Dems Give Nod to Earlier Primaries

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_SCRAMBLE?SITE=GORBC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Mar 11, 3:13 PM EST

Dems Give Nod to Earlier Primaries

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats agreed Saturday to a plan that would shake up their presidential selection process by placing racially diverse states early in the voting. They left room for plenty of debate about the details.

One or two state caucuses would be moved ahead of New Hampshire under the plan the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee accepted in principle. That could cause a confrontation with New Hampshire, traditionally the site of the nation's first presidential primary.

"This was the crucial step," said Alexis Herman, a co-chair of the committee. "Now we will have a debate on which states and the size of those states."

Under the plan, accepted on a voice vote, the Iowa caucuses in January would remain the first contest for presidential candidates. Then would come the additional caucus or caucuses, followed by the New Hampshire primary. One or two more primaries would be added before the calendar was opened to all states in early February
(more at link)

Any chance of another candidate being able to build up momentum against Hillary by winning Iowa and New Hampshire consecutively will be lost. Under the new system, Hillary could afford to lose both Iowa and New Hampshire but still escape relatively unscathed because she may well be able to win the states put in between these two.

Caucuses help candidates without money but with a good argument and dedicated supporters who are well-versed in their good argument.

there goes all my state has going for it.

Granite staters will be disappointed.

I can imagine Kathy Sullivan's reaction. And I don't blame her.

frankly, I think we should have 6 superprimaries, each taking a separate region. They should be held one week apart, and because it is highly unlikely that one person will be selected our convention will have real meaning and real discussions.

Concentrating millions on Iowa and new Hamp has been destructive to us and has led to our losses in no small way.

plus, by concenrating all the primaries in a short period of time, money becomes LESS critical, while putting together ideas and promo (think internet) becomes more important.

person with most money from the start.

You want the person with the best argument for him or herself to win.

Caucuses allow supporters to debate candidates in front of all their fellow voters. It levels the playing field for candidates with little money, but who have excellent cases to make for themselves.

You also want people to vote who had a very good chance of having heard directly from the candidate. Superprimaries would mean that a tiny fraction of people making the decisions would have seen the candidate in person.

I want small states to start -- it's like the way you distribute art house movies with tiny advertising budgets, but something important to say: start in a few places, reach as many people as possible in that small area, and let word of mouth spread. If you spent all your small resources to release an art house movie in megaplexes, nobody would ever see it.

If a candidate spent 5 minutes with even half of the individuals, it would take 3424 days or close to NINE YEARS of ten meetings an hour, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week of travel, meeting and shaking hands. Lunch, dinner and piss stops would make it even longer.

The only thing that makes sense about letting small, resource and electoral poor states that have no other impact on an election is to protect their egos.

Caucuses in the 1900s framework are just plain stupid. We don't have a country with 13 eastern states, and the largest city having 45,000 people. This country is simply too large for the election system you are trying to impose upon it. Keeping it in place is like supporting explosive gas street lighting because it employs lamplighters, complaining that Edison's discovery might electrocute someone.

I don't care whether a person votes because they had "a very good change of having heard directly from the candidate" or not. To me that seems like a massive waste of resources. What, they spend six weeks on Iowa and New Hampshire and ignore Texas, Florida, Illinois and Ohio? How NUTS IS THAT? What is this magic about seeing the product in person, anyway? That reminds me of the lame excuse soccer moms use to justify their "schedules" when they plan a few minutes a week of "Quality time" with their mostly absent kids.

I want the small states to realize that their fragile egos can cost us our country's future. I want their votes to count just as much as anyone else's - proportional to their size. by putting the fate of our party and therefore, our country into the hands a a few farmers who will probably vote GOP anyway is insane.

Letting word of mouth spread - in a modern election campaign? Are we selling cookies here, or trying to put our country on the right track after 6 yrs of deliberate domestic demolition derbies?

I would bet a great deal of money that your average voter in NH and Iowa has actually met a candidate at rate that exceeds the rest of the country's primary voters by AT LEAST a factor of 10. I bet your average IA and NH primary voters is way better versed in the candidates' policies and personalities and biographies than the rest of the country. And their exposure to the candidates policies goes right up to the night they vote in IA BECAUSE they have a caucus and people have one last chance to make their argument for their candidate.

Part of the reason is because they're small states, cheap media marketplaces and are alone on the calendar.

Those are all good things.

If we're trying to put our country back together, I'd rather build our candidate selection process on word of mouth -- on two human beings talking to each other about their candidates in a forum where you can judge credibility first hand, rebut, and ask questions (ie, a caucus, or meeting the candidates and their teams in person) -- then letting a marketing campaign waged on TV decide our nominee.

if possible.

We put jurors in the same room as people testifying for a good reason.

please set your emotions aside along with your love of small states. Think about this rationally.

You have 50,000 people in the average small town. You have 1,000,000 in one of the many large cities in larger states. You have 200 people in a K-12 gymnasium in a town of 600 caucusin Iowa, a state that sends its few electoral votes to the GOP anyway.

Resources are scarce. Wasting them on New Hampshire and Iowa is just plain stupid, and makes the larger, more diverse and potentially MUCH MORE HELPFUL states like Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, FLorida and California with huge populations less relevant in the selection of a party's candidate. How stupid is that?

If resources were infinite, your plan would be prefered. We do not have infinite resources, nor will we ever. Therefore, we must use them wisely. New Hamp and Iowa are NOT wise choices.

NM? RI?

the larger more important states and their wants, voices, needs and concerns.

How the heck can an Iowa farmer fully understand (expect through mostly wrong, biased stories they see on Faux) about the underfunded city schools in Detroit or Chicago? How can a New Hampshire country gent understand the need for mass transit funding for the underpaid poor in Chicago or New York? How can a home-schooling parent in Rhode Island fully comprehend the problems of 1 out of 7 teens in several highschools dropping out because of their pregnancies?

Just name one REAL reason why caucuses help those millions of people choose someone that can represent them rationally. Unfortunately, by giving the small states with caucus systems too much control, the race is already over before we even get to voice an opinion or hear what different candidates have to say. The chances of picking another preppy, super-rich guy who picks absolutely the worst advisors, someone like John Kerry, are far to good with Iowa and NH going first. Can we afford that? no. Can our country afford that? not for one more minute. Forget about apologizing for our past mistakes and losses. It is time to save our country. To do that, we need to have a far more widespread system of selection, one that simply does not happen with today's ancient and moribound caucus system.

If you have another way to have candidates contact the public, I am all ears. The more good messages get out, the better it is for our entire party (and our country). But, the best that I can visualize is using the best technology - the internet, sat-radio, iPods and other methods of transfering information and plans.

In a caucus, citizens are allowed to stand up and make arguments for their candidates. You can sway people with a good argument.

That's what the election utlimately comes down to.

Dems are smart to move a few caucueses ahead of the first primary.

It helps people without money for commercials, but with good arguments and devoted supporters who are willing to stand in front of their fellow voters and state their candidate's case.

(By the end of the primaries, usually voters are so well versed in the candidates politics, the caucus statements are superfluous.)

in the middle of January are the way to go. You make some good arguments, but I think they're also subject to some criticism.

"Machine" type politics- like Kerry's people on the ground in Iowa have their own problems- and tend to be run through state insiders- and can be biased toward the status quo. Caucuses also take a considerable time and manpower committment- which is not something that a lot of voters- especially younger voters- can or will commit to these days.

that is, the 20th C. We're still waiting for the rest of you to catch up.

the procedure dates back to the days of smoke filled rooms... and from the dog and pony shows I saw on CSPAN, that's where they should have stayed...;)

And both REPLACED smoked filled rooms.

there is in this country. That's why they make people like the DLC so uneasy.

What I saw in the 2004 primaries convinced me that caucuses/primaries are a dog and pony show, designed to hide the fact that those who rule the party have already settled on their candidate and use the primary season to shepherd the rest of us into rubber stamping the selection, thinking the winning candidate was somehow our own choice.

I may vote in the primaries, I may not. But I won't campaign or get sucked into any of the infighting.

used in the general. I hate to be cynical, but I'm not seeing any of the newpaper-quoted dems talking about electonic voting.

If the republicans had a collective clue, they would be thinking about the implications paperless voting has for their own primaries.

They're meeting in April in New Orleans.

by a schedule that renders their opinion and their interests a second class status.

This is overdue.

and will force the candidates to work for their votes instead of taking them for granted. Now maybe issues that are of concerned to minorities (who are the real base) will be put on the front burner inside of the back burner.

I think it's a heck of thing that by the time the primary comes around here in California it's all over. When we get to vote most of the candidates have already dropped out, California is the most populous state but really has no say. :mad: