Didn't Dean agree to overhaul future primaries but didn't have time before 2008?

I'm pretty sure I remember this correctly, but didn't Dean agree in 2006 to overhaul the calendar for 2012 going forward but said they wouldn't have time because they were dealing with the midterms?

I know I read this here around November last year when the issue's regarding FL/MI were in their early stage. Hoping someone remembers/has a link.

Several states applied to be a new first primary and caucus. NV and SC won that privilege. A number of states were added to Super Tuesday. The calendar is different and a lot more condensed. That's why this was over on Feb 5, or at least by the end of February.

I knew that, but I thought part of the reason they moved NV and SC forward (aside from the demographic/ethnic issues which I agree with) was a sort of compromise and that after 2008 they would address IA and NH always being first. I thought they decided at the time they needed to focus on the midterms first.

I'm pretty sure that's what happened, but then again I may just need to put down the primary crack pipe.

Ia, NH, still the deciders...

And Obama winning rural NV did too. Iowa would have meant nothing if Hillary had run a different kind of campaign and not been such a liar.

It does send a message: if you want the ear of the DNC, vote Republican! :sarcasm:

So that we can win an election for a change. We've been electing DLC candidates who only appeal to the elite, that's the problem.

Then maybe Michigan will get more consideration for 2012 if they go for McCain? Talk about perverse incentives!

"We've been electing DLC candidates who only appeal to the elite, that's the problem."

Iowa and NH still go first. You've heard the common definition of insanity, I'm sure.

IA went blue in 2000. NH went blue in 2004. NV went blue in 1992 and 1996. But you bitch because they went first now, just because they didn't give Hillary the clear cut win. Well too bad. There's nothing wrong with the system. The problem is with the lying candidate.

You can't defend the fairness of letting tiny, non-representative states decide the nominee every four years.

and you still can't face reality. It is NOT about my candidate. It's about cold hard facts. Why can Hillary's supporters not deal with the facts in front of their face. Good fucking god what is wrong with you people.

:argh:

So the lesson you are teaching is that if Michigan were less loyal to the Democrats, they would have a better shot at an early primary spot. Fine. I think it's the wrong lesson, but you offer no alternative explanation.

:applause:

Like they really "decided" it this time.

OR last time...

Ia and NH are a carefully crafted
caucus/primary combination.

Left to their own devices, states
(I'm talking to YOU, Michigan and
Florida) would make up their own
rules and MIGHT EVEN TRY TO
FRONTLOAD and PLAY FAVORITES with
politically favored nominees.

No one was hurt more than Dean in
the Iowa contest, but you don't see
him burning down the house.

and yes mainly Howard Dean..They wanted to move primaries up in order gain a "headstart advantage" on the GOP. So why should some states got the ok to move their primaries up and others didn't....But yet Florida and Michigan are being punished..Pure stupidity on the DNC leadership.As for 2012 ..we will probably have a new DNC chairman.

My understanding is they moved NV and SC up because IA and NH are primarily white, so this would allow better representation for AA's and latino's in the early states, before candidates started dropping like flies.

FL and MI petitioned for early primary status but were turned down. Regardless, all states ratified the new calendar.

In 2004, it was promised that the inequity of the Iowa and NH would be addressed for 2008.

The "solution", such as it was, was to keep Iowa and NH in their places of privilege, while adding a state in the Nevada (Harry Reid pulled some strings, no doubt,) and SC. Mi and Fla went ahead with their early primaries to protest this decision.

I thought it was in 2006 but they said they wouldn't have time to implement any meaningful change for 2008. Do you by any chance have a link? I looked, although I wasn't looking for 2004, but couldn't find anything. Thanks.

Yeah, Reid probably did pull strings, though.

As far as MI, I don't think it done as a protest vote. I live here in East Lansing, and I don't recall hearing anything about it until HRC announced her candidacy. I know Debbie Dingle and Gov. Granholm are big supports of Senator Clinton's. You could be right, though. It just seems the issue had no traction until late spring/mid summer 2007.

before HRC declared. I don't know if that had anything to do with it or not, but I've delivered the Lansing State Journal for 2 years and the first I saw of it in there was around April of last year.

You're correct though, people all over the country have been complaining about it for quite awhile.

Also, wasn't it 2004 when Levin tried the same stunt and Terry Mc slapped him down for it?

If it was in 2004, wasn't McAuliffe still chair of the DNC?

The "over haul" was suppoed to put the Nevada caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire. It was supposed to go, caucus (IA), caucus (NV), primary (NH), primary (SC).

New Hampshire got pissy and jumped ahead of Nevada. They, of course, were not punished for this behavior.

As far as there not being protests, I disagree. In 2004, as Dontblameme noted, Levin (and other MI honchos) threatened to move the MI primary up, but backed down after getting a promise that it would be changed for 2008. As we see, that "promise" meant diddly, which is why they made good on their threat this time.

As for "not hearing anything about it until HRC declared," that's just not true. Michigan (and other states) have been complaining about it since 2000.

I know people, in various states, have been complaining about IA and NH for years, long before 2000.

The point I was trying to make was that, until 2004, it never seemed to go beyond the grumbling stage. Then in 2004 Levin tried to call the DNC on it and got slapped down. In 2006 the states, ALL OF THEM, ratified the new primary calendar.

Now, as far as the "HRC declared" thing, I simply meant that Michigan wasn't making it a HUGE issue UNTIL Senator Clinton declared her candidacy. It wasn't receiving any coverage here until late spring/early summer 2007. Then they decided to move it up. My guess is to give HRC 2 extra quick victories, before Feb. 5th, thus , more that likely, causing other candidates to drop out. At that point, it wouldn't matter if FL and MI were seated or not. Remember Dingell and Granholm are both big Clinton supporters. This is just a guess, though.

As far as 2008, was Levin promised a change then? I thought that Terry agreed to revisit the issue in 2006, but Dean, focused on his 50 state strategy, which I whole heartedly endorse, said they wouldn't have time to do a full revision to regional-type primaries until after 2008. Thus the compromise with NV and SC.

But Florida has kept them so busy with lawsuits and other such crap...

That's what I thought he wanted, but the time to implement just wasn't there. Do you remember if they had planned for 2008 or 2012 going forward?

In my opinion, a one-day election
would GUARANTEE that the biggest,
richest brand name would sweep the
field, without vetting.

Not EVERYONE can go first.

The poster sig line is quoting Debbie Dingell, who is one of the main ones who advocating pushing MI ahead.

I couldn't care less about Debbie Dingell, but
I HATE being this disappointed in Levin...

I won't be sending him money this cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_Regional_Primary_System

"promoted by the National Association of Secretaries of State.<1>"

You argue like a Republican.

The proposals of the National Association of Secretaries of State notwithstanding.

"You argue like a Republican."

Dunno what to make of this. :silly:

IA and NH are predominantly white. NC has a large AA population (large part of our base), also rural, low to middle class voters. NV rural, plus latino.

Big tent, right?

;)

The system must be ginned to guarantee your guy wins! :silly:

did just a fine job. FL would have had plenty of influence on the process, if they had only left the primary date alone. Things were still pretty much up in the air during the first week of March.