Primary reshuffling - how pathetic is this?

[WildEyedLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901078.html?nav=rss_politics

Of course, there are tons of "hoo-ahs" and cheers for this in GD, most of them from - surprise, surprise - die-hard partisans of another *cough* candidate.

There's no more pathetic attitude, IMO, than trying to change the rules because you didn't like the outcome. And that's exactly what this smells like to me. Why else would a *DNC* commission be examining a reshuffling of the primary schedule? Also, many of the comments I've read on DU so far are highly insulting to Iowa Democrats - implying that they aren't qualified to be first in voting for the party's nominee (again, had Iowa chosen *someone else* in 2004, this debate would not be happening. You would hear no complaints about the Iowa caucus, and any suggestion of revamping the process would be met with scorn.)

FWIW, Illinois is a larger, bluer state near Iowa - and I really think it would have gone for Kerry even had our primary been one of the first. The deep-blue Chicago voters would have admired his long-time liberal record, as would blue-collar Democrats downstate (witness my parents - mother always supported Kerry, father supported Edwards).

Basically, this whole idea just reeks of sour grapes to me.

[JI7]

1. another thing

many keep saying if the primary were held in another state or nationwide then "fill in name" would have won based on the polls of that time.

but if the primary were first being held in another state then Kerry and the other Dems would have been campaigning in those states instead of iowa so you don't know what would have happened. but the primary states were iowa New Hampshire and some others which is why the candidates focused on those states.

[Mass]

2. So what! Who do they think this will help?

I for one would not place a bet on who this would help. I have no idea and they dont either.

Now, if they want to add states in the primary process, it may be useful to add states that vote Democrat rather than some states who will never vote Democrat but who will force a more conservative candidate.

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. They think if they add a state like CA, "their" candidate will be chosen

Which is, of course, impossible to prove. Disregarding the important fact that, in 2004, their "liberal messiah" was actually one of the more conservative people in the race, they have absolustely no idea how California would vote.

[Mass]

4. If MA or RI had been chosen (who were the two most democratic

states with 100 % of the counties voting for Kerry), who do you think would have won?

For CA, they have no idea what would have happened if it had been one of the first races.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. That's why one of them suggested VT (as opposed to other NE states)

How transparent is that?

Edit: I'm not even sure *he* could've won in Vermont - I've read many articles suggesting that Vermont liberals were unhappy with the conservative style in which he governed.

[JI7]

5. California is a big media state

it would most likely favor those who can buy into it the most and what the media says. so for 2008 it would favor Hillary the most. it may favor Kerry because he would have more name recognition based on being a candidate in 2004. and if he can get his wife to pay for it.

the media was a big part of why our Dem governor was recalled and why Arnold won.

and other candidates with wealth.

that's why even though i'm in California i prefer smaller states where candidates can meet individuals one on one multiple times to make their case and get around the mostly right wing media. them insulting the voters of iowa says a lot. but even if they changed the schedule i would prefer it continue to be a small state. maybe Arkansas to add in more diversity.

[sandnsea]

6. Money will be more important

It seems to me that having more early states just means it will cost more money to gain national attention and be a disadvantage to people without big money backing. I don't mind one or two more states going early, Michigan might be good. But I don't think it would have made any difference last year. Once people saw a "Boston Brahmin" could win big in a place like Iowa, it was all over.

[Island Blue]

7. If they choose a larger state (or more states)

for early Caucasus, it would seem to me that he (or she) with the most money to spend would most likely win because it will simply take a lot more money to be competitive (for advertising, travel, etc.) early on. That might eliminate some of the less well known (but greatly loved by some in GD) candidates right off the bat and it would become a clash of the titans.

Having said this however, I do see where for the Democratic Party in particular, it could be valuable to have input from a wide range of voters (big tent and all) whereas for the Republicans who are choosing to stay with Iowa and New Hampshire, voting populations that are 95% white pretty much match their party profile.

I guess I have mixed feelings about the process, but certainly not about who I want to win the nomination!

[politicasista]

8. Tavis Smiley griped about that last year too

He thought that a southern state should be involved in choosing the nominee cause of the diverse population down here. I remember him saying "No offense to Iowa and New Hampshire." One person asked one time "What was Iowa thinking" in voting for Kerry? I didn't leave an ugly reply, but I thought she insulted Iowa Dems and their intelligence. It made me sad cause..

[Mass]

9. There is an argument to be made of involving a state with a more

diverse population than NH and IA, I agree, but it was the case last time where SC, OK, and a few other states like that were at the very beginning of the process, as well as states with many hispanic people.

What was missing were clearly democratic states that did not get to vote until after the result was decided.