Democrats Consider Revamping Primaries

Democrats, looking to reverse their fortunes after two straight White House defeats, met Saturday to hear competing proposals to revamp the election calendar used to choose a presidential nominee every four years. The three major proposals would focus on regional primaries. Two of those proposals would allow Iowa and New Hampshire to retain their leadoff roles in the candidate selection process. A third plan, offered by Michigan Democrats, would create a rotating series of six regional primaries. A different region would launch each presidential nominating season.

That plan would allow single-state contests to begin the process, but those states would be rotated. "Share the wealth," said Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record). "I would not lock in specific states." Activists from Iowa and New Hampshire vowed to fiercely defend their leadoff status, and said the problem the party faces is excessive "front-loading." In 2004, 30 states had held delegate selection contests by mid-March.

Former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen argued that the crush of early states takes influence away from voters in later states. "I think front-loading is one of the issues we want to address," said Shaheen. Tina Abbott of the Michigan Democratic Party argued that the leadoff roles of Iowa and New Hampshire give two tiny and unrepresentative states disproportionate influence on whom the party picks. "This must be changed," said Abbott. "Under the current system, millions of votes in later states count for nothing." Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record) defended his state's position. "It emphasizes face-to-face politics, not big money," he said. "There should be a role in the beginning of our process for the party faithful."

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch argued: "With 85 years of ingrained tradition, the New Hampshire primary forces candidates to answer questions. Having that opportunity not only makes them better candidates, it makes them better presidents." Levin, however, said, "What's at stake here is nothing less than a struggle for political equality and political relevance." He blasted "this perpetual privilege that two states have." The proposals were made before a special commission selected by the Democratic National Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050514/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

and their impact on the general election.

What fools.

If the GOP control over most of the broadcast media and the voting machines is not taken seriously and exposed, there will never be ANY Dem candidate who can win.

Aren't they still standing silent on it? Has anyone done an indepth look at that memo?

Gee....couldn't be that Bush's cronies (who own most of the broadcast media and are benefitting from his tax and war agenda) are downplaying this story to protect him now, could it?

Doing so doesn't necessitate ignoring other issues.

been the nominee.

Reform the primary where it will do best, but, the idea that losses in 2000 and 2004 would be fixed by changing the primaries is HORSESHIT and plays into the rightwing pushing the idea that our best Dems are all losers.

and crtainly I disagree with that argument.

But, the right primary reform would help. We need to get people actively involved in the issues and in the primaries. The process is far too top down and far too controlled by various power brokers. The primary needs to be designed in a way where it truely produces a candidate that people support.

But I suppose that probably isnt the kind of reform democratic operatives want anyway.

That the primary system is biased against their particular ideology. Unfortunately, a good part of this primary reform movement isn't really about reform, it's about intra-party power struggles.

I happen to think it's bad to have very late State primaries because your vote doesn't matter! But every state I've lived in has primaries where candidates of all parties are on the ballot. How can the Dems make a change to what is current in State law?

having those 2 first states ALWAYS be NH and Iowa.

It just isn't fair and neither state reflects American demographics.

Fairly balanced by total population, and consolidated so that travel within the area would be easy, and TV stations in all areas:)

It would be easy to judge the true support by region instead of state by state..Start in January and end in June..You could put 6 bingo balls into a hopper and choose the order:)

Finally, strategy sure as hell isn't Karl Rove's domain and the Democrats need to look at every event on a national scale in terms
of Media coverage and "timing the message" in order to gain momentum..
including the selection of the candidate by democrats.

This is long over due and Sorry Iowa and New Hampshire, looking at the
overall demographics and timing on the whole primary process
can assist in revamping overall campaign (national strategy).

Anybody notice that once Kerry had it rapped up, the overall "media"
of the variety of democratic messages went to "polls" versus issues?

Kind of like taking the cap off of a coke and letting it sit for 12 hours thinking it will have the same taste when finally drunk.

I didn't see it mentioned in the Yahoo Story, but can't imagine they would be discussing Primary Reform WITHOUT IRV in the Primaries.

Why does it seem that the 'Pubs have like three major new actions going on every day, and we get about one a month?

nah, not really.

On this issue, I am painfully aware that I am viewing this through the lens that I like the results of the last two primary fights. So that colors my perception... 1992, though, those primaries were a rebirth of cynicism for me.

2-3 day period?

Wouldn't this be the fairest, most voter considerate way to do it?

Instead of having to raise enough money to get through the first three primaries, and plan to use your standing in those to get more (not an uncommon strategy for first timers, fwiw), you'd have to raise enough money to run a national election. Kerry spent $310,029,402 on the 2004 race - - and that does not include the additional hundreds of millions spent by the DNC and the 527s.

The only people who could afford to run for President would be multi-millionaires or people who could tap into that kind of money from corporations - - or had such a national following from some other career, they could get people to pony up for their campaign based on the fact they were a movie star or a professional baseball player.

Additionally, having all primaries that close together would virtually ensure that the front runner going into the primaries would win. There would be no chance for a candidate with better ideas but less money to derail them - - all the front runner would have to do is duck debates, and run smear adds. There would be even more money spent on P.R. campaigns before the elections, making some corporate tool look attractive based on the results of focus groups - - and making the candidates who might actually think about the good of the nation look like pond scum.

The result would be that only folks like Ross Perot, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Delay could run for President. The possibility getting somebody with real experience, of getting a grass roots candidate into the Oval Office would be practically zero.

Additionally, in the 2004 cycle, the cycle was specifically set up to keep the primary process as short as possible, both to avoid long periods were Democrats attacked the person who eventually became the nominee, and to give the presumptive nominee and the party that much longer to campaign against Smirk.

So keep in mind that having a longer primary season will have it's down side - - if the media have not been reformed enough to treat the Dem nominee with more objectivity, it will provide them with many more news cycles containing "Dems front runner under attack for finances/personal life/voting record/hair cut", which lead to even more news cycles containing talking heads blathering "The Dem front runner has these major flaws, is it even remotely possible that anybody in their right mind will vote for them instead of St. Frist of Bizarro Assisi?"

It will also eat up more money that can't be used in the general election - - this primary has the possibility of being another cattle call, and the longer it takes to knock out people who are getting 2% of the vote in the first primary, the more money everybody's supporters will have to pony up before it's over. That doesn't mean much to folks like George Soros and Ted Turner, but it could mean a lot to you and me.

Personally, in favor of lengthening the primary season, so we all get a chance to kick the tires before we buy a nominee, but I think everybody should understand the disadvantages.

We only won one of those races, and that one wasn't by enough of a margin to keep the nazis from stealing it.

here six months ago. I guess somebody does read these boards.

Anything is better than the two year, fund gobbling marathon each candidate must run now. The system now ensures that only the candidate with the most corporate backing has a chance of surviving.

Bugger New Hampshire. They're mostly tax whiners who fled Massachusetts, anyway, and they mostly vote fascist, no matter who they vote for in the Dem primary. They'll get used to being equals in the primary season.

What is clear is that the present system is horribly broken and gives most party power to the two earliest primary states, NH and Iowa. If the regional primaries turn out to be their own type of nightmare, then they can be scrapped in the future. What's clear is that the idea is an improvement now.

to picking the nominee at the convention?

And isn't the nominee until all the delegates pledged to vote for him/her do so at the convention.

Kerry toyed for awhile with not accepting the nomination at the convention so that he'd have a longer time to avoid the spending limits imposed on him by federal law, but he eventually decided to accept the nomination at the convention.

The only time a nominee would actually be chosen at a convention would be if there were no nominees who had enough delegates to win the nomination prior to the convention itself. After the first vote, the delegates would be free to change their votes until a nominee was chosen.

The primary system is supposed to let the rank and file Dems chose the nominee, rather than party insiders.

It's painful to see the once proud progressive voice sqeak so impotently.

so thank you. I am sure your local progressive community appreciates your input!

"the leadoff roles of Iowa and New Hampshire give two tiny and unrepresentative states disproportionate influence on whom the party picks"

I don't see how anybody can argue against this point with a straight face.

Iowa and New Hampshire have done us no favors in recent electoral history. Let them become part of the regional merry-go-round that Michigan Democrats are proposing.

Not this one or two state stuff. Let's level the playing field, get some diversity of opinion.

The primary season should start in March, and should run until July. The longer and more spread out the contest, the better we can see who can take it, who can dish it out, and whose issues resonate best.

There should be two weeks between all primaries for recovery and repositioning. The first should be from a very liberal enclave (like Rhode Island or Massachussets) simultaneously with a midwest, a southern and a mountain state. By the third round, we should get into some big states like TX, NY or CA. Each Tuesday should have four or five contests, and they should be balanced.

The idiocy of letting New Hampshire and Iowa decide our future is indefensible. We gamed the pitch by top-loading to try to force the establishment candidate on the party, and as a result fucked Gary Hart in 1984--who could have won, dammit--in order to coronate Walter Mondale. It bit us on the ass in the last election too, and had there been some time, Edwards would have prevailed and quite possibly won irrespective of the systematic electronic thievery in November.

A long contest is good: at some point the candidate has to sway EVERYONE. The only way to find out who can do this is by a nationwide slugfest that's fairly lenghty. Top-loading is contrary to the spirit democracy, pluralism and COMMON SENSE. (Admittedly, that last one's one of the supreme oxymorons of the species...)

I am so tired od this crap, if people do not care, what is the point?

1st top choose, last to vote!!!

I think Dean has his eye on all the Dems that vote Democrat locally but whoever the NRA tells them to on the national front. Get ready for a lot of gun talk and a shift toward Libertarian conservatism with regards to personal freedoms but with a focus on civic responsibility and a progressive social policy.

Kind of intriguing to think that the Democratic party might actually be able to attract Libertarians that feel like a viable third party will never emerge.

Democrat Killer?

This is an article from the Nation, which I highly reccomend subscribing to and reading every word of every week.

There needs to be more.

As in, all on the same day.

Remember how important building and effective organization is. Having a November dress rehearsal could give some good insight.

This yahoo article is so biased in favor of keeping the current system.