Feingold!!

And just think: It will reduce the impact of the southern-only Super Tuesday states on candidate selection....which is good, considering how those states lean conservative and have been responsible for selecting the last few Dem and Repub candidates.

Last time we had seven states on Feb 3, but by then the nominee had already been decided in Iowa. So I don't think more states will change the momentum a candidate gets from a win in Iowa, even though the fruity caucus system means nothing.

However, if a single massive primary day is the way we decide to do things in the future, I hope that by 2012 we can agree to move the whole process forward and hold it in, say, April or May. Early February is just too early to commit to a candidate who won't be elected until November.

Uh, why? Is there something wrong with the nominees having 9 months of intense scrutiny?

Kevin,

I agree with you on the point that it's best to have, basically, a National Primary Day. I disagree that we have to have that primary in April. Why not let the de-facto candidates explain, over the longest period possible, why they should be elected? Recent campaigns have been cesspools of trash, it doesn't necessarily mean future ones will. I don't, however, hold out hope.

I think it's important that sufficient time is spent examining the various candidates that are running.

I think the proposed date is too short, but I know that you seem to gravitate to sound bites and short campaign blitzes from previous posts.

It's too important, as we can see from the criminal actions of the Bush administration, to rush through the Presidential election season quickly. Or to rely on sound bites, campaign material dumps, or gut feelings about whether we can "trust the guy".

But then again, I like white papers...

"Early February is just too early to commit to a candidate who won't be elected until November."

Yep.

Primaries in May and June, convention in July, kicking Republican asses in August, September, and October.

The reason that the February or January primaries are bad is that it basically renders governance impossible for over a year out of the two year Congressional cycle. Politicians are in campaign mode for too long. We (the people) hire these people to run our government, not run for re-election.

This is ridiculous.

Neither Kerry nor Gore had any less negatives or fewer positives than Bush - in fact, Gore actually had more appeal, since he won the popular vote.

This is all about election strategists.

As long as Democratic election campaigns are being run by boobs who can't figure out how to win elections and counter the tactics that we know the GOP is going to throw at the Democratic candidate, how the Democrats select their nominee will be irrelevant, although I'm very skeptical that a candidate (Hillary) with a near 50% disapproval rating can hope to win and the big single primary favors her and candidates that appeal to the narrow base that actually votes in primaries, especially in the more liberal states like California.

So, I doubt seriously this process will produce a better nominee (how can you get better than getting the most votes like Gore did?) and even if it did it won't matter a whit if goofballs are still running the Dem presidential campaign.

Ditto Fred's comment; plus shortening the time cuts down on the money necessary to be gathered and spent in the process.

There is no way to properly evaluate candidates for the Presidency if this is how the primary season is to unfold. This front-end loading of primaries will simply cause the cycle to start earlier, will result in more money being spent in the bigger states, and my beloved New Hampshire suffers because of it.

However, if a single massive primary day is the way we decide to do things in the future, I hope that by 2012 we can agree to move the whole process forward and hold it in, say, April or May. The first week of February is just too early to commit to a candidate who won't be elected until November.

I cannot quibble with your logic. February is no good for me. I am usually laid up with a cold and I am planning to travel next winter to a warmer climate.

As long as Democratic election campaigns are being run by boobs who can't figure out how to win elections and counter the tactics that we know the GOP is going to throw at the Democratic candidate, how the Democrats select their nominee will be irrelevant, although I'm very skeptical that a candidate (Hillary) with a near 50% disapproval rating can hope to win and the big single primary favors her and candidates that appeal to the narrow base that actually votes in primaries, especially in the more liberal states like California.

Aside from being an exhausting run-on sentence, I'm afraid Hillary already is your nominee. And she will lose, badly. American's don't elect people who give the appearance of being a nitpicker.

The primary system was conceived by the populist movement in an attempt to have more people's input for choosing national candidates, rather than having them chosen in smoke filled rooms by party politicos. Perhaps it is time for a change to reduce the power of Iowa and New Hampshire, but one cannot help but question if this change empowers more people or not.

Can someone explain and back up the assertion that two non-representative states (IA and NH) decided our nominee last time? I hear this repeated as gospel over and over again.

Iowa and NH are certainly more "representative" of the the country as a whole than CA or NY. Additionally their small populations allow the candidates to be eyeballed and examined and questioned and seen. Only the very small portion of very monied and unrepresentative activists will get access to and choose the candidate in CA or NY, and unfotunately they often have no clue that their candidate can't win the rest of the country.

The reason that the February or January primaries are bad is that it basically renders governance impossible for over a year out of the two year Congressional cycle. Politicians are in campaign mode for too long. We (the people) hire these people to run our government, not run for re-election.

What does the Congressional cycle have to do with Presidential primaries? Members of the House are in campaign mode pretty much 24/7/365 to start with because of the two year cycle. A few months one way or the other on the length of the Presidential general election campaign isn't going to change that.

The reason that the February or January primaries are bad is that it basically renders governance impossible for over a year out of the two year Congressional cycle. Politicians are in campaign mode for too long. We (the people) hire these people to run our government, not run for re-election. Posted by: Fred on March 23, 2007 at 1:39 PM

And the reason they're in campaign mode for so long is because it's so damn expensive to run for Federal office.

Fix the problem with public funding and you'll give them more time to focus on governing rather than campaigning.

Anything that reduces Iowa and NH's role in the process is a positive. Democrats are better off with the days of smoke-filled rooms than those states consistently picking the wrong candidate.

"(how can you get better than getting the most votes like Gore did?)"--you can win OUTSIDE the margin of error for starters.

Chrissy,

What America are you living in? California has rural areas, urban areas, suburban areas as well an incredibly diverse population. New York is an odd state, but it too has the same general characteristics. New Hampshire is a suburb of Boston and Iowa is mostly rural with a few mid-sized cities thrown in for fun.

You want to make your case that those states aren't good for primary campaigning--no problem. But to define New Hampshire and Iowa as representative of the Democratic Party is just wrong.

grape: That nasty open primary which the then mostly conservative Democrats in the Parliament of Whores in Baton Rouge cooked up goes a long way toward explaining how the Repubs took over.

It was meant to be a way of further enhancing the incumbent advantage. It backfired badly.

Iowa and NH are certainly more "representative" of the the country as a whole than CA or NY.

There is virtually NO diversity in Iowa. You are either a corn farmer or a soybean farmer. You have the odd duck who sells feed or fertilizer and then there's the fellow who lives in town and sells hoes and coveralls. I travelled there once and found it to be rural, spartan and severe. I was attacked by a small contingent of liberal sympathizers at a rally for Paul Tsongas in 1992 when I was trying to wear a "chicken" suit and carry a [fake] assault rifle to show that Tsongas was a nut who favored gun control and that he was too "chicken" to admit it. They tore the head off the chicken suit and kicked it down main street in Ottumwa, Iowa. I notified the local Sheriff--might as well have been trying to get Barney Fife to handle the situation--and was told that my kind wasn't welcome.

Additionally their small populations allow the candidates to be eyeballed and examined and questioned and seen. Only the very small portion of very monied and unrepresentative activists will get access to and choose the candidate in CA or NY, and unfotunately they often have no clue that their candidate can't win the rest of the country.

Not true. Those of us with money have the candidates in our home in New Hampshire. This year, I hope to have Mitt Romney come by and have a coffee get together and we'll see how his Mormon-anity plays with the people who live around me.

Kevin D., the rush to push forward the primary process is actually giving Iowa and New Hampshire even *more* power to influence the outcome, as anyone (who isn't the very front runner at least) who falls below expectations in either state will have absolutely no time to recover lost ground.

I can sympathize with your frustration as a Californian though, but would prefer that instead of having a Suuuuuper Primary that the fun and glory of going first could rotate among all the states. I would love to see Alaska go first for a change, if only to force the punditry to suffer through a bit of cold and dark... :-)

... I hope to have Mitt Romney come by ...Norman Rogers at 2:05 PM

And that chicken suit cost $250. I had pockets and air panels for cooling sewn into the sides and under the arms. I was quite upset. The beak alone was an extra $20 because I wanted it to have an actual sinus cavity connection tube to help my breathing in case I was forced to run in the thing.

I'd rather see the candidates spend a year running a truly national campaign -- the kind they'll need to run in the general election -- instead of spending 90% of their time in two small states

Double-barreled. Why can't we rotate who goes first, or do regional primaries? A national primary system doesn't just lock out candidates who can't raise money generally, it locks out candidates who can't raise money a year before the primaries start. That's Dodd, Vilsack, Biden and, to a lesser extent, Richardson's problem -- they're not "rock star" candidates like the big six (D's and R's) that everybody already knows. I'm really surprised to see so many progressive being totally cool with this, but maybe it's because many progressives' dream candidates -- Gore and Feingold* -- are themselves rock stars.

* Full disclosure: My dream ticket is Gore/Feingold.

"What does the Congressional cycle have to do with Presidential primaries?"

At this point, most of the final Congressional cycle (aka the final two years) of each four-year presidency is spent discussing the presidential horse race, meaning much of the political oxygen is sucked up by said horse race. And with several Senators and a few Representatives often dreaming (or halucinating) about how they would redecorate the Oval Office, Congress ends up less focused than it should be. If the time spent by everyone - politicians, the chattering classes, citizens - focused on governance in Washington is increased, we would be better off.

"Fix the problem with public funding and you'll give them more time to focus on governing rather than campaigning."

I'm all for it, but really good reform isn't on the horizon, so we need to look for things at the margin in the meantime.

DoubleB: No one state or two states are "representative" of the country as a whole. But NY and CA tend much more liberal than the south, the non-coastal western states and the midwestern swing states and will exercise an undue heavy influence that is out of proportion to their electoral strength in the general election.

Can someone explain and back up the assertion that two non-representative states (IA and NH) decided our nominee last time? I hear this repeated as gospel over and over again.

It's an exaggeration (and one that Kos is prone to make) to say that Iowa and New Hampshire decide who the Democratic Presidential nominee is, but it is fair to say that the two states have more influence than others in the process by virtue of being first in line.

I'm in Iowa and I understand the arguments that it is unfair an probably unwise to have Iowa and New Hampshire lead off the election season every four years. But this assertion that IA and NH got to pick the nominees last year is just flat wrong. For many years the main complaint--against Iowa especially--is that they picked someone who DIDN'T win the nomination. If memory is serving me correctly, I think we chose GHW Bush in 1980, Dole in '88, Gephardt in '88 (Dukakis and Bush both notched 3rd place finishes), Harkin in '92. I don't think that these results successfully make the argument that Iowa should be first; but it should destroy the complaint that we get to crown the nominees. Frankly, we just happened to be right this time about the eventual winner and most of the rest of the states confirmed it.

I do think it is important to have a couple of states lead off the race before a national primary. Those of you who have met a candidate, even one for local office, face to face may know what I mean. You can learn something--even if not everything--about them by seeing them speak and work a room.

Before the last caucus I saw Kucinich, Edwards (twice), and Dean in small venues. Kucinich was absolutely horrible. Edwards was exactly what you would expect--charming. Dean was just a bit off. He said the right things but was disturbingly unnatural. So I chose Kerry. My Bad. But I think that someone besides the big donors should have a chance to assess these men and women eye to eye. You know, 'look into [their] soul'.

"I was attacked by a small contingent of liberal sympathizers at a rally for Paul Tsongas in 1992 when I was trying to wear a "chicken" suit and carry a [fake] assault rifle to show that Tsongas was a nut who favored gun control and that he was too "chicken" to admit it. They tore the head off the chicken suit and kicked it down main street in Ottumwa, Iowa. I notified the local Sheriff--might as well have been trying to get Barney Fife to handle the situation--and was told that my kind wasn't welcome."

I'm never quite sure if Norm is an-honest-to-goodness wingnut or some form of parody performance artist.

Just to remind people about the reason why Iowa and New Hampshire are first, it's because they are states where candidates can run small-scale campaigns that don't require them to make gargantuan media-buys to have a chance to win.

I can see other smaller states going first, but not California or New York certainly, if having a lower cost of entry is to be kept as a priority in the process.

Norm is an-honest-to-goodness wingnut

Moonbat.

How liberal are they Chrissy? Gore won 53% of the votes in 2000 and Kerry won 54% of the votes in 2004 in the state of California. It's not Rhode Island. New York's percentages are slightly higher.

They are diverse states that are much more representative of the Democratic Party than either Iowa or New Hampshire.

Let me put it this way, if you wanted one state to pick the Democratic nominee who would you choose? Iowa and New Hampshire wouldn't be in my top 30.

At this point, the smoke filled room looks better and better. Has the quality of the nominees really improved since its demise? Nope. I fear that on the Democratic side, we'll end up committing political suicide (Hillary or Obama), who will be crushed by Rudy (it's his to lose at this point).

I'm from Iowa but I really can't defend Iowa and New Hampshire always going first in the primary season.

However, Republicans have been picking their nominees in the exact same way, so the argument that somehow Iowa and New Hampshire are responsible for the GOP picking winning candidates and Democrats picking losing candidates needs to be explained a lot better than Kos just not liking the Dems that have come out of Iowa and New Hampshire the last few times.

Secondly, just wait and see how many more candidates have to drop out of the race before a single vote is cast because they can't afford the cost of the new, national primary. Does anybody really think having a choice between Hillary, Obama and Kucinich is going to be best for the Democratic Party?

Mike

"[I]f a single massive primary day is the way we decide to do things in the future,"

Instead of having the states leapfrogging over each other in a vain attempt to have some influence over the nominating process, why not simply abolish all Presidential primaries and have the nominee chosen at the party convention. This would place all states on a equal footing and would allow the party to select the time when its candidate is nominated.

This would have the additional effect of making the parties' conventions worth having and watching. It would eliminate months and months of pointless campaigning. And place the decision of who to nominate into the hands of people who should care the most, elected party officials. Image the excitement that would be created when the candidate is chosen after a week of intense debating within the party and roll call votes that takes place on national TV.

Anyone see a downside to this?

The chicken suit riff is one his finest concoctions to date. What an image.

Who gives a shit what the Republicans do? The goal is to pick the candidate with the best chance to win in November. If that means having the people of American Samoa decide the nominee then that's what the Democrats should do.

I'll ask the question again: if only one state could choose the nominee, what state would you want that to be? And if Iowa and NH aren't those states, they should probably get the hell out of the process.

DoubleB: Comparing the general to the primary electorate won't work. CA and NY still more liberal in the general, but the Dem primary voters in CA, doncha think they'd be even more liberal? You need to look at the Dem primary voters, not the population of CA as a whole.

Anyone see a downside to this?
Posted by: Chicounsel

Delegates who don't spend all their time wearing silly hats, waving signs and batting cascades of balloons?

Naw.

I'm betting they have dozens of those dumb confetti cannon things like at bowl games...

I once met a person from outside of Iowa. It was during the '92 campaign. I was visiting my double cousins in Ottumwa. We saw this guy who was dressed in a chicken suit and carry'n a funny deer rifle. That must be what all you people from outside Iowa look like.

BTW, we thought he looked hot so we took the chicken head off him. We kicked it back to the house (our hands were full of soy bean sacks), cooked it up, and ate it. It didn't taste like chicken. It tasted more like a sweaty troll.

I think Chicounsel is probably right. The only way I think we should keep the primaries is if they are beauty contests - no delegates. Of course, then we have to figure out how else to elect Convention delegates - caucuses? Then you run into the same problem as before - some states will go first.

However, if a single massive primary day is the way we decide to do things in the future, I hope that by 2012 we can agree to move the whole process forward and hold it in, say, April or May.

Fabulous idea. Having a national primary day really will put the ball back in the big states' court, though, so I propose two elections: one for small states (as determined by number of reps) and another a couple of weeks later for the big states. Also, they shouldn't be any sooner than August.

Oh, all right. I'll go for June, but only if I have to.

It's an exaggeration (and one that Kos is prone to make) to say that Iowa and New Hampshire decide who the Democratic Presidential nominee is, but it is fair to say that the two states have more influence than others in the process by virtue of being first in line.

Its not just being first in line, but the length of the process: the effect the IA and NH have on free media, fundraising, etc., are mitigated greatly if they are first but lots of other states follow close behind.

(Come to think of it, what might be interesting, though entirely impractical, is a national rolling primary, where voting was held over a period of four months, March - June, with an equal number of Congressional districts holding their votes each week, with the order of the districts chosen randomly three months before the first election day.)

Instead of having the states leapfrogging over each other in a vain attempt to have some influence over the nominating process, why not simply abolish all Presidential primaries and have the nominee chosen at the party convention.

Uh, we tried that. Also, appointed Senators and not having popular election of sworn electors for the Presidency as the strong, though not technically binding, norm.

I don't think a retreat from democracy is going to sell. Nor do I think it really should.

I don't know Chrissy. Are they that more liberal than Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire? Didn't they give a much more liberal Bill Bradley 48% of the vote in 2000. San Francisco might be significantly more liberal, but that's a pretty small proportion of an enormous state.

Your entire premise is that CA and NY have significantly more (percentage-wise) far-left liberal Democratic primary voters than New Hampshire and Iowa and would therefore nominate Eugene Debs. I certainly believe those states have more Democrats (percentage-wise) than NH and Iowa, but I don't think those Democrats are significantly more liberal.

Secondly, just wait and see how many more candidates have to drop out of the race before a single vote is cast because they can't afford the cost of the new, national primary.

Who cares about "before a single vote is cast" outside of IA and NH and maybe the states voting up through the old Super Tuesday? I suspect that less will drop out before the new Mega Tuesday than have dropped out before a similar proportion of the primary votes are cast in prior elections, and that, therefore, from the perspective of most voters there will be more, not fewer, options.

we had a system in which two non-representative states (IA and NH) decided our nominee last time

And I still haven't forgiven IA and NH yet.

Its not just being first in line, but the length of the process: the effect the IA and NH have on free media, fundraising, etc., are mitigated greatly if they are first but lots of other states follow close behind.

I think you're mistakenly equating campaign length for campaign impact. As I commented previously, by compressing the entire process down to three weeks or so, the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire is magnified by making any Presidential candidate who failed to exceed expectations in either state an also-ran with absolutely no chance to recover before it's all over.

BTW, we thought he looked hot so we took the chicken head off him. We kicked it back to the house (our hands were full of soy bean sacks), cooked it up, and ate it. It didn't taste like chicken. It tasted more like a sweaty troll.

You fiend! That suit was ruined thanks to you. Have they put in that second stoplight? Did they bring back the Dairy Queen? You must share your further insights with us. I rather enjoy reading commentary from hillbillies and thieves.

Kevin D., the rush to push forward the primary process is actually giving Iowa and New Hampshire even *more* power to influence the outcome, as anyone (who isn't the very front runner at least) who falls below expectations in either state will have absolutely no time to recover lost ground.

I disagree; the change in media tenor and donations from a loss in those early states won't have as much time to affect campaigns, and will thus be attenuated compared to the current system. Though the absence of a chance to make up a bad showing there with strong results in other one or two other early states can't be ignored, either.

If only one person could choose the nominee, who would you want that to be?

Me.

I disagree; the change in media tenor and donations from a loss in those early states won't have as much time to affect campaigns, and will thus be attenuated compared to the current system. Though the absence of a chance to make up a bad showing there with strong results in other one or two other early states can't be ignored, either.

It seems to me that the impact of both Iowa and New Hampshire comes _immediately_ after the results come in the night they are covered by the national media, and rather than growing after that they diminish in how much they affect the process as other states weigh in.

I think you're mistakenly equating campaign length for campaign impact.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I think I'm accurately assessing the fact that media narratives take time to change people's existing views (particularly as, with the shorter primary schedule, there will be more national campaigning and more fixed views by the time of the first elections). And the fact that changes in fundraising ability resulting from results in the first elections also take time to produce results in the electorate (again, heightened by the increased amoung of exposure the new system encourages before the first ballots are cast). I therefore think that IA and NH results have much less probability of controlling results in other states under the compressed system than the status quo system.

DoubleB: If you really think IA and NH dem primary voters are just as liberal as NY and CA, why would you want to change their status? Especially since their small size enables the voters to examine the candidates and not just have to listen to the msm and the commercials to decide on the candidates?

A phony candidate could be hyped with enough money and msm-push to win in CA and NY, but the close scrutiny in IA and NH might expose a phony candidate.

It seems to me that the impact of both Iowa and New Hampshire comes _immediately_ after the results come in the night they are covered by the national media

There affect on the national media message, of course, is immediate. Their effect on people's perceptions of the candidates chances of winning the primary, maybe. Their effect on who people will vote for themselves? I think not. I also think that timing change, as I note above, reduces the immediate impact of any effect, because it front-loads the media campaigns of all the candidates more, so that more people have fixed preferences by the time the first votes are cast anywhere, and earlier results are going to be viewed by a more committed electorate that is harder to sway.

David W: Dean spent 20 million in Iowa. That's not exactly small change.

It's the caucus system where people go into a room, and then can change rooms at will, that's just downright fruity. The Dean people didn't know how to play the game, while Kerry's people did, and therefore the nominee was decided.

What one state should choose the Dem nominee? How about Florida or Ohio.

KathyF, I think Iowa is a bit more complicated than candidates meeting people in small venues. I thought Kerry did well in Iowa because he had the party apparatus to motivate his loyalists to participate, giving him the advantage in a caucus system.

Well, of course Markos is a megalomaniac who is vying to be a king-maker by virtue of the ready cash he commands via his cult followers, so it is quite natural that he is in favor of a national primary system that rewards the candidate that raises the most cash.

My only question is why is Kevin swallowing it?

(And btw, this disparaging and resentment of IA and NH voters is getting beyond pathetic and bordering on bigoted.)

cmdicely - "Who cares about "before a single vote is cast" outside of IA and NH and maybe the states voting up through the old Super Tuesday? I suspect that less will drop out before the new Mega Tuesday than have dropped out before a similar proportion of the primary votes are cast in prior elections, and that, therefore, from the perspective of most voters there will be more, not fewer, options."

Uh, no. If you start the process with smaller states like Iowa it means that ANYONE can run for the nomination. Even if you don't have a lot of money, you put it all in a relatively cheap campaign in Iowa or New Hampshire or some similar state and hope doing well there can get you more money and support in the future.

Move California or other huge states to the front of the line, or have some sort of national primary, and you leave yourself with only two kind of candidates...

1. Those who can raise 15 to 20 million dollars 18 months to 2 years before the Presidential election.

2. Fringe candidates that don't really run legitimate campaigns.

If candidates have to run right away in California or a national primary, you can pretty much eliminate any and all small state governors, U.S. representatives or anyone who is not a gigantic media sensation during the election cycle or anyone not imtimately connected to the big money interest groups.

Put it this way, if Bill Clinton had had to campaign in California or in a national primary at the start of the 1992 election cycle, he almost certainly wouldn't have become the nominee.

Mike

None,

I'd probably choose Florida also. Not much ISN'T represented by that state.

Chrissy,

Yeah, NH and Iowa really exposed Kerry's campaign flaws didn't they.

99% of the country gets their information about a candidate via the free media and commercials. Why would we allow the selection of that candidate based on the 1% of the population that gets to meet him or her "up close and personal?"

If a majority of us got to meet the candidate that's one thing. But we don't. Being able to charm the locals in a diner in Concord, NH is completely useless to winning the general election. Being good on TV is very useful. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is reality.

Swinty said:

Kucinich was absolutely horrible.

Could you expand upon that? Just curious.

I think I'm accurately assessing the fact that media narratives take time to change people's existing views (particularly as, with the shorter primary schedule, there will be more national campaigning and more fixed views by the time of the first elections).

I think you're reaching into abstractions here. Sure, candidates by necessity will have to spend more time in other states starting right now since they've mostly moved up their primaries (unless of course they don't have the dough and/or time to do so, which makes a Howard Dean less, not more likely), and to that extent they'll have more influence in the process. But the biggest impact of the media is when the event is reported itself, not six months later. Also, it didn't take six months for the media narrative to change people's views about Howard Dean, it only took One Scream on caucus night. A gaffe it was, and it was one that killed Dean's chances right then and there, *not* months later. Remember when Ronald Reagan said "I paid for this microphone" in 1980 or Ed Muskie cried in 1972? It didn't take months worth of media narratives for those things to have an impact either, as I recall. So what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire does matter right away, and will have an impact on even more states than they would otherwise.

we'll end up committing political suicide (Hillary or Obama)

Folks, face a few ugly facts about our so-called land of the free: neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will ever be president of the United States. America is still far too sexist and racist a nation for that to happen.

Unless Al Gore changes his mind and decides to run, Rudy Giuliani will be elected, and America will be doomed to at least four more years of pointless war and despotic authoritarianism.

People, we is fucked.

WWT - Yup, seems that way. Too bad too many Dems (but not the majority, perhaps), refuse to grasp this. And a national-ized primary that we are drifting towards will only ensure that. A better candidate with less money won't be able to break out. The Dems would have lost in '92 were had this system been in place, because Tsongas (great guy, btw) would have won the nomination but lost the election.

On Gore: Great guy, terrible candidate, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. He doesn't really want to be Prez.

Kucinich - Ranked #3 in all-time worst American mayors, no small accomplishment; adds rich new dimensions to the word "quixotic" (to be complementary).

Oh, and if anyone here thinks the corporate media doesn't choose our nominee for us, you're hopelessly clueless about how modern American electoral politics work. Just look back to 2004 - the corporate media selected Kerry during the early months of the primaries, and its prophecy was fulfilled.

The corporate media has chosen Clinton, because it knows she's the easiest candidate to defeat.

The best thing about this is that the candidates won't have to spend the first part of the campaign season pretending to give a damn about ethanol.

OK, so what happens if a candidate is nominated early, with 8 months to go ... and then, with 6 months to go, the person has a Muskie like meltdown, or some dirt comes to light ... then how smart of an idea will this be?

Swinty said:"Kucinich was absolutely horrible."

Disputo asked: "Could you expand upon that? Just curious."

It's been a while, and I'm sure I didn't give it much critical thought at the time. I just walked away thinking that he had whatever is the opposite of charisma. His voice, appearance, and height was no doubt part of it. Also, I remember that he was really thrown off by many of the questions or reponses. Even those who agreed with him. Maybe he's better now.

I just remembered what the opposite of charisma is...Norman Rogers.

The 'Muskie meltdown'.

Yep, the corporate media did a good job on him with a few assists from GOP dirty tricks goon squads. I'd greatly prefer to be living in the alternate universe where Ed Muskie had been elected. A freer, healthier and fairer place with no frackin' Iraq War.

Uh, we tried that. Also, appointed Senators and not having popular election of sworn electors for the Presidency as the strong, though not technically binding, norm.

I don't think a retreat from democracy is going to sell. Nor do I think it really should.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 23, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Cmdicely:

Why would a return to a convention that actually decides the nominee constitute a "retreat from democracy"? The process by which a party chooses its nominee is not a matter of a concern to the people at large, the "demos", but only to the members of that party.

As a member of the GOP, I want to see the Dems nominate a candidate that I think can be beaten. Are you saying that democracy demands that the Dems employ a method of nominating that takes into account of my views as to who the nominee should be? If so, then you would have to be favor of eliminating closed primaries where only declared members of the party can vote.

And don't get me started on the 17th Amendment, which was a bad idea simply because it eliminates the Founding Fathers' reason for having a Senate in the first place. The Senate was supposed to be the place where the interests of the States as independent sovereigns were represented in the federal government that they created by ratifying the Constitution. The Founder already established the House of Reps as the "peoples house." Why do we need two? If one House represents the people, why do you need another? Eliminate the House of Reps and save us all the cost of having 435 Congressmen and their staffs on the payroll.

One of the things I really liked about the early IA NH system is that it forced candidates to go out and engage with real voters, and defend their positions -- retail democracy, vote by vote.

After these two, it is all private jets to fundraisers and stump speeches to supporters. When else does a candidate talk to anyone other than a supporter, reporter or doner?

Why would a return to a convention that actually decides the nominee constitute a "retreat from democracy"? The process by which a party chooses its nominee is not a matter of a concern to the people at large, the "demos", but only to the members of that party.

The reason why this matter is of such great concern is because the two factions of the monopoly party have made it almost impossible for other parties and non-party candidates to be placed on the ballots. The primaries are virtually the citizens only chance for input to the nominating process.

We probably would create better politics by increasing ballot access than changing primary dates. Do not expect any Democrat or Republican to bring this up.

Why dont we be honest and just say whoever has the most money on SDT gets the nomination and do away with the costly and wasteful primary campaigning altogeter. Of course, the nominee gets all the others' cash, this is America after all.

Uh, no. If you start the process with smaller states like Iowa it means that ANYONE can run for the nomination.

Uh, right. Look, aside from whether or not it would be just to give special privileges to a handful of unrepresentative states to acheive that, it doesn't work. People without a huge warchest before the first votes are cast don't tend to get to NH or IA, either, and those that do are vanity candidates even there that don't tend to matter in the general election.

Even if you don't have a lot of money, you put it all in a relatively cheap campaign in Iowa or New Hampshire or some similar state and hope doing well there can get you more money and support in the future.

And...so, what? Look, even if that worked, why would we want it to work?

Move California or other huge states to the front of the line, or have some sort of national primary, and you leave yourself with only two kind of candidates...

1. Those who can raise 15 to 20 million dollars 18 months to 2 years before the Presidential election.

2. Fringe candidates that don't really run legitimate campaigns.

And, so what? Why should someone who isn't able to convince a half a percent of the population that their ideas are worth $10 be considered a serious contender for a major party nomination for the Presidency? Anyone constitutionally qualified to the Presidency is entitled to try to run, they aren't entitled to have it easy. Motivating people, wholesale even more than retail, is a big part of the job of the President. Why should we skew our nomination to make it easier for people who can't do that to get the nomination?

If candidates have to run right away in California or a national primary, you can pretty much eliminate any and all small state governors, U.S. representatives or anyone who is not a gigantic media sensation during the election cycle or anyone not imtimately connected to the big money interest groups.

Um, aside from small-state governors (who I disagree would be ruled out, anyhow), when was the last time anyone like that won the Presidency, or even a major-party nomination, anyway? Heck, even the small-state governors (Clinton, 92, Carter, 76) have mostly made it in fields that were notoriously lacking in star power, not because they upset the stars in earlier primary wins.

Telling me that people that can't win now also wouldn't be able to win if we had a national primary doesn't really convince me that we shouldn't have a national primary. And, again, even if it did, no one is entitled to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate. Making people who expect to get a national pary's nomination for the Presidency need to convince people nationwide that they are good for the job before any votes are cast isn't a negative to me.

Yeah, I'd like to see a broader field. Which is why I'd like to see an electoral system that didn't reinforce partisan duopoly (so that more parties are running candidates that matter), and see the President and Vice President elected from the same field of candidates with a preference voting system where they are the first and second candidates to pass the 50% bar (so that every party is encouraged to run two candidates).

But structuring the nominating system for the express purpose of giving a leg up to candidates who can't hack the job of convincing the American public that their ideas are good without the assistance of a series of small, unrepresentative contests to narrow the field for them, well, I'm not interested, even if it did work.

Put it this way, if Bill Clinton had had to campaign in California or in a national primary at the start of the 1992 election cycle, he almost certainly wouldn't have become the nominee.

Even if its true, which I wouldn't bet, so what?

(Honestly, predicting alternate histories like this is tricky; the early frontrunner in 1992 was Paul Tsongas who, though he won NH, was already, as I recall, rapidly shedding support nationwide at the time of the first primaries from health questions. Its certainly not clear who, from the same field, would have won with a compressed or national primary, though its not clear to me that Tsongas, or Kerrey, or Wilder, or Brown, who was disadvantaged by the states he had the most natural support in being late-primary states) been the nominee, or if Clinton been the nominee as a result of no clear majority from the primaries and the decision going to the delegates in the convention. While Clinton got a bumb from NH and from Tsongas collapse, he was hardly a weak candidate from the outset (indeed, had it not been for the early sex scandals, he might well have been the front-runner by the time voting started.)

So Clinton might not have been the nominee? BFD. Maybe someone who could actually have gotten a majority of the votes would have been the nominee. Maybe someone who could have more effectively worked with his own party's members in Congress and held onto a majority there would have won. Maybe someone who could have run a reelection campaign where they would actually have some coattails for downballot candidates for the party would have won.

Clinton was certainly a good President, but he's not some unparalleled Ideal of a President such that any system which would have threatened his nomination in 1992 must somehow summarily be dismissed.

However, if a single massive primary day is the way we decide to do things in the future, I hope that by 2012 we can agree to move the whole process forward and hold it in, say, April or May. The first week of February is just too early to commit to a candidate who won't be elected until November.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

"Clinton certainly a good President?" I don't think so. He coulda been a contenda but instead was a fuckup. Remember who lost Congress in '94, thanks to their thoroughly screwing up health care reform? They left the country with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, undoing all the good that he did. Don't tell me he (and she) was not in good part responsible for this. Actually, both of the Clintons. I'm glad the Democrat won in '92, and that would not have happened with any other candidate, I'll give Bill that. ". . . not some unparelleled Ideal of President"? Ya think?

That having been said, the best process is the one that produces the best nominee, of couse, one that will win in the fall. I don't see that happening at this point.

As has been pointed out by others, accelerating the primary schedule only places greater emphasis on fund raising and I think we can all agree that money and corporate interests just don't play enough of a role in American politics!

Why don't we stop fooling ourselves and do away with the primaries altogether. Simply award the nomination to whomever can raise the most money and be done with it. That way, the eventual nominee will not only have amassed a massive war-chest, but he/she won't have been forced to piss it away on campaign commercials or to soil him/ herself by associating with the unwashed masses. He/she can then spend time on the really important thing, like finding out what the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance companies want.

Boss Tweed would feel right at home in the brave new world of Democratic politics. What is the saying? "Everything old is new again…"

He/she can then spend time on the really important thing, like finding out what the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance companies want.

Boss Tweed would feel right at home in the brave new world of Democratic politics. What is the saying? "Everything old is new again…"
Posted by: Chesire11

Yep.

*sighs*

And I have to agree with MaxGowan re: WJC

Close but no cigar. err...

see the President and Vice President elected from the same field of candidates with a preference voting system where they are the first and second candidates to pass the 50% bar (so that every party is encouraged to run two candidates).

I don't understand your desire to uncouple POTUS and VPOTUS. We already tried that once -- it didn't work. What purpose do you see it serving?

We probably would create better politics by increasing ballot access than changing primary dates. Do not expect any Democrat or Republican to bring this up.

Amen.

As much as I loath Naderites (as opposed to Greens, btw) for biting off their collective nose to spite our collective face, I equally loath Dems who refuse to enact IRV and other preference voting reforms while manning the barricades that prevent 3rd parties from gaining ballot access.

Until the Electoral College is abolished, there will be no third party. Period. How many Electoral Votes did Ross Perot get? (As much as a nutcase he was, recall taht one in five voted for him.) And as we rather recently witnessed, the Electoral College will not be touched as long as the Democrats are on the short end. The only way we'll see it abolished is if the Republicans get stiffed - e.g., they lose the election but win the popular vote. (. . . as almost happened in '04.) Then you'll hear the howls of unfairness and meaningful change.

All third parties do on the left, until the Electoral College is abolished, is give the right more power. Nixon in '68, in New York, Buckley in '70, when the left-center split; again in NY, D'Amato in '80, when, once again, the center-left split. Then in 2000. Sheesh, learn your history.

"Politicians are in campaign mode for too long. We (the people) hire these people to run our government, not run for re-election."

I also favor a single nationwide primary, or I could go with regional primaries, rotating the region that goes first with every presidential election.

And I favor public funding. The way it is now, only wealthy people are able to run. The long campaigns just cost WAY too much. And many wealthy people don't exactly have the interests of us peons in mind. Plus even if they would like to represent a wider constituency, they end up so beholden to people with deep pockets, that they have no choice but to knuckle under to those interests, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

Bottom line...single primary in Sept., or a rolling primary by region, starting in say, July. Shorten the campaign, which would allow all incumbents more time to do what they were elected for. And public funding.

With communications today, in particular the Internet, I think people can get a pretty good idea of candidates in a shorter time than was required back in traveling by train with whistle stops.

I loath Naderites

Although I defend Nader voters, I voted for a different 'third' party candidate in 2000. Most 'Naderites' and iconoclasts like myself voted for Kerry in 2004 in oppostion to W. Bush and his wars, so I think holding them responsible for the choice of the other 49.5% of voters is a bit misdirected.

I don't understand your desire to uncouple POTUS and VPOTUS. We already tried that once -- it didn't work.

Clearly, I missed something. When did we have the President and Vice President elected from the same pool of candidates by a preference voting system as the first two, in order, past the election threshold?

Yeah, it doesn't work for the purpose I listed above if you have them the first two electoral vote getters in a system where electors cast "vote for one" nonpreference ballots and are themselves either appointed by legislatures or elected by winner-take-all statewide, vote-for-one, elections. Which, yes, we tried before, but isn't at all what I recommended.

What purpose do you see it serving?

Increased popular choice and executive accountability by weakening the personal benefits of incumbency.

Though its far less important than adopting a sensible preference voting system as the general norm, which it necessarily relies on.

A few days ago on another thread, Brojo revealed himself to be a troll on the nut-case left. Thanks again, Brojo, for giving us George W. Bush.

In case anyone forgets, in the election day 2000 exit polls, 42% of Nader voters said they would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot. That's New Hampshire, Tennessee, Ohio and, of course, Florida - a Gore Electoral College blow-out.

In case anyone forgets, Nader took Bush's side in the battle of the Florida recount. What a class act.

cmdicey - the first couple of elections. Then we had the problem of Adams versus his VP, Thomas Jefferson.

Although I defend Nader voters, I voted for a different 'third' party candidate in 2000. Most 'Naderites' and iconoclasts like myself voted for Kerry in 2004 in oppostion to W. Bush and his wars, so I think holding them responsible for the choice of the other 49.5% of voters is for assholes who cannot do anything except remember their circumcision.

Mighty white of you, Brojo. "Ralph Nader is the White Luxury Vote." - Jesse Jackson, Jr. in 2000.

I'm pretty much on board with this. I'd rather see the candidates spend a year running a truly national campaign -- the kind they'll need to run in the general election -- instead of spending 90% of their time in two small states where they engage in nostalgic but obsolete coffee klatsch campaigning. Like it or not, that just isn't the way the world works anymore.

However, if a single massive primary day is the way we decide to do things in the future, I hope that by 2012 we can agree to move the whole process forward and hold it in, say, April or May. The first week of February is just too early to commit to a candidate who won't be elected until November.

===================

Cosign. IMO, the primary idea was a well-intentioned idea that didnt work the way it was supposed to, alas.
The current two year presidential campaign is INSANE. Most Western democracies get the job done in weeks!

First, let me apologize for the blockquoting weirdness.

cmdicey - the first couple of elections

What about them? Its certainly not an answer to my question When did we have the President and Vice President elected from the same pool of candidates by a preference voting system as the first two, in order, past the election threshold?

Rather, it seems to be what I was noting when I said: Yeah, it doesn't work for the purpose I listed above if you have them the first two electoral vote getters in a system where electors cast "vote for one" nonpreference ballots and are themselves either appointed by legislatures or elected by winner-take-all statewide, vote-for-one, elections. Which, yes, we tried before, but isn't at all what I recommended.

Maybe I misunderstood the question. Apologies. Before I put the kids to bed and curl up with my spouse and watch a movie, looking back post-WWII, where first ballot nominations began with Jack Kennedy, it seems that what Kevin is recommending would not impact the Republicans that much. Historically, the front-runner gets their nomination. The Democratic dynamics are more different, where the front-runner can more easily be upset. This has often produced the stronger candidate. What Kevin proposes might more favor the bigger money candidates (well, even more). But as others have noted, what we have is not working, and this two-year-to-permanent campaign has been extremely corrosive to the body politic. Cheers!

Oh good lawd.

I ask CMD a straight forward question about what benefits he sees to uncoupling POTUS and VPOTUS, and all I get in return is his typical pedantic digressive nonsense, which while sensible in this case (yes we need IRV), doesn't address the question as to what sense does it make to allow for a situation where the P and VP can come from different parties, which is wholly independent of how the P an VP are selected.

(I do thank MaxGowen for taking a bullet for me. The irony of CMD taking you to task for not answering his leading question just after he side-stepped mine is quite delicious.)

Well, that'll teach me not to bother treating CMD with any respect in the future.

Although I defend Nader voters, I voted for a different 'third' party candidate in 2000. Most 'Naderites' and iconoclasts like myself voted for Kerry in 2004 in oppostion to W. Bush and his wars, so I think holding them responsible for the choice of the other 49.5% of voters is a bit misdirected.

Just so that we are clear here, not all people who voted for Nader in 2000 are Naderites (by my reckoning).

Plenty of people made strategic votes for Nader in Gore-safe states. I defend those votes.

There are also those Nader voters who wouldn't have voted for Gore in any circumstance -- those are the people I would describe as the iconoclasts -- and their votes of course did not effect the outcome.

The people I loath are those who voted for Nader over Gore and were either oblivious to, or didn't give a crap that, if in doing so GWB became POTUS.

Disputo: You're welcome.

I'm less charitable, obviously, about those who voted for Nader and Naderites. Not only are some dear friends, but also includes a beloved sister and cousin. And I'm in NY, bluest of the blue. But they are not off the hook, as they provided aid, comfort, cover and validation for those in the swing states. The singular, consistent and unwavering disease here is narcissism - both Nader's own, and his followers. Look underneath all of the excuses, scapegoating and absolute refusal to accept any degree of accountability. That, my friend, is the very definition of narcissism. (I give some slack for the under 40 crowd who don't know their history and the debacle of '68.) The pretending there are no sheep on the left. The pretending they are not accountable and somehow "above" politics. Notice throughout history how the right comes together but the left stays fractured in order to ensure their ideological purity and their professional martyrdom. Winning is the LAST thing they want.

CMD lost me when she absolutely refused to acknowledge there is something fundamentally wrong in a so-called democratic society with the White House being controlled by two families for 28 years. That is anathema to the most basic principals of a democratic republic, such as it is these days. Maybe the republic ended long before Bush v Gore; maybe it was May 8, 1945 or August 6, 9, 14, 1945. Maybe it was November 22, 1963. Maybe it's long gone.

I suspect that one side effect of the "national primary" will be that we will be significantly more likely to have the convention decide the actual nominee, particularly in those years where you have 2 or 3 quite strong candidates. With no opportunity to build momentum, none of the candidates will be able to garner enough votes to clinch the nomination.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing; just pointing out that there may be unintended consequences.

You are probably right, PaulB. And it may not be a bad thing at all. Just think about the great Presidents (and great nominees) who were nominated at conventions; third and fourth ballots, etc.

I do hope that this will mean the end of the importance of the Iowa caucuses. Seriously, they're pernicious in their effects. Look at the current ethanol situation. Huge tariffs on imported ethanol, huge subsidies for corn based material, laws passed to make it mandatory to be used. It's a gross robbery of the nation and it's not going to stop while the next President needs to gain his "momentum" from a few hundred thousand corn growers.
We all know that tortillas have jumped in price in Mexico as a result of the boom in corn prices: this is a direct effect of the importance of the Iowa caucuses. Time they stopped having that sort of influence.

I vividly remember the debacle of '68.

*shudders*

I admit to a 3rd party vote of my own - secure in the knowledge that in Texas it made not a whit of difference - I voted for Eugene McCarthy.

It was a hell of a long wait to get to do that and I'm not sorry to have defected just this once in my loyal history as a blue in red states.

If you think meeting voters one-on-one in Iowa and New Hampshire will go the way of the dodo, think again.

I don't see anyone skipping those states or deciding not to have organizations in them in favor of say, Florida.

The only thing front-loading does is make Iowa and New Hampshire even MORE important. Both states have made it clear they will go first no matter what, even if it means having their caucus and primary respectively around Christmas 2007. Past experience shows if you don't get out of either state in the top three, you're toast. The media stops covering you, nobody gives you anymore and the crowds dry up.

2004 should have shown you this. John Kerry morgagted his house just have a enough money to throw everything he had into Iowa. Had he lost he would have been a goner. But because he won there and New Hampshire, that was it. Dean, had well over $50 million in which to spend and could have picked any state where he had superior organization to Kerry and made a stand. It didn't matter. After Iowa and New Hampshire Dean and everyone else were losers and Kerry a winner and Kerry rode that momentum to the nomination.

Look throughout history of politics and you will see how powerful momentum can be. It's not alwasy the case but generally it is. People want to be on a winning team and people don't want to be left behind, two powerful emotions can lead a candidate to victory.

Put it to you this way, the day a candidate decides to skip Iowa and New Hampshire for a Super Tuesday of Illinois, California and New Jeresey is the day I'll believe the Hawkeye and Grantine State are done as far as picking presidential candidates and so far no one is doing that.

Cripes, California moves its primary from June to March in order to have "influence." Didn't work out the way they hoped has it? Even if it moves its primary to the first Tuesday in February it may still won't matter.

State with 10% of population having large effect on election? No problemo.