What the heck is this whole early Democratic primary controversy about?

[brentspeak]

Why, all of the sudden, did several state Democratic parties decide they wanted to have early primaries? Are their reasons for wanting to join the early primary season valid ones, or not valid ones?

How did this all come about, and what's being done to smooth over all the angry feelings that have resulted?

Good grief, it's just more Democratic party snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory...

:banghead:

[iamjoy]

1. Valid Reason/Invalid Methods

It's perfectly reasonable that more states want to have a say in the nominating process and early primaries seem to be the way to do. As far as Florida goes - In 2000 and 2004 the nominee was decided before we ever had a chance to vote. Other than the candidates attending our 2005 State Convention in December, we were ignored. And of course, having candidates visit generates revenue for the state through the money spent by the campaigns and the media.

However, Florida's methods were completely out of line. They agreed to a primary schedule that meant all states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina had to wait until February 5 or later for their primary.

The legislature than decided (in actual bi-partisan fashion) to move the primary to January 29. The FDP than asked the DNC for mercy or clemency because of our Republican controlled legislature and governor.

When that didn't work, the FDP and Fl political powerhouses accused the DNC of trying to disenfranchise voters.

Florida also reminded the DNC of how important they are in the electoral process for the general election. This is both because Florida is still seen as a swing state, as well as being the fourth most populous state.

the motivations are perfectly understandable, the tactics are wrong.

[HereSince1628]

2. It didn't happen "all of the sudden" here's a story from 2005

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/05/27/new_jersey_considers_moving_up_primary_date.html

It seems that many states have had an interest in moving to earlier dates for a long time.

Personally, I think it's a plot of the "big money" to let the steam out of the primary process. But then I can hardly read for the tinfoil turban continually falling in my eyes.

[HereSince1628]

4. And I should say this is the same sort of initiative that resulted in Super Tuesday

Which if I remember correctly was something that was cooked up in the early to mid 1980's.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Because then the candidates spend more time in their state, and $ follows.

[lligrd]

5. I Feel The Same Way. The Entire Controversy

is making my head hurt. I guess with all the other stuff happening I just don't have the will to look up all info needed to make it make sense. Hope someone here can dumb it down for me.

[yewberry]

6. I can try to put together a short version.

Last July, the DNC put in place the primary schedule. In an effort to reflect more diversity in early primaries, states had a chance to be included in the first four. Those states ended up being SC and NV (FL didn't try to be included). The states all agreed to hold their primaries on or after Feb 5, and IA, NH, SC & NV could be before that date. Automatic sanctions for holding primaries before Feb 5 were put in place.

Last spring, FL passed a bill that would set their primary date before Feb 5. They settled on Jan 29. This was a bipartisan effort, not some kind of ploy by FL Republicans. They knew that it would trigger sanctions by the DNC, but chose to go ahead. Last week, the DNC rules & bylaws committee announced that FL would lose all of its delegates for the Denver Dem convention if it didn't change their primary date. FL was given 30 days to comply.

This week, WY Republicans voted to move their primary to Jan 5.

Then MI passed a bill that would set its primary for Jan 15. It looks like the governor will sign it. There was some Dem opposition, so MI might face lighter sanctions.

So, the Dem state chairs in IA, SC, NH & NV got together and sent requests to the candidates asking them skip campaigning in states that jumped the Feb 5 date. Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Obama, Edwards & Clinton agreed.

Now, the 'first four' will move ahead, too. So, the states that may face sanctions from DNC now are FL, MI, NH & SC. (IA and NV are caucuses, so they don't have the same penalty.)



It's a complete mess, in other words.

[1932]

7. Crowded early primaries means person with most money wins primaries.

[frebrd]

8. Whatever the reason...

the whole thing is ridiculous! Just as there is one day nationwide for the General Election, there should be one day for the Primary. A level playing field - no endless jockeying for position. Let them spend their time and energy concentrating on the issues, not the timing.

[yewberry]

9. We can't just move directly to a national primary.

As it is now, the system would give massive advantages to only the wealthiest, corporate-backed candidates. It would simply be impossible for less known and less funded candidates to compete in a national market.

We'd have to have publicly-funded elections already in place to make a national primary work.