Did the DLC have a say in the early primary stacking?

[penguin7]

It is clear to me that the early piling on of so many primaries increases the political voice of corporate money.

Did this voice need a boost?

How did this happen?

[Kagemusha]

1. It happened because of a unanimous vote at a DNC conference.

All delegates voted for it, and it happened under the direction of Howard Dean.

Go yell at them.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. yes

and the DLC knocked over my garbage cans and caused my mother's hemorrhoids.

[WCGreen]

3. I believe it is motivated by larger states not having a say in the

nomination ptocess...

So much emphasis has been put on the Iowa Caucus, the NEw Hampshire primary and then the South Carolina primary that people who live in larger states are feeling shut out of the process...

This is something that has been brewing for a very long time...

It's mainly the fault of the press putting too much attention where that attention is not warrented...

I know Ohio's democratic leadership very well, I worked with many of them all through the 90's, and the politicos feel that they can't take a real stand for candidates because they don't want to piss off any of the dark horses that might appear...

I know this sounds kind of wierd, but the more bunched the primaries are, the more chances are that people will endorse early and put their support on who they believe will win as of now...

This is why HRC has been able to garner much support from party regulars...

But Obama has been able to counter that traditional support by appealing to people over the heads of the party leaders...

It really makes for an exciting race...

The DLC, well, they will have money no matter who wins the primary...

It's no mistake that the DLC is top heavy with legistlative types...

[pinto]

4. The DNC and the states set primary dates. I'm not sure I see the analogy you make

that this primary schedule increases the voice of corporate money. What would be your option?

(aside) I still hold to my pet idea of a three tiered schedule, based on electoral votes, smaller states, middle states, blockbuster states.

[pinto]

7. Here's the tentative line up (with electoral votes) :

5 February, 2008

Alabama......(60)
Alaska.......(18)
Arizona......(67)
Arkansas.....(47)
California..(441)
Colorado.....(71)
Delaware.....(23)
Georgia.....(104)
Idaho........(23)
Illinois....(185)
Missouri.....(88)
New Jersey..(127)
New Mexico...(38)
New York....(280)
North Dakota.(21)
Oklahoma.....(47)
Tennessee....(85)
Utah.........(29)

[Gman]

5. No but

the DLC was behind the discovery of the Hale-Bopp comet and all that that implies.

[OHdem10]

6. As things have been in the past,

Candidates did not even run a campaign in most states.
Therefore, too many Americans felt absolutely left out
the process. Voices never heard.

California, the largest state in the Union had no influence,
while a few small states made the decision, for example.

This way at least they get to vote and at least feel they have
had some influence.

Sorry, we can't blame this on DLC.

[penguin7]

8. What BS.

It is pretty clear that stacking the primaries on February 5 give money a huge voice because of the TV ads. Americans did not feel left out. THat is complete and total Bull. Perhaps states felt left out of the campaign money. The people did not feel left out.

The Democratic party should have fought this, and fought it hard.

[rinsd]

10. This was done with the party and Howard Dean's blessing

"Americans did not feel left out."

In 2004 the nomination was decided going into March 2nd (CA, NY, OH) with Super Tuesday being the decisive day almost a month earlier.

[w13rd0]

9. No

Though I'm not a big fan of the DLC, the early primary stacking is an attempt to prevent two small, primarily caucasian, primarily homogenous states, from determining the course of the primary process. Sorry to pick on NH and Iowa, but it's true. They represent one slice of our large tent, and leaning too heavily on them has given that slice too large a say. Now there may be unintended consequences of spreading things out, namely that more money is required by the candidates to put themselves out over a wider net. This is something that's still being tweaked, and as the 50 state strategy moves forward, I have every confidence that it'll get worked out. Heck, one of these days my opinion in the primaries might matter (I live in Missouri, a battleground state in the general election with almost no say in the primary process).

[NoPasaran]

11. Nope

Primary dates are set by the states, within guidelines set by the DNC.

However, the DLC did cancel "Arrested Development", the bastards!

[penguin7]

12. Why is everyone so blase about the primary stacking?

It is increases the power of money in politics. Does this group here want money to have the loudest voice?

[Cameron27]

13. I don't like it, but other than petitioning the DNC

I'm not sure what we can do about it. Florida's pushing up their primary despite Dean's warning, and I wonder how many more will try the same thing.