur on the same day.

[theboss]

3. The issue is not really Iowa and New Hampshire

The issue is that the entire process is so condensed now. The primary season used to last into the summer. Over that time, any number of candidates could rise and fall and rise again. Now, the entire thing seems to take about a month. Iowa and NH wouldn't be so important if the whole thing wasn't essentially decided two weeks later on Super Tuesday.

[stopbush]

4. If the issue isn't Iowa and/or NH, then the issue is allowing

small - or worse, red - states to have such say in picking our candidates.

How about this: if your state voted for * in 04, your primary gets pushed back to June '08? Works for me.

[JI7]

5. iowa and new hampshire are swing states

iowa went blue in 2000 and red this year but was still close.

new hampshire went red in 2000 and blue this year.

[theboss]

25. That's such a closed-minded attitude

By that rationale, we should just shut down the Democratic Party in Texas and Oklahoma.

Three points:
1. We aren't electing the president of the Blue States. I would hope that when a Democrat gets in, he is considering the needs of Wyoming as well as the needs of New York.

2. This Red State/Blue State nonsense is not written in stone. Within a decade, if people keep moving from Massaschusetts, New Hampshire may be as comfortably blue as any state. And California used to be a pretty strong conservative state. Things change.

3. The states should have some say in choosing their own election days.

[IndianaGreen]

33. That's an excellent recommendation!

States that went GOP should be last in the primary season. If not, then I would suggest that all primaries be consolidated into regional primaries, IA and NH included.

[Julien Sorel]

16. That was done intentionally this year.

The idea was to minimize the amount of time the candidates spent beating each other up, and getting the nomination process over quickly so the nominee could gear up for the general election. I actually thought it worked rather well, although it worked against my candidate of choice. Still, once it was obvious Kerry would be the nominee, his fundraising went through the roof, allowing him to compete with Bush. Imagine what would have happened instead if the primaries had dragged on. All that money and energy that went towards Kerry would have been spread out among the other candidates. I didn't like or understand it at the time, but looking back, I think it was a good idea.

[theboss]

26. I still don't like it

Mainly, because Terry McAuliffe came up with it. In a way, we got lucky because Kerry was a veteran politician name recognition. But it takes a long process for someone like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (or even a losing candidate like Dukakis) to emerge from the pack. I think this process gives an unfair advantage to senators, when governors are typically better candidates.

[Julien Sorel]

29. If Dean had been a better candidate, he'd have won Iowa.

He's a governor.

Kerry essentially started from nowhere in Iowa and clawed his way to the top. Given the money situation, that would have been next to impossible in a state like Michigan, or worse, California or Pennsylvania. Edwards also clawed his way to the top on limited funds, on the strength of his campaigning.

It seems to me large state primaries actually favor established candidates. Kerry was the early favorite, and did well in fundraising. Lieberman also did well in early fundraising, as did Edwards. That would have allowed them to take an early lead in big states with expensive media markets, and who knows how things would have gone then? What I like about the small state primaries is the relative cheapness of it. It's a much more democratic process, I
think.

[zulchzulu]

6. Great! Start off with the most expensive media markets...bye bye populist

Why the anger over Iowa and New Hampshire?

As for starting off the primaries in expensive media markets like NY, CA and PA, you can pretty much consider any populist that may not have a lot of money up front to not really get their message out.

Frankly, I like Iowan voters because they take their obligation to know the issues very seriously. Iowa is a bit different with more towns that have populations of at least 200,000 or more.

New Hampshire takes it a little too seriously with some towns with populations of 200 or less getting multiple visits by the candidates.

So let's start the campaign primary season in the biggest states with the most expensive markets and have the campaigns with the most money get huge leads at the beginning.

Yeah...great idea...
:freak:

[stopbush]

7. Which '04 populist benefited from Iowa this year?

Was it Kerry? What's your point?

[zulchzulu]

9. OK...here's what I'm talking about

Imagine someone like Kucinich who had very little money having to campaign all over California and put out TV and radio ads in the highest media market in the US.

New York is the same way. PA has expensive markets in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Iowa has a media market that is a fraction of these states, hence the candidate doesn't have to be loaded to the gills with money to launch a campaign.

It's not about Iowa ot New Hampshire. Like someone mentioned, it's the front-loading of the primaries and caucuses so that the season is over by April. It should be spread out to at least June. Get rid of ridiculous multi-states days like Super Tuesday. That would be my first focus on this level of reform.

[stopbush]

11. Your point is taken, but the flip side of the coin on candidates

like Dennis and Al Sharpton is that they can also be seen as distractions or comic relief. Personally, I very much enjoyed the fact that the primary field was so large this time around. I was less happy when Dennis and others over stayed their welcome when the nomination was wrapped up.

And, BTW, Dean raised incredible amounts of $ as a "populist" candidate. I imagine his media bills would have been about the same in NY and CA as they were in IA and NH. Hell, Trippi jumped the gun and was running ads in Texas before Dean's big loss in IA because they thought they had $ to burn. Instead, they got burned.

You know, another way to go would be for at-this-time-marginal candidates like Dennis or Al to forego running for pres while attaching themselves to a candidate whose platform closely resembles their own. Take on a high-visibility role early in the process, rather than waiting for your candidacy to fall apart and *then* making an endorsement after you've become damaged goods.

[zulchzulu]

13. I agree to a degree about lower-tier candidates

It might be hard to tell that to people supported Kucinich.

I found this great site talking about primary reform:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/reform/report_nominating.htm

Some good ideas...

[Radical Activist]

22. Sharpton and Kucinich controlled the debate in the primary

Shartpon and Kucinich both played very important rolls in the primary and everyone would have been worse off had they not been there. They forced the other candidates to address issues that would have been ignored as well as contradictions in the platforms or records of other candidates.

For example, at first none of the candidates came out against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, except Kucinich. When people started to see that the primary voters didn't support the $87 Billion Edwards came out against it, the Kerry, Dean and the others. Kucinich framed the debate on that issue quickly in a way that no one else running would have.

Kucinich forced Gephardt, who was running on Fair Trade, to address his past support for the WTO. Kucinich also forced Dean to attempt reconcile his status as a peace candidate with his promise to balance the budget without cutting military spending. No one else was going to bring up these issues and challenge the other candidates this way. Certainly the corporate media never would have.

People give Dean a lot of credit for leading the way and taking bold stances. I don't think there's a bold position Dean took that Kucinich or Sharpton didn't take weeks or months in advance of Dean. Dean was a lot more courageous since he had those two to test out risky issues positions.

They were more than vanity candidates and the primary was much better with them included.

[Radical Activist]

19. Exactly. Small states help candidates that

don't have a lot of money and national name recognition. If we start out in large states the winner will be the person with the most corporate money and media coverage. The media and corporate donors already have too much sway in the primary and I don't want to make that worse.

[Leilani]

8. I'd say keep New Hampshire

It's the one state that candidates get out & really meet the people.
Anyone in New Hampshire who wants, can get to meet the candidates, ask questions & size them up.

The NH people are also VERY well informed; they don't vote because of commercials. It also gives candidates a chance to work on their stump speeches, messages, hone some skills.

I don't want to see the primaries turned into dueling commercials in expensive media markets. That will assure the "acceptable" candidate, or the "insider" wins.

And get rid of the front loaded system...it doesn't give some candidates a chance. Instead, it again favors the "insider."

Edited to add: New Hampshire went blue this time, but there's lots of Indies. I'd like to see it keep it's 1st in the nation status.

[zulchzulu]

10. I was in Iowa & the same was true there as you mentioned in New Hampshire

People in Iowa were very interested. Rallies were packed. Debates were full. They took it very seriously.

And actually, cities like Davenport, Des Moines, Iowa City and Sioux City have a pretty diverse racial population as well.

It's not all dusty farmers and pothead painters.

[Leilani]

12. I 'm familiar with Iowa

my brother lives in the Quad Cities.

Frankly, I don't like caucuses. I think they're stupid.

So my problem isn't really with Iowa, it's with caucuses; they seem to favor group think. Some people avoid them because they'd rather keep their beliefs private, or they're shy.

[zulchzulu]

14. Shy or private people and caucus voting don't really mix

I witnessed the process which I actually liked for its way of people being able to sell their candidate before voting...but I see your point.

[Rambis]

15. You guys are all wet

We suggest candidates we don't mandate them. We did not shove John Kerry up any orifice of the American people. If Americans don't like who we pick don't follow our lead. I haven't seen one decent argument as to why the caucus is a bad thing. You all have theories about what goes on there but you obviously don't have a clue what the process is like. My brother, my uncle, my cousin says blah blah blah. Go to the Iowa caucus then post here. The caucuses numbers were up across the board. There are usually 10 people at ours there were 97. Iowa City Iowa usually has 50-100 people attend and there were 500 in our old precinct. I can't wait until some state that "knows" who to pick offers up some schlep who gets blitzed. What the fuck is the argument going to be then?

[zulchzulu]

17. I WAS in Iowa participated in the caucus in Des Moines

Granted, it was my first time and I was a witness. I liked the process but can see how people may not want others to know who they were voting for. With a caucus, you can't wear a hood or some disguise so that no one knows who you voted for.

I do remember a lot of seniors and others that didn't like caucus-style voting when I did phone banking. The time limitation and schedule of a caucus certainly is not as convenient as having a full day to vote.

I'm glad at your report that many more people turned out to participate...and Iowa City certainly is a pretty cool town.

[Rambis]

20. Ok we have one now

Not wanting to tip your hand is a legit argument. We had discussion and people that wanted to hear from the candidates position people before committing. A lot of folks sat in the middle for a long time they had leanings but the position speeches on issues were good.

[Leilani]

21. YOU didn't shove Kerry

but the media did.

And the frontloading made it worse.

I want to continue the retail politicking....maybe add a few small states near the beginning in other areas of the country...like the west & south.

Then move on to bigger states.

And stretch out the process, so that it's not a done deal after 2 states.

[Leilani]

24. One more point:

You may have increased participation in Iowa in the caucuses, but if you look at the percentage of people from the state that participate, it is much lower than New Hampshire, which has a primary with secret ballot.

[Radical Activist]

18. Iowa has a much cheaper media market

In New Hampshire the campaigns are forced to buy advertising in the expensive Boston media market.

I agree with all you say about New Hampshire and the reasons for keeping it there. All of those things could also be said about Iowa.

[theboss]

27. TV is not that important in New Hampshire

Yes, it's expensive because you have to buy in Boston, but no one wins New Hampshire because of their ads. They win because they actually campaign door to door. I think it's a pretty good warm-up act.

[Radical Activist]

23. Diversity would be an improvement

I feel very strongly that we should have the first primaries in small states with cheap media markets to give candidates that aren't backed by the corporate donors and media a chance to win.

However, it would be nice to have someplace more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire. Louisiana, New Mexico and South Carolina might all be good options. I hope the discussion at the DNC goes along those lines.

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Worked up these suggestions for reform on another

thread. I think these six suggestions allow for reform of a badly disfunctional nominating process. While at the same time dealing with many if not all of the criticisms raised above.

Six Suggestions For Structural Change in the Presidential Nominating Process

1) The nation be divided into 5 broad geographic regions (Southeast, Southwest, Northeast, Midwest, Northwest)
2) Each region chooses, through a set system of rotation or by other criteria, one state to run in a first day primary
3) 3 weeks later, the people and campaigns have had a chance to respond to the first day results, all remaining states vote, "Super Tuesday".
4) Ballots should be in the form of "Ranked balloting". Rate the candidates in order of preference.
5) Proportional distribution of delegates. Death to "Winner Takes All" apportionment of delegates. That way, a second, or third in large states still has value.
6) Finally, public financing of all campaigns to establish a level funding playing field. Each candidate would receive a set amount of money to spend on the primary race.

Most importantly it maintains a staged primary system, allows for the populist candidates to accumulate some support and money, keeps any states from always having the say in the wildly influential first primary, and would likely select a candidate more representative of the entire country.

Comments?

[realFedUp]

30. Getting rid of caucuses would be the place to start

and howabout in a state that isn't freezing,
like California!

[DistressedAmerican]

31. The fundamental issue is not the inadequacy

of Iowa or New Hampshire. People's fellings about those two states aside. We have a bigger issue than that.

What nobody here is asking is:
Why the hell just one or two states and worse, if only one or two Why the same ones over and over?

Shouldn't the rest of the states have some say for once. I explored this in detail in the string I referenced in the previous message and it boils down to tradition. Through some accident of history these two states have the first primary over and over. Last time around, I heard Joe Lieberman have to state publicly that he supported the traditional "right" of these two state to hold the first round draft. The fact that they have the first primary has and is used to maintain that privilege

I do not believe that having a "first in the nation" status is a good idea at all. It brings up the basic stats issue of representativeness. The sample size and demographic makeup of those states (regardless of who it is) used to make the selection prohibits our party from making a choice that is representative of the body of voters that come out nationwide for the general election.

The regional primary system mentioned in my last post would go a long way to solving that problem. First it provides a more statistically reliable measure of nationwide voter population by taking what is known as a stratified sample (a sample that subdivides the total population into subsets and samples each). In addition, the rotating selection of a "first in the region" state would prevent the accumulation and jealous guarding of political advantage by any state (regardless of color, history, size, cost of media, etc.). With so many regions rotating the state in question, there should always be a mix of larger and smaller states represented on the first day.

Put simply, if I was handed he task of picking a representative sample of the voting population for a stats class, I would FAIL if my suggestion looked anything like our current system!

[Endangered Specie]

32. Let North Carolina pick first

:) ;)