Vilsack seeks to protect homestate caucuses

The secret is out.

Gov. Tom Vilsack is considering a bid to become the next chairman of Democratic National Committee, in part to protect Iowa's leadoff precinct caucuses, a spokesman said Wednesday.

"The governor is interested in preserving the Iowa caucuses," spokesman Matt Paul said [...]

He said Vilsack could help protect Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses from other states hoping to usurp that position.

Democrats typically approve the next round of presidential primaries and caucuses during their nominating convention, but this year appointed a commission to study the calendar.

Vilsack is status quo with a (parochial) twist. The rationale for his candidacy is predicated, in large part, on protecting his home state's unwarranted status in the primaries.

We deserve a chairman who will whip up the DNC into fighting shape, who will focus 100 percent of his or her energies whiping the party into fighting form and help reverse our losing streak without being distracted with homestate concerns. We deserve reform, not conflicts of interest.

If you are interested in sending a message, these two names seem promising:

Stephen Gleason, Vilsack's Chief of Staff
Dusky Terry, Vilsack's Senior adviser

As for the DNC commission "studying" the primary calendar, I am intrigued. Anyone know anything about it?

•  STOP THAT MAN

  AT ALL COSTS!

  by Muboshgu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:17:06 PM PDT

  •  i should expand on that a bit

    Iowa singlehandedly cost Howard Dean the presidential nomination.  All of his momentum DIED in that state.  It is because of Iowa that we Deaniacs had to suck it up, root for Kerry, start to like him by October, then get our hearts broken in the end, again.

    In a better system, everyone would've been able to decide at the same time, so that Iowa could have gone Kerry, and many other states could've still given it to Dean.  Or at least we can pick a state more representative of liberalism, like ::gasp:: ... Massachusetts?

    by Muboshgu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:25:44 PM PDT

    •  DNC Commission

      I served on the DNC Rules Committee in Boston.  We approved the creation of this commission, which was subsequently adopted in the General Session.

      The language directs the DNC Chair ot appoint members of this commission within 90 days of the election.  The conclusions of a commission such as this are usually set before the first meeting convenes; going through a process simply adds legitimacy to the outcome.  According to a DNC member from my state, the nominating calendar will undergo a serious shake-up for the next year.  I don't any details beyond that.

      Also, I ask that you distinguish between the caucus system in general and the injustice of Iowa having the first votes for the Democratic nomination.  The caucus system in Minnesota is a true testament to democracy in action and I don't want to lose it!

      by Alexander in Minneapolis on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:44:46 PM PDT

      •  The caucus system

        seems wildly undemocratic, at least how it played out in Iowa.  Kucinich votes going to Edwards?  What crap is that?  Based on my very limited understanding of what happens in caucus states (CSPAN's coverage in Iowa was good, though), caucuses are a bunch of experienced, savvy players running around conning wildly lost and confused voters.  I say screw the whole caucus system, but am interested in reasons why it deserves to stay.  

        by gogol999 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:01:55 PM PDT

        •  looked like

          a bunch of old people having pie and coffee to me

          by naufragus on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:06:11 PM PDT

          •  It is more like something

            from a Soviet Collective.

            It is an awful system, end it now.

            by BartBoris on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:46:39 AM PDT

        •  I like the caucus system in some cases

          It gets voters more involved in the process because you go to a place with your neighbors and other people from your community and choose a candidate. I think that for city council races and state rep races, it's perfectly appropriate.

          But in Iowa, there are too many problems. You have some caucses held in people's homes, and those people have favorite candidates, and they wield a lot of influence. Even some Iowans were uncomfortable with that.

          There was a pre-caucus story in the Des Moines Regisster in which a caucus chair who was having the caucus in her home, and who happened to be a Kerry supporter, said she was planning to lock all the Dean supporters in the bathroom before the vote.

          In Iowa this year, the caucuses were a lot like Survivor.

          by eyeroll on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:30:57 AM PDT

      •  How does it work differently?

        by expat germany on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:04:45 AM PDT

        •  My caucus report

          on the 2004 Washington State caucus The state had recently eliminated the primary election in favor of a caucus. Most attendees were confused. I took a seminar beforehand so I could be the Dean campaign's caucus co-ordinator.

          by dinazina on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:29:29 AM PDT

      •  Iowa caucuses

        I admittedly don't know how the caucuses in Minnesota, Maine, or elsewhere work, but the Iowa caucuses violate the basic tenets of democracy in several ways:

        • Public ballot: Requiring voters to publicly state which candidate they support contravenes a major premise of democracy.  Especially in a small community, where a parent or boss knows that you support the "wrong" candidate.  Considering how strong Dean's support was among college students who depend on Mom and Dad for support, is it any wonder Dean was hurt a little during these lil' klatches?  I know of one individual who started to go to Dean and was ordered to return to Kerry by Pops.

        • Narrow window of attendance: Requiring voters to be inside by 7pm until 8pm at the minimum shows a Republican-like inflexibility.  Refusing to recognize the problems faced by single-parent households, people forced to work late shifts or second jobs thanks to Bush is a crime.  Particularly when these are supposedly the individuals to whom the party is reaching out.

        • "Viability":  Requiring voters to choose one of the top three or four candidates is ridiculous when dealing with a field of nine.  Like Kucinich or Lieberman?  Tough.  If a candidate isn't "viable" (usually about 18% of the attendance) your vote doesn't count.  Keep in mind this would have eliminated Clinton in 1992 were it not for saner, more democratic methods in New Hampshire and elsewhere.

        • Physical attendance: Requiring voters to physically show up at the polls in 20-degree weather strikes against those with limited mobility or tolerance to the weather.  I spoke with many individuals who couldn't get to the caucuses because of their limited mobility.  Voting by absentee or mail is of course verboten.
          

        In short, the Iowa caucuses are an excellent exercise in faux-democracy that were probably developed in consultation with Soviet appartchiks.  Spike them now.

        by ogondai on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:29:34 AM PDT

      •  Caucuses

        I have to respectfully disagree. I know a number of people who never attend the caucuses because they take so much time. A primary system would have an impact of increasing voter turnout. And if it was true democracy, all votes would be secret ballots. Instead, all votes are by raise of hand. I hope Minnesota gets rid of the caucuses.

        by mnguy on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:39:35 AM PDT

        •  Minnesota caucuses

          are sort of a primary/caucus hybrid.  The presidential preference part is done by secret ballot.  When you arrive you sign in and cast your presidental preference ballot right away. Then you can leave if you want, or stick around for the caucus part where people introduce resolutions, etc.  So yes, you do have to show up and vote, but there's no "you go in that corner for Dean" business going on.  

          by kaelamantis on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:50:45 AM PDT

      •  Alexander, More Details? Transparency Transparency

        Alexander,

        Since you were on the rules committee, can you give us more details about the DNC's internal mechanisms?  There are at least two big things about how the party runs that we'd like to affect now -- the choice of DNC chair, and the setting of the times for primaries and caucuses.  We can only do that if we know who gets to make those decisions.

        Indeed, if someone knows a lot about this, it would be a good subject for a diary entry.  Ultimately, we want kos readers to be able to conact and influence the people who have the power to make these decisions, whether it's with email or with money.

        by jim1776 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:52:52 AM PDT

    •  Chicken or egg?

      I really think all the orange hatted Deanies from out-of-state were a major turnoff to Iowans. I caucused for Dean but you have to understand this sentiment that dumped Dean, because it's the same sentiment that the 'thugs exploited to dump Kerry.  It's a very real combination of defending the validity of a way of life that clearly is dying, and hostility (and jealousy) toward those whose lifestyles reflect the way the globe is going.  

      The only candidate who made a positive impression on Iowans was John Edwards, who ran a close 2nd.  Kerry won, barely, only because people thought he was a winner in general, not because he connected to them where they were at.

      by Tomato Observer on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:41:12 AM PDT

      •  It is possible that

        more people actually showed up on caucus day for Dean but give the Soviet rules Dean lost.

        The Iowa caucus sucks, end it now.
        

        by BartBoris on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:48:44 AM PDT

        •  I don't get what you're saying

          There is some funny business surrounding caucuses, but generally I think it's a nice way to conduct democracy.  You get to talk things through and learn more about your neighbors' needs and interests.  Although I personally was disappointed in the outcome of the Iowa caucuses, I don't think they reflected anything substantially different from the will of the Iowan people.

          by Tomato Observer on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:24:21 AM PDT

        •  No, not possible

          The deal with the Iowa Caucuses is that it almost doesn't matter who you show up supporting. If you don't know that you go undecided when your candidate is not viable until your group decides who to support, then you aren't working the caucus system.

          Dean did not fare well in the caucuses because too many of his supporters were not experienced at working the system. They went with conventional wisdon (i.e. Kerry can beat Bush) rather than holding out to see how the alliances fell.

          by eyeroll on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:40:10 AM PDT

      •  I surveyed Iowa caucusers on this question

        Although not a big enough sample, it was from about 100 different precincts.  Most of them were Kerry people, and no, orange hats had a minimal influence.  What influenced voter choice the most, was meeting the candidate personally.  Now, no one would admit to being inlfuenced by political ads, so in that respect results are inconclusive.  I do think, that even with this limited sample, orange hats turning people off would have showed up on the spectrum.

        by dan in sd on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:43:33 AM PDT

    •  Troll Rating of this Post Is Absurd

      Please, folks.  I know that some of you are sick of the Dean cheerleaders opinions, but they are just that -- opinions.  Not trolls.

      Use some common sense here folks.

      by MRL on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:45:47 AM PDT

    •  so that's what you've distilled this election to?

      We need to be looking upfield when we assess what to do next. Is 86-ing the Iowa caucus good for reinvigorating our kind of politics, or would the fight be ultimately harmful and counterproductive? It's at least one step removed from our ultimate goal --returning sensible progressive politics to its rightful central place in our system. So to say we must do this or that discrete step, especially one has potentially bloddy as this, "at any cost," is myopic in the extreeme.

      by KevStar on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:20:46 AM PDT

    •  Dean...

      Would have been creamed no matter where he went. You can't go into a primary and expect to win by 30 some points and end up finishing FOURTH, no matter where you try first. It's that simple.

      by storm2k on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:31:40 AM PDT

  •  Think for a second

    Why does the primary election pretty much end as soon as someone wins Iowa or New Hampshire, and one more state?

    Because the money goes racing after the winner.

    If we had multiple primaries it would just cost that much more money to win the early battle.

    If we changed Iowa and NH to Ohio and Missouri, only the best funded (read: establishment) candidates would even get into the race.

    Making the candidates focus for months on the tiny populations of Iowa and New Hampshire makes our candidates interact with the people on a face-to-face way, and to get a feel for the pulse of the people.

    There is no way that could occur in a state with a major metropolis.

    The only problems with IA and NH is that they are too-white.

    Perhaps we could substitute Delaware for one of them.

    And I don't like the caucus system in Iowa.  Maybe they could consider a primary.

    But I think our current system makes it possible for outsiders to strike lightning like Jimmy Carter did.  I like it.

    by BooMan23 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:44:50 PM PDT

    •  What about just one state?

      I have read impressive demographic studies of Missouri which show that in every category it is exactly average.  That's why it goes so often with the winner.  It has the average amount of minorities, the average wealth, the average size, and if you count the Mississippi, the average amount of coastland.  The average level of education, the average spectrum of age groups.  It has the average amount of urbanization, rural, etc.  It is a mini USA.  It would give candidates experience in all settings, and maybe, it would not be prohibitively expensive?

      by expat germany on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:09:21 AM PDT

      •  Good point

        but wouldn't it just result in the candidates spending all their time in St. Louis and Kansas City?

        The beauty of Iowa and New Hampshire is that the candidates have to go to all those fish fries and clam bakes, and really mix it up with the citizens.

        Missouri would just become an ad-war.  And a bunch of urban rallies.

        No, I like it just the way it is.

        by BooMan23 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:22:54 AM PDT

        •  But the Democratic Party is Urban

          This map makes it obvious:
          http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg

          I like the idea of the rotating system outlined here:
          http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/8/4/144733/9372

          How are Democrats supposed to develop strong messages to speak to Jewish, Hispanic, black voters, but especially suburban voters (where the swing populations are) if Iowa and New Hampshire (which have almost none of these) are always the kingmakers?  If the candidates are always spending months and months in Iowa and New Hampshire refining and honing their messages, how do we expect the "fittest" survivor to emerge with anything compelling for the other critical Democratic constituencies?  For crying out loud, Kerry was the nomineee mostly because he won Iowa in the primaries... and he couldn't even carry the state in the general!

          by PocketNines on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:58:07 AM PDT

          •  The problem with messages

            How are Democrats supposed to develop strong messages to speak to Jewish, Hispanic, black voters, but especially suburban voters...

            I believe that is the problem right there. No wonder the Dimwits are losing. Why do all these groups need their own message? Aren't we all after pretty much the same thing: respect, dignity, being treated like we matter, and being given the opportunity to not only exercise our freedoms, but also to participate as citizens?

            The problem is that we are not learning to find common ground with each other and work out our differences by making some adjustments, which is what the caucus--when used the way if was meant to be used by the American Indians--would help us do. Instead we argue and forget to treat each other like human beings. Making separate messages for each "interest group" is only an exercise in marketing. It doesn't get at real human problems. I'm sick of marketing.

            What I want is some good ole fashioned straight-talk, integrity, humanity, and real representation, not paternalism or top-dowm heirarchical authoritarianism.

            by NeoLotus on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:39:23 AM PDT

            •  Bravo

              Issue picking and group-shopping is not how you win elections. It is definitely not how you lead the people to leftist visions of the future.

              The democratic party Must learn to appeal to the american People again.

              And .. dont you love that the DLCers believe what the party theyve led to loss after loss needs most is... to protect their home state interests. Ugh

              by cdreid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:29:26 AM PDT

            •  Marketing is what wins elections....

              We didn't lose on 'values' we lost on marketing.

              The democrats message was lost in long winded speeches of Kerry. I can recite almost the entire Bush stump speech (gag), but none of Kerry's.

              Why is that? Why do I know my opponent's speech and not my own guy's? Marketing. Pure and simple marketing.

              If Democrats want to win anything back it can only be done with old fashioned marketing. simple messsages that can have some of your 'ole fashioned straight-talk' but it has to be targeted,concise and understandable.

              Remember Edwards 'Two Americas' stump speech? there is the perfect example of where the Democrats need to be.
              

              by NHhermit on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:26:13 AM PDT

              •  Cheers

                I like Edwards, and the "Two Americas" message is a big reason why. It was a brilliantly crafted message, and if it had had another couple of weeks to work, Edwards might have beaten Kerry for the nomination.

                The Kerry campaign was plagued by an understandable uncertainty: do we talk about bread and butter stuff that we have credibility on knowing that if we can make this the issue that people vote on, we'll win, or do we resign ourselves to fighting it out on homeland security/Iraq/WoT, where we are likely to lose but where the debate is likely to stay focussed in many voters' minds?

                A key mistake that they made was not to make a choice, one or the other, and stick with it. I felt like Kerry was trying to "deal" with the security issues so that he could pivot to bread and butter - and it sounds like a good strategy, because you can't ignore security, but you want to move to your strength. The problem is that Kerry ended up looking like you're trying to change the subject, which made him look like he wasn't confident in what he had to say about security.

                I don't know if Edwards' "Two Americas" theme would have survived this problem if he'd been the nominee. I hope he would have the sense to pick a topic and stick with it - hammer away until voters are sure they know exactly what you're about. That's how you deliver a message in this business.

                Kerry didn't do that, and he lost. Why? I can't remember what his core message was except "elect a Dem as an alternative to Bush". What was Gore's core message again? I don't remember that either. What I do remember is that Bill Clinton was the "man from Hope". And I remember that John Edwards wants to do something about the "Two Americas".

                by redsoxkangaroo on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:54:02 AM PDT

                •  Exactly!

                  I had a lot of problems articulating this to friends and coworkers because Kerry simply didn't seem to have a clear message (at least IMO). Or it may be that I wasn't getting it, who knows?

                  by baracon on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:12:28 AM PDT

                •  You've got it...

                  Simple messages sell...

                  Bush would repeat the same message over and over.... to the point that he sounded like a complete moron. But the message sold.

                  Kind of like you have to hear a commercial 15-20 times for the message to stick.

                  Kerry (and Gore) both appeared too cerebral and even with facts on their side, people just wanted to shut the smartest kid in the class room up.

                  That is where I really have a hard time figuring out what to do. Crafting a simple message and a simple messanger just rubs me the wrong way. We need the brightest Americans making policy, not the simplest...

                  by NHhermit on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:14:17 AM PDT

              •  But the Content

                of Kerry's speeches was good.

                If you want to blame someone.....I blame his handlers....especially in the beginning. Mary Beth Cahill in particular. She was so nothing......during the Swift Boat Vets ads....and then the comment about Mary Cheney being fair game! Boo.....that was bad.

                And reading the Boston Globe yesterday, I found out that Paul Begala was asked privately by Kerry to come join the campaign...and he at first declinced....cause he would have to quit his job.....then decided it was too important not to. So he talked to Cahill and she never returned the call or relayed the message. She wanted the glory and the power.
                Bagala was aghast at the way Kerry was being managed. Why did they not pounce on the prison scandal.???? Instead they talked of economy and health care. Why did they not respond to the SBVT lies. Like him or not he understands that politics is dirty, especially when you are playing against Karl Rove......! All these egos in the way.
                We came so close.......!

                Yesterday I heard Carville say that the Democratic party rolled over and died they day they passed fourteen more loopholes for taxbreaks to companies that shift jobs overseas. This was lilke a couple of weeks ago. The corporate lobbyists are lining their pockets....and they just roll over!

                We need to fix things......but it isn't going to happen overnight.

                One of the first best things we can do IMHO is hold the media accountable.

                This CIA story.......don't let them get away with milktoast coverage. The CIA was doing their job and Bush ignored  and surpressed the intelligence.

                by missliberties on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:00:33 AM PDT

            •  Let Me Try Again

              I agree with your point that Democrats should not be in the game of trying to make messages to fit certain interest groups.  That implies an inauthenticity that will always lose.

              Let me rephrase my argument in the way that it was originally meant.  After Iowa and New Hampshire, you have basically a front-runner, one trailing (but not hopelessly so) rival, and one or two longshots.  And that's after two nearly all-white states with basically no suburbs have their say.

              These candidates have not ben battle tested among the real core audiences of the Democratic Party which is fundamentally urban and diverse.  You speak of the idealism of caucusing but then you want to leave the system in place where the actual caucusers are pretty homogeneous - how exactly does "common ground" emerge from these caucuses when the overwhelming majority of Democrats aren't even at the table?  

              Here's merely one example.  Some Jewish voters care a hell of a lot about US-Israel policy.  Not all, some.  Those that do REALLY care about it.  And these voters want to hear the candidates articulate how they would approach this aspect of foreign policy if elected.  But if there are no Jewish voters in the mix to really worry about, where is the early months-and-months pressure to articulate this policy for the candidates?  Where is the proving ground to weed out inauthenticity?  

              That is just one example.  You can argue that issues like these should not supercede larger, more global issues about a candidate's vision, the ones that affect all of us.  And you would be right.  But there also should be world peace, because every citizen has an interest in peace between nations.

              So you wake up in the middle of the GE with a candidate who never had to go through a testing by fire on a number of issues that may rank highly within traditional Democratic consituencies.  Instead of having a candidate that you KNOW will connect with Jewish voters in Florida, for example, you have a candidate that you KNOW did well among Iowa non-Jewish Democrats and you HOPE will do well with Florida voters who do care a lot about this issue.  

              And there is a cost to the Democratic nominee because of this absence of early pressure.  These aren't fringe issues, they are issues important to many in your base.  

              So you try making up for lost ground by focus grouping.  Then you become dependent on focus grouping - you KNOW for a fact what worked in Iowa, you're GUESSING what will play in Florida and Nevada.  And now you come off like a panderer, because all of a sudden people are hearing your messages for the first time in the middle of the GE.

              Candidates tend to overplay in the GE their arguments that they know worked the primaries.  It's only human.  When they do speak to the newer, untested issues, they don't feel as comfortable, so they get far less emphasis and voters who DO care about those issues come away feeling like they're unsure of the candidate's position.

              Isn't it better to have candidates who won't have the perception of pandering because they never make it to the nomination in the first place unless they had it within them all along?  

              by PocketNines on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:44:36 AM PDT

        •  Why do retail?

          Why this fetish about "retail politics"?  How do flipping pancakes and staring at cows demonstrate an ability to be a good president, or at least, an ability to be elected president?

          Post New Hampshire, the nomination and general election are about free and paid media, about press releases, etc.  Why do we essentially pick a nominee who has demonstrated skills that aren't needed?  It's like picking a slugger based on how well they hit the ball off a tee.  With an aluminum bat.

          by ogondai on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:33:13 AM PDT

        •  What is it you think the citizens

          learn from this?  Do you think the politicians give away some secrets at the clambakes?  Get off message?  Say anything at all?

          What happens in Iowa isn't an informed citizenry making a thoughtful decision... it's the crowning of the person who bought the caucus chairs.

          Iowa hasn't picked a Dem winner in the entire history that I can find.  And George W. Bush is the only Republican "winner" they picked... in 2000... when he didn't actually win.  Jimmy Carter was the candidate with the most votes in 1976, but "Uncommitted" had more.

          Once upon a time, the Iowa caucus meant something and did what it was supposed to do.  Now that it is widely recognized as the most important step to gaining the nomination, it has becoime a cashfest.  It has to go.

          by Anaxamander on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:26:54 AM PDT

      •  coastland? missouri? [nt]

        by wu ming on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:00:51 AM PDT

      •  It is CERTAINLY the case...

        ...that NH does NOT have any average ANYthing. I grew up there. In my small town, the first African-American family moved in when I was in 6th grade. I don't know if even they are in the town anymore.

        NH sucks as a bellweather for ANYthing. First, they have barely any minorities. Second, they are ornery and rebellious, for instance IIRC they went for Pat Buchannon in '92. When they say "live free or die" they really mean it. Buncha freaks. (Note: I can say this, I lived there the first 25 years of my life and still have lots of family there).

        Get first-in-the-nation status AWAY from NH please!

        by lynne1 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:29:49 AM PDT

    •  Much of Southern NH

      is a Boston Suburb. Many, many people work in MA and live in NH. And, they tend to be more conservative than your average Lawnmower Man.

      NH is a wing-nut paradise as it has no income taxes, its state motto is "Live free or die." Not only do they  have the death penalty but hanging is still on the books. It is very differnent than the rest of New England; I don't like going there.

      We won NH this time in large measure to all the volunteers from MA that helped with GOTV.

      by BartBoris on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:58:41 AM PDT

      •  Hear, hear!

        And might I add, it IS changing slowly, what with all the Massholes buying houses there because it's too expensive in MA. I hate it though, it turns the whole region into commuting hell...

        That said, it still is winger "local-control" paradise.

        by lynne1 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:32:03 AM PDT

      •  Which is exactly why...

        NH is the ultimate balance to the Iowa Caucus system. Candidates to run hard left in Iowa, don't sell well in NH.

        Forcing candidates to hold a moderate position gives less fuel for the RNC in the GE.

        BTW, NH lawmakers will never allow their position to be dilluted by regional votes. (Follow the money)

        If you want real reform, make the convention mean something.... allow public debate of the party platform and make the convention news worthy.

        P.S. NH was won by NH Dem volunteers who busted their ass getting the Naderites to vote Dem and will be unlikely to be repeated. Most were able to be convinced to hold their noses and vote for Kerry.

        by NHhermit on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:59:20 AM PDT

    •  Jimmy Carter is an aberration.

      A one-time shot.  It happened exactly ONCE in 1976, and never again, for either party.  More likely than not, the establishment candidate is the one who winds up with all the momentum.  It is at least equally possible for a Jimmy Carter to emerge as a result of a one-day national primary.  Here's how:

      In 2004, we had several candidates with strong regional followings - Dean and Kerry in the Northeast, Edwards and Clark in the South, and so on.  It would highly possible that no one candidate could win a majority of delegates under these conditions.  So they fight it out at the convention.  

      Is that such a bad thing?  No.  Quite the contrary, it adds suspense and excitement to what is widely regarded as a coronation.  The negotiations over things like the platform then take on added significance, and the candidate who wins is more likely to be the one with the strongest national following.  Why?  Say the establishment candidate got 25% of the delegates, while the maverick got 35%.  To whom are the rest of the delegates going to shift their support?  

      If the establishment candidate stinks, but they nominate him anyway, they risk significant voter backlash in November, so they are more likely to go with the guy who can win.  Maybe that person was Howard Dean, maybe not, but it isn't nearly as likely that the smaller factions would all suddenly support the boring, uninspiring candidate just because he's the "safe choice."

      Doing things this way gives Sharpton delegates, Kucinich delegates, and Mosley-Braun delegates clout more commensurate with their status, and the eventual nominee is more likely to get the support of those blocs of voters than if they were steamrolled months before the convention.

      by republicans are idiots on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:51:55 AM PDT

      •  The problem with this scenario

        is that the Establishment Democrats (lets call them Mr. EDs from now on) are terrified of a repeat of a certain convention where the nominee made his acceptence speech at 3AM then won only his home state.  Since this regrettable event, the Mr. EDs have focused on the idea of "unity" and "order" at the convention.  They will never go for any plan that allows a chaotic floor fight.  I think your idea is great, but I don't think it will happen.

        by TheGryphon on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:06:36 AM PDT

    •  losing the south

      As a Kentuckian...we used to caucus now we have a primary. Guess what? It doesn't matter. I voted for Kucinich in the primary in MAY. Thanks to contributions from people like myself he was able to stay in the race. Kerry did not stand out in my estimation until well after he had been "chosen". My suggestion: Why don't we have simultaneous primaries? Lets do it in rounds. One state is selected from each of 5 regions: The west coast, the midwest, the great lakes, the south, and the east coast. They do same day instant run off primaries. Every tuesday afterwards we have another set of primaries. We rotate which states get to go first each election cycle.
      

      by coconutjones on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:19:50 AM PDT

  •  How can Vilsack possibly run the DNC...

    when he couldn't even get Iowa to vote for Kerry when it mattered most?

    by djinniya on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:19:35 AM PDT

•  Give Vilsack an ultimatum

  He can continue running for DNC chair if he withdraws his support for Iowa's exceptionalism.  

  by DaveOinSF on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:20:23 PM PDT

  •  I'd Assume It's A Choice

    Either he will go for someone else if they promise to preserve Iowa and New Hampshire's position, or he will get it after ensuring a commission is set up to reform the primary system.

    I'd assume that the Kerry, Edwards, and Dean factions would prefer keeping Iowa and New Hampshire and having an outsider (Dean, Rosenberg) be DNC chair than the other way around.  So that's my prediction.  Not Vilsack, but Iowa is safe for 2008.

    Also note that the Republicans ARE going to be IA-NH in 2008.  Whether the Democrats want the same schedule or a different one, I don't know.  But it needs to be considered.

    by Power on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:24:10 PM PDT

    •  Western State/ Southern State

      I would rather see Nevada and Missouri. or Oregan and Arkansas

      by naufragus on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:38:31 PM PDT

      •  either regional

        or a cross section primary.  like, have each region represented on the first primary day.

        iowa & nh can share the day with a western, midwest, southern & maryland/dc.

        rural/urban states should all get to vote on the first primary day.

        it would be more representative.

        by x on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:56:52 PM PDT

      •  How about

        Ohio and Florida? If there was any justice, it would be California.

        by candace in sonoma on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:57:09 PM PDT

•  Just pathetic...

  Is this man not aware that the other 49 states dislike the fact that Iowa has a monopoly on the primary election?  Maybe it's good he's running with this agenda because it means he's more likely to go down in flames.  

  After failing the last two times and this time not even nominating a Democrat they actually voted for, I can't believe anyone would try to maintain the Iowa Caucuses.  As far as I'm concerned Iowa can go last and be just as irrelevant to the primary election as they otherwise are to the nation in general.  

  by Asak on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:21:56 PM PDT

  •  Agenda

    I think his agenda will kill him because Kerry would love the Iowa Caucuses to be back in 2008, and the Clinton backers won't go for it.

    by political on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:03:16 AM PDT

  •  Obscene amounts of money to be had

    It was obscene the amount of money spent on camapaing ads in Iowa, the DNC, RNC every 527(and their brother) spent MILLIONS of dollars in Iowa.

    Campaign ads have become a cash crop in Iowa...any farmer that has a barn can make ridiculous amounts of money renting out the space.

    And for what???

    Only 60,000 people in Iowa showed up to the caucuses...

    If Vilsack wants to ensure Iowa a place then he should ensure that voters actually show up. Furthermore it has been shown that the caucus system disenfranchises anyone who has a job in the evenings...they can not participate.

    by Genf on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:23:56 AM PDT

    •  and...

      The person to lose the most from that lack of turnout was Dean, since you know, all of his support among young people seem to have stayed the hell home -- unsuprisingly.

      I daresay, no matter how you stack it, this would have been the result no matter who went first.

      by storm2k on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:28:46 AM PDT

      •  that is a lie

        the youth cam out in Iowa just like they came out on election night.

        That was the SCLM proganda to keep the youth vote surpressed.

        by Genf on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 11:56:04 AM PDT

  •  of course

    Of course the other 49 states want the 1st primary or caucus to be theirs.  Who wouldn't want all that attention?

    There are many many benefits to having it be in a small state like Iowa, but the whiteness I think is the major problem.  

    by Tomato Observer on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:45:46 AM PDT

•  One proposal to fix the primary mess

  Here's one idea I had on how top fix the primary system (reposted from another thread, what the heck):

  I propose a series of (mostly) regional primaries, each with a group of (roughly) six states, as follows:

  

  Of course we can expact a big hissyfit from Iowa and New Hampshire if there's any attempt to reorganize things to their perceived disadvantage, so maybe the best we can do is to include them in a slightly expanded "first wave" group of states.  To balance things a bit, I propose adding NV and NM  both western "swing" states (or so we hope) with very different demographics from IO and NH.  To further balance things both geographically and demographically, I add in MD and AR.  Maryland is the odd man out here, but I think there needs to be some east coast small state in the mix that's not quite so white as NH; AR could be swapped out for another southern state but since Arkansas is within reach as a Democratic swing state, I like it in the mix.  These states would preserve some of the current advantages of the existing "small states early" system (small media markets, mostly), the opportunity for lots of "retail" politicking.  And by keping IO and NH in the mix maybe they wouldn't fight to the death over it.

  The next wave is an odd one: Pacific/Northwest states of WA, OR, ID, MT, AK and HI.  WA and OR are interesting states in that they tend to do Democratic, but the eastern half of both states resemble ID and MT politically.  Throw in AK (and the national media complains about spending time in Iowa in the winter - "Hi this is Ted Koppel reporting from Nome"!)and HI for some real variety.  Again, smaller media markets generally and the opportunities for retail politicking.  These are also states that often tend to embrace "mavericks", usually get little attention, and (excepting ID and MT) are more diverse ethnically than many would think.

  Next the Southwest states.  CO and AZ are targeted Democratic swing states, and again a lot of enthic diversity, with a large hispanic population.  Medium and small media markets, so dark-horse/long-shot outsiders would still be in it.

  The Great Plains.  Lots of ground to cover here with another mix of medium and small media markets.  Definitely some "red states" but includes a couple of significant swing states in MN and MO.

  Great Lakes.  If there's clearly a strong candidate in the field, I suspect this could be where the nomination could be settled. Lots of big traditionally Democratic states here, but also some major battlegrounds we need in order to win in he fall.  Big media markets, lots of cities, concentrations of traditional Democratic voters and institutions.  If the goal was to keep the race for the nomination competitive longer (and I think that's smart), this one could be pushed back a few weeks in lieu of the next couple groups.

  Appalachia/Mid-Atlantic.
  Starting to get into some pretty Republican states now, but some that are (hopefuly) withinn striking distance for Democrats with a strong candidate.

  Northeast.  The Democrats home turf in the NE.  I put this late in the process because I think we can usually be pretty safe in assuming whatever candidate we nominate will carry these states.  Sorry.

  Deep South.  These reliably republican states are included late in the game for the same reason that the reliably Democrtaic New England states are.  Sorry.

  Then, finally....The Big Four. I treat these differently than other states because we all know that CA and NY will go for the Democrats in the general election; we know that TX will go for the Republicans.  Florida will continue to be a critical state in the fall election and we need to play the primary game in order to help us win there in the fall - and late campaigning there would serve us well in the fall.  Also, all four of these states are big (lots of EVs) and would dominate any regional primary that they might be grouped with.  So I take them out of the regional groupings.  It might make sense to do all four on the same day, but I'm thinking it would be better to maybe do one at a time, each week for four weeks, TX, NY, CA and ending with FL last.

  I propose doing one (mostly) regional primary every two weeks, beginning in February (with the "early wave") and ending in June (with "The Big Four" last, maybe one each week for those last four).

  Using the proposal above (or something like it), this would draw the process out into a much, much longer campaign than we've seen recently, and I think a longer campaign would actually help us.  It would also stay competitive a lot longer - no more "it's all over after Iowa and New Hampshire."

  In 2004, the goal of the DNC was to compress the process so as to (in theory) produce a nominee early so that the party could unite behind him.  Well, it did produce an early nominee and everyone quickly united behind Him.  But I think we would have been better off with a longer campaign that gave candidates the chance to rebound from setbacks, lerarn how to campaign effectively, and to hone their messages.  Last time around it was way too compressed, and it ended way too early.

  The media loved the campaign - they love all campaigns - and they gave all the candidates a LOT of air time, most of which they used to slam the republicans.  That helped us tremendously.  Once the nomination was settled, then it became Kerry and the Republicans trading charges, one to one.  But before things settled on Kerry, we had 8 candidates trading charges with the republicans - and 8 times the media coverage.  Every chance we have to assemble a bunch of Democratic candidates and have them debate each other is incredibly valuable - not just for selecting the nominee, but in laying the groundwork for the fall campaign.  The last thing we should do is try and hurry that up and get it finished quickly - it is gold for us!  Delaying the outcome also keeps the republicans from focusing (or even starting) their attacks.

  I seriously believe that we are better off if the primary campaigns go all the way into June.  While it would be more grueling for everyone, the candidates would still have momentum going into the summer, rather than taking a few months off and having to gear up again during the convention.  There would be a lot more "buzz" among voters if they perceive it's still a race that's yet to be won - and keeping voter interest high ought to be one of our goals, since it would presumably translate into greater turnout come the fall.

  Of course, all of this would fly in the face of the conventional DNC wisdom.  But I think it would produce a stronger nominee, and would also help lay the groundwork for that nominee to be in a better position to win in November.  I think that - getting ready to win in the general election - needs to be part of the strategy....it can't just be about hurrying up and picking a nominee quickly.

  Am I crazy here?  Or is there some merit in this?  Comments welcome (as if you needed an invitation...).
  

  by leftyboy666 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:24:58 PM PDT

  •  Good Idea

    Hi,
    It looks good. I would try to make more swing states go first though, like FL and OH, and maybe make NH a little bit later. Otherwise, good map.

    by benhiller on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:29:00 PM PDT

  •  whatever you do, scrap the caucus system

    I worked the iowa caucus, and let me tell you, if you didn't know already, it's not democratic at all, no one really knows the rules of the caucus, and it's more like using peer pressure more than anything. They should go to a primary like everyone else, or go to the end of the line if they want to keep the caucus system.
    I mean, it was interesting, but it all comes down to who has the shrewdest precinct captains and who knows how to peer pressure their neighbors into caucusing with them.
    

    by dan in sd on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:41:48 PM PDT

    •  Caucus Discriminates Against Our Troops

      Soldiers and sailors serving our nation can't fill out absentee ballots for the caucus.  And working people who have the second shift can't show up for the caucus.

      by joeltpatterson on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:21:52 AM PDT

      •  Caucuas also discrimates against service workers

        I can't tell how many people I spoke to in IA, when I was canvassing 2 weeks before the caucus, who said they'd like to attend but couldn't because they worked every night. If we continue to have an IA style caucus, we will continue to lose the perspective of the servers and retail workers and office cleaners and cooks that should be natural supporters of the Democratic party. It was pretty dispiriting to see how much the caucus system discriminated against working class folks.

        by emptywheel on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:13:16 AM PDT

        •  The DLCers

          told the working class to go to hell a long time ago. They could give a damn about them, libertarian leaning dems, minorities, women.. you know.. the democratic base. So long as they keep those corporate checks rolling in and keep getting the invites to the elite washington parties..

          by cdreid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:32:32 AM PDT

          •  Lieberman backs Vilsack

            The DLCers . . .  told the working class to go to hell a long time ago.

            
            

            Right.  Senator Joe Lieberman was on Fox yesterday (to give balance you know) and said the Dean would be very bad as DNC chair and that Vilsack was the best choice.

            by Fred in Vermont on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:16:38 AM PDT

            •  I met Joe at the

              College Convention in Manchester, NH in January. What a #*/%!

              "The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add an useful plant to its culture" -- Thomas Jefferson

              by tommurphy on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:08:10 AM PDT

              •  And you

                didnt knock the little turncoat piece of trash on his ass. I must admit i deeply admire your self control.

                by cdreid on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

            •  Lieberman

              backing Anything should be the one and only reason any sane lefty needs to reject it wholely.

              by cdreid on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:38:47 AM PDT

            •  Joe needs to get challenged in the primary

              by dan in sd on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:19:17 AM PDT

              •  Amen to that!

                by naufragus on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 10:38:38 AM PDT

    •  The caucus system stinks

      I've been through the Washington caucuses many times and although interesting as an exercise in human nature, each time I am shjocked and dismayed by how it works.  Choatic, weird, and prone to all sorts of sleazey maneuvers.  You do learn some odd things about your neighbors though (and have the opportunity to sow the seeds of bad feelings around your neighborhood, too).

      I've often wondered how any state's caucus system would stand up to a court challenge.  Lots of opportunity for dienfranchising all sorts of folks....

      by leftyboy666 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:28:29 AM PDT

    •  I aggree

      just have one primary day and hold it late in april , this way it is a fair shot for everyone ..

      Dean was my first choice , he was clear about where he stood and it sure as was not for this sick war in Iraq , Kerry fell into trap after trap with the Iraqi war , Voting for it then voting against the 87 billion , I am sure his heart was in the right place but with these people that doesnt matter ~ they are heartless and wIthout a soul .. We need to change it .but HOW ?

      by jackieca on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:56:11 AM PDT

  •  Great work, but...

    But I take exception to the idea that the Big Four should come last.  No offense intended, but your reasoning implies that the Dems can take CA for granted, and that seems wrong to me.

    In a number of ways, California is arguably the most important state in the US.  Leaving it to CA to weed out the final few contenders is a consolation prize.  Promote the Big Four to the second round (yes, even Texas -- especially Texas!) and you might have something.  After all, isn't the ability to reach a voters in a large, diverse state the ultimate test of a Presidential candidate?

    And wouldn't we want to, as my Brit friends would say, "sort out the odds from the sods" earlier rather than later?

    Disclosure:  I currently reside in California, and have done so for the last ~10 years, but Ohio is my home state and I expect to move back there in the next few years.

    -AG

    by AlphaGeek on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:49:19 PM PDT

    •  By the way

      This seems like ideal Diary material.  You should repost it as a Diary, with or without my suggestions incorporated -- I'd recommend it.

      -AG

      by AlphaGeek on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:51:46 PM PDT

      •  Diary?

        I don't know nuthin' about diary stuff.  If this is still here in the morning and has attracted some interest, I'll try and figure out how the diary thing works.  Thanks for the suggestions.

        by leftyboy666 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:24:29 AM PDT

    •  Why do the Big Four last

      My reasoning on traating the Big Four different isn't so much that we should take any for granted (or write off Texas), it stems more from the fact that each of them is a regional superpower by themselves.  If any one of them were grouped in with other states in the primaries, these four would overwhelm the other smaller states in their regions.

      As for doing them last, my goal is to keep any state from dealing out a knockout blow early. One of the problems with the current system is that there are too many opportunities to crush a candidate without vast resources and take them out of the race early, before the whole field of candidates has really been tested. California, New York and Texas have so many delegates that when you win big in any of them, it counts for so much more than other states combined.  If you put the biggest prizes late, it keeps the race competitive late.  I figure Florida should go last because the later the candidates are campaigning there for the nomination, the more that will benefit the eventual nominee just a few months later in the general.

      Given this logic though, I'm now thinking it might make sense to save the Great Lakes states as the last regional bunch to go, right before the Big Four states.  It certainly would build more drama into the end of the process rather than shooting it all at the begining.

      by leftyboy666 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:22:57 AM PDT

      •  This is ridiculous

         "If you put the biggest prizes late, it keeps the race competitive late. "

        --Uuhh.  I don't think so.

        --The money will inevitably go with the person who builds up momentum.  By the time that the big states get to vote, the decision will have already been made de facto.  

        --The only real solution is to have a single, nation-wide primary day.

        --This way, whoever manages to build up the support and the money nationawide (and Dean proved this could be done by buidling a grassroots base  through the Internet) will be able to run a campaign in most, if not all, of the 50 states.

        --I don't like your idea at all.

        --Again, I go for a SINGLE, NATIONWIDE PRIMARY DAY in which all states decide on the same day.

        by PhillipG on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:33:42 AM PDT

        •  agreed, just have one day primary

          otherwise, inevitably, the way the media drives elections now, whatever candidate wins first is going to win it all, amking the states down the line irrelevant again. So if you want to make everyones vote count, then lets just hold a one day primary.  Scrap the caucuses and get the party out of the primary election business so that it's transparent and fair.
          No, you don't need to be rich to run nationally as long as you have national appeal and know how to run a grassroots campaign.
          In this years primary cycles, all of the candidates had enough of a following to run nationally without needing to experiement in Iowa and talk about farm subsidies, pork and soy.

          by dan in sd on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:26:25 AM PDT

  •  Best answer to the primary question that I've

    heard in a long time.

    Unfortunately, what would be good for the candidates, would cost an unbelievable amount of dollars in TV ads in those regions.

    The cure?

    Require the national networks, who broadcast on the public's airwaves under license from the FCC, to allow a minimum amount of free advertising to candidates - during ONLY the primary season.

    This would level the playing field for all candidates, until the parties have their nominating conventions.

    Just my 2 Cents.

    by Angie in WA State on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:55:32 PM PDT

    •  skip the ads

      the candidates should just use townhalls meetings, radio, phone, mailers, and all grass roots canvassing.
      The tv ads are all junk anyhow, especially in the primary.  In fact, we should outlaw TV political ads in the primaries at least, and just let the guy with the strongest grassroots win.
      Let them compete in California first and go grassroots.  It can be done, but not if you are in the mindframe of doing everything with money and consultants. If you can survive a grassroots only primary in a big state like CA, you will be better suited for a national campaign where you can get some help with TV ads in addition to your grassroots skills.

      by dan in sd on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:09:14 PM PDT

  •  Yes

    there is a great deal of merit to your proposal.  You keep the small states involved early, but spread around the influence a bit. Furthermore, you limit the potential for an early KO by a popular regional candidate that plagues the "Regional Super Primary" ideas.

    by HappyMichBlogger on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:53:18 PM PDT

  •  DE instead of MD?

    I think Delaware would be a better early state instead of Maryland. It's smaller and thus more accessible and seems a better match for the other small states in that first wave.

    Otherwise, great plan!

    by GoKeever on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:57:08 PM PDT

  •  One suggestion.....

    ....consider overlapping media markets to maximize advertising efficiency.  WV, for example, is subject to a great deal of media influence from OH and PA, so I's put WV in with those states.  I'm sure there are examples of other states that could benefit from such a tweak.

    by roxtar on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 02:31:08 AM PDT

  •  Stop Regionalist thinking

    I appreciate your efforts but I think this exactly the wrong approach. Clustering states by geography reinforces that Americans are largely different with incompatible parochial interests and encourages pandering by candidates.

    The President of the United States is the ultimate expression of Federalism - leader not of Red States or Blue States or Mountain States or Plains States. The President is a leader of PEOPLE. The Electoral College is the means to an end but that end is governing all the people, not all the people that deliver 270+ Electoral votes.

    I think reform should focus having 7-10 major primary days, with each day containing roughly equal electoral significance and balanced by geography and a swing state or two each day.

    For example:
    Primary 1 - IA,NH,AZ,OR,FL - 55 EV
    Primary 2 - NV,ME,VA,TX - 56 EV
    Primary 3 - WA,IL,LA,NJ - 56 EV
    Primary 4 - ID,OK,MS,DC,DE,NY - 54 EV
    Primary 5 - CA,HI,AK,RI,MT - 69 EV

    ...and on till nomination.

    I think this format encourages the press to cover the primaries with already existing sports metaphors more suited to nomination - instead of a horserace it's "you win some, you lose some" and you play again next week. It allows for outsider candidates to proclaim momentum if they can pick off smaller states while at the same time giving juggernaut candidates a means to grind out a win. I think the internet and free media neutralize the advantages of a big money candidate and no primary contender will have sufficient money to buy large buys in FL, TX, CA etc. Any thoughts?

    by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:55:32 AM PDT

    •  money

      it takes money to travel around to all those states at the same time.

      Also, there would be battleground states where the candidates would focus their attention and forget the rest where the delegate counts are lower, just like in the general election.

      I have no suggestion for improving this though, just weighing in with my thoughts as you asked.

      thanx for the ideas.

      by jaxparrothead on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:31:51 AM PDT

      •  Bollocks

        If anyone concentrates on "battlegrounds", they would leave the others open for a surprise winner. Some candidates would concentrate on a single state in a clump, while others would try a broad spread. There would be room for multiple strategies this way.

        Remmeber as well that the extended time frame between primary clumps would attenuate this as well. Go ahead, spend money like mad in the first clump for "momentum". Congrats, now you have weeks as "front runner", with all the media damage and all your opponents targeting you in specific. Better raise three times what you blew to win the first clump to counter all of this.

        by ElitistJohn on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 08:47:02 AM PDT

  •  too spread out

    Your early wave and your big 4 are too spread out, to far from each other.  This favors those with the money and resources to travel quite a bit for those primaries.  Its a great idea, but I would recommend all regional primaries, IMHO.

    Thanx for the idea.

    by jaxparrothead on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:28:09 AM PDT

  •  Nice idea

    But take NH off the first wave please. LOL

    They really do not deserve it.

    by lynne1 on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:34:49 AM PDT

  •  similar sked, other reforms

    See the schedule I wrote. It seems like you and I have similar ideas.

    I've got some additional reform ideas.

    1. At least 50% of the delegates selected in each primary or caucus need to be uncommitted.
       
    2. There should be limits on the amount of money spent on TV, radio and direct mail. Hopefully this will force candidates to invest in building grassroots infrastructure.
       
    3. At least 50% of organizers hired in a state have to be from that state.

    by Carl Nyberg on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:53:06 AM PDT

  •  Regional primaries have problems

    
    There are too many new variables involve with using regional primaries.  

    I suggest you read Tomas Patterson, a Harvard? prof, who evaluates all the existing ideas for primaries, including regional primaries, and the suggests his own.  His is roughly this:

    a latter start, less time between the last primary and the convention, making every state significant, making the process not too dificult on the voter (i.e. giving them enough time to evaluate the candidates).  To do this he has 6-8 primaries 1-2 weeks apart with debates before and during this period, then a one month break and then "Ultimate Tuesday" where all the rest of the states vote.

    Check out his book "The Vanishing Voter" it is superb.

    by leffjesh on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:28:27 PM PDT

•  Iowa versus 49?

  Preserving the Iowa caucuses is something that one state -- Iowa -- has a special interest in.  Other states are probably somewhat resentful of Iowa's status.  I wonder if this can be worked to the advantage of Vilsack's opponents.  The message is: why should Iowa get all the glory?  Your state will be better off if we scrap the old Iowa-first model.  Perhaps NH and a couple other early states would feel threatened, but I can't imagine that there's much national support for this way of doing things.  

  Also, I'm interested in things we can do to appease the South without giving up any of our major policy stances.  If part of the Democratic spin in reforming the primary system is "we're now listening to the South!" that can't hurt.  If a moderate Southern state like VA shows up early on the calendar, that would strengthen the message.  

  by Neil Sinhababu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:26:06 PM PDT

  •  We already appease the South with Super Tuesday

    which I think is a bigger problem then the caucuses. We need to move the West Coast primaries to Super Tuesday.  That would have helped Dean alot.

    by NoAlternative on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:08:33 AM PDT

    •  How is Super Tuesday appeasement?

      The appeased South overwhelmingly selected Yankee John Kerry on Super Tuesday. And I thought the issue was reforming the primary system for all Democrats - not designing the best system for Howard Dean.

      by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 03:21:38 AM PDT

      •  Kos is a prodean progressive as am I

        Super Tuesday was invented by DLCers from the South mostly.  While Kerry wasn't Southern he was dlc.  We are proposing things to advance the cause of progressives, so they have as good of a shot as dlcers.

        by NoAlternative on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 09:38:21 AM PDT

  •  Fuck the South

    As long as the Dems constantly worry about the regressive and retrograde red states in the south--and Super Tuesday was precisely designed with that in mind, making sure that whoever got the nod for the Dem nomination would be liked by southerners--the Democratic Party will never move forward.

    by PhillipG on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 07:53:58 AM PDT

•  such fucking nonsense

  Translation: I'm running for head of the DNC so I can protect my state's fucking asinine caucus system, NOT to turn the party around and actually win a goddamn election one of these decades.  THAT's what he's saying.  Plain and simple.

  Thankfully, my gut says it will be Rosenberg.  (of course, my gut also said something about Kerry being President, so maybe it needs a shot of JD about this time).
  

  by ziggy on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:27:29 PM PDT

  •  There is a method to his madness

    Translation: I'm running for head of the DNC so I can protect my state's fucking asinine caucus system, NOT to turn the party around and actually win a goddamn election one of these decades.  THAT's what he's saying.  Plain and simple.

    
    

    There is another translation: I am interested, but these Iowa farmers will turn on me and rip me apart in a moment if I sound like I am using them to further national (latté-drinking) ambitions.  So this is the only safe way for me to toss my hat in the ring.  But please consider me anyway because I am not Dean.

    by Fred in Vermont on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:25:01 AM PDT

•  He is just pandering to the farmers hopefully

  by naufragus on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:29:35 PM PDT

•  Don't care about Iowa, still no Vilsack

  He could not win Iowa for our candidate.  Period.

  If he could not win Iowa for us in a tight spot, he cannot help us win the nation.  

  That's my litmus test for the new chairperson.

  Dean has energy, vision and organization.  I'm not a Deaniac but he impressed me by putting everything he had behind John Kerry's candidacy and I want to reward that loyalty.

  by stephdray on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:30:28 PM PDT

  •  i also have been impressed by dean.

    but no one seems willing to answer the critical question, including those supporting dean: does dean want the dnc chair or not? i'm getting a bit impatient about that issue. if he wants it, he has to go after it. if he doesn't, what use is it to pine after him.

    i'm hoping that silence means he's working his butt off on those phones contacting delegates. would be kind of fun if he pulls a "stealth" coup.

    by yankeedoodler on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:14:16 AM PDT

    •  Just how does one "go after" DNC Chair?

      does dean want the dnc chair or not? i'm getting a bit impatient about that issue. if he wants it, he has to go after it.

      
      

      To me he sounds like he wants it, but it is true he has not started some sort of active campaign for it.  But (and here some of the old party hands I know hang out here will have to help me) I am not at all sure just how one "goes after" such a position.   If Dean campaigned too actively many would see it as some sort of threat to take his marbles (and he has quite a few) and turn his back on the national party.  For all I know Dean is doing as much as is proper to make himself a candidate.  (Just who decides and when?)

      by Fred in Vermont on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:32:26 AM PDT

    •  Dean wants it if he can get it

      If Dean openly exhausts his capital in a run for DNC chair, and loses, he's pretty much done.  You can't have two high-profile losses within a year and think you're still in the game (unless your name is Bob Shrum).

      I think he wants it, he's feeling out all the people who'll be voting for Chair who backed him publicly back when they were "super-delegates".  When he gets "viable" to use an Iowa word, I imagine he'll openly run.  

      Question: Do these people gather to vote on one place, or do they cast by phone or e-mail?  Can Deaniacs and Vilsackians put together public demonstrations outside some sort of meeting hall, or has the Democratic Party given up on even the appearance of democracy at this point?
      

      by ogondai on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:38:55 AM PDT

•  Upside of the Iowa caucuses

  One big advantage of having two small, largely rural states go first is that it doesn't cost nearly as much money to campaign there.  Not that Iowa or New Hampshire have any monopoly on this, it could really be any rural, swing or blue state, but I think it is important to keep the first primary/caucus in small, rural states.  This may not seem fair, but it is a great way to ensure that the candidate with the most money won't just automatically get the nomination, which would be the case if there were a national primary or if a large state like California or New York had the early primary.  If we don't want status quo, insider politicians, we cannot go to a national primary or an early primary in a large state.  As long as we have the small state early primaries, outsiders have a chance.

  by burnt in effigy on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:30:38 PM PDT

  •  Dean proved...

    That a longshot candidate can end up being the candidate with the most money.  So, frankly, this nonsense about needing a small state to be fair to the guys without money, is just pure crap.  

    by Asak on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:39:01 PM PDT

    •  exception rather than the rule

      Dean was the exception to the rule, not the norm.  This is not what usually happens.  I think that's a bad example, because most of the time longshot candidates don't end up with the most money.  Dean proved that it can be done.  But that doesn't mean that's what happens most of the time, or will happen next time.

      by burnt in effigy on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:35:44 PM PDT

      •  Dean was both rewarded...

        and victimized by unusual circumstances. His candidacy was a once-in-a-generation kind of phenomenon, and thus not a model for the way things are likely to work out. There were many similarities between Carter's rise in the '76 primaries and Dean's near-nomination in '04. Just as Carter's road to the nomination was not traveled by Mondale, Dukakis, or Clinton, I highly doubt that there will be a repeat of the Dean revolution in '08.

        But your point about potential underdog candidates is noted.

        by HappyMichBlogger on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:10:20 AM PDT

        •  I disagree

          Now that the Internet exists, and now that there is an active, growing, addicted, online community of people who care enough to be informed and to constantly communicate with one another through the myriad of progressive blogs and sites, there's nothing "once in a generation" about a person like Dean.

          The Internet has opened up the possiblity for truer democracy.  The Dean campaign was one of the first signs of that happening.

          I say go for a single, nationwide primary day.

          by PhillipG on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 12:38:10 AM PDT

          •  The internet

            was never effectively utilized before Dean, this is true, and it is now pretty much conventional wisdom that a strong Net presence is an important part of national campaigns.

            But the Dean candidacy was about more than the Internet. You had an unknown Governor from a small state who came out of nowhere to contend for the nomination. Dean was critical of his party's leadership, and his passion brought tens of thousands of new people into politics. The internet was just a tool, albeit a highly effective one, that helped capture people's desire for fundamental change in the Washington.

            2008 will be whole differnt climate, with a largely new set of players. Maybe there will be another darkhorse candidate who bucks the system, excites young people and the disenchanted, and finds a new tool to facilitate political organizing. I just don't think it's too likely.

            by HappyMichBlogger on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:07:14 AM PDT

            •  That depends on who is DNC Chair

              2008 will be whole differnt climate, with a largely new set of players. Maybe there will be another darkhorse candidate who bucks the system, excites young people and the disenchanted, and finds a new tool to facilitate political organizing. I just don't think it's too likely.

              
              

              Of course whether or not 2008 will be "different" depends in large part on what sort of leadership we have at the DNC and in Congress.  If we have someone like Dean heading the DNC then it will be different and there will not be a large pool of angry Democrats wanting to change the direction of the party and there will not be a lot of grass roots campaign money supporting an outsider, and so all the above arguments for a small-states-early primary system (but perhaps in a group to at least limit the big problem with the Iowa Caucus ) will remain will remain valid.
              
              On the other hand if the party does not change 2008 may be like 2004 only more so and then we would really need to change the primary system to make money count more so the it will be possible make changes next time with a grass-roots-funded  outsider like Dean.
              
              So if Dean or someone like him becomes DNC chair then we can stay with small states, but if
              another insider becomes DNC chair then we need to fight for some big states and big media markets in the first wave so money and the  urban vote can make a difference.

              by Fred in Vermont on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 05:48:26 AM PDT

              •  if Dean if on the inside

                then everyone else will be on the outside and angry, and there will be a opposite of Dean, ran by the now established Dems, who will feel disenfranchised in 2008.

                If we want to st