Democrats seek to shorten primaries, rein in superdelegates

that the SDs will go against the will of the people in their own states, and get rid of the power that these people have to overturn the will of the people.

the last primary was hell on everyone, but it all ended well.

Yes We Did!!

yeah, and especially here!

We sure did!

They should set in stone what sanctions happen, regardless of intent, when a state decides it should jump the gun on the primary date.

Seriously, don't leave it up to any group after the state decides. Make it specific that if a state jumps the gun, that state's delegates cannot be seated regardless.

Here's a clue for the clueless Dems-

The long primary season not only resulted in more registered voters- and greater interest in elections than we've seen in modern times, but people in states that are almost never relevant in America's decidedly undemocratic primary process suddenly felt that their vote mattered.

Can't have that now,can we?

They're shortening the primary season on the front end, not the back end. First contest was the Iowa Caucus on January 3 in 2008. They want to push that back to no earlier than February 1.

Thre rest of the season would be the same.

:blush:

Last year worked out well for the Dems- while Republicans spent months standing around with the thumbs up their butts.

If you think a really long primary season is helpful, then this needs to be added:

One national vote-counting day after the polls close in the last primary.

This year, the field was narrowed down to two "centrists" after 4 states weighed in, leaving 44 states with no acceptable choice on the ballot, at least for those of us who find "centrists" to be unacceptable. My primary was 5 months after any candidate I would actually support in a general election was gone.

I didn't want either of the choices, so I voted for the candidate that was behind in my state, doing my part to fight to a brokered convention, hoping that a more palatable 3rd candidate might arise.

Spread them out? Fine. But don't narrow the choices. Why should Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire be allowed to repeatedly dictate my choices? Let the candidates campaign honestly all the way to the end without gaining or losing support from future states because of early state results.

Good Idea or Bad Idea?



















:hide:

They need to see how it plays out through about 2/3 of the delegate votes. Personally, I think it should be left until it is nearly a done deal.

There may be circumstances revealed and might result in being locked in to a bad choice.

district for congresscritters and district level SDs.

Though in theory it's a good idea, I'm thinking of a scenario where someone like Ted Kennedy would go out and campaign pretty hard for Obama and then be forced to vote for Hillary at the convention. It would be an uncomfortable situation and I think that congressional SD's might feel limited in their ability to campaign for a particular candidate.

There is far too much evidence that people can be intimidated and, more importantly, they disenfranchise those who cannot take the time off of work. If we mandated primaries, far more people's votes would be counted. Last I heard, that is what our party stands for: enfranchisement.

OR else entire states would be regularly disenfranchised.

The reasoning is twofold.

1) A state jumps the gun and holds its primary too early. State loses all delegates unless the state party holds a caucus later.

2) A state is holding its primary too late (e.g. after the convention), the state party must hold an earlier caucus or lose its delegation.

Both can happen as was evidenced in 2008 and earlier election years. Wyoming, for example, always holds a primary in September which happens after the convention.

Eliminating Cuacuses would disenfranchise many. A Party in power can fuck up the party out of power as happened in Florida in 2008 to the Democrats.

Which is how the minority stays in check with the rules.

nt.

The level on animosity at DU was partly explained by the (very) high stakes, and the extraordinary campaign Hillary waged when the chips were down: Almost zero chance of winning, getting up at 3.00 am, day in, day out.

A full primary season with just two candidates (as happened in 2008) was ridiculous, but at least that was slightly better than in 2004 when the DLC and the media declared Kerry the "winner" before 75% of the country had even voted.

Nor should Iowa (a state owned by MonSatan) and New Hampshire (which had Diebold problems in both 2004 and 2008) always be the first to decide. What would truly be fair is this.....

1) No primaries or caucuses at least until April of election year.

2) From April to June have primaries and caucuses each Saturday evening (for maximum accessibility)

3) Take July off and have the national convention in August. If there is no clear winner after the primaries, the winner is decided at the convention.

4) Order of primary elections will be rotated every election cycle so all states get the opportunity to be "first" (and giving a candidate the initial boost) and last (putting the winner "over the top")

5) Public financing would obviously be a requirement of this new and more fair system, to allow all candidates to compete in all states, unless they chose to drop out voluntarily. Number of votes should make that determination, NOT number of corporate sponsors.

to the point the primaries essentially start right after the Midterm election (at least in theory, because some of them are running exploratory campaigns).

I like most of your ideas, though I would start it in March and so it can run longer. There is going to be no stopping when candidates can declare unless you change the laws (and in a strange coincidence, I actually live in a country (South Korea) where there are guidelines when the campaign can take place, though I don't think those would go over well in the US). I think people are going to be stuck with a longer campaign season overall no matter what.

Eliminating the caucus is a non-starter. It just plain won't happen. Someone had mentioned this up thread. The Democratic Party can't dictate the method of the primary. It can set guidelines, like it did for the schedule asking states not to jump in front of each other and setting penalties for it. I would also like to see a rolling primary schedule where states have their primary in a order regionally and it changes every four years. Our primary in Oregon is always dead last and rarely matters (2008 was the rare exception).

Campaign finance is going to be come a bigger issue as more candidates decide to drop out of it. I think hypothetically, if he were doing well in 2012, Obama could raise money just in the primary and then spend it all and accept public financing. He would have the weight of being in office for four years behind him which would, with a good organization made it possible to defeat whomever the Republican is. By not asking people to contribute to his campaign in the GE, people could contribute to other candidates and possibly help make gains in other areas.

the declaration of a Palin presidential run. :puke:

I'm sure she wouldnt win, but it would be an embarassment for the country regardless. The entire rest of the world knows she is an idiot.

for a couple months after the election and make an announcement at the beginning of 2011. But you are right, it would be embarrassing.

I'd love to see an anti-Sarah Palin campaign put together. Someone should by the domain www.gohomesarahpalin.com

Iowa is cool. The Iowans are used to it. It's a well-worn tradition there. Also, the fact that Iowa is a caucus is good because 1) It allows an out-of-nowhere candidate to stand a chance (you don't need that many boots-on-the-ground, electorate-wise, to make some waves) and because 2) it allows for a dual start -- Iowa goes first, but then New Hampshire goes first too, because it's the first state where they have a NORMAL (primary-based) selection process.

Iowa's fine. But get rid of all those other states' caucuses, that no-one knows about, that these days are just low-hanging fruit for the latest political fad-candidate who can rustle up flash-mobs of iPod kids over Twitter.

(Full disclosure: I'm still cool with Obama, but yes, I was a Hillarite in 2008. So sue me.)

If you do, you disenfranchise any states where one party in power may choose to jump the gun on the primary to fuck over the party out of power (Florida, 2008) or where by law, the primary is always held after the national convention (Wyoming always).

Choosing a presidential nominee is a party apparatus and cannot trump state laws, thus the caucus is used for those instances where state law does not allow for the nominating process as determined by the party.

Can't have those non-corporate candidates even have a chance to get the nomination.

notion of "superdelegates" in the first place. Tone 'em down if ya can't throw 'em out.

That's what SHOULD be the case and that's what would get us the best candidate who reflects the spirit of the party.

Shortening the primary season is ALWAYS sought by those in power and those with huge money; it's an attempt by those in power to shove their person through and bully us. Don't be afraid of the long drawn-out struggle; flaws will become evident in candidates while there's still a chance to go with someone else. It's also a better measure of who would be the better leader: the toughest person and the one who can also continually connect with people while sustaining the inevitable damage from unexpected events.

The Caucuses are deeply, deeply anti-democratic and are nothing short of bullying. Sure, the concept of having people advocate their person and try to sway others is admirable, but the truth is often bullying others to accept someone, often with subtle intimations of personal failings if they don't like a particular candidate. This is a big issue when dealing with ethnicity and gender of candidates, as well as his/her economic stratum. The private ballot is the bulwark of democracy, and anything not using it is not just suspect, but GUILTY.

The order of the states should be rotated so Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina don't rule the damned universe. If we had ten primary days with five states each, that might be a reasonable paradigm. States should be grouped according to region and size and picked in a sensible way, and the final choice should be random.

Fuck Super-delegates. If there hadn't been any, we almost definitely would have had Gary Hart as a candidate in 1984, and I still contend that he had a serious chance of taking out that mega-asshole Reagan and reversing the atavistic, reactionary, neo-feudalist horror that has dominated our national politics for my entire adult life. Mondale was a stiff of Kerryesque proportions, and this was simply a result of the party apparatchiks conniving behind closed doors.

The long primary season is GOOD. It might be nice to have an agreement to not have debates so early in the year preceding the election, but there's enough grist in this missive without getting into that, too.