Rosenberg: End IA and NH monopoly

Simon Rosenberg can kiss goodby to those Iowa and New Hampshire votes.

"Iowa and New Hampshire should not go first in the primary calendar, and we need to create a system that allows other states to have equal footing," said Rosenberg, president and founder of the New Democrat Network, a centrist issue advocacy organization based in Washington.

"I have no problem with Iowa and New Hampshire being part of the early states, but their days as the sole arbiters of who our nominee is should come to an end," he said Friday.

Very nice. This is a practical example of reform, and an issue that should be addressed by every single candidate running for DNC chair.

•  Looks Like All The Candidates...

  ...are taking that position, and good for them.  Plus, anyone who can count knows there's a hell of a lot more votes from the other 48 states that would like to be earlier in the process than the two that have the long-standing monopoly.

  by DHinMI on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:18:50 PM PDT

  •  Do you have links to the other candidates?

    This is the first candidate I've seen address the issue. I would love to update the post with comments from the others. Thanks!

    by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:26:17 PM PDT

    •  Dean

      Has been saying for weeks that he wanted to get rid of IA, at least in face-to-face discussions (you can cite his conversations at the MI ACLU dinner about a month ago--although note that this comment was in a discussion about why Vilsack was NOT a good choice).

      But I suppose Dean can't be considered a surprise here, given his past comments about IA. I gave him some shit, too, about making similar comments--"Didn't you learn your lesson the last time?" But again, not a surprise.

      by emptywheel on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:29:15 PM PDT

      •  And I should also say

        That he was making these comments to MI DNC members who have been pushing hard to get MI moved to the front of the stack...Know you audience and whatnot.

        by emptywheel on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:30:51 PM PDT

      •  Yeah

        I know Dean probably falls into this camp, though he has to be careful as to not be perceived as "sour grapes". Simon leading the way could provide that cover.

        Still, he hasn't made this sort of unequivical rejection of IA and NH in a press conference or speech. At least, I haven't seen him do it. And even you account doesn't include a rejection of NH -- a VT neighbor that could potentially help Dean win a future nomination battle.

        by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:34:30 PM PDT

        •  Let Me Rephrase

          I think it's going to become a common position of most and possibly all the candidates.  As emptywheel mentioned, there was talk by Dean to the Michigan people about Iowa, and she's also speculated, quite plausibly I think, that part of Fowler's run is tied to wresting control of the early state duopoly from IA and NH.  (Folwer was coordinated campaign director in Michigan.)  I think that Blanchard's quasi-candidacy is more likley to be tied to the IA/NH duopoly than, as you and Sirota and others have speculated, on the dreams of the DLC.  [I mean, what other rationale could there be for him to run for DNC chair?  It's not as if there's any goodwill left for him here in MI, where he pissed off labor and the Trial Lawyers Association while Governor, and then pissed off Granholm and her team during a particularly nasty dust-up involving the Wayne Co Executive's office during his loosing primary race against Granholm and Bonior.  It would be hard to imagine him becomeing chair when nobody here much likes him anymore, and they don't need to find him a position to get him out of the state.]  You've got MI Dem Party chair Mark Brewer as the chair of the Association of State Democratic Chairs trying to hold the state chairs together as a bloc.  DNC member Debbie Dingell--John Dingell's wife and head of the General Motors Foundation--has been working with Carl Levin for years to get Michigan at the top of the primary calendar.  Then you've got Rendell taking shots at IA and NH.  

          I think that more than anything else, this run for control of the DNC is shaping up as a forced referendum on the early status of IA and NH, which is lethal to our party's process for picking a viable national candidate who reflects the Democratic base but can appeal to voters we need in key swing states like MI, OH, MO, NM, AZ, PA, FL, etc.  I think the Michigan contingent would easily live with some state other than Michigan going first, but I'm pretty sure they're going to use this opportunity to apply maximum pressure to break the hold of Iowa and New Hampshire, and at least position Michigan so it will have some influence.  But they're sick of those two states influencing everything, and the UAW--which didn't mind Iowa too much, as they're the second or third largest union in the state--seems to have finally gotten behind Levin and the Dingells in pushing this initiative.

          I will be shocked if the eventual chair of the DNC doesn't get there in part by promising to break up IA and NH's hold on the nominating process, and I think you're going to see most if not all of the candidates throwing IA and NH over the rail in their manuverings to win the post.  

          by DHinMI on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:01:12 PM PDT

          •  I hope you're right

            Abandoning IA and NH would be really easy ways to show how "reform" minded you are, even if you're not.

            On another note, Mark Brewer's efforts to get the state chairs to vote as a bloc are doomed to failure.

            by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:23:28 PM PDT

            •  Two Different Things

              I'm not sure he believes he can or would want them to vote as a bloc, but he's trying to get them to withold committing to candidates as a bloc, so that their bargaining leverage is greater than if they all fractured and started supporting candidates before squeezing them to get concessions important to the state party organizations.  

              by DHinMI on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:28:52 PM PDT

            •  IA and NH

              I spent time in NH for Clark and then was county coordinator for Kerry in an ex-urban county in Ohio near Cleveland. We had 150 volunteers and ran an intense and thorough campaign here. The upshot was that we got Kerry 42.7% where Gore got 39.8% even after going dark in Ohio 3 weeks before the election. In short, Kerry was unelectable here--just as JFK was in 1960--even though JFK was charismatic, ran against an ugly man like Nixon, ran when unions were still strong here, and didn't have to contend with an issue like abortion. Ohio will not elect a Northeast moderate or liberal. But IA and NH keep sending them--Dukakis and Kerry in 2 of the last 5 elections. Ohio is pivotal. Give us a candidate who has a chance here. Clinton, Carter, Johnson, and Truman all won Ohio--all Southerners or, in the case of Truman, from a border state. If you need our help in the general, give us a voice in the primary.

              by mainstreet on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:35:05 PM PDT

              •  Yep . .

                'Cept I don't know if it's necessarily the geographic base of the candidate that's the problem, or whether or not they're moderates or liberals.  It's the way they talk to the midwest, and the persona - we like those plain-talkers.  I'm not going to refight the primaries, but at our caucus (I'm in Portage County) in Youngstown we had DOUBLE the number there as usual.  Of the 800 or so present, well over half went for Dean, followed by a goodly number for Gep and virtual handfuls for the rest, including Kerry.  

                But you are dead on about giving us a voice in the primary.

                Only thing you left out was that while NONE ('cept Kucinich) even bothered with Ohio during the primaries, Bush/Cheney were here every other week.   At the same time that our candidates were bombarding IA and NH, the Republicans were spending time and money in the state that would ultimately decide the election.

                This is such a no-brainer.

                Great post - I'm with ya.

                eileen from OH

                by eileen from OH on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 06:37:24 AM PDT

              •  The Southern Dem usually wins.

                Exactly. Democratic Presidents after the New Deal, with the exception of JFK ( because he was so exceptional) are all southern or rural. Truman, Carter, Clinton are all southern. In 04 we ran an elitist from Mass, what did we expect? Bush Sr even had a hard time during his run from his own party because he was viewed as "Eastern".
                We need a guy from the south that talks funny, apparently.

                by thoreau247365 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:51:17 PM PDT

          •  Another state

            I'm not so sure. I think that at least some of the people in question are NOT willing to cede the MI first-in-primary question. Which, as Kos speculates, pretty much dooms the State chair unity platform.

            by emptywheel on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:58:27 PM PDT

      •  Another case of "But Dean was right"

        That is, his comments about the caucus system that came back to haunt him in Iowa, just like his comment about Hussein's capture not making us safer, were ill-timed but factually correct.

        Iowa is worse than New Hampshire because it is a caucus state where a small percent of the residents make the choice and where the system can be gamed.  This year, for example, there were numerous reports of Kerry people arriving at a caucus early and shutting the doors before 7PM.  And then there was the whole Kucinich-Edwards vote swapping deal. (And lord knows how many other tricks Michael Whouley pulled to ensure a Kerry victory.)

        Also the lack of any kind of absentee voting in Iowa is extremely unfair. When I canvassed for Dean I had several people tell me they wanted to participate, but they worked in the evening so they couldn't. At least if Iowa were not first, most of the incentives for abusing the system would disappear.

        I also suspect that most Iowa residents would be happy NOT to have the "attention" that includes wall to wall political ads, phone calls, and canvassers in the weeks leading up to the election.  Many of the Iowans I encountered were quite grumpy about the whole thing.

        by Jim in Chicago on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 09:49:22 PM PDT

•  Heh

  Funny how Rosenberg is saying all the right things.

  How would it feel to be an "insider"?

  by Armando on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:19:08 PM PDT

  •  Once again

    we are shown clear evidence that the current debate is not "right/left" but "status quo/reform."  Rosenberg is a centrist, started with the DLC, but has broken with them big time.  As to the issues facing the DNC, he and Dean agree on a lot more than they disagree.  But dickheads like Novak continue to peddle this as an ideological battle, rather than a "throw the bums out and start all over again" issue.

    If we are ever going to move forward, these kinds of issues need to be on the table, front and center.  Iowa and New Hampshire as sacred cows should not be more important than winning and advancing our ideas.

    by jsmdlawyer on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:53:16 PM PDT

    •  Oh I'm with kos on this

      Just noting how we read it here and then Rosenberg says it a few days later.

      Good for markos.

      by Armando on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:05:47 PM PDT

•  Systemic racism in the DNC

  Really, folks, this is what Rosenberg is addressing.  African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and many other minorities are not really given a voice in the choice of the DNC presidential candidate because of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primaries.

  If the DNC really wants to be relevant to minority voters, it would do well to listen to Rosenberg.

  by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:22:53 PM PDT

  •  Add all of CT to that list of the voice-less...

    None of the states that I have ever lived in have ever mattered in the selection of the Democratic candidate.  My vote has always been merely symbolic...

    And for that matter, none of my votes cast in the general election have ever really meant anything either.

    I hope this talk of reform doesn't stop with getting rid of Iowa. Why don't we use a dozen representative states to serve as qualifiers, and then having selected the top 2-4 candidates, give every Democrat in the country a chance to vote in a national primary. But that would be too Democratic for the Party, wouldn't it?

    And would someone please order up some EC reform. It's well past time for it to go, and the fact that Bush came close to winning the Popular vote, but losing in the Electoral College should be enough to get the Republicans on board in a move to rid us of the archaic beast.
    

    by DeanFan84 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:12:34 PM PDT

    •  Livin' in the CT

      I understand what you mean.  And we have such potential...Dodd, Blumenthal...we just won't discuss Joementum for now.

      by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:16:05 PM PDT

      •  you talking Go-mentum?

        I hear Lieberman is building some. ;)

        by DeanFan84 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:21:35 PM PDT

        •  Don't tease me like that!

          Seriously...?  Wouldn't that just be too cool for words?

          by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:43:16 PM PDT

•  Yes

  About damn time. Thank you, Simon.

  by DavidNYC on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:23:18 PM PDT

•  Damn Straight

  Now where are the other candidates on this?

  I want to know where each candidate stands on all of the issues before the vote so we can have accountability afterwards.

  by blogswarm on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:26:25 PM PDT

•  asdf

  so what's his idea of a solution?  i'd really hate to see a single day of elections across the country that effectively kills the chances of any candidate w/o massive funding.

  by JoelK in AZ on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:32:47 PM PDT

  •  It looks like he wants to add a few more states...

    ...early on, possibly even before IO and NH.

    Of course, this might just compress the primary schedule even more, so I dunno.

    by Geotpf on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:35:48 PM PDT

  •  No one is saying that

    but the era when insurgent candidates couldn't raise money are over. Case in point was our primaries -- Dean was the insurgent and had more money than the "establishment" candidate, John Kerry.

    Insurgent candidates can raise money in this new environment, and as such, the calendar becomes less important.

    by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:36:00 PM PDT

    •  Money's only part of it

      One of the things I think we ought to note about the Dean campaign was that amid all the oo's and ah's he got for raising lots of money from small donations, he also got people to volunteer their time, effort, and shoe leather. Perhaps that should be as much of a qualification for an early candidate as anything.

      by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:03:56 PM PDT

  •  Rotate, perhaps

    Everyone could take turns being first...

    Actually, any worthy candidate going forth should have massive funding via grassroots/net donations. The problem is, how to avoid simply campaigning in the states with the most population.

    There's got to be some think tank with a good solution to this?

    by Ruth in OR on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:36:38 PM PDT

  •  Don't know what he's proposing

    but I would love to see a mini "Super Tuesday" that's geographically diverse...something like Georgia, New Mexico, Washington State, South Dakota, Illinois and Connecticut or New York State.

    I think we'd see a more diversity in our candidates with this type of selection.

    by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:40:59 PM PDT

•  Go Simon!!! (and Howard) n/t

  by Ruth in OR on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:34:16 PM PDT

•  Regional vs. National Primaries

  This all leads to the issue of whether we should have a national primary day, or at least some form of regional primaries. I prefer the idea of having 4 or 5 regional primary days, because the cost of campaigning in a national primary would be prohibitive for most candidates.  As it is, the candidates count on spending money in states on a progressive basis, with performance in the early primaries being a key element in whether the candidate will have money for the later states.

  A regional primary system, therefore, is more appealing to me. If we adopt such a system, I'd like to see a mix of states from various regions on each primary day. For example, the first primary could include New York, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, Oregon, Montana, and Maryland.  There are states from all different regions, and a mix of sizes and characters.

  by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:34:26 PM PDT

  •  Still, the problem here is...

    ...only canidates who are rich to begin with can campaign in New York, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, Oregon, Montana, and Maryland.

    Somebody needs to go first.

    by Geotpf on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:37:11 PM PDT

    •  Idea on that one...

      Sounds wacky, but if Alabama or Georgia went first the Dems could make a very strong symbolic gesture acknowledging the civil rights movement which led to the Voting Rights Act.

      Seems appropriate after the 2004 election to bring that one up, somehow.

      by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:43:17 PM PDT

    •  shouldn't rule it out

      If getting these states into the early primary stages yields enough positives, then we should try to figure out what to do about the money issue, not automatically let it determine whether or not we can implement a better system.

      by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:45:54 PM PDT

    •  Money

      is no longer an issue. Good candidates will raise money via the netroots. Being "establishment" is no longer a requirement for raising the big bucks.

      by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:27:13 PM PDT

      •  Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, and Carol Mosely-Braun

        Money is still an issue.  Dean was able to raise the money, but there was also a period when Kerry was so tapped out, he had to take a second mortgage on his Louisburg Square townhouse (oh, I was soooo hoping to buy that place at a sheriff's auction!).  Kucinich couldn't raise a dime, and didn't deserve to.  On the other hand, Carol Mosely-Braun was often the only voice of reason, wisdom, and class at the debates, and had a great deal of trouble raising money.  I think she's a prime example of a worthy candidate that couldn't raise money. [She had other problems, being black and female, or rather, I should say that's America's problem that we can't accept a black, female candidate.]

        by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:48:22 PM PDT

        •  I was Sen. Mosely-Braun's constiuent.

          My problems with her had nothing to do with her race or her gender, trust me.
          

          by Kimmitt on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:56:36 PM PDT

          •  What Kimmitt Said!

            If Carol hadn't been so corrupt, she could have stayed in the Senate as long as she wanted. She was an embarrassment.

            I still voted for her, given the alternative, but she lost the votes of anyone who wasn't a yellow dog Democrat with her questionable (that's being nice) use of campaign funds and her cozy relationship with that corrupt Nigerian dictator.

            by Jim in Chicago on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 09:58:05 PM PDT

            •  Cleared up after the election

              Carol Mosely Braun was cleared of all those charges a few months AFTER she lost in her 1998 reelection campaign.  Of course, this wasn't widely reported.

              by jhsu on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 10:34:27 PM PDT

              •  By whom?

                I lived through the contemporaneous accounts of her all expenses paid trips with her "campaign manager"/boyfriend to far flung places and her meetings with Sonny Abacha (sp?).  How could these be "cleared up" after the fact?

                Considering her Senate career started off so promisingly with her standing up to Jesse Helms on the Daughters of the Confederacy thing, the rest of her tenure was a great disappointment.

                by Jim in Chicago on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 11:43:03 PM PDT

    •  A good point

      Having too geographically diverse super primary would be expensive and price some candidates out of the race. Several super primaries that are localized like, west, mid-west etc would be good BUT how do you make it work so that after the first super primary everyone thinks the candidate is chosen??

      What if the primaries were not set in stone. 2004, for instance. The first round were candidates strengths. Home state for each one. 2004 would have been the 8 or so? states of the participating candidates. Or, what if we divided the country naturally along regional lines (west, mid-west, great lakes, east, south) always choosing one from each. Again the cost thing?

      by tchoup on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 05:40:00 AM PDT

  •  Regional rotation

    Would be tough to campaign if the regionals weren't in the same region. But if each regional grouping had a good mix of urban/rural, large/sm that would be good.

    Maybe could draw straws for who goes first, then rotate.

    by Ruth in OR on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:38:47 PM PDT

    •  how about five regions....

      northeast
      maine, vermont, new hampshire, rhode island, connecticut, massachusetts, new york, pennsylvania, new jersey, delaware, maryland

      south
      florida, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, alabama, mississippi, virginia, tennessee, arkansas, louisiana

      midwest
      west virginia, ohio, kentucky, indiana, illinois, michigan, missouri, iowa, wisconsin, minnesota

      central/mountain
      texas, oklahoma, kansas, nebraska, south dakota, north dakota, montana, wyoming, colorado, new mexico

      Pacific/mountain
      california, oregon, washington, idaho, nevada, utah, arizona, hawaii, alaska

      The regions could rotate the start position.  In each region travel costs could be saved as well as some tv buys. The regions are large but certain issues are more important to some regions than others so the candidates could focus on different issues which matter to the different regions.

      Hell, anything is better than having Iowa pick the candidate.

      by magurakurin on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:28:20 PM PDT

      •  That gives me an Idea

        How about using five regions that essentially are vertical stripes. They are close geographically but are diverse since they all have states from the south and north.
        

        by tchoup on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 05:44:59 AM PDT

  •  small building to big

    I like the idea of doing 6 from different regions first, then 12 a few weeks later, then the other 32.

    The problem I see in doing the same number of states in each primary is a situation in which it's already done by the time the second round's over. A progressively bigger round on each also allows for one of the big 3 to get into the mix too. For carrying a quarter of the nation's population, doesn't seem right to me that CA, IL, and NY don't ever get into the early decision making process, but of course we don't want them to throw too much influence around all at once either.

    One of the problems that keeps coming up is the question of money for media buys. It seems to me that if we can figure out something to address how to fund early media exposure on a more equal basis for the initial pool of candidates, then all they're responsible for is transportation, staff, and event booking. And Dean showed in the year before the primaries (as did John Anderson years ago) that you can do that in a car, with one or two people, and shaking babies / kissing hands. Or something like that.

    by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:57:54 PM PDT

  •  Needs to be geographic regions

    For time, travel, advertising considerations, which all equal- for money considerations.

    I like the the idea of regional primaries.

    Rotated every four years.

    Keeps everybody in the game and prevents too much power settling in one place. It would make state parties stronger, by having their state in the spotlight every 16 or 20 years. All the states would get to share in the dollars spent on the primaries.

    by Sherri in TX on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:00:09 PM PDT

    •  The Iowa Problem

      I thought about this, about having all the states in a particular region vote on the same day, but it leads us right back to the Iowa problem. This time, instead of having our candidate chosen by Iowa, the candidate is chosen by the South, or the Midwest, etc.  It's still flawed, but so is the mix idea that I put forward in my original post (because of the money/logistics issue).  

      I'm afraid there isn't a really good system we could adopt, that won't have its flaws too. So maybe what really needs to happen is for a big state such as Illinois, New York, or California to say "we don't give a crap about Iowa and New Hampshire, we're going to have our primary on the same day!"  California made a step towards doing this by moving its primary from June to March, but that wasn't early enough. So instead of moving the primary up into January or February, California moved it back to June.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:15:46 PM PDT

  •  My Suggestion: National Primary

    I posted this awhile ago in basic form and offer it yet again with some modification.

       1.  No campaigning until October 1, 2007.

       2.  Iowa and NH on Tuesday March 1, 2008.  This allows lesser known candidates to compete on a level playing field and become known nationally.

       3.  National run-off primary three months later on April 30, 2008.  The field is narrowed to the top 3 candidates.  All remaining money from losing candidates after debts paid off goes into the DNC pool to fund debates and media.

       4.  National primary two months later on June 30, 2008.

    During the process, multiple television debates, perhaps every two weeks, paid for and on a schedule prepared by the DNC.  These debates could also be done on a round robin basis to allow the candidates more time to state their views.

    In addition, the DNC and candidates, by pooling resources and/or matching funds from the candidates, may jointly pay for TV time for candidates to use as they wish, perhaps in 15 or 30 minute slots.  Better yet, seek free time from the network on a weekly basis, perhaps on the Sunday shows like Meet the Press, etc.

    One more point.  The convention should not be held too soon where there will have to be a media blackout while the other side is not similarly restricted.  (I think this hurt Kerry tremendously.)

    The main idea is curtail the length of the campaign and give voters a greater and shared voice in the decision.

    by citizen53 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:14:10 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but substitute, PA, OH, NM, & FL...

      for IA & NH.

      It'd be great for a warm weather destination for volunteers, btw. (Iowa really blew, and NH was f-ing sub-zero.)

      by DeanFan84 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:24:27 PM PDT

      •  I think it would be unfair...

        to lesser known, lesser funded candidates.

        There is something to be said for retail campaigning in Iowa and NH.

        The three month gap after these contests would erode the momentum that swept Kerry to victory in subsequent primaries only a week or two later.

        by citizen53 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:31:42 PM PDT

        •  Is there?

          Is there value in "retail politics" at the presidential level?

          The general election is a media campaign. I'd want the guy or gal who can best run that campaign in the primary as our nominee.

          by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:40:54 PM PDT

          •  Yes...retail politics is valuable

            My main problem with Iowa and NH is that they unfairly influence what follows.

            Under my plan there is a 3 month cooling period.

            I think Iowa and NH have value for someone who is not well know with less money.  Once such a candidate makes a splash, then he/she must compete the same as all others.

            If there is no opportunity for these "smaller" candidates to open the door, will there ever be such candidates in the future?  How will they otherwise create their opportunity?

            by citizen53 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:53:21 PM PDT

          •  I'm actually in agreement with Kos....

            which is rare. Success in the small states of IA and NH does not correlate with success in the general election.

            by DeanFan84 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:13:34 PM PDT

          •  retail politics...

            ...is not only about politics but about judging a candidate's qualifications for the presidency. New Hampshire voters saw George W Bush up close, for example, and decided he was not fit to serve as President.

            The danger here in thinking of the "media campaign" is that we run the risk of choosing to nominate George W Bushes instead of Howard Deans or Bill Clintons. America doesn't need a second party that runs telegenic vegetables for President, after all.

            by bcarlson33 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 09:11:35 PM PDT

            •  2000 Choices

              Has anybody figured out that limits on convicted felons exclude more voters than live in Iowa or NH?  According to the American Sociology Assn., only 27% of excluded indidviduals are currently in jail.  Multiplying the jail population times 4 gives you nearly 6 million excluded.  And 68% were estimated to vote for Dems..  Enough to have won 2000 easy and to have kept the Senate in Dem control from 1986 to the present. (Their judgement, not mine)

              NH had chosen the eventual President in every election from 1952 through 1988.  Notably choosing Reagan over Bush I (1980), Bush I over Buchanan (1992) and not seeing much in Paul Simon (1988). Since 1988, NH voters seeem to have done a better choice of smelling out trouble than Iowa.

              Since 1976 and Carter's breakthrough, Iowa Dems have exerted a powerful voice against change: Carter over Kennedy, Mondale over Hart, Gore over Bradley, and the non-confrontational Kerry and Edwards.

              The big winnowing for the 2000 season was the straw poll at the Iowa state fair, a money raising tool for the state republican party.  Voters were bussed in and had to pay to vote (which meant that the rich organizations had to pay to get them and then pay for the privilege of voting).  Bush beat out Forbes, the two money candidates, and repeated by a lesser margin in the caucusses.  McCain refused to compete in Iowa.

              On the Dem side, Gore beat Bradley by a 2-1 margin with Bradley's vote against ethanol subsidies turning a closer race into a rout.
              Inheritance issues surrounding Iowa farms were a major factor used to kill estate taxes.

              Despite NH's rejection of Bush, that was that,  Rove uber alles as dirty tricks in SC and FL did the deed.

              In 2004, front-runners Dean and Gephardt were blown away by Kerry's "electability" and Edwards charm.  Iowa was "too nice" for out-of-staters and negative campaigning but not too nice to have embraced the princelet of darkness in the first place.  This time, NH went along.

              Yes, the caucusses "get around" the NH law but at a price: limited participation and a general push away from sharper or more defined candidates towards those who can pull up the votes of "non-viable" candidates.

              by kywddavid on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 03:15:05 AM PDT

  •  A national primary is needed!

    Have several qualifying primaries to whittle the field, then have a national vote with IRV to choose our candidate.

    In this 21st century, with cable channels out the wazoo, and the internet to boot, it is not that expensive to get your message out. I don't need to be bombarded with TV ads and print media to make up my mind...

    Frankly, I am sick of a system that lets a handful of states give us candidates like Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. A national primary would require the winning candidate to have what these losers lacked, --charisma!

    by DeanFan84 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:20:21 PM PDT

    •  IRV!

      I think that's a big huge good point. It was mentioned on another thread about this that one of the problems with regionals skewed voting for regional candidates, I think IRV could be a perfect response to this, plus it could put it into real-world use and get people used to it so that more states (eventually) would consider going to it. I like it.

      by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:26:55 PM PDT

•  I hope so

  I never thought in my lifetime I would see that...

  Now I think I may.

  It's a bad tradition for liberals.

  by pyrrho on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:36:05 PM PDT

•  First in Nation Primary is NH State Law

  Does Rosenberg mention how he plans to change the NH state law which requires that the NH state primary election take place 7 days before any other state?

  We're talking about the Republican presidential primary too.  Does Rosenberg propose to call the shots on that as well?
  

  by JimWilson on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:45:03 PM PDT

  •  What if...

    ...any other state passed a state law saying that it's primary had to be first? The national party isn't bound by one state's (unenforcable) statute.

    All it would take would be for another state (or more than just one) to pass the same law and we break it. I kinda see this as a non-issue.

    by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:48:54 PM PDT

    •  Unenforceable?

      No, it's quite enforceable. Within New Hampshire. The national party isn't bound by the New Hampshire statue, but the New Hampshire election calendar is. If the Dems declare that they won't seat NH delegates if NH votes too early, then NH will vote at its designated time anyhow, and all that will happen is that NH will have been snubbed by the Democrats and the ongoing blue trend in that state will be reversed for no particular gain elsewhere. Candidates will still come, since they were never fighting for the electoral votes in the first place; they were coming to show that they could beat the other candidates. It could be turned into a beauty contest - but they'll still come to show that they can win.

      by realnrh on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:02:00 PM PDT

      •  seriously though

        What do you see happening if California passes an initiative (I'm thinking it'd be an initiative, since they're the perfect example of people voting emotionally for bad ideas) that says by law their primary happens 7 days before New Hampshire's?

        by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:06:19 PM PDT

        •  We'd have an almost 2 year long primary season.

          To have a party primary election ahead of New Hampshire's, California would have to be scheduled for December, 2006 to move the date outside the scope of NH's statute.  That would be a Lovely Idea . . . . an almost 2 year long primary season.

          NH RSA 653:9 states that "The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a Tuesday selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous. Said primary shall be held in connection with the regular March town meeting or election or, if held on any other day, at a special election called by the secretary of state for that purpose."

          by JimWilson on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:15:04 PM PDT

          •  So then in order to break NH's iron grip

            The other 49 states simply have to do primaries the year before. I like it. How's THAT for battle testing? :)

            by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:21:51 PM PDT

      •  Who cares about NH

        with their lousy 2 votes? The amount of damage those uppity white liberals are doing the the Dem Party is several thousand orders of magnitude greater than their stinkin' 2 votes.

        I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker

        by xysrl on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:23:10 PM PDT

      •  enforceable?

        If it's a beauty contest, it will suffer the fate of similar beauty contests in DC and Michigan. The Boston media market is too expensive for candidates to waste resources on when real primaries are being held elsewhere.

        As for snubbed voters, the vast majority won't know the difference. And for the rest, they'll get to see how the rest of the country lived.

        by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:36:47 PM PDT

      •  If the DNC came out with a reformed system....

        that would be all she wrote. NH could not trump a decision made by DC.

        And I disagree about candidates showing up for a "beauty contest" if there are big states and major-league delegates at stake. D.C. had their pageant, and no one even noticed.

        btw, NH should have done a minority recruitment effort years ago if you want a leadership role in the Dem primary process. I hear Manitoba is more diverse than you all...

        by DeanFan84 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:18:24 PM PDT

  •  Rosenberg for national dictator

    Just joking.  It occurs to me that national law supercedes state law, so it may literally take an act of congress...

    ...unless some strong-arming can take place.

    by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:49:02 PM PDT

    •  The State controls Primary Elections

      No political party runs state primary election; the state does.  The state legislature decides who can vote in state primaries; political parties do not.  Read Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Unites State Constitution where it is the states who are delegated the role of selecting electors for the presidential elections.  The Constitution doesn't mention political parties anywhere.

      States don't have to hold primaries at all and political parties cannot force a primary election upon a state.

      At the end of the day, it is the state legislature through lawmaking that determines who will or will not be placed on the ballot for the general election.

      Here are the legal definitions of "Primary Election" in the state of New Hampshire.

      
      652:5 State Primary Election. "State primary election" shall mean an election to nominate a candidate for federal, state, or county office or to choose a delegate to a state party convention.

      652:6 Presidential Primary Election. "Presidential primary election" shall mean an election to choose delegates to a national party convention.
      

      Let Rosenberg (and this thread) rant all you like . . . . it don't matter at all.

      by JimWilson on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:10:59 PM PDT

      •  Great point...but...

        Isn't the fact we can change it one of the wonderful things about our Constitution?

        by grannyhelen on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:18:51 PM PDT

        •  Changing the Constitution

          So let's see how far Bush gets with the "Marriage" amendment to the Constitution.   This arguably has more support amongst the states than would a "federalization" of state elections.

          by JimWilson on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 05:31:23 AM PDT

      •  not binding

        The DNC is not bound to seat those delegates. Anyway, the NH Democratic Party always has caucuses two weeks prior to primary day to start the process of selecting actual delegates. The Primary election is used to merely decide how those delegates' votes are distributed among the presidential candidates.

        by Expo on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:26:07 PM PDT

        •  Writing off entire states . . . . .

          So how many states do you think that the DNC will have to write off altogether by not seating their delegates before your procedural point is driven home?

          Talk about marginalizing the party on a permanent basis!  Are you sure this threat wasn't begun by a mole for the RNC?

          by JimWilson on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 05:35:14 AM PDT

      •  wrong in substance

        the party controls how its delegates to its convention are chosen. the party could, for instance, decide NH's delegates will be selected in caucuses instead of a primary.

        by heterodoxy on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 10:23:13 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't Have To Be...

    ...how the DNC recognizes allocation of delegates.

    Here in Michigan the state party went to a quasi-caucus system for 1996.  The gov and legislature were GOP controlled, and they kept the Dem primary on the same day as the GOP primary.  The state party and the DNC just passed rules that made the caucus the official selection of delegates for the nomination, and the only "Democrat" who put his name on the primary ballot was Larouche.

    Same thing happened again in 2000, which was one of the big reasons that McCain destroyed Bush in the Michigan primary.  Dems weren't voting for Dems that day--our caucus was a couple weeks later--but John Engler had made such a big deal after McCain's suprise win in NH about Michigan being Bush's "firewall" that a lot of Dems went out to vote for McCain just as a way of saying "fuck you" to the almost univerally loathed (by Dems) GOP governor.  

    After that fiasco, the GOP stopped trying to force us to have a primary that was in state law but that the DNC refused to recognize.  

    by DHinMI on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:08:50 PM PDT

•  re

  Sweet.

  Just plain sweet.

  by cookiesandmilk on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 04:58:05 PM PDT

•  Good

  Iowa and New Hampshire are too small to be first. Big states first, I say. Either do this:

  First: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL
  Second: PA, OH, MI, GA, NJ

  Or do this:

  First (swing states): FL, PA, OH, MI
  Second (non-swing states): CA, TX, NY, IL, GA, NJ

  Something like this to represent the big states first. Tiny rural states should be last, while populous, major ones should be first.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:03:18 PM PDT

•  Plus...

  IA and NH are sometimes wrong. In '92, remember, IA picked Harkin and NH picked Tsongas.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:04:54 PM PDT

  •  RE: IA in 1992

    True, but nobody really contested IA seriously, at least not in terms of trying to win it.  Everyone conceded it to Harkin.

    As long as we keep those two states so early, the only way we're likely to have Dem Presidents is if they are Nobel Prize-winning economists from either Iowa or New Hampshire, and the only candidate that fits that bill is fictional, and he's only President on Wednesday nights.  

    by DHinMI on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:13:10 PM PDT

    •  But...

      what a fine fictional President he is!

      by HappyMichBlogger on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 08:32:40 PM PDT

•  The real problem is not who goes first.

  The real problem is ignorant voters who must be "convinced" by inane TV commercials or idiotic talking heads on TV.  The internet is helping educate voters in a more cost-effective way, but its reach is still limited.  Not enough voters do their homework- obviously... look at W!  It's too bad more candidates don't have enough guts to stick it out longer in the primary process.  If they could afford to keep a grass roots organization going in most primary states, they may be able to convince voters in later primaries that are not enamored with the front-runner.  But right now, it's the ability to buy TV ads that counts.

  by TampaCPA on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:17:09 PM PDT

  •  Ignorant voters

    What can be done about this? Civics is not a class apparently that they teach anymore. You have a lot of people on the left who don't even know how their own system works. You have this on the right too, but I expect that of the right.  

    I am a big proponent of the need for greater leadership, but I am also realistic about the fact that there must also be a sea change in the electorate. This seachange must include wanting to understand our system of governance. Does anyone see this happening?

    by bruh1 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:25:08 PM PDT

  •  Ignorant voters

    What can be done about this? Civics is not a class apparently that they teach anymore. You have a lot of people on the left who don't even know how their own system works. You have this on the right too, but I expect that of the right.  

    I am a big proponent of the need for greater leadership, but I am also realistic about the fact that there must also be a sea change in the electorate. This seachange must include wanting to understand our system of governance. Does anyone see this happening?

    by bruh1 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:25:36 PM PDT

•  We have to start over...

  neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city, state by state.  Until we dictate the terms, we have to accept whatever they send to us.  We have to demand real answers from the candidates, not the blather they shove at us now.

  by TampaCPA on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:30:18 PM PDT

•  Why change--and to what?

  It seems to me that NH has done its job. The voters take their responsibility seriously, and big money doesn't have a whole lot of weight compared to what it would have in a larger state.  Furthermore, people here seem to think NH is a rural state, when half of NH is bedroom communities for Boston, which is hardly a cornfield.

  by michael57 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:38:06 PM PDT

  •  Because

    the rest of the country never delegated their right to choose a nominee to NH and IA.

    by kos on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:43:41 PM PDT

    •  But why doesn't...

      the rest of the country step up to the plate and take their right to pick a nominee back? Why do we have to wait for the DNC to change things? Why Can't Big Bad Blue California just say "Fuck You, Iowans! What the hell do you know? You live in a cornfield."

      Hey, I agree that the IA/NH monopoly has to go, but   I have to do a little devil's advocacy. Maybe we should expect a little more from our base in the way of independent decision making.

      by HappyMichBlogger on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 08:45:18 PM PDT

      •  completely agree

        I don't like the system as it stands, but I think it's more a product of the people who are doing the voting...  for whatever reason we in the later states just go along with the apparent winner...  I felt completely defeated after IA and NH this time, and the wait until my turn (in CA) made it all seem like my primary was pointless...

        It also doesn't help that half the candidates have quit by the time we get to vote...  

        by tallawa on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 08:55:53 AM PDT

      •  F*** Iowans?

        As an Iowan, even I agree the Iowa caucus should go.  Although to be fair, while I was for Dean, let's give Iowa a break . . . most Iowa caucus goers were simply doing what the SCLM said they had to do--pick an "electable" meaning prowar candidate. Iowans are not stupid, as their consistent support of Tom Harkin shows.  And had the caucus been held in November Dean would have swept the state.

        But two more things:  I disagree with using the "f" word on this site . . .shouldn't we want future Democrat kid voters on here without Dad sweating the content?  There is usually a better way to express oneself than to use obscenity. Ask Dick Cheney.

        The second thing:  that kind of attitude (you Iowans don't know anything you live in a cornfield) is exactly the kind of elitism that turns a potentially blue state red.  Read Tom Frank's book on Kansas.

        And this from a Michigander yet:  I grew up in Michigan and consider the two states as prety much identical on the provincialism scale.

        by wallyh on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 12:41:44 PM PDT

        •  these bizarre threats

          not the worst in this post, but in this and the southern/confederate states diaries are these threats that go something like this: "if you don't .... then a blue state goes red or a red state doesn't go blue."

          my question to those of you in the red states is this: who are you hurting by voting R? you're hurting yourselves. stop acting like you're giving the Ds a gift by voting D- you are giving yourself a gift by voting D. and we won't charge you for it.

          by heterodoxy on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 12:48:28 PM PDT

          •  "red state"

            Is a conservative frame.

            How strange to think a whole state thinks alike.  And how bizarre to be patronized as part of a collectivity.  

            Iowa is not so rural as the Michigander above posited . . . it has been majority urban since the 50's.  My (urban) county went 55% for Kerry.

            Iowa would more accurately be described as purple, since it went to Bush by 10,000 votes, and supported every Dem from 1984 on.

            The big problem with the Iowa caucus remains race . . . we need to pick a candidate who excites African-Americans and Iowa is too white to do that.

            But read Thomas Frank . . . it would be nice for the Dems to have a national majority, and with attitudes like those above it'll be a long time coming.

            by wallyh on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 02:04:51 PM PDT

  •  Two words-- Mondale & Dukakis!

    What if we all had a say in deciding our nominee? Would that upset you?

    by DeanFan84 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:20:39 PM PDT

•  i have a vote

  If those comments are accurate, Rosenberg has a storng chance to get my vote. As I have posted before here and other places, "The DNC must have a rule that if a state has not elected a democrat to the US senate in the last 6 years, you do not get an early primary."

  I have no problem with Iowa, they elect Harkin, but New Hampshire should not get the incredible money and attention every 4 years since the dems in that state are unable to do what dems in my state,nebraska do, and have done since 1976- elect democrats to the US senate-as does North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Montana etc.

  Real reform starts with getting rid of New Hampshire, why reward dems who do not work as hard as the rest of us? Unfortunately New Hampshire makes every candidate swear allegaince to the primary every 4 years-that is how we got a commmission set up by the Chair which has a built in conflict of interest, New Hampshire dems are on it- the New Hampshire dems should go do what we do in Nebraska-work hard and elect a senator.

  by nebraska on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:39:57 PM PDT

  •  That idea is wrong on so many levels...

    ...quid pro quo, eh? Why punish the VOTERS for the mistakes state POLITICIANS make?  

    by crazymoloch on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:44:59 PM PDT

  •  I have a vote

    My name is Vince Powers, recently elected national committeeman from Nebraska.

    If a candidate supports the present primary system , she or he will nto get my vote (unless I have no alternative)

    If a state can not elect a democratic US senator, then they should not get a primary before April.

    by nebraska on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:45:01 PM PDT

    •  spell check

      I need it don't I?
      

      by nebraska on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:54:21 PM PDT

•  I don't quite know how to say this...

  ...GOOD BYE ETHONAL SUBSIDY. Time to start growing stuff we need or modernize.

  by crazymoloch on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:40:19 PM PDT

•  Where's the math/poli-sci/game theory folks?

  Seen lots of suggestions for ways to do this, haven't seen anything from anyone who's studied electoral systems. Surely we have some academics in the community who know the ins and outs of the game theory behind this kind of problem?

  by chiggins on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 05:41:33 PM PDT

•  This is reform???

  Changing the state that has the first primary is not reform. Iowa and New Hampshire weren't as important in the past when the primary schedule wasn't so compacted. Bill Clinton became president without winning Iowa or New Hampshire. George W. didn't win New Hampshire, it was South Carolina where he won it. Besides, Iowa and New Hampshire are battleground states. If a Democrat can't win in a primary there, he ain't gonna win the general election.

  If this "reform" truly is a priority, then why bother. This party has a lot more to reform than changing what states have their primaries first.

  The first reform is to get rid of the compacted primary process that gave us John Kerry. The primary process needs to go as long as possible to  make sure the final candidate can win in a long term campaign.

  But seriously, let's find other things to reform. Like getting the elitist, insider, corporate hacks out of this party.

  by MaxPower on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:03:30 PM PDT

  •  exactly

    while i've got my own personal regional grudges against iowa and new hampshire (as a californian, it seems i am irrelevant politically except as an ATM), i really think the bigger problem is, as you said, the truncated primary. other things that need to end are (in no particular order):

    calls for "unity" at the beginning of a primary season, undemocratic caucuses in general, inane content-free "horserace" coverage, "electability," and above all the general obsession in the punditry (kossacks included, sadly) over magical formulae for primary wins that seriously leads people to look at election returns in two tiny-ass states as if they were reading entrails, instead of just letting the voters of all 50 states have their say and choose whomever the party likes the best.

    at the rtoot of it, i think, is the party leadership (and in fact many rank-and-file dems)'s general embarassment of its own voters. hence the concern with swing states and the "heartland" and the fetishization of the southern accent as some political elixer. all i ask is that as a californian and a loyal yellow-dog liberal democrat that i not be treated by my own party like a leper.

    by wu ming on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:15:42 PM PDT

    •  Just as long as you announce...

      "Unclean" when approaching people on the street!

      by TampaCPA on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:22:53 PM PDT

•  Amen!

  Nothing against Iowa and New Hamphshire, but there is no reason why they should be so much more important in the primary process then all other states, while others have virtually no role.  The system needs significant change.  All states should have a part to play; maybe on a rotating basis.

  by SGlennW on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:21:44 PM PDT

  •  I live in Florida...

    I voted early in March (before Edwards dropped out).  I didn't care who won Iowa or New Hampshire.  I voted for the candidate I agreed with the most.

    If people would just think for themselves when they vote, it wouldn't matter who goes first.  Democracy ain't easy!  You gotta work hard for it.  (The American President)

    by TampaCPA on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 06:27:17 PM PDT

•  Value of the NH 1st primary

  I know it's a familiar argument that might not be taken very seriously, but I completely buy the line of thought that giving a small state the chance to meet a candidate up close and repeatedly is a good way to start the candidate-vetting process.

  I can't really speak to Iowa, because I don't understand the way the caucus works well enough, but I've seen to NH primaries up close now, and I'm sold.  Here you have a more-literate-than-average population with a tradition of up-close democracy and civic participation who really will show up at all the candidates' events, repeatedly, and weigh their relative benefits.  

  Kos questioned upthread whether the presidential race is really about retail politics, and I think the answer is that it is when it can be.  We (some of us) championed the inclusiveness and grassroots empowerment of the Dean campaign - don't you think the grassroots impulse is strengthened by a quality flesh-pressing experience? We all know that despite one's best intentions to vote based on a candidate's policies, gut-level and subconscious personal impressions have a huge effect.  Do you want those impressions to come exclusively through the filter of our idiotic national media?  Won't the media image of any contender will be colored by local buzz and the first man-on-the street interviews in the early primary states?  Do you want those interviews coming from people who had the candidate sitting in their house, or from people who saw him at an auditorium or only on the local news?

  I know that NH is full of white yankees and agree that that's unfair and very possibly counterproductive.  But how likely is NH Democratic voters' white yankeeness to make them select a truly inappropriate candidate for black southerners or hispanic southwesterners?  Do you really think we're going to finally get a chicano president by starting the primaries off in New Mexico?  Nonwhite, non-northeastern sensibilities really do count to be sure, but I'm not convinced there's so much to be gained that we want to chuck the value of real, meatspace, candidate vetting.

  Remember that those NH primary voters picked McCain over Bush in spite of Bush being the establishment choice with a lot of powerful backing and an assload of money.  They were right - McCain was the better candidate.  I can't say if Tsongas was a better candidate than Clinton, but he was still a good one, with a lot of crossover appeal.  Dean had an early and for a while, a large lead over Kerry here, and had it not been for the squeezed schedule and sense of panic among Democrats, it's very likely Dean would have won NH.  And I know a certain portion of us here think he was the best candidate.

  That's what I'm getting at: if you want to select a candidate who's actually likely to be the best president, then send him to a small, low-population state where the voters will get up in his face and smell his breath and report to the  media standing by what they find.  If you just want a candidate who's dynamite on TV, then send him anywhere and let the media stooges make all the decisions. The larger the forum, the more power you give them.

  by cerebrocrat on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:44:57 PM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    Exactly what I've been trying (less successfully) to say over the last few weeks. New Hampshire did its job and turned blue. Blame the frontloading, not the NH primary.

    by bcarlson33 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 09:00:46 PM PDT

•  Regional/Population rotation

  Divide the 50 states into 5 geographical groups of 10 states each by region.

  Divide the same 50 states into 5 population groups by size of democratic enrollment within the state.

  Hold 10 primaries 2 weeks apart starting in January and ending in May.

  Each primary day would have 2 states from each geographical region.

  Each primary day would attempt to have 2 states from each democratic population grouping (not all geographical regions have an equal mix of big, semi-big, medium, sorta-small, and small democratic populations).

  Regional diversity is paramount.

  Population diversity is secondary.

  by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:52:10 PM PDT

  •  Whoops...

    ... mixed my plans. Either hold 10 primaries two weeks apart of 5 states each or one monthly primary of 10 states each.

    by Andrew C White on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 07:56:32 PM PDT

•  I agree with Simon and the reformers

  The good folks of IA and NH are going to scream bloody murder, but they should no longer have first choice on deciding Democratic Party Presidential nominees.  Yeah, I know that the nomination process has to start somewhere, but I don't think that it was mandated by God/Jehovah/Allah/Buddha/The Goddess...etc. that it be IA and NH.  Of course, I don't think that there is an easy answer on how we decide to nominate a candidate.

  We could let IA and NH stay put, but add a couple of more states to the mix.  Maybe they can be 2 or 3 states from other regions in the U.S.?  Think about it.  We here in blogland have been discussing the Democratic Party's geographical voting problem for sometime now.  Translation:  Except for the Northeast and West Coast, Democrats have problems in the other regions of the U.S., when it comes to national elections that is (Yes, I know that we are doing better at the state level, and we need to build on that).  IA could still represent the Midwest, and NH could represent the NorthEast.  But maybe we could add both a Western and Southern state to the mix?  Or even a Border state?  

  Yes, I know that this would help out the candidate with the most money (in theory that is), so to try and even the playing field, we don't pick huge states (CA and TX).  Some of the other Western states are just a problem with the large area to cover (Montana for one), but I don't think that Montana is hugely expensive to advertise in.  Or am I wrong?  A medium size state in the South for campaigning would be NC.  There is plenty of voter diversity in NC, and we also have an active and relatively strong state Democratic Party.

  I'm not sure if a national primary is a good idea though.  The Southern Dems tried that with Super Tuesday, and the first big winner for that was Mike Dukakis.  It was a nice idea to try Super Tuesday to increase Democratic voter turnout of centrists in the primaries, but it did not work in practice.  Once again, the weakening of state Democratic Parties in the Southern states may have played a role in the decline of Democratic primary voter turnout.

  I'm just throwing out ideas...

  by Merlin1963 on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 08:06:48 PM PDT

  •  Good point

    As a Southern Super Tuesday voter, by the time we voted it still felt like a vote for the perceived "annointed", or a protest vote.  

    by southernblues on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 11:27:08 PM PDT

•  Simon Says

  All the more reason to back Rosenberg for DNC chair.

  by Avenging Angel on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 10:13:47 PM PDT

•  given the last two elections

  . . . why not OH and FL?

  Personally, though, I'd like to add three more battlegrounds: MO, AR, and CO.

  All five in one day.

  by agoldnyc on Fri Dec 17, 2004 at 10:31:52 PM PDT

•  Math is our friend

  The best solution is one that gives us the best chance of winning, right? How about applying some math?

  Great solution on LIBteam.com: Multi-phased primary with the first states to go being the swing states (defined by objective measure, like say 5% difference in popular vote between candidates) from the most recent presidential election.

  The second phase (say all states that were within 10 points between the candidates) would then have their say -- if it's not decided or at least greatly narrowed by then. Finally, in a really tight primary with a couple great candidates, the very red and very blue states would vote and tip the balance to the eventual winner. This way the candidate most likely to play well in swing states is most likely to be the nominee.

  We know the Republicans are afraid of science so let's use it ourselves to win! Let them continue to let the Deep South choose their candidate and we'll let the mainstream voters in the swing states choose ours.
  Seems like a good idea to me....

  by General Disarray on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 12:23:10 AM PDT

•  Riddle me this

  I have asked over and over again what the hell does Simon do to pick his candidates to sponsor for the NDN. I am  getting quite sick of the false bravado for this man while completely and intentionally refusing to answer bascic questions about his work with the NDN.

  • Yes we know that the man is good with computers...

  • Yes we know that Al From hates Rosenberg...SO FUCKING WHAT!!!

  Rosenberg still has made his entire career out of steering the Democratic party towards agreeing with the same issues as the Republican party.

  Rosenberg has made his ENTIRE career out of keeping libruls out of power.

  Even if he and MR. From disagree they played Batman and Robin to kick Mike Mile out of the Senate race in Colorado and to install a DLCer Salazar who is already licking his lips to kick some librul butt.

  FUCK ROSENBERG AND FUCK THESE BIAS-ASSED DIARIES FROM KOS WHO STILL REFUSES TO ANSWER SOME BASIC QUESTIONS...

  • HOW DOES ROSENBERG PICK CANDIDATES TO FUND? IT is said that he has a questionaire to weed out any trouble makers(read Librals) for his corporate clients.

  • WHERE IN THE HELL DOES ROSENBERG GET HIS MONEY FROM, BECAUSE IT IS FOR DAMN SURE IT IS NOT THE SMALL DONOR.

  These Rosenberg puff pieces are bullshit. I wouldn't get so made if there was aleast an attempt to be biased.

  by Genf on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 06:20:51 AM PDT

•  what is Rosenberg trying to fix?

  Be careful of "reformers" that want to manipulate to get their way.

  First we should discuss what's the problem with the presidential primary process.

  by Carl Nyberg on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 09:37:41 AM PDT

  •  did you miss the numerous posts on this subject?

    IA and NH are not even remotely representative of america. even if you add SC into the mix, the fact that, 8 times out of 10, the nomination is over before, for instance, urban persons of color have voted in anny numbers, show the system is biased towards conservative whites.

    by heterodoxy on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 10:25:10 AM PDT

    •  follow up Qs

      Which was the first primary?

      How did the Dem establishment treat the first primary?

      What's the likely solution to get more Blacks in the front of the primary process? Will the Dem leaders move-up the influence of Dixie?

      by Carl Nyberg on Sun Dec 19, 2004 at 04:16:29 PM PDT

•  You know...

  it's also worth pointing out that Americans didn't always choose their candidates via the primary system.  The conventions used to have an actual nominating function.  I'm not saying go back to the days of the smoke-filled back rooms, but I've always thought that the primary system is just way too long, complicated, and expensive, and it doesn't frankly result in the best candidate (usually) being nominated.  Any chance of just getting rid of it in favor of something else entirely?

  by greenknight on Sat Dec 18, 2004 at 10:03:54 PM PDT