Democrats agree to recommend early primaries with more diversity

Did Iowa drop the ball????

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats trying to change their presidential primaries for 2008 agreed Saturday to recommend that at least two other states join Iowa and New Hampshire in voting during the opening days of the nominating campaign.

<snip>

The additional states, expected to be named later, were likely to include a smaller state from the South and a smaller state from the Southwest or West.

<snip>

"I do not think we should make the assumption that Iowa and New Hampshire should always be in the group" of states leading off the voting, said Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan lawmaker whose complaints about the current calendar prompted the formation of the commission.

Debbie Dingell, another commission member from Michigan, said it was significant that the role of Iowa and New Hampshire was only affirmed for 2008. Levin and Dingell are asking potential presidential candidates to make no commitments to the states about a permanent leadoff status.

<snip>


http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2005/10/02/news/breaking_news/doc433fcaf92be47883695181.prt

Get the nominee on his/her own early in the game and let them build up momentum, money, organization well in advance of the convention, have a loooong time to establish strategy, establish a nationwide presence without having to beat the hell out of each other on a state-by-state basis, start drumming up interest in VP candidates, establish strategy for each possible Republican nominee and, most importantly, remove the ridiculous notion that a handful of early primary states should get huge power in terms of narrowing the field.

How many of us "lucky" late primary voters in '04 ended up morphing from "I'm going to vote for my candidate" to "...my second choice candidate" down to "...better than the other guy" down to "...anybody but Bush"? By the time I got to cast my primary vote, I had a choice between the sure thing nominee and, I think, Kucinish who had 0 chance of getting the nomination. That's not a choice (but I voted for DK anyway).

But then again I have some pretty unusual ideas re: campaign and campaign finance.

Mostly

and the large states would get a tarmac to tarmac campaign. And no 'maverick' candidate could ever afford to run.

Also, look at what happened when we determined our nominee early on in 2004. The republican spin machine beath the crap out of him starting in the spring and through the general election.


Anyway, I posted this in the Iowa forum to see if anyone else cared.

Once the primaries are over (or, before that, once the nomination has been secured by delegates), the small states sink back into also-ran status on the campaign radar. A nationwide primary would, possibly, mitigate this because the candidate would have MORE time before the convention to visit the states, etc. And they'd be doing it with the spotlight, as opposed to standing on stage with 8 other people who want the same time. This is not to mention the fact that the sniping between candidates would be reduced and cut short - how many times did we suffer the "Well, a partymate called Senator Kerry blah blah blah" and then see some clip from one of the Democratic debates? There's a reason incumbents do so well - they don't have to work as hard at beating up their own people. Additionally, a national primary would lead, naturally, to national candidate debates, which would give the undecideds a much better chance to see each candidate, as opposed to the state debates that tend to get overlooked.

"republican spin machine beath the crap out of him starting in the spring and through the general election."

I never said it would eliminate that. Would getting the nominee out late have helped? I think not. AND, with an early nomination, the candidate's war chest is far larger - rather than having to devote tons of dough to state-by-state ads, etc. s/he can guard some of the money and respond to attacks on a more national, visible level. I still think the SWBVFT shit hit Kerry so hard because of money issues, regardless of what his balance sheet said. And he spent a ton of money in the primaries.

There are problems with early or late nominations, but neither is inured from attack politics, so I, personally, consider that a non-issue.

"And no 'maverick' candidate could ever afford to run."

Name a maverick who really had the $$ to run in any campaign since...well, ever. Kucinich doesn't count: he may have been a maverick, but he had no $$ - I'm in his home state, where he may have had a slim chance of winning the primary - never saw ONE ad for the man. Sharpton was a maverick, but he had no $$. I can't remember a party outsider running in my lifetime, except for Forbes in, what?, '88, for the 'Pubs and he bankrolled himself.

Matt

and the nominee would spend more time in the states that would give the nominee money. Except for scandal and smear the national press would not care and the nominee would be second page-below the fold news.

New York, Florida, California and Texas would select our candidates and would be the only place the candidates would visit. That's where the money is and that's where the people are.

At least for one brief moment small states are acknowledged before the large political machines get moving. If we had a national primary that snapshot would never occur.

(Besides, when would we ever see candidates eating deep-fried twinkies if we didn't have the Iowa Caucuses?)

Early small-state primaries force a candidate to walk the streets, pound the flesh, look voters in the eye and convince them that he or she is the best person for the job. That's one reason New Hampshire is so often an upset victory for a dark horse candidate. It reduces the effect of money and name recognition.

Large-state primaries make it impossible to reach enough voters this way and are usually decided on advertising dollars. They favor well-funded insiders. Having all primaries at once only exacerbates this problem.

It is true that New Hampshire and Iowa do not represent the entire US. This problem is addressed by having other small states vote early in the primary process.

I'm actually surprised the DNC made such a sensible plan. Must be Howard's doing.

and note that having four states in play early on will deplete the candidates funds faster - and having them in the four corners of the country is even more draining on tight dollars.

I do understand the desire for diversity, but I'll also hate to lose the First in the Nation status.

More important than the first four will be what the commission does with the rest of the calendar. If it's not spread out and more even we'll still end up with a nominee in early March before 75% of the states have voted.

But the regional issue is very important.

One thing that's good about Iowa and New Hampshire is that many voters take their roles very seriously and really examine the candidates. That should not be lost -- I would hate to see California in the lead-off position. But adding a couple of other small states early could even the playing field regionally.

As for the other states, they could rotate so that they would sometimes be earlier than others. That would require some coordination, but it would be more equitable.

;) I gotta be loyal!

I do like the idea of rotation after the first states - and I would like to see smaller states go first and the larger (delegate-wise) states go later in the process (or a combination of small states go and then one large state go two weeks later). Some fashion to keep the primary process going as long as possible and allowing all states (or almost all) to have a say in the selection of the nominee.

I say let the closest states in the last cycle go first. IA and NH would still be there, and it would allow us to push back states like South Carolina that never go dem anyway. Why should they even matter? I think MS was closer than SC in the last election. The ones at the bottom on both sides would never be visted so they might serious-up if they want the big campaign dollars over their media outlets.

If this closest first plan is not palatble, I'd like to at least see diverse states like Michigan or New Mexico find there way closer to the front. NH and IA are not going to support a woman or an ethnic minority. When have they before?

First of all, I like the idea of Iowa keeping its first in the nation status, and agree that smaller states (population-wise) make for better, more personal campaigns. I think Iowa has proven we have a engaged (for the most part), intelligent (for the most part) voter base that makes candidate's truly work for their nomination.

But at the same time I think that this is something that almost has to be done. I don't like being force-fed a candidate by the establishment (a la Blouin for Governor) and feel that the rest of the states, especially those that vote last, must feel that way by the time they get to participate in their primaries. Kerry was dubbed 'favorite' way too early, and a guy like Clark never stood a chance when he skipped Iowa.

To tell you the truth, I am glad a solution was found that could keep Iowa in the front spot and include more diversity. I understand the concerns of money, time, and travel, but I think a greater voter diversity and a wider view point can't be bad things.

I am more concerned that Vilsack will run in '08, get Harkin's support, and scare out all of the other candidates. That will piss me off.

Harkin announced today that he will support Vilsack should he seek the nomination. Crap.

Iowa must be careful as Carl Levin will not stop until Michigan goes first (and Michigan REALLY messed things up last time! not a great track record).

Iowa is still in danger of losing It's First in the Nation status. (and the Harkin/Vilsack lovefest just adds to our troubles)