Rosenberg wants to change primary schedule, Dean doesn't

[incapsulated]

Hmmm, I've been all for Dean, but this is an important issue to me.

What do you think?



Dean says Iowa's caucus schedule is fine

The former Vermont governor said Thursday he sees no reason to keep Iowa from leading off the 2008 nominating season. That's a point of disagreement between Dean and another leading candidate for chairman.

"I don't believe that the system's going to be changed or that the order is going to be changed," Dean said in an interview with The Des Moines Register. "You're going to have to show me a reason to change. I'm just not going to change it for change's sake."

snip

Rosenberg said Thursday the traditional calendar, which has put the caucuses and the New Hampshire primary at the front of the order, must be changed. He prefers a system where states with larger and more diverse populations have equal influence as the traditional lead-off states.

"Whatever they end up with, whatever the formula is, the aspiration should be to have more states and more people involved at a co-equal setting with Iowa and New Hampshire," said Rosenberg, president of the centrist New Democrat Network.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050114/NEWS09/501140416/1056

[ProudToBeLiberal]

1. Well I would trust Dean's judgement.

After all I think Dean would know best about Iowa, which was the state that brought him down.

[incapsulated]

6. I really want...

My vote in the primaries to count. Or at least have more than the same two states choose the nominee again.

I have to agree with Rosenberg.

If Dean gets the Chair, I hope he is open to changing his mind on this.

[KittyWampus]

64. Dean OWES HARKIN. Don't Give Dean That Much Credit.

[Eloriel]

68. This is totally at odds with what I heard him say -- in person -- 1 wk ago

Edited to add that AFAIC the biggest bone of contention is the thread title. He absolutely DOES want to see changes.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to sort out the PRECISE difference.

So let me just tell you what I know for sure:

* He is NOT in favor of keeping the primaries exactly as they are.

* There is a committee or commmission or some group within the DNC currently meeting about the very subject -- I rather doubt he'd step all over their work in advance. BUT, even so --

* He expressed to us (a group of his supporters in Atlanta, in advance of the DNC Regional meeting) that he would like to see one or more large states involved in the early primaries.

* I do not recall whether or not he specifically addressed Iowa, but I do know that he said he wouldn't want to see Iowa replacdd with another caucus state (presumably because he's not that fond of caucuses, nor am I).

* Another comment he made in conjunction with the primaries (and unfortunately I don't remember the exact context) is that he definitely wants to see the unknown and little known candidates have a chance.


I think he was either misquoted or that some of the context is missing, or that he was tailoring his remarks specifically to Iowa readers.

[janx]

94. Whoever wrote the article is tailoring his remarks specifically

to Iowa readers.

I heard him talk about this the other night, Eloriel, and he reiterated everything you've just noted, with the exception of the "large state" factor.

[aden_nak]

2. I normally agree with Dean. BUT!

I've always felt that the primaries should all be held on the same day. The current system devalues certain votes. And being in NJ, the state that votes on the LAST DAY, I know a little bit about that.

[FormerDittoHead]

40. Same here (fellow NJ'an)

If all primaries were held the same day, then the money would be spread around so THIN, one would have to use things like the DEBATES to make their decisions, rather than advertising.

Besides, it sucks not having my primary vote count...

[Kahuna]

86. Me three, in NJ.. Sick and tired of not having a voice in the

primary process.

[madfloridian]

3. I disagree with Dean on this.

Larger states should be first.

[RubyDuby in GA]

7. I disagree too, but

I think all primaries should either be on the same day or broken up on two days - half of states on one day and half on another, with the date being no more than 2 weeks apart.

Don't care about money. And GA was a SuperTuesday state, but it's really unfair to the states that are much later in the year. Example, Alabama's primary wasn't until June. Wonder how much their votes counted?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

11. I would have to disagree.

By having larger state first, candidates with no money would lose. In a large state it's all about buying Ads. You can't really go door to door in a large state. In a small state, going door to door is important if not much more than buying ads. If we do change the primary schedule, I suggest a medium size state with alot of diversity. I think washington state would be a good choice :P.

[blm]

30. Larger states are more expensive. Whoever has the most money will win

because they will have the bucks to travel and buy ads in the more expensive media markets.

There are reasons why Iowa and NH have been early primary states and money is a big one. They just need one more small but diverse state to join them in that earlier slot. I feel Arkansas would fill that bill.

[Rose Siding]

42. Dean had the most money, but he didn't win

I like the opportunity IA offers to vet positions and gain one on one interaction, and it's true they aren't representative of the populace racially.

But cities are dem hubs- urban areas should be represented, as well. However, this isn't the biggest problem right now and Dean has the stronger position on overall reform.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. Too bad they can't all go on one day or something. There's something

to be said for all the voters at the primary season who feel as though their votes mean nothing.

Maybe Dean would at least consider instant runoff voting in the primaries?

------------------------------------------------------
Join the new Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/index.htm#shopping

[dolstein]

4. Unlike Dean, I think it's a good idea to allow racial minorities . . .

to have a say in choosing our party's nominee. Iowa and New Hampshire have tiny minority populations. Far better to start with a state like Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania, or perhaps a state with a large Hispanic population, like Arizona or New Mexico.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

13. man, why are your post always oozing with um gooey stuff?

I want to read your post, but I just can't get through all the negativity. I bet you have great contributions but can you tone down the oozy stuff please. Thanks

[JI7]

16. i think Arkansas is a good state since it's small and still allows

for a lot of personal contact between candidates and people. but at the same time includes a more diverse population.

[blm]

25. That's my take, too. Arkansas should JOIN Iowa and NH since it's small

enough to allow the interaction needed to vet the candidates while being more diverse AND a southern state.

[fujiyama]

35. Interesting idea

Arkansas, New Mexico, and maybe Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania would be interesting choices...

But the problem with the latter three is that they are more expensive media markets (atleast the Philly market is expensive - I don't know about Detroit, and the major population centers in OH like Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinatti). I think AR and NM would be good choices. They have bigger minority populations and they aren't too expensive.

The reason I don't want either a same day primary or have all the big states go first is that they are expensive media markets. Lesser known candidates with less money would have a very tough time competing in them.

[msongs]

91. more false anti dean dog crap .......

your karl rovian logic is false. you say:

"Unlike Dean, I think it's a good idea to allow racial minorities to have a say in choosing our party's nominee.'

Your assertion is that Dean's support of an Iowa caucus means he is against "minorities" having a say is spurious and false.

The comments in the original post clearly say Dean would change the system if he was given compelling evidence to do so.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[bigwillq]

5. I am supporting Dean for chair but

I feel the primaries should all be on one day.
Like in April or May.

[Dookus]

10. I, too, support Dean for Chair

but I think a one-day primary would be awful. It would prohibit any long-shot candidates from building some momentum and would force ALL the candidates to focus on the biggest states and media markets.

There'd be no need to get out and meet people, shake hands, discuss real issues with real people. It would simply favor the candidate who could afford the most commercials in California, NY, Texas and Florida.

There should probably be some change to the schedule, but a one-day primary would be terrible.

Also, keep in mind that because last year's winner in Iowa went on to get the nomination, that isn't always the case by any means.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

14. I agree nt

[bigwillq]

20. Some get points-That is the only negative drawback I see with

a one-day primary. Heck, Clinton may never have been prez if there was a one-day primary.

But I still think a one-day can work if it's later on in the year, say late spring, early summer.


I feel this year's primary season was over and done with even before I got to vote in CT on Super Tues.

[Dookus]

26. I don't see how the date of a one-day primary

changes anything. Whether it's in January or June, the result is the same - it simply favors the candidate with the most money and doesn't allow any real grassroots momentum to develop.

A guy like Jimmy Carter could actually make some headway. He would never have been the candidate in a one-day primary. Neither would Clinton.

I think people are looking at this because they were unhappy with last year's results. The question needs to be "does the current system consistently, or even occasionally,give us the wrong candidate?" and I think the answer is no. I think John Kerry would've gotten the nomination last year regardless of schedule. I know a lot of people feel they didn't get to vote for their candidate by the time their primary came around - I understand. My candidate was out of the race, too, by the time of the California primary. That's always the case. If I felt that strongly about it, I'd move to Iowa.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

46. what is the problem?

instead of vote in state 1 on day 1 in state 2 on day... vote all state the last day no days lost, more flexibility to the campaigning parties.

[Dookus]

48. huh?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If you're asking what my objections to a national one-day primary are, I've outlined them above.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

80. what i meant...

instead of have a series of voting spread over a date all states vote on the date at which usually the last state would vote.

[bigwillq]

49. I was not really unhappy with the primary results

of course I wanted Dean but I thought Kerry made a great candidate but I really think that there might've been a chance that another candidate may have secured the nod if there was a one-day face off sometime in May or June.


I think you're right that many people voted for the person who wasn't their candidate b.c it was apparent that Kerry would get the nom.
That's why I think that maybe a one-day face off could work. It's just a suggestion. I see your points and they're valid ones.

[me b zola]

93. In Oregon

Feel like I NEVER have a say in the primaries.

I am prepared, though, in a couple of years to travel to the east coast to campaign for my guy..if he runs...GO CLARK!!!

[Leilani]

32. Agree too.

If it turns into a money game, we will get the establishment person.

I didn't like this year's front loading...it was over after New Hampshire.

[Dookus]

36. Yes, it was effectively over...

but I don't know that a different schedule would've changed that. I think Edwards might've been the only candidate who could've benefited significantly, but I don't believe it would've gotten him the nomination.

Supporters of ALL candidates besides Kerry "lost out" last year. That's true of every primary cycle - only one person wins.

I just don't see the schedule last year being the deciding factor. I think Kerry was likely to win the nomination no matter what the schedule was (unless of course, it was a one-day primary in early January - then Dean would probably have gotten a plurality).

[NYCGirl]

59. That's my problem with it too, the "front loading."

But the article doesn't address that, just the matter of Iowa being first.

[fob]

8. How about all candidates home states hold their respective

primaries/caucuses if not the same day as Iowa/NH then within the following week. If you can't pull your own homestate, you're out.

Edit: Upon reading more responses here, the best plan I saw had the coutnry divided into 5 (maybe 6) regions and each region voted together, that way there was still the impetus to visit all/many/most states and the time to do so. Also since the process was regionalized there wasn't solely big states or small states, or blue states or red states (although some regions would break down pretty close to that - which is another plus in my book).

Then the regions would rotate which went first.

[necso]

9. Changing the primary schedule is critical. /nt

[Adelante]

12. I hope he changes his mind

Although didn't he make a promise to Tom Harkin?

[incapsulated]

22. About what?

I don't remember, now.

[Adelante]

24. The Iowa Caucuses

He promised to keep them. I'll look for a link to this.

[janx]

83. Please do. I don't think you will find one,

because he said no such thing.

This article is about some in Iowa (Des Moines Register), hysterical at Dean's becoming chair. I love Iowa. I lived and went to school in Iowa City as an undergraduate. I have extended family from Iowa who are strong Dems (now living in Oregon). But the Iowa caucuses are a mess.

Iowa Dems have been proud of their front-runner status ever since they became the first Dem voice in the primary process in the seventies. That's admirable, but the process needs some work. In the first place, less than thirty percent of registered Dems showed up for the last caucus. And in the second place, the caucuses are so chaotic that they render the whole process less than democratic.

Iowa is not so far from the Hannibal, Missouri, home of Mark Twain, who wrote (among other masterpieces) "The Jumping Frog of Calaveras County." There were a lot of jumping frogs in the last Iowa caucus. As a native Missourian, I am just as skeptical as Twain was about the political process, and I see some of the same pragmatic skepticism in Dean.

[Adelante]

87. No, I didn't find it

I do remember it that way, though, but I shouldn't have said so without checking it first. I actually enjoyed the Iowa caucuses on TV with their rough democracy. Still, something has to be done to make the primary system workable. It does seem to me that if Iowa Dems are so proud of their frontrunner status then more than 30% would participate. In any case, I think it has to be on the table for any serious try at reform.

[janx]

100. I don't know that the order in which the states vote is the problem.

But it will be interesting to see what the DNC group finds after examining the situation.

Dean may well have said something to Harkin about Iowa's being first; he has said that small states should come first (for the reason that Zulch and others mention).

But a "promise" implies something shady.

[AmerDem]

15. beware,take a step back for a sec. Rosenberg came outa no where

and all of a sudden we had in a coordinated effort people like Chris Heinz showing up here and Joe Trippi hitting the MSM on the same day. This guy Rosenberg is being backed by some of the elites of our party. Rosenberg has many standings that can easily pass for repuke light. From my understanding he was one of the first people involved with the DLC.

I'm not saying that this guy and those who all once came forward to support him are up to no good I'm just saying I don't like the smell of it. Remember something, Dean has "proven" he would stand with us to the end. Dean is one of the very few who will call the MSM out when he has the chance. Dean makes a point to show he has zero interest in being part of the elitist club and is proud to say he represents average everyday people like us.

[incapsulated]

21. I've backed Dean

From the start. But this is a big issue for a lot of us.

I'm not changing my position at this point, just bringing up the issue.

[AmerDem]

23. Look at it this way

I think most of us know how Dean would look at our concerns. Why not start a letter campaign telling him about your feelings on the change. You never know, if enough folks contact him he may look at things a different way.

I personally want our primary system shaken up. Gov. Ed Rendel is pushing now to have my state Pa. moved up in the primaries so we have more voice in the election process.

[incapsulated]

27. Well that's what I'm hoping

But if we don't bring up his position, we wouldn't know about it, would we?

That's why I posted this.

[AmerDem]

29. who said anything about your intent?

I sent out a flare to those you may be only dropping in and out on the DNC chair race.

[Eloriel]

69. Please see my post way upthread before making up your mind

one way or the other. Dean is being misquoted and/or set up here, I do believe.

[SHRED]

31. And he supports the Iraq invasion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1494867&mesg_id=1494867&page=

[WI_DEM]

17. I don't agree with Dean on everything

but I'm glad to see he is saying something he believes in despite the fact that many bigger states oppose Iowa and NH having such a big role in the nominating process. I'm of two minds on it myself. I think that it is good to be able to have a state to go to where you do real retail campaigning and not have to depend on television to get your message out, but on the other hand I do think NH and Iowa have way too big a role and that other states are influenced by how they vote.

[BurtWorm]

18. One thing about Dean is he's shown himself to be open to the wishes

of his supporters. He doesn't think he's god. He's flexible. That quality is lacking in both parties.

[incapsulated]

19. I'd like to see..

Rotating blocks of states rather than the same two repeatedly. Include states with large, diverse populations. They don't need to all be the same day, in fact, I would prefer that they be spaced out to give people a second look at all the candidates, something that couldn't happen with the primaries being frontloaded the way they were last time.

It needs to be changed. As I said, I hope Dean is open to changing his mind.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. I think your idea makes the most sense

of any that I've seen.

Can we make you DNC chair?:evilgrin:

[Radical Activist]

28. But I thought the Iowa caucus was evil!

Haven't I been reading that for months on DU? I guess the responses on this thread will show who really believes that and who is following a cult of personality.

[Fleshdancer]

33. I have to disagree with the Doc on this issue

While keeping the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire is beneficial for those particular states and for campaigns with less money, at the end of the day, I have a hard time with the idea that the majority of Democrats across the country don't get a say in who becomes the candidate.

The only problem I see though is that opening the primaries up to more and/or larger states makes the process that more expensive. Double edged sword I guess.

[Cheswick2.0]

34. He said show him...................that is the great thing about Dean

he will listen if you show him that he needs to reconsider his position. He's got that Doctor/administrator mind, get some facts and a well reasoned argument and he is like to listen to you.

So show him.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Terry McAwful invented the front-loaded primary brain fart along

with James Carville to favor the establishment frontrunner. F*ck that. I am in
disagreement with Dean on this 100%. Iowa went to Bush this year for gawd's sake. NH is Jeanne Shaheen/Ted Kennedy country and Kerry is King there. Can we please get real here?

I don't want more of the same in 2008. I hope Dean will change his mind on this.

Perhaps he's saying this to play it smart with the delegates (to win those Iowa and NH DNC members). He can't be serious that he sees no reason to change the schedule and has to be "shown." It's pretty GD obvious that something's broken
with the system.

[Cheswick2.0]

41. Iowa has always been first.

The front loaded part is the problem. There is no need to get all agitated about this. Don't bitch if you don't wan't to help fix the problem.
There is absolutely nothing useful about saying "He can't be serious that he sees no reason to change the schedule and has to be "shown."
Get a grip and show him.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Actually, Iowa has only been first

since 1972. That may seem like always if you're young enough (it is as far as my own memory goes), but it's really not all that long a time in the big picture. It also happens to correspond with a period in which Democrats have fared very badly overall in presidential elections.

Dean has not always been so supportive of the Iowa caucuses. I hope if he gets the DNC chair, that he will be open to reexamining his earlier attitude, since I believe it was absolutely correct.

[ClarkUSA]

96. Thanks for the advice, Ches, but you're reading me wrong

You're taking me out-of-context, which is easy to do in a forum like this. The sentence prior to the one you are quoting is key. I was simply using the sentence that you are quoting and the one after that to back up the lead-off statement.
Dean is no dummy is what I'm saying and after I read what Eloriel and Janx have had to say (which was written after my post), I feel my deduction is not far off the mark.

[BlueInRed]

50. that's exactly what

I thought when I read that quote. He's not in support of it now, but will consider change if presented with evidence. Dean is good that way.

I'd like to see the caucus changed simply because it's an anomoly that gives people in Iowa several choices at a nominee, but in other states they get to vote for only one. If every state primary had let you choose one, then when that one failed, choose a second and so on, we might have had a different candidate. Either everyone in every state should be allowed to put down their first three choices (etc) or no state should. I'd just like to see the states on equal footing on that issue, regardless of the date it happens on.

If Iowa was just a normal primary instead of a caucus, I wouldn't mind them going so early in the process.

[leyton]

37. The first states should be Missouri and Kentucky.

Why? Because those two states, along with the more expensive Ohio, have determined who wins the Presidency since 1968, I think.

[moggie12]

38. Wow, smart thinking & a good idea n/t

[liberalpragmatist]

79. Kentucky's lost

Used to be a swing state, but it's now a reliable GOP-state, as West Virginia has become.

Missouri is still a swing state (although it leans slightly Republican) - b/c of Bush's strength with rural voters, it's unlikely Kerry could have won, but had Kerry not ceded the state to Bush in the final month, he likely could have kept it within 5 points - he was polling within 2 or 3 points of Bush until then and led a lot of the summer polling.

[leyton]

82. That may be true.

Kentucky does seem firmly in the GOP camp. Though it's a GOP nation right now, so technically it's still a bellwether.

Iowa and New Mexico have both mirrored the national elections of late: IIRC Clinton carried both in 1996. Gore carried them by a hair in 2000, when he also won the popular vote by a small margin. Then Bush carried them in 2004, when he managed to win the popular vote. Of course, both of these are pretty early in the primary season already.

[Pithy Cherub]

43. Overall support Dean's candidacy,

however; the current Dem primary configuration needs overhauling! The big states first posture would ensure those with the best fundraising capabilities rather than ideas would be in pretty unassailable positions becuase of the delegate counts. Smaller states with the diversity of a salt box would target their issues. Ethanol discussions and CAFE standards discussed at the same time could be highly useful and illuminating. Side benefit: it would tickle my funny bone. ;)

[Crunchy Frog]

44. While I currently favor Dean for the position,

I have to say that I agree with Rosenburg concerning a reexamination of the primary schedule.

I think that the current one has a pretty poor track record for producing winning candidates. I don't think that only two states, and the same two states every cycle, should have so much influence in the nomination process. Especially two states that are fairly unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.

I agree that the idea of a single day primary is a disastrous one. I think maybe there should be a series of primaries in which widely divergent regions of the country are represented early on. I also think that they should change the order of the primaries every cycle so that people in other states occasionally get to feel like they have a say in selecting the nominee.

I also think that frontloading was an absolutely terrible idea. If nothing else, I hope that at least will not be repeated.

If Dean gets the position, I really do hope that he will be open to public feedback. I also hope that he will treat what all registered Democrats have to say as being equally valid, not just what his *supporters* have to say.

[H2O Man]

45. Rosenburg supports Bush in Iraq

and Dean doesn't. I'd prefer that thousands of lower- to middle-income men be alive to vote in the primaries, no matter when they are scheduled. If they die in Iraq, they don't have any chance to vote, not in primaries, not in general elections.

If Rosenburg supports Bush in this war, perhaps he should put his DNC Chair campaign on ice, and put on a National Guard uniform. Show us some of that old time leadership.

[janx]

47. OK, do you want to know the real reason Dean isn't suggesting

changes now?

1. He is not DNC chair.
2. There is a DNC group of around 35 people studying the primary procedure right now. He is waiting for them to reach some kind of conclusion.

Edit: Consider the source of this article.

[yellowdawgdem]

53. I'm all for Dean

And most important is that he gives you his honest opinion, whether right or wrong. He is way trustworthy imo, and I don't know very much about the other guy, Rosenberg. Is it too much to hope that Dean could get this job? If we get another lousy dnc chair, we'll be screwed in 008. Not that we aren't anyway, but I mean this is dem survival or lack of.

[janx]

57. He could get it, yes.

Whether he will or not remains to be seen.

[yellowdawgdem]

85. well I am keeping my fingers crossed, then

anyway, with all the damage done by the repug domination of all 3 branches of govt, each small gain that we make is important. I hope Dean gets it.

[quinnox]

55. I wonder if this is a signal to Kerry

Since Kerry was reportedly wanting the DNC chair to be neutral in the '08 race. Dean might be signaling that he will leave the system how it is, which would put Kerry in an advantageous position if he were to run again in 2008, since he did well in Iowa the last time.

I have to say it is kind of amusing to read this, since for months many of Dean's ardent fans were saying it was the primary schedule that hurt Dean's chances to win the nomination, and even that there was some conspiracy behind it to help Kerry. I guess this statement from Dean kind of pokes a large hole in those conspiracy theories.

[madfloridian]

56. Rosenberg openly supports the war, Dean doesn't .

Hey, we don't even get to vote, you know. Before they get through with him....

[incapsulated]

58. But that's not the issue, here

I know where they each stand on the war.

I've written my state DNC people in support of Dean, so even though I can't vote, I've had my say. And Dean looks like he's going to win this if you put any stock in the poll that was taken today.

I had no idea that Dean felt this way until I read his statements. I can only take them at face value.

This is an important issue to me, and if he wins, no matter who wins, really, I want a discussion about it. I think this primary system is in real need of change.

[madfloridian]

60. I agree change is needed. Dean is NOT chair yet, he said give him proof.

This is just silly. I am sorry, but we could go on about issues. If you don't like who get the chair position, do like I will...just do your own thing.

I am no longer that tied to the party. I have the D after my name on my voting card..but that is all.

[madfloridian]

61. To me the war was much more important.....we killed over 100,000 Iraqis.

And our own soldiers must feel betrayed. All the lies are out now, yet many of our leaders, or want to be leaders keep saying the war was a good thing.

I am sorry you don't want Dean anymore for chair, and I would rather see him stay with DFA and build it up...and he could trust me.

I have majorly upset about the primary system, but can you imagine what the other party members would say if Dean complained about Iowa?
Oh, yeah, big time ammunition.

[Adelante]

62. She never said this

"I am sorry you don't want Dean anymore for chair"

Don't put words in Incap's mouth. She is supporting Dean for chair.

[incapsulated]

63. That's right

I haven't changed my position, I still think he's the best person for the job, but this kind of upset me.

As I said, I can only take him at his word. This is a direct quote.

And as I also said, I'm hoping that if he gets the Chair, he will be open to change his mind.

[madfloridian]

66. You know what?

The whole thread implies it. I really don't care. My statement was sort of facetious, and meant to be rather silly....as it is all so obvious.

Everyone knows my stance on it. I don't give a damn who gets it.

[Crunchy Frog]

65. To me, having a process in place

where we can have someone nominated who can actually get elected, and who genuinely reflects the values of Democratic voters as a whole, is a more important issue when considering who to pick for DNC chair.

If we can't do that, than all other issues will be moot, since Repukes will keep getting elected president and carrying on the policies that keep killing people.

In my opinion, the primary system that we have right now is profoundly disfunctional and we need to look at major change, both to make it more democratic, and to make it more effective at picking winning presidential nominees.

I can definitely understand Dean's not wanting to rock the boat on this issue before he gets selected, but I really hope that he seriously address it if he actually becomes chair.

For a party chair (not for a presidential candidate), this is a more important issue for me than their position on the war is.

[Sonora Nora]

70. 24 hours, 1st Sat in March

I think the primary system needs to change! Here's how: a national primary day, like election day. But primary day has to be on a SATURDAY. For 24 hours. All states, all time zones. Begin at the same hour: 9am in NYC, 8am in Dallas, 7am in Tucson, 6am in Seattle, etc. Hold it the 1st Sat in March (so as to not interfere w/spring break, Easter, whatever). Would eliminate a lot of things, including the early lead for Candidate A or B or C or D, the ungodly amount of $$ needed to run/win, the snide hints from TV anchors on who is ahead. Announce a winner a couple o' hrs after ALL polls have closed (at the same hour!), & be done w/the entire achingly prolonged process. The primary season of 2004 was a nightmare. We need change!

[Dookus]

74. As far as money

a single-day primary would have exactly the OPPOSITE effect of what you desire.

The players with the most money would dominate. Instead of a relatively unknown getting a boost from practicing retail politics, the most famous, most funded candidates would have ALL the advantages.

The candidate who could afford all the commercials in the largest states would win. They'd never have to get out and meet a real voter.

Look at the Presidential election. It's a one-day affair. Isn't ungodly amount of money a hallmark of our elections?

[Sonora Nora]

78. Primary Day

You make some great points! But, the moneyed candidates have the advantages NOW! They just get to drag it out for several months, amassing more/more. Cut em off at the pockets... if we'd had a Primary Day in 2004 I think that Dean would have been the Contender. He def had the momentum. And by the 1st Monday in March, it would have been Dean vs Bush... an entirely diff campaign would have ensued.

The Presidential election is about a 12hour affair on a TUESDAY. Most folks are working.

Saturday would elicit a much larger voting crowd, a more diverse crowd. I think we should at least give it a try.

[Dookus]

81. Actually

Carter and Clinton would NEVER have gotten the nominations with a one-day primary. It currently ALLOWS for an underfunded, underknown candidate to gain some traction.

I think you're working backwards from your desired result. Dean didn't win, therefore let's come up with a way he would've won. I don't think that's either reasonable or true. Dean MIGHT have won a one-day primary if it were held in January. But if it were in March, he probably wouldn't have. But then, if there were a one-day primary, ALL the candidates would've adjusted their strategy. There's really no way to know.

Kerry didn't just win - he clobbered everybody in a way generally unseen in a contested primary. I believe he would've gotten the nomination regardless of the schedule.

[janx]

95. I don't understand how a single-day primary would exclude

real campaigning. Isn't the same true the way things stand now?

[Dookus]

98. Really?

You don't see the difference between running huge numbers of commercials in NY, California, Illinois, Texas and Florida vs. walking door to door in Iowa or New Hampshire? Meeting people in their homes, trying to get activists involved, speaking at union halls and diners?

The small-state first system (and I'm not saying they have to be Iowa and New Hampshire) forces candidates to really get out there and meet people. It allows a candidate with less money to have a chance at a good showing that can boost his or her candidacy (like Carter and Clinton).

A one-day primary will simply knock out ALL underfunded candidates and change the focus of the campaigns from getting individual supporters to running mass-market advertisements.

[janx]

99. Now I understand your point, zulch.

I agree that we should have smaller states first. Maybe the problem is that the primaries were so very close together this past time. It might be better to stretch the process out over a much longer period of time.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. Rosenburg thinks Bush went to Iraq with good intentions...Dean doesn't

hmmmmmmmmm, let me think for a minute, who is the better judge of character and critical thinker about what is important? <scratches head>

Yeah, it's still Dean.

[madfloridian]

71. I think Clark would be a good chair for DNC

He has organizational skills, and he has lots of knowledge about national security.

[FrenchieCat]

73. LOL!

You are so FUNNY, madfloridian!

However, those Clark qualifications sound like what we would want in a PRESIDENT.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. I don't think he would be at all good for that position,

Which is good, because according to his son, he as zero interest in it. National security expertise has no relevance whatsoever to that position, and would be wasted there.

He does not have the long term and relationsips, and insider ties that one needs to have there.

I have no doubt that he could do it competently if he had to, but I think he would be bored to tears with it, as it doesn't really relate to his areas of interest or expertise.

I expect maybe you were trying to be facetious, or maybe trying to "get back" at Clarkies for some percieved slight. Either that, or you were paying him a complement, in which case, it's appreciated. :)

FWIW, despite my preference for Rosenberg's currently stated position on changing the primaries, I'm still firmly in Dean's camp on this. I just hope that he will be open to reconsideration once he actually gets the position.

[madfloridian]

77. No, I really feel that way.

He has great organizational experience. I would rather Dean would stay with DFA.

[Crunchy Frog]

84. Well then, I appreciate the complement

but stand by what I said before. I think Clark would be far more suited to be President. However, he may not want to go through that again. I know that he wants to continue to be part of the national dialogue, and to contribute to shaping the Democratic party message. I hope that he will end up wanting more than just that.

Dean appears to really want the DNC chairmanship, at least he's campaigning pretty vigorously for it. I think he would be really good at it too.

[lojasmo]

72. LISTEN UP FOLKS!! Does anybody here remember the primaires?

When they pulled out Dean's 2 year old quote on the caucus system and mislead people into believing that he was criticizing Iowas Caucus? Dean LOST IOWA shortly afterwards.

Dean is playing close to the vest. you'll notice (if you pay attention) that Dean isn't saying "I won't change the system" only that he doesn't see it happening, and that he would need good evidence of the benefit of a change.

Relax.

[Clarkie1]

76. I don't think the same state should EVER lead two primaries in a row

It's elitist and undemocratic. There ought to be a lottery or something.

[markus]

88. This has been a core of the DLC Credo since the 1980s

Super Tuesday was a first step, but they recognized that it may be too late in the game to prevent nomination of "Liberals." This has been exacerbated by the decline in non-union, white voters in the Democratic Party, so that Super Tuesday doesn't have quite the conservative bias is originators imagined.

I am not religious about Iowa, but the primary system should be structured so that a small number of low-population stations have an important early role to play, to counter the effects of massive spending and advertising.

If we were to adopt the full DLC goal of a few mega regional primaries on the Super Tuesday model, it would be the triumph of corporatist funding over Democracy.

[robbedvoter]

89. The all important ethanol issue, the tickling of the toes of every farmer

or Nh hick - as we in NY do the work (and help with the tickling) - oh, how very democratic! I don't have a vote in the primaries, nor do I have in the picking of the DNC - and face it folks - we don't have one in anything. But this is almost as absurd as the electoral colleges. To think in civilized countries the vote is equal and direct! (and counts)

[zulchzulu]

90. I agree with Dean about Iowa

The people in Iowa take their responsibility as the first state to vote for a presidential candidate seriously and to have presidential candidates kick the tires and get the campaign engines mobilized in a fairly inexpensive media market is also a good thing.

Despite the stereotype about Iowa, there are plenty of minorities in the larger cities as well as workers in the farm towns. No, it's not Washington DC or Michigan...but there is definitely a representation there.

I even think the caucus style of voting is good as well because the candidate's message has to be sold and explained well enough from one voter to another in engaged discussions before the final vote is tallied.

Whether New Hampshire comes next is another issue. Perhaps Pennsylvania should be next after that.

Mostly though, the primary season needs to change from being a front-loaded schedule and I'd get rid of Super Tuesday and break that into 3 separate dates regionally.

[Clarkie1]

97. Down with the Iowa Aristocracy! n/t

[eg101]

92. Rhode Island should be the first state

It is very small, thus a non establishment (read poor) candidate can make some headway there without having a lot of money.

Second, it is very leftist and liberal, and thus we can get a real progressive candidate that appeals to the base, instead of the corporate whore centrists we have been getting.

As for Rosenbeg and Dean, they are both rightwingers, and I personally hope they both lose and we never hear from either of them again.

Also, I don't know why we have to have the primaries encompassing an entire state. Why not just have the BIG CITIES of one or more states pick our nominees by going first. For example: pick several large liberal cities as the first primary. Then come back later to do the rest of the state.

[madfloridian]

101. This DNC update does make it seem Dean wants primary change.

It is not very specific, hope C-Span carries it tomorrow.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/15/2106/08846

SNIP.."There was some disagreement on the last question. Dean believes the regional primaries are not the best idea. Suggests reworking the schedule. Rosenberg seeks more diversity in the primaries and ending the monopoly of Iowa and New Hampshire. Grandfather these states into the early schedule but the need is to add Southern and Hispanic voters to give us greater diversity. Fowler wants the early primaries to remain to give the smaller states a voice. Will accept a package that includes these states in the equation. The DNC member from Illinois commented that this is a procedural question and can be worked out with all the involved parties."

I have a feeling Dean would be open to the change in Iowa if that was the will. Not enough details here to tell.

[janx]

102. Nobody can really elaborate on this until the DNC group

weighs in with some recommendations. It's good that all of it is finally being addresssed.