Skip to main content

The Michigan Senate passed yesterday a bill moving up its primaries to Jan. 15, getting one step closer to really screwing Iowa. Too bad state Democrats are standing in the way.

The Michigan proposal, which passed the state Senate by a vote of 21-17, would push the primary six weeks ahead of its originally scheduled date of Feb. 26, and leapfrog the Feb. 5 threshold both major national parties have set for most states to begin holding presidential primaries and caucuses. The Michigan action came, coincidentally, a day after Arizona joined the pileup of nearly 20 states that will or appear likely to hold their primaries and caucuses exactly on Feb. 5.

Should the Michigan measure become law, the state would exceed the front-loading efforts of the previously most aggressive front-loading states: South Carolina, where the Republican Party announced earlier this month that it will hold its primary on Jan. 19, and vote-rich Florida, where a law enacted in May pegs Jan. 29 as the primary day for both parties. Florida officials made this move in the face of stiff sanctions threatened by officials of both national parties, which if carried out could strip the state of many or even all of its delegates to the summer 2008 presidential conventions — a warning that almost certainly would also pertain to Michigan if it went ahead with the Jan. 15 plan.

Michigan Republican Party spokesman Bill Nowling said the state GOP did not want to go against national party rules, but that the push for an earlier primary was necessary to keep Michigan — the eighth most-populous state — relevant in the process of picking the nominees to succeed President Bush in the White House.

The fact that the Michigan bill also must pass the Democratic-controlled state House, however, lends some serious doubt about its prospects for enactment. The effort is largely a venture of the state’s Republicans: The state Democratic Party has scheduled a separate caucus for Feb. 9 to comply with Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules. State Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer opposes the proposed shift to Jan. 15 and called the state Senate’s action “unfortunate.”

Still, Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said she would sign the bill into law.

This would force New Hampshire to move its primary up to the first week of January, and leave Iowa out in the cold -- state law requires its contest to be one week before any other contest, but ALSO take place the same year of the presidential election. So something will have to give. It'll have the unenviable task of scheduling its caucuses either during hangover time post-New Years, or around Christmas.

And what about DNC threats to not seat Florida and Michigan delegates? Not going to happen, as Jerome says.

Michigan and Florida have courageously decided to send more than a message to New Hampshire and Iowa, that they don't own the primary calendar. In response, the DNC is threatening those two states with stripping of their delegates:

"You are going to see big signs on the floor of the Democratic Convention that say `Florida' and `Michigan' and you are going to see rows of empty seats beneath them," one DNC member warned.

What stupidity.  What kind of statement would that send to the swing states of Florida and Michigan for the general contest? I don't care what sort of threats the DNC makes, they are empty. Florida is going to be the big enchilada for the 2008 Democratic nomination. All their delegates will count. The DNC rules committee, and whatever they fancy their power to be, is irrelevant and will not be able to do anything, other than agree that they created this situation with their timidity and lack of providing a substantive solution to the calendar problem.

Amen. Hopefully we can find a real solution to the primary calendar problem for the 2012 cycle that acknowledges and reflects the diversities of our country and gives more Americans, not just those in Iowa and New Hampshire, a say in their politics.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:44 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh Poop! I have NOTHING to wear!!! (nt) (5+ / 0-)
  •  So is it good or bad for Hillary if Michigan (5+ / 0-)

    moves it up? I don't want to give her any more momentum; I'm hoping Iowa puts a dent in her crown.

    My file on Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

    by adigal on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:43:54 AM PDT

    •  It's bad for everyone (18+ / 0-)

      It is a horrible idea to have a nominee decided 9.5 months before the election.

      All the states are acting like huge babies and there are no adults to be found anywhere...

      Why won't you give the glasses-wearing security kittens a chance to work?

      by bawbie on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:48:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  well... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, adigal, prodigal, madgranny

      I believe Clinton is leading in every state other than Iowa, so naturally it would help her. Here's Michigan:

      Removing the breathing space between Iowa and the rest will definitely screw Edwards.

    •  National primary=Hillary coronation instead of (14+ / 0-)

      a meaningful race.

      Why not just go all the way and have Gallup pick our nominee?

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:00:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the majority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        want Hillary, then so be it. I think a national primary is the most democratic solution.
        •  The majority doesn't pay close attention to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          the race--even primary voters.

          A smart, somewhat unfair process is preferable to an utterably dumb but perfectly fair one.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:25:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Show me a smart system (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            and I might agree. What we have now is both unfair and dumb.

            •  Sensible... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              A basic problem with the primary is that it's unclear what the purpose of the primary is.

              Ostensibly it's a process for parties to identify their strongest candidates, but then it doesn't make sense for tax dollars to be spent on it, or for state governments to run it.

              Basically, the appropriate method for picking strong general election candidates is to run strong telephone polling on all of the plausible head-to-head matchups in all of the regions, and then use that information to determine a candidate, let the parties pay for it, and ditch the current primary process entirely.

              (I say regions because some states can split electoral votes.)

        •  A majority has no clue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          on what the candidates stand for.

          Deciding in January is like passing a bill in Congress right away without reading it, and we all know how well that works.

          And this retarded primary schedule also will screw every one of our primary challengers to Bush Dog Dems, how is that going to help progressives?

          The only ones who have made Iowa and New Hampshire the deciders for political nominees is the corporate media, not me, Kos or anyone else but them.

          Screwing those states only serves to piss them off and create a new media narrative, "How the Democrats lost Iowa and New Hampshire" in stentorian tones.

      •  I simply don't get Markos's obsession (9+ / 0-)

        with destroying the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. It's as if he's totally incapable of seeing what a disaster a national primary would be for everyone.

        The Iowa/NH monopoly is a problem--there needs to be serious reform, but a huge national primary that pits candidates who can spend the most on ads in big states versus those that can't and would otherwise be able to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire is a disaster--and it ensures a Clinton victory to boot.

        We all want more diversity and a bigger voice for Democrats across the country, but a national primary is about the worse possible way to go about it.

        "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

        by michael1104 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:13:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kos is advocating reform (a rotating system) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          not a national primary...

          Why won't you give the glasses-wearing security kittens a chance to work?

          by bawbie on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:17:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  but he's ecstaric about this de facto (4+ / 0-)

            national primary occurring. The old (or soon to be old) system is FAR preferable to the race of states to be first. There is absolutely nothing to be happy about here.

            It's not enough to simply believe that was is happening now will usher in some kind of rotating primary system for 2012. The 2008 election is too damn important to wait for this national primary disaster to possibly bring in some reform for 2012.

            "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

            by michael1104 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:20:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This isn't reform. And if it results (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Duckman GR, bawbie

            in the DLC running the party via a Hillary nomination, you can forget about reform.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:29:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No offense to NH and IA (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theran, Geekesque

          But those are two of the least diverse states in the nation, at least places like Nevada, Florida and Michigan has populations close to the national make-up. Plus, the candidates will have different issues to address in each of these other states as well.

          •  I favor an orderly reform--not a race (0+ / 0-)

            where the only result is a coronation instead of an election.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:14:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's not about diversity (0+ / 0-)

            Although 57+ languages are spoken in the homes of NH families, we are admittedly mostly white.  This issue isn't diversity, it's about being open minded and without prejudice.

            This is roughly the story as I remember it from hearing a talk by William Gardner, the NH sec'y if State who is charged by law with keeping the NH Primary first in the nation:

            When Branch Rickey was contemplating the integration of major league baseball he tried an experiment by having a black player play in a minor league game in New Hampshire.  It was his contention that New Hampshire citizens were fair minded and if they came out to a baseball game and saw a black player on the field, they would be most concerned with whether he could field, run, throw and hit, and not the color of his skin.  Rickey was right and that gave him what he needed to hire Jackie Robinson.

            Democracy isn't something you have, it's something you do! "Granny D"

            by chuck in NH on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 03:40:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Geek, this whole election... (0+ / 0-)

        is a travesty.  We should be focusing on getting out of Iraq, solving global warming, preventing FISA expansion NOW, not in 2009.  

        This early, intense race has detracted from meaningful change now.

        Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

        by dansac on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:24:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Choosing a nominee who will actually get us out (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dansac, extradish, dpg220

          of Iraq is a pretty damn important consideration.

          Hillary won't get us out of Iraq any more than Lyndon Johnson got us out of Vietnam.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:26:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And it will harm primary challengers (0+ / 0-)

          to useless Dems.  A good challenge needs money, but now everybody is going to be scrambling to get cash from everybody at the same time, it'll be like making your house payments for the whole year on January 31st.  Who has the cash to do that, but that's what this is going to do to the electoral process.

          Oh, and really make fund raising a year round year in year out occupation.  The best fund raisers do not equate to the best candidates, some are and some aren't.

          What's happening here is that the Democrats are fucking themselves in the ass with broken beer bottles, pissing away our chances to put a stake in the neo-cons and the Blue Dogs and the Fascists and the Corporations because we're going to be stuck with the same Congress and all of the losers like Feinstein and Salazars and Nelsons and so on, and we'll be lucky to win the White House.

          Brilliant.  Makes me want a Guinness.  Oh, and sorry about the graphic image there, but it's like showing the flag draped coffin of one of our brave souls in the military, needed to make the point, but not of course an equally weighted graphic.

      •  Let's get the nasty business of elections OVER. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Duckman GR

        Democracy is icky. This business of voting before the lobbyists tell us what "the people want" is wasting time and energy and delaying the day HRC tells us what's what.  Lights off, eyes closed, think of the flag and get the damn thing over with.

        Read Obama's 2002 speech against invading Iraq.

        by Inland on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:53:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It would be great for clinton (0+ / 0-)

      I wish people would realize that at this point in time most people in the early states, especially Iowa and New Hampshire, have had a chance to see candidates multiple times and judge them on more than just headlines in any paper or even these blogs.  right now it would be clinton all the way if for nothing else name ID.  I would love to see how crazy things could get if the campaigns felt they had to shift the massive organizing and effort they have put in early to some either florida or michigan.  

  •  Its been foolish for years that the big states (4+ / 0-)

    have no voice in the picking of the nominee. I wish we would find a way to put ourselves first out here in CA.  More likely to get a progressive Democrat and a true wingnut gooper.

    "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

    by NearlyNormal on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:45:04 AM PDT

  •  Empty seats at the convention? (0+ / 0-)

    Oh, the horror!

  •  Glad it is a primary and not a caucus (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, cartwrightdale, Luetta

    The UAW would have dominated the caucus and pulled off a victory for Edwards. Go Michigan, indeed.

    "The struggle of humanity against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

    by LV Pol Girl on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:45:21 AM PDT

    •  MI's Caucuses (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf, lpackard, mcfly, Chairman Bob

      Are not caucuses.

      They're elections that 1) we allow people to vote in online, and 2) simply can take place at fewer locations than a primary.

      By calling it a caucus, too, the party gets to control things. One of the issues at play here will be whether a primary is open or not.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for the info... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Voting online is something I did not know. I thought it would be similar to Iowa's. Good for Michigan's Democratic Party.

        "The struggle of humanity against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

        by LV Pol Girl on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:01:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, Luetta, LV Pol Girl

          The online voting is a plus.

          The fewer location is a drawback.

          But at least, unlike IA's caucus, we make it easy for people who work evenings to vote.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:08:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Few locations are definitely a draw back. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LV Pol Girl

            People don't know where to go.  Our county -- Kalamazoo -- will only have 3-4 polling places if it is a "caucus."  In 2004 it was hard to find out where to go to vote.  I feel turnout will be much higher if the usual polling places are used.  And as for it being an open primary, where anyone can say they are a dem and vote in the dem primary...the Republicans have their own primary this year where they will want to have their voice heard.  It's only when there is already an anointed candidate that people are inclined to cross over and make mischief for the other side.

          •  That's why the Democrats are resisting (0+ / 0-)

            they want to hold the caucus on Saturday, when turnout is likely to be higher...

            Plus, they is the issue of costs. The state primary the Republicans are proposing will cost the state $12 million at a time when the Senate Republicans are trying to nuke the state budget...

            Letting the party's hold a caucus will shift the costs onto the state parties. And since we ran one last time, we are better prepared to do this than the Republicans are.

  •  Edwards would be screwed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, Phil S 33, Stephen Cassidy

    If Iowa becomes even more irrelevant, then his win there may not help him as much as he needs.

    "You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis." - Tyler Durden

    by RandySF on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:45:37 AM PDT

  •  Again... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bawbie, Oke, mcfly, UndercoverRxer, Aaron Bonn

    Blame the candidates who drop out after Iowa and NH, not the good and honest people who have the gall to vote in their party's caucus and primary.  

    aka "The Man" Holding you down since 1973

    by clonecone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:46:05 AM PDT

  •  If I were a Republican, I'd be shouting (0+ / 0-)

    "Constitutional Amendment!"

    No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other. -- Jascha Heifetz

    by Memory Corrupted on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:47:26 AM PDT

  •  anytime any post says go Michigan (6+ / 0-)

    I will support it.  Go Blue!

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:47:45 AM PDT

  •  OK, this is getting rediculous... (15+ / 0-)

    ...and I say this as a Michigan resident.

    I don't give a crap who goes first, but there should be some sort of law requiring every primary, caucus or whatever they want to call it take place no earlier than, 6 months before the general election (in this case, May 4, 2008). All 50 states + territories etc then have a 90-day window to hold their contest, culminating in the conventions, each of which has to take place sometime in August. September and October are reserved for general election campaigning, and that's that.

    •  And yeah, I know I misspelled "ridiculous" (4+ / 0-)

      Actually, I do care who goes first; as I've suggested before, set it up like this:

      Break the country into 5 regions of 10 states each: Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northwest, Southwest (Alaska goes with Northwest, Hawaii goes with Southwest).

      Starting the first week of May, the lowest-population state from each region holds it's primary/caucus. A week later, the next-lowest in each region holds theirs, and so on. After 10 weeks, it's over (D.C. and other "territories" can be spread amongst the others like croutons).

      By spreading out the geography, you're guaranteeing a diverse ethnic/socio-economic mix. By starting with the lowest-population states, you're ensuring that the lower-funded candidates have a chance of building momentum.

      •  But if the national party has no control over (0+ / 0-)

        when a state votes, especially if it is a big state or a swing state, then how do you ever get a plan like that, or any other plan, in place?

        If there is no controlling entity, then there is anarchy, and the big, powerful states will come out on top.  The smaller states will be pushed aside and left in the wake.  We need someone to plan this at the national level, a party leader with authority, but unfortunately that doesn't exist.

        Why won't you give the glasses-wearing security kittens a chance to work?

        by bawbie on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:01:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Alternately, set it up like the NCAA Final Four. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Each state gets to nominate one candidate for each party. The nominees are matched up against other states at random. Think of the possibilities! Michigan VS Utah! S. Dakota VS New Jersey!

        McDonalds can be made the Official Sponsor and can hold their own contest to go along with it--pick the nominee and YOU WIN a new 2009 Dodge Durango (or a small chocolate shake)!

      •  Lowest population (0+ / 0-)

        You'd have to check my numbers, but wouldn't the 5 lowest population states be:

        • Vermont
        • Wyoming
        • Alaska (depending on where you put WY)
        • North Dakota (depending on where you put WY)
        • Hawaii (depending on where you put WY)
        • Arkansas (depending on where you put Delaware and whether you consider DC a state)

        Unless you include DC, that provides meaningful diversity exactly how???

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:06:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hm. OK, then, include D.C. the first week... (0+ / 0-)

          ...and Hawaii would have some ethnic diversity, no?

          Actually, here's how I'd divvy it up:

          Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland (plus DC).

          Florida, Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Virginia

          Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, W. Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa

          Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Hawaii

          Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota

          (yeah, I know that it's quite a stretch to call "Pennsylvania" part of the Midwest--just call 'em "Region 1" "Region 2" and so on, then...)

        •  Though on second thought (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brainwrap, bawbie

          This would mean native peoples would have an incredibly big influence on the selection of our presidential candidate. That's not a bad idea--let Native Americans pick the President.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:16:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  OK, I actually did look up the numbers... (0+ / 0-)

          Based on the 2006 population estimates, and based on the region breakdown I suggested in my other comment, here's how it would work if you went from lowest to highest population within each region, each week:

          WEEK ONE:
          D.C., Vermont, W. Virginia, Wyoming, Arkansas, Hawaii

          (nice mix of ethnicity and wealth)

          WEEK TWO:
          Delaware, Iowa, N. Dakota, Mississippi, New Mexico

          WEEK THREE:
          Rhode Island, Kentucky, Alaska, Louisiana, Nevada

          WEEK FOUR:
          New Hampshire, Wisconsin, S. Dakota, S. Carolina, Utah

          WEEK FIVE:
          Maine, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Kansas

          WEEK SIX:
          Connecticut, Indiana, Idaho, Tennessee, Oklahoma

          WEEK SEVEN:
          Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Virginia, Colorado

          WEEK EIGHT:
          Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, N. Carolina, Arizona

          WEEK NINE:
          New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Georgia, Texas

          WEEK TEN:
          New York, Illinois, Washington, Florida, California

      •  Exactly!.. (0+ / 0-)

        ..and that ALL states/territories are represented in the decision process, reducing at least some of the unfair influence advantage that certain states now enjoy, as well as the "follow-the-money" greed we now have with the current system. Kudos!

    •  Why'd you want to make such good sense of things? (0+ / 0-)

      Everyone loves this crazy mixed-up mess---that way no one knows "Who's on first?"

      Time for a national primary.

    •  You would kill all the fun? (0+ / 0-)

      that US political junkies would have

      LIFE * I have lived enough of it to know that I am still a pupil.

      by Luetta on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:24:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What an incredibly stupid trend (8+ / 0-)

    I don't believe the American people benefit from this incredible waste of resources and diversion of political energy to the presidential campaign.

    The whole thing should be able to start in June.

  •  While Iowans and New Hampshirans (7+ / 0-)

    have definitely had disproportionate say in presidential elections, this mad rush to the start of '08 is happening in so many states that it's starting to look like a highway merge-in lane that one in three drivers insist on cutting into to butt in front of 20 cars or so.  End of metaphor.

    Point is, in the mad rush for relevancy, eventually all states will join in and then there will be 11 months between the primaries and the generals.  I can't think of anything more headache-inducing.

  •  Let's have the 2008 primaries next week (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cleveland Dem

    It'll make for some good TV.  Or not.

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:49:33 AM PDT

  •  This isn't exatly good news... (6+ / 0-)

    for all the Edwards supporters on DailyKos, of which there are many, including me.

    I'm all for reforming the primary process, but this haphazard pushing around the dates from all these different states reminds me of a big cockfight.  And I don't mean the kind with roosters.

  •  Why wait till 2008 anymore? (3+ / 0-)

    Let's all start voting right now! I'm gonna write Ohio's governor and legislature and lobby for OH to start voting sometime in November 2007.

    Sorry, rethugs! Payback's a Bitch!

    by Cleveland Dem on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:50:06 AM PDT

  •  Why not Iowa? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThunderHawk13, Allogenes, JeremiahFP

         Has any other state come closer to aping the national democratic/republican presidental vote split in 2000 and 2001?

  •  At this rate, we'll wake up some morning (0+ / 0-)

    and hear on the news that all the primaries are over, they decided to have them the week before...

    When civilizations clash, barbarism wins.

    by Allogenes on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:51:22 AM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it be a lot easier (5+ / 0-)

    if we had one national primary day where ALL the states vote, like election night in November, and at the end of the day we tally up the delegates? Bingo. No "expectations game". No "momentum watch". No money race.

    The Republican Party is neither pro-republic nor pro-party. Discuss!

    by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:51:33 AM PDT

    •  Stop making sense (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

      by LionelEHutz on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:53:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No money race? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf, CA Libertarian
      Except that every candidate has to line up all their donors and collect money to compete in every state (or at least all the big markers) before anyone votes at all
      •  but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The insipid media momentum game would be over quickly and smoothly. As it stands now, we will spend winter 2007-08 watching every little move a candidate makes in each state and watching the stakes get higher and higher. If it was one election night, at least the game would be over more quickly and fairly for all the candidates. The general election system is bad enough, why must the primary be so anarchical?

        The Republican Party is neither pro-republic nor pro-party. Discuss!

        by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:01:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Probably not. (0+ / 0-)
          We've already got the insipid media momentum game going long before primaries start. What would change?
          The media would be analyzing every little move, every fundraising report, every poll, up until the primary day, all without any actual votes cast. Then it would all end.

          As opposed to now, when every little move, every fundraising report, every poll, and every actual primary election will be analyzed, until maybe early-February, when the deal will be sealed.

          Then 6 months later the convention is a rubber-stamp.

    •  The risk of a unified primary + modest proposal (0+ / 0-)

      Is that you'd need a national organization from day one - so only candidates who had that kind of backing would both running.  This would ultimately limit choice.

      Another approach would be to space the primaries closer together - say over a 2-month period - and set the dates by a lottery system which ran on - say - March 1.

      That would determine which states went when in their primaries during June and July.  You'd group states into regional blocs so you had states from different regions on each of the primary voting days.  Then conventions in August and general as it is now.

      Just a thought.  It would somewhat lower the bar to be able to participate, eliminate the horserace, and compress the process.  Not to mention it would prevent this nonsense where candidates spend a year targeting a couple of small states.

    •  Joe Lieberman would have won in 2004. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf, mcfly

      Horrible idea.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:01:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That would leave Bloomberg, Romney and (0+ / 0-)

      Kennedy as the only possible candidates. No one else would even be able to afford it.

      socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

      by shpilk on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:04:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Frankly (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, UndercoverRxer, Allogenes

    I think we should give Florida to Cuba and Michigan to Canada.

    It would remove two of the largest existing domestic obstacles to progressive foreign and environmental policies, and make both much nicer places to live, work, and visit.

  •  Crap on Blue- Fix it in 2012. Stop IA bashing! (7+ / 0-)

    For many reasons, including this.
    OK, lets leave it the hell alone this time, and work out a rotation for 2012.
    And I'm REALLY getting sick of the bashing of my home here. We've got 3 blue house members and a very liberal senator in Harkin, so I don't think we are the clueless losers KOS keeps picturing us as.
    I guess He's thrown his lot in with Hillary.

    I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

    by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:53:02 AM PDT

    •  nothing would help the DLC (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Duckman GR, UndercoverRxer, Geekesque

      more than getting rid of the traditional early state primaries/caucuses.  Then it would only be about big money/party establishment support, and we know who has that.

      •  The internet (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Luetta, Phil S 33

        has changed that. Dean raised more than any other candidate in 2004. Obama is blowing away Hillary's institutional fundraisers and donors.

        And last time I checked, Iowa's former Gov, Tom Vilsack, was a head of the DLC. There's nothing inherently "anti-DLC" about Iowa and NH.

        You want to keep small states at the front, then fine. Rotate them. I'm sure Vermont or Montana or Rhode Island or Hawaii or Nebraska or Alabama or whatever would all love to fit the bill.

        •  National name recognition trumps money. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dansac, mcfly, UndercoverRxer

          A haphazard, semi-national primary would mean the end of meaningful races where one candidate has an advantage going in like Hillary has.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:04:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  last I checked (5+ / 0-)

          Iowa is about the only place Clinton is not leading in the polls.  And we are of course referring to the people who vote in the caucuses, not the state electorate as a whole.  Early state wins by non-frontrunner candidates will be the only way the presidential primary could possibly be interesting or non-predictable next year.

          This site has been on a crusade against Iowa ever since Dean lost there.  Which was Dean's own fault, not Iowa's.  I am not saying Iowa has an inherent right to keep it forever, just be careful what you wish for.  A national primary, which we are moving toward, will favor the big money and the big organizations.  The Internet hasn't changed that.

        •  Internet fundraising . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Duckman GR, UndercoverRxer

          . . . Doesn't come close to matching traditional fundraising.  If a national primary were held today, Hillary would walk away with it because she has all the money and because of the national media.  We need a small number of states to go first if our primary is going to be anything other than a fundraising contest or a vapid popularity contest run by the media.

          That said, good points that Iowa and NH are not necessarily unique.  For 2012 and going forward I would be fine with rotating the first couple states.  And one of those states could be big.  I actually think California, New York or Texas would make great first states.

    •  Clueless losers? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, theran, UndercoverRxer, carpenterale

      Who said anything about "clueless" and "losers"? Any state that has managed to hold its primo position in the primary calendar is clearly not "clueless".

      It's just greedy. There's a whole rest of the country that wants a say as well. Yet Iowa (and NH) refuses to acknowledge that reality.

      •  Not said. But it's implied that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the reason we have't elected a Democratic President is due to Iowa leading off.

        I don't see how turning it into a money raising primary for national TV ads is going to help us get away from the DLC types with deep corporate pockets.

        I'm for a rotational system with the states who had the lowest margin in the last election going first. If a candidate wins a big state by 25% and yet loses the election because 3 small states electoral votes went the other way, what have you gained by shutting the them out in favor of the big ones?
        Wouldn't we be better served by winning the big state by 10% and getting enough of the marginal ones that we win?

        BTW, Thank you for starting this wonderful place where we can discuss/argue this out.

        I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

        by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:05:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like that idea (0+ / 0-)

          The most swingy states go first.

          Of course, that means Iowa and New Hampshire go first still (both states voted for Bush exactly once out of the past two elections, something only one other state (New Mexico) did).

    •  Keep in mind that the author (0+ / 0-)

      of this hit piece resides in a state where The Terminator rules.

      A Vote For John Edwards Is A Vote For Yourself. Iowa Underground

      by ThunderHawk13 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:11:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No one thinks you're clueless losers (0+ / 0-)

      But the rules in IA and NH that mandate that they go first played a part in precipitating this. This has been a problem waiting to happen for some time now. Once some state pushed you guys, it was inevitable that you would move up, they would react by moving up, and we're off to the races.

      It was just a question of how long it would take before some state pushed you guys and triggered the cascade.

      45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

      by dconrad on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:17:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, jj32

    This is an area that has always baffled me.  Why don’t we have all the primaries on the same day?  That was a rhetorical question, the reason is simply this; someone could win the nomination and possibly the presidency that is not totally controlled by the rich and the corporations. Our democracy does not allow us the freedom and liberty to vote for someone that is not a puppet to the rich and to corporate America.

    I understand at one time the candidates needed time to move around the country kiss babies and give speeches. With the advent of radio and later television these times have passed and freedom loving, liberty loving Americans should demand that all primaries take place on the same day, period.

    •  Because it raises the entry cost (0+ / 0-)

      Why do we have primaries at all?

    •  If you have just one primary... (0+ / 0-)

      You wind up with 10 candidates, none of whom get more than, say, 25% of the votes. That hardly gives the winner any clear mandate to run.

      A few years ago, there was such a free-for-all in the Democratic primary for the House district that covers Cambridge/Somerville/etc. Michael Capuano won the primary, which was a free ride through the general election, with a small percentage. Fortunately, he has turned out to be very good. We're seeing it again now in the race for Marty Meehan's vacated seat.

      The solution for this is preferential voting. It is an idea whose time has come and gone, but which has the chance of a snowball in hell of ever being implemented.

    •  You're kidding, right? (0+ / 0-)

      You think that non human interfaces are the best way to learn about a candidate?  Teevee and Radio commercials?

      That's the problem with the candidates we have now, nobody can tell if they're for real or just some media creation.  Hillary?  Who the fuck knows what she's going to do, really, do you have any clue whether she's the conservative hawk of today or the liberal from 1992 or whenever?

      At the moment the only candidate that I have any confidence in doing what they talk about is John Edwards.  I don't know squat about Obama, know Biden and Dodd as professional pols, like Richardson but don't know how he handles the pressure, think Gravel and Kucinich are wild cards but I don't have any way to read them except from televison.  

      What you're looking for is a year long primary season, a primary vote, then another year of general campaigning.  Thats two god dammed years spent on CAMPAIGNING for the Oval Office.  How does that serve democracy?  and how does that affect every other political office?  Do they run the same schedule, or do they just have special elections for president and then hope people show up for their other elections?

      Christ, and who do you think really benefits from a 2 year election campaign, an official all out election campaign, and god forbid anybody have a change of heart or change of circumstances either?

      The god damned to hell and beyond corporate media and all of their politcal consultants.  Oh yes, let's enable Hannity and Why the Fuck is Alan Colmes doing that Show, and Broder and all the pundits and their corporate sponsors, that'll help America.

      Fuck fuck fuck.

  •  Kos, you're pathetic (5+ / 0-)

    Less time to think about who we want as our candidate. Less time to debate the issues. More, more, ever more money spent in an evermore superficial beauty contests. And you endorse this, why?

    Oh yes, to screw over the states of Iowa and New Hampshire, who are, of course, alone responsible for the loss of your beloved Howard Dean.

    Like I said, pathetic.

    •  Ground game cost Dean. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clonecone, mcfly, ThunderHawk13

      His organization was poor at best, and if he couldn't handle that, why would we think he'd be a good president. And BTW, I was a Dean supported and was crestfallen at how badly he botched it here.

      I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

      by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:57:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We've been debating the issues (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      all of this year. Haven't you been paying attention?

      There's only been like 10 debates, with something like 10 more on the way.

      •  Those (6+ / 0-)

        pissant spectacles are NOT debates.

        A Vote For John Edwards Is A Vote For Yourself. Iowa Underground

        by ThunderHawk13 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:12:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not enough ethanol and farm pork content? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jxg, Geotpf

          Seriously.  Explain to me why Iowa is the best state to determine what I care about: (a) given that I am from MA; (b) given that I am a random Democrat.

          Ortiz/Ramírez '08

          by theran on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:29:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We all drive tractors to work. (5+ / 0-)

            Ethanol and farming are all Iowans care about.  Coastal people sure have us pegged correctly.

            You'll have to excuse me.  I have to put on my bib overalls and head out to the barn to milk the cows.

            aka "The Man" Holding you down since 1973

            by clonecone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:33:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey, I live near a farm too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But it grows actual food for local people to eat, so there aren't any subsidies for it.

              Ortiz/Ramírez '08

              by theran on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:39:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Have you ever been to Iowa? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                simultaneous contrast

                Based on your comments I'm guessing that's a big no.

                aka "The Man" Holding you down since 1973

                by clonecone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:44:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you going to answer the question? (0+ / 0-)

                  So far, all you have are distractions and an apparent requirement that only Dems who come to Iowa are qualified to comment on the primary process.  I am taking this as ``No, there is no good reason.''

                  Ortiz/Ramírez '08

                  by theran on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:47:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm rejecting your entire premise (0+ / 0-)

                    because it's built on ignorant stereotypes of a state you know nothing about.

                    aka "The Man" Holding you down since 1973

                    by clonecone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You aren't helping him correct... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      ...such stereotypes.

                      It's a legit question: Why should Iowa and New Hampshire go first?

                      •  I'm not obligated to answer questions (0+ / 0-)

                        from someone ignorant enough to think Iowans only care about farms and ethanol.  That's like me saying that people from Boston only care about clam chowder and pronouncing words like idea with an r at the end.

                        aka "The Man" Holding you down since 1973

                        by clonecone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:11:55 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          ...ethanol is an issue that arguably has a different meaning in Iowa as opposed to the rest of the country.

                          The argument here is that a president can't get elected if they are against ethanol because they would then fail in Iowa.  Of course, one could flip flop once in office-but then they would have trouble in the general for re-election, since Iowa is a swing state as well.

                          •  The whole premise... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            clonecone, Geotpf

                            ...that either Iowa or New Hampshire somehow dictate to the rest of the country who to vote for is false. Gary Hart in 84, Paul Tsongas in 92, Pat Buchanan in 96, and John McCain in 2000 are all testament to the falsehood of that canard.

                            However, there IS a legitimate argument to be made that a long, drawn out nominating process, starting with just a few states and slowly building in momentum, allows enough time for candidates to spend less money and more time in those early states, thus allowing for more substantive debates and less of a reliance on advertising. In addition, extending the nominating process exposes citizens in the rest of the country to that substantive debate in the early stages, and gives them more time to really think about their choices and make a truly informed decision on who to vote for.

                            Truncating the process, as Kos is so foolishly advocating here, has the opposite effect, creating less debate, less informed voters, and more reliance on money and advertising.

                          •  Okay, I'll buy that (0+ / 0-)

                            And, in some ways, Iowa and New Hampshire are good first states, for a variety of reasons.  However, it does seem unfair that they get to go first every single time.

                        •  ANd the Red Sox! (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          clonecone, theran

                          That's our biggest issue

                          I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid. Relentless!

                          by ablington on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 01:58:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  It's about steroetypes against the Midwest (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  clonecone, chemsmith

                  when it comes down to it, my Cyclone friend.
                  It's starting to come out with the smart-ass comments from the fly over people.
                  Never mind our high literacy and graduation rates, or out high ACT and SAT scores.
                  Never mind that we are welcoming and assimilating thousands of immigrants.
                  And who owns the big corporate FU'd farms? Investors from the coasts.

                  I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

                  by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:52:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Real America (tm) strikes again n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    Ortiz/Ramírez '08

                    by theran on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:56:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, not Real America (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      But why not educate yourselves about how it really is out here. We get bombarded about how it is on the coasts while they skate by on outdated stereotypes. I had someone ask me in NYC, in 1984, if we had indoor plumbing.

                      I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

                      by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:08:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That is so funny (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        I'm from Iowa too. I lived in California for 5 years. I was TOLD both of the following:

                        1. There are NO minorities in Iowa.
                        1. Women are not allowed to vote in Iowa.

                        Half of Californians have never been East of the Sierra-Nevadas but they know everything about Iowa/Ohio/Idaho (all the same to them).

                        Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

                        by chemsmith on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 02:06:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  To go back to the original question (0+ / 0-)

                    What didn't get covered in the debates that only people from Iowa can figure out?

                    Ortiz/Ramírez '08

                    by theran on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:58:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah.... (0+ / 0-)

                      ....but you're also a political afficanado like all the avid hungry political junkies on these sites.

                      The majority of people though need to have candidates in there hometowns, there for them...and to be reminded continually about that the primary process is going on.

                      People don't watch debates....and why should they? half the time they are sound bite fluff.

                    •  Nothing. (0+ / 0-)

                      But again, how does a national primary get us a candidate who can win the toss-up states?

                      I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

                      by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:05:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  And your state is on the fence (0+ / 0-)

            EVER for a Democrat? Win MA by 25% and lose Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and we win the election how?

            I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

            by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:38:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you know what's good for me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Thanks, but I don't need the help.  Let's just let candidates put it out there and all vote with an equal voice.  If nobody cares about what I like, then it's just democracy, not ADM gaming the system.

              Ortiz/Ramírez '08

              by theran on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:41:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's about ALL of us. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Again, what good is it if we pick a candidate who can't win some of the smaller states that we desperately need to win the general election?
                New Hampshire, 2000, hmm? Florida was AFU, but if Al had won NH, he would have won.

                I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

                by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:47:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If it was about all of us (0+ / 0-)

                  Then we would vote equally.  You want it to be all about IA and NH.  That's a lot different.

                  I originally put up two questions, which in your language were: (a) why not me?; (b) why not everybody?.  Nobody wants to answer these.  (nb. I am not pushing for (a); I ask b/c that is the frame.)

                  Ortiz/Ramírez '08

                  by theran on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why not everybody at once? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Aaron Bonn

                    You think it's bad now, how much corporatism would it take to run more than 1 or 2 national campaigns? No one but those with deep pockets would count, as then they real primary would be the fundraising one.

                    I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

                    by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:54:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Yes I've been paying attention... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and I think its ridiculous that we're even talking about it. Iowa and New Hampshire DONT tell me, or anyone else, how to vote. They never have. Paul Tsongas in 92. Gary Hart in 84. Pat Buchanan in 96; John McCain in 2000. Need any more proof than that???

        Like I said, in what alternate universe is less time to think and more money spent a step in the right direction?

    •  We have been debate the issues for a long time .. (0+ / 0-)

      Iowa and NH were - may be - needed in 19th century. But now with internets and what not - they are not needed. Candidates have far better ways to communicate with the people - and for people to debate discuss policy issues.

      I'm all for holding single issue debates among candidates, once in two weeks.

      Policing a civil war is not "Progress". End the Occupation Now.
      Now Reading : Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv.

      by nataraj on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:14:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Provide FACTS that Iowa (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        or NH for that matter, are still in the 19th Century. Maybe you people should quit flying over and actually come here before you form your opinions. At the very least you are on the some research.

        REAL NEWS-"The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." Richard Reeves

        by Oke on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:17:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strawman .. (0+ / 0-)

          Where did I even hint that Iowa or NH for that matter, are still in the 19th Century ?

          You needed small states that candidates could cover on foot to involve in "retail" politics.

          But with internets it is not needed any longer. There are much better ways to communicate, discuss and debate. And the whole country can be involved - instead of a few people in two states.

          Policing a civil war is not "Progress". End the Occupation Now.
          Now Reading : Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv.

          by nataraj on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:21:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There are many problems with our (0+ / 0-)

      primary system. But the mad rush to get out ahead of N Hampshire and Iowa is basically handing the nomination to Hillary. If you're for Hillary, then holding every single stinking primary between Jan and Feb of next year is a blessing. Why? I was talking with a dem operative last week, and she said the reason Hillary is leading all over right now is simply name recognition. No average dem voter who isnt a political wonk like us is paying attention to the primary race right now. And the shorter the primary race becomes, the more likely the average joe dem will just go with Hillary because they know of her.

      If you are an Edwards, Barack, Dodd, Biden, al. fan, this is very bad news. Even worse for Obama and Edwards supporters in NH are facing a possible Jan 8th date, these candidates are relying on the youth vote and the state colleges are basically shut down for January break and the students won't be around to vote.  

      My two cents, the multiple last minute changes to the primary dates are going to HURT the diversity of candidate choice, not help.

      So crow all you want Kos.  Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove are cheering with you as well. By March 1, Hillary will most likely be the de facto candidate for the Dems, and Karl and Rupert will by partying hard because they know the GOP can beat her.

  •  It's about time.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, slowheels, SonicT

    Michigan carried the American economy for decades and suffered greatly for it.  Our beautiful shores, waters and forests were ruined by shipping, mining and industrial pollution.  For years, we have seen the smallest return on the tax dollar of any state.
    Our strong unions supported the Democrats yet have not seen the benefits that other states with more corrupt senators and representatives, who have managed to get "earmarks" or "pork" coming back to their home states with big projects to infuse the economy. Our automobile companies have not kept pace with Japanese companies. Our state has some of the highest unemployment and forclosures.  So yeah, I agree, "GO MICHIGAN" - it's about time to have an early voice in selecting our next presidential candidate.

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

    by moose67 on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

  •  Yay...ish. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Good for my home state of Michigan for standing up for itself. We can beat up New Hampshire any day of the week (no offense to my friends in New Hampshire, but I'm pretty sure we could take you.)

    But this is definitely getting out of hand. The nominees are going to have nine months to beat each other up.

  •  Michigan, Good for Edwards? (0+ / 0-)

    He seems to have a lot of union support and to speak directly to the concerns of displaced workers and middle-incomers losing ground, like those in Michigan. Maybe this would be good for him.

    (I say this with fingers crossed.)

  •  I love this move (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, SonicT

    I am so sick of candidates that ignore the rest of the US for all of the year prior to an election and just hit Iowa and NH hard in an attempt to win there and get the media granted momentum to carry through the rest of the states.  Other states (especially the more populous ones) should get a bigger say in the primary process and it looks like they are fed up and going to take the initiative on their own.

    •  Oh, like they don't get attention? (0+ / 0-)

      ALL of the general election attention goes to the big states. If Gore would have paid attention to the small ones like New Hampshire in 2000, we wouldn't be in this FUBAR situation.

      I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

      by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:11:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is nothing - just wait (0+ / 0-)

    I predict that by October of this year, the primaries will have been moved up to July of this year, and declared to have already happened.

    The system has crashed.

    We need a new system:

    • No more special status for certain states
    • We still need a few small locales to vet candidates
    • We need to give equal opportunity to different regions

    New system:

    A couple of congressional districts are chosen at random, out of a hat. They go first. This lets the candidates go court the voters in a couple of small areas where the people can get to know them and vet them for us. Who knows, your district could be chosen!

    Then, the primaries happen on four Saturdays, one month apart. The country is divided into four regions, and in each region all the states vote on the same day. The order the regions go in rotates every four years.

    Oh, that reminds me, we also need a new, fair, impartial way of drawing congressional district boundaries.

    Also, I want a pony.

    (The elements of this system are not my idea, just good ideas I've seen on here. I believe Kos posted about the four regions thing recently, but someone else suggested the two congressional districts. I wanted to put those two ideas together.)

    45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

    by dconrad on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:01:28 AM PDT

    •  This Doesn't Work For Me (0+ / 0-)

      If my region gets stuck with the 4th region designation, I get to wait 16 years to go first. That's fair? Sorry, my region's issues(out West) won't wait 16 years to be heard.

      I don't know why everybody is into this "regions" thing. Pick one or two states from each "region" so that EVERY election ALL regions get a shot at nominating their party's representative and ALL regions will get their concerns addressed.

      Personally, I like the idea of a 2 states in each region(preferably somewhat different from each other) going first and then follow up once a month from there. One thing I'd add is that 1/2 minus 1 delegates would be apportioned at that time. Once all the states have had their individual primaries, we have a national primary day to apportion the remaining delegates. Thus, everybody's concerns get heard from all regions AND no one candidate can garner the nomination before the final primary day because less than 1/2 the delegates can be apportioned before then. It gives the parties the chance to change their minds if the early primary favorite ends up being a dud.

  •  let's have the primaries tomorrow, in my front (4+ / 0-)

    yard .. it's pretty big, and access to the local interstate is just 3 minutes away.

    I'll buy the kegs, even! Someone needs to stop at the store and buy some potato salad, and I need to refill the propane for the grill.

    socialist democratic progressive pragmatic idealist with a small d.

    by shpilk on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:02:20 AM PDT

  •  Whats the rush? (0+ / 0-)

    For some reason it seems Democrats are pushing these primaries up more and moe like that will change anything. There is no rush to a valid impeachment the people want, so why the rush to primary?
    Is there a fear someone will say Sam Walton and the current hype will make democrats look stupid? Yeah, guess what-eventually republicans will see that Hillarys ties to Sam Walton leave a bad taste for some and they will focus in on that with Rove like radar.
    We should be pushing primaries back-not up. Let us be sure of the candidate we elect. I still need someone to explain to me why Hillary is a good candidate. Is it her anti labor stances? Her being in bed with Blue Cross in a Santorumesque like relationship that people love so much? Is it her free plane rides from Lockheed Martin? What exactly is it?
    See, not giving a flip whats between anyones legs may have me looking at issues, mostly issues that have yet to be addressed in any of these so called debates.
    This seems like we are being bamboozeled. "Hurry up and vote, BEFORE YOU FIGURE OUT WHATS GOING ON".
    I think this is a bad precendent.

    Nothing has changed in congress, just look at the recent FISA vote. Is this rush a hope that people forget about their impeachment demands and the failure of elected offcials to do so?

    Whats the rush? 2008 is ours to loose-so why not send in the candidate that represents us as opposed to the candidate the media wants us to vote for.

    Its just as easy to pull a lever or press a button for Nader as it is to do it for Hillary-so before all who want change are dismissed, lets slow down and think. Hillary is Dubbya in a dress.
    I feel no guilt for being a man, maybe thats why I can look at her actions, votes and inexperiance and decide democrats have far better candidates to offer.
    Hillary hasnt pushed for impeachment, she hasnt done anything for healthcare or the working class as a member of the senate and she has missed votes on minimum wage and a slew of other issues she 'supports'.
    Slow down or we are going to run over ourselves and set up republicans for a third stolen election in a row.

  •  Kos, the proper expression is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, slowheels, moose67

    "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

    by Bouwerie Boy on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:07:18 AM PDT

  •  Kos, why do you approve (4+ / 0-)

    of the inmates taking over the asylum?  The states are acting like fighting children..."Me first!' "No, me!", "Me, me, me!" and no one benefits, except for Hillary Clinton and Terry MacAuliffe.

    •  perhaps because its a sign that people want... (0+ / 0-)

      more input and more input and more involvement?  

      i like some things about the Lieberman proposal to rotate primaries every election cycle.  However, I think that instead of breaking apart the country by region, perhaps there could be a few states from each region included in each rotating block.  I don't like the idea of candidates from the other side of the country having a disadvantage just because only people from the other side get to vote first.

  •  What is with the grudge (5+ / 0-)

    against Iowa?  As a life long Iowan I really don't appreciate the resentments or attitudes that we don't count as a vital opinion in this process.

    REAL NEWS-"The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." Richard Reeves

    by Oke on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:08:16 AM PDT

    •  Dean 2004? (0+ / 0-)

      Who I supported, and caucused for, and was stunned at how poorly the turnout of his supporters was.

      I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

      by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:09:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  His turnout was great (0+ / 0-)

        it was the MSM who took the "scream" and used it to hurt him, NOT Iowans.

        REAL NEWS-"The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." Richard Reeves

        by Oke on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:19:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh no, he didn't win so turnout wasn't good. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, Oke, mcfly

          If he had won, the scream wouldn't have happened. You're an Iowan like me, it's butts in seats at the elemenatary school down the block that wins, and he wasn't able to pull it off. Iowa City, the land of the liberals (a complement) and he couldn't win in a precinct like mine, full of professors and health care workers. People who I knew had Dean bumperstickers and yard signs did not get the turn out calls that clues you into it not being a foregone conclusion for your candidate, which is the impression I got from the Dean people I was in contact with.

          I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

          by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:27:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geotpf, UndercoverRxer

            As I was reading your comment it shocked me that in Johnson Co. of all places there was such a poor turnout. Apathy is our number one enemy as a people.
            When reading your comment I questioned myself, as it occurred to me that I had not attended the caucuses even though I had full intentions.
            The day before the caucus my 94 year old grandmother had died.  We had the blessing of being able to care for her with the help of Hospice of Central Iowa for six months in our home, where she passed away.
            Given the circumstances in my life at that time, going on just my memory wasn't a good idea to state what I perceived as facts.
            I appreciate you sharing your first hand experience of that evening.  

            REAL NEWS-"The news you and I need to keep our freedoms." Richard Reeves

            by Oke on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:51:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry for your loss. (0+ / 0-)

              It was almost mind-numbing how poorly it went over here. The other thing that really hurt was I think that the students were just settling in again, and the motivated ones that vote here when they are here were not helped to turn out.

              I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

              by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:57:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Dean was leading in the poll before the IA caucus (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, mcfly, UndercoverRxer

          and got a distant third.

          His turnout was NOT great.  It was pathetic (I know, I caucused for him).

          Why won't you give the glasses-wearing security kittens a chance to work?

          by bawbie on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:27:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It was lack of preparation. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, Oke, UndercoverRxer

          The second round killed him in my precinct.  I've heard the same story from countless other precincts.

          aka "The Man" Holding you down since 1973

          by clonecone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:30:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I always figured... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ....there were a bunch of miffed Dean supporters on here. Just because you're candidate failed in 2004 because of Iowa is no reason to discount it from its place in the primaries.

        Petty, petty, games.

    •  Flyover country opinions don't matter. (0+ / 0-)

      Let the Real Democrats on the coasts take care of business.

      aka "The Man" Holding you down since 1973

      by clonecone on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:12:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My biggest resentment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf, Luetta

      Is that the party of working people makes the most important contest to pick its presidential candidate one in which those who work nights are disenfranchised.

      It's an awful lot to ask a restaurant server to forgo the $250 of income she otherwise would make in order to vote. The worst kind of poll tax, really.

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:13:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What will Iowas do now ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... for recognition? or

  •  Its a funny situation. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Maybe they could all be held the same day, say in July/August 08.

    Then we could have some piece and quiet up until say January/February.

    Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. ~Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:11:07 AM PDT

  •  I don't understand... (0+ / 0-)

    ...the laws/policies regarding primaries....
    How can an organiziation, like the DNC, keep it's state delegates from attending a party convention where they all vote for the nominee just because it's state passes a law moving the primary date up or back.  I don't get it. How can an organization like the DNC stop delegates from attending/voting at the convention. Shed some light?? isn't there something constitutionally wrong with that?

    •  Because it's the DNC's convention (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geotpf, needtovent

      The national party has the right to decide what means their party's nominee is picked.  They control who gets a seat at the table in the convention.  There really are no laws governing it, more than the laws governing getting on the ballot in each state.

      Why won't you give the glasses-wearing security kittens a chance to work?

      by bawbie on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:20:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Allow me to shed some light on this... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theran, Geotpf, needtovent

      ...Back when the Democratic National Convention actually meant something, these rules were set up as a way to keep the states from doing what they're doing now; leapfrogging each other.

      However, after the 1968 Democratic Convention, the Party officials set out to prevent another convention like that from happening again.  They took a lot of power out of the delegates' hands (case in point, if you read the rules of the '04 Democratic Convention, you'll see that the only motion in order is a motion to adjourn and a motion to recess), put a lot of power in the presidential candidates' hands (another case in point, every presidential candidate approves who will be on the standing convention committees), and for all intents and purposes turned what used to be a meaningful event into a week-long pep rally.

      Bringing it forward to the '08 election cycle, the states know that the Democratic convention is meaningless.  You can't trade a state's delegate votes for the promises of this or that because by the time the convention rolls around, the nominee has been all but determined.  

      That being said, penalizing Florida or Michigan for moving their primaries up does nothing to them because all it means is that they'll send less people to this glorified pep rally than they normally would.

      The bottom line is money.

      Florida and Michigan want the money that Iowa and New Hampshire currently get from the presidentials.  

      For example, I know for a fact that the Iowa Democratic Party's bread and butter is their voter file and they charge Democratic presidential candidates a pretty penny to get access to it.  

      Florida and Michigan want a share of the spoils, and they're willing to tell Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee to kiss off in order to get it.

      One more thing that people haven't noted is that the Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party is also the head of the Association of State Democratic Chairs as well as a Vice Chair of the DNC.

      Digest that for a little while.

    •  Thank you bawbie and Andre (0+ / 0-)

      your explanations really helped me understand it a little better. I have read about how delegates are selected for the convention, and it seems like a very complicated process -- more so than it should be.

  •  Not seating convention delegates (0+ / 0-)

    Given the low ratings of the anti-climactic party conventions, I really don't think the people of Florida and Michigan are going to care if their delegations at the conventions are cut down.  If for some reason we had a contested convention, then it might matter, but that's not going to happen, particularly with all this front-loading.  Selecting party nominees by February 5 is a terrible idea and I hope it doesn't happen again.

    •  We aren't going to have a contested convention... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...because right now it looks like Hillary will win big.

      However, the Republican side of the equation is a complete and utter mess right now.  I can see them having a contested convention.

  •  This would screw progressives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Cassidy

    As a Dean supporter, I really wish that any other state but Iowa had voted first in 2004.  Dean was right on Iraq, and he lost the nomination for petty and hollow reasons (like "John Kerry is more electable").

    That said, John Edwards is right on most of the major issues now.  In 2008, progressives will be screwed if Iowa loses it's spot in the pecking order (especially in favor of a state like New Hampshire that is likely to go for Hillary).  If it's a one day national primary, Hillary's money is likely to buy the nomination.

    All I'm saying is that it would be tragically ironic if we knock off the most progressive viable candidate by fighting the battles of '04 in '08.

    •  Wrong oh! Poor organization is what lost it. (0+ / 0-)

      The Dean people acted like he was being annoited the winner and they didn't get people to the caucuses.

      I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down, I'm still mad as hell... Dixie Chicks

      by UndercoverRxer on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:43:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Be that is at may. (0+ / 0-)

        "Poor organization" is an awfully trivial thing to decide the next president.  When Iowans voted in 2004 a majority opposed the war, yet the only major candidate who opposed the war only got 18%?  That's tough to defend.

  •  Having liberal states (0+ / 0-)

    go first will be the end of Democratic Presidents.

    Bill Clinton recommended Kerry consider "endorsing the Bush proposal for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

    by JR Hawks on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:16:23 AM PDT

  •  I completely disagree! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bawbie, Geotpf

    The DNC adopted the rule saying that 2/5 was the earliest primary date without special permission, and then gave special permission to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, for a reason.

    Nevada has a large Hispanic electorate, and a large union presence.  South Carolina has a large African-American electorate.  These states were picked to go early because they both balance largely white Iowa and New Hampshire, and because they're small enough that it's not prohibitively expensive to run a campaign there.

    The message that would be delivered if other states are allowed to go early and get all of their delegates seated would be that national rules can be ignored without any negative consequences whatsoever.  If that happens, good luck EVER getting control of the scheduling process again.  You'll be able to forget developing a more rational process for 2012, because whatever process the DNC develops will simply be ignored by the states in their desire to be first.

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:18:11 AM PDT

    •  But You're Not Realizing (0+ / 0-)

      that they're rescheduling to go earlier because they were being ignored. The issue of getting all states involved in the nominating process was put before the DNC and they opted for adding Nevada. Not a fair trade in my book.  The DNC brought this on themselves and so far I haven't heard them saying anything about fixing this in the future. Have you?

      The problem here is that everyone would like to have a say in the nomination process and if they can't, they'd at least like to have states that are somewhat representative of their concerns have a say. Don't expect them to say that Iowa and New Hampshire should still go first. Those two states DO NOT represent the diversity of the Democratic party or the Republican party(if it can be said to exist there).

  •  Party Anarchy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The primary process is not just a way for each state's Party to register its choice of candidate. It's also the main way that campaigns and their Party promote their candidates to the general public.

    So the Democratic Party letting its state Parties set their own primary dates, without any coordinating strategy, is abdication of leadership. Why shouldn't each state pick to vote on the earliest possible date, to get the maximum media coverage (and insider influence), all winding up primarying on the same day, a year before the election? Because that's not nearly as valuable in watching the candidates campaign to different states each the most important for a time, but with different things it wants to hear. And not as valuable as a media horserace that lasts long enough to recruit voters. Some other order that doesn't maximize its marketing value is also a wasted opportunity.

    An opportunity that the highly organized Republican Party will surely not waste, and therefore gain an advantage.

    The Democratic Party should schedule each state's primary in the order that that state voted closest to the national results in the previous two general elections. That will assign the greatest influence to the states that are, by definition, the most mainstream. Which will help the Party to reflect the majority of Americans, though of course still only Democrats will get to make that determination, and select their leaders. For good measure, the final primary should be held before enough of those early states can assign a certain winner, with all remaining states voting in that last big bang. Perhaps that "super date" should even be the date of the convention. Give it some actual drama and meaning for a change.

    Or we can watch the Democratic Party be defined instead by whichever state is most greedy for the limelight.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:18:41 AM PDT

  •  Kos, This Election is a Disaster (3+ / 0-)

    Kos, you are wrong on about a thousand levels here.

    But mostly, the notion that this election started so early is an out-and-out disaster.

    Case in point: efforts should be focused on Congress and stopping this war.  But what's happening instead?  The debate is shifting from that to the acceptance that the war will be going on until 2009 and what would a presidential candidate do about it?

    It's way too early to have a presidential campaign.  The campaign to get real things done NOW is what should be happening

    Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

    by dansac on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:23:06 AM PDT

    •  Plenty to do (0+ / 0-)

      I agree.
      Campaigning this early could be catastrophic as many things can change in 15 months. With congresses poll numbers in the toilet, it might be more advisable to get the real work done.

      Then think about the elections from a position of strength the repugs can afford to wait, it cant get much worse for them.

      Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. ~Arundhati Roy

      by LaFeminista on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:08:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  concur wholeheartedly (0+ / 0-)

      Wonder if the sinking of readership for newspapers in major metropolitan areas, and the bidding wars for what is left, has anything to do with all this fire-sale rhetoric...

  •  I think that NH and IA are just about the politcs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think they are addicted to the money they get, and that is their whole reason for wanting to remain out front.

    Set up a regional primary system where all primaries are held on the same day in that region. Then either rotate who goes first, or hold a lottery 6 months  before the primary.

    OR Decide on having 5 primaries, 2 weeks apart, with 10 states voting in each primary. Determine order by random lottery.

    The bullshit of which state is more important is just bullshit. We are all citizens, and every citizen is important.

    Now if we can just rid of that Electoral College crap too.

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart

    by Boisepoet on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 10:25:06 AM PDT

  •  What no one seems to want to discuss-- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ----is why the blogosphere seems to pushing so hard for something that is really only going to screw the second-tier candidates and those not slated as 'frontrunners'.

    Campaigns run on the knowledge of having schedules planned out before ALL THE STATES AGREED TO.

    Campaigns with less money have to know the schedule so they know how to compete with the resources they have. Michigan and Florida cost a lot of money. That's fine that certain candidates can run the gamut and get mucho dollars, but when did it become important on DailyKos for candidates to have power only by their Cash on Hand?

    What you haven't explained to us Kos..and I don’t' buy the whole states moving up as a way to balance out the disproportionate amount of attention Iowa and NH why you are so in support of changing the primary process this late in the game?

    Why can't it wait till next cycle? It just seems to me that as much talk as you do about the political process and how it's SO important, there is no respect here for truly fostering democracy.

  •  If not careful we'll become the party of the rich (0+ / 0-)

    I just want to know what everyone thinks about the money situation should michigan and florida, and god knows who else moves up.  Can you imagine someone like Dodd, Biden, or even Richardson trying to compete for time.  Both the republicans and democrats would be down to their top 3 candidates running.

    •  If.,... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oke, Cornfeddem

      .....even the top 3.

      The money thing has been my biggest concern from the beginning.

      You want to change the primary system? Fine. But don't do it now where campaigns struggling to stay alive in a election dominated by 'rockstar' politics can't really adapt to such big, expensive changes.

  •  Do it in thirds, by population. (0+ / 0-)

    Have the 36 states (+D.C.) with the lowest populations go first, all on Feb 5th. Total population is roughly 100M and this group includes both NH and Iowa, plus Maine and Arizona.  Maybe split that in half, again by population, and do the second 18 on Feb 12th.

    Then, two weeks later, do the next 11 states by population - another 100M, including MI, OH and PA.

    Two weeks after that, do the final four - NY, CA, FL, TX - the last 100M.

    The small states get their say and can set the tone, but can't actually "pick the winner" of majority of delegates.

    Or am I totally nuts?

    I mean, I COULD very well be totally nuts.  Sprained my knee the other day (hyper dog, long leash, rutted driveway, dark) and have been taking some serious pain meds, so . . .

    "You are coming to a sad realization. CANCEL or ALLOW?"

    by sxwarren on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:06:52 AM PDT

  •  I'll say it again...EVERYONE can't wait until (0+ / 0-)

    bush is's not just the money that they'll get from campaigning hopefuls trying to get a good return on early votes...

    bush has done something I never thought he'd do...he's united this country on one issue...finding someone to replace him as soon as possible.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:14:31 AM PDT

  •  willl there even be an election? (0+ / 0-)

    It is discouraging to see many thinking people, so early in the cycle, spending so much energy and money on an event which just might become moot if the planned Iran invasion takes place, a counter offensive happens, and chaos ensues--with the same assholes in the drivers' seats....

  •  kos seems to want to ensure (0+ / 0-)

    that the dems are back at it in 2012, with no dem incumbent in the white house.

    His personal feelings are taking precedence over the dems taking the white house; in other words , he is seeking to ensure that Hillary wins the nomination..and she could easily lose the general so yes, we will be back at it.

    Not sure why he prefers a romney/hillary to edwards or obama.

    This is a stupid time to shake up the process. Now, after hillary loses in the general, I am open-minded about a rotation of states.. but not a national primary which would ensure the richest win.

    Dean was not going to win the general election..if he was such a shoo-in, why did he not run to a sure victory in 08?

    This is beyond petty and does not reflect well on a dem progressive to block the most progressive candidates from the nomination simply due to his own selfish agenda.

  •  There should just be one Primary day... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the same as there is one Election day.  I've never understood why the parties have not seen the wisdom of this.

  •  Heard a good idea on NPR yesterday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thucydides Junior

    don't know if it was TOTN or fresh air, but a guest had the idea of splitting the country into 4 regions(east, south, midwest and west).  The order in which regions would hold their primaries would be rotated every 4 years.  All states in a region would hold their primaries BEFORE going to states in other regions (this would greatly cut down on travel costs and time for all candidates).  With a different region going first every election cycle, all states have a chance to be in the forefront once every 16 years.  It actually sounded fair and simple to me.  I'm sure that is the reason it will never be done.  Do y'all see any problems with this idea?  

    The hope for tomorrow must be more powerful than the fear of today.

    by woobie on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:32:25 AM PDT

    •  I like it if... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the delegates are equal in each region.

      "When you enter the ocean, you enter the food chain, and not necessarily at the top." - Cousteau

      by Thucydides Junior on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:47:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've thought along similar lines but (0+ / 0-)

      I think there should be a representative state from each area.  

      In other words, on any given election, four early-vote states from each region get to set the tone.  Then in four years, four other states from their regions get to set the tone.

      But, I do like the fact that most early states now are small though so that the candidates get a little more one on one time.

  •  Its about time (0+ / 0-)

    Honestly, as an Iowan I love the political attention but seriously, the whole situation is a bunch of BS.  I do hope Gov Culver will swallow his (and Iowa's) pride and let a new era of primary voting begin; one where Iowa and NH don't dominate the field.

  •  Hey kos, why not have EVERY (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaron Bonn

    state do it on Christmas? Well, except Iowa, of course. They should be banned. Would THAT finally make you happy?

    Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

    by chemsmith on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:28:22 PM PDT

  •  Clusterfuck and I am glad it is crashing (0+ / 0-)

    A lot of this is a big state/small state argument. Either small states go first, and carry a ton more weight than they should, or else all states go together, and the big ones dominate and the little states get ignored.

    I am not sure of the alternative kos has suggested, but maybe having either 2-3 dates, with groups of states rotating each year is good, or hell, just don't announce the winners of the primaries until the convention, and make conventions matter again. Lock the delegates only on their first votes, then free 'em up to make democracy messy.

    I really hate conventions that are boring, which is all of them lately. Bring back 1948.

    "When you enter the ocean, you enter the food chain, and not necessarily at the top." - Cousteau

    by Thucydides Junior on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 12:54:02 PM PDT

  •  Re-setting primaries (0+ / 0-)

    I favor a federal constitutional amendment mandating, in each presidential year, 10 primaries on successive Tuesdays beginning with the first Tuesday in February, each such Tuesday to have a primary for all political parties in 5 states -  DC would be a sixth jurisdiction for one of the weeks in accordance with a rotation schedule which would identify the order of the primaries, with a lottery to determine the order in the first presidential year following enactment of the law; in successive presidential years, the first 5 in the initial year would be the last 5 the next time, and the other quintads (one a sextad with DC) would move up one week respectively, such format of staggering to continue in subsequent election years.  This scheduling should tend to increase interest among the electorate, as well as actual voting in the primaries and the November election. The amendment would expressly supersede all federal and state constitutional and legislative provisions which are inconsistent with the new format.  
    Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego

  •  Kos, I'm sorry but I disagree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aaron Bonn

    I think we should have a handful of early states so that the candidates can meet people one on one as much as possible.  And they should be small states.  Otherwise, we have only money and national slogans electing the president by running a country-wide race.

    I know most of us feel jipped out not voting early.  But we don't HAVE to vote the same way the early states do.  

    I think there should be only four early voting (or caucus) states:  Iowa, New Hampshire, N. or S. Carolina, and maybe something like New Mexico.  That gives you a little bit of a cross section of the country.

    I know it's far from perfect.  But a continual blasting over T.V., radio and the internet of the candidates -- where the candidates only try to reach the masses is futuristically out of touch.

  •  It's about Money (0+ / 0-)

    South Carolina and Michigan play calendar games with their primary dates most likely because as two of the states with the highest unemployment rates in the nation and with lagging economies, they are most likely seeking the large dollars that the media and the candidates' campaigns would dump into their states, as much as for any larger influence selecting a party nominee they may gain.  What we get are untested, unknown "battlefield locations" instead of the well mapped and understood meanings of outcomes from New Hampshire and Iowa. Progressive it ain't.

    "The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms"- Muriel Rukeyser

    by Poli Sci Junkie on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 11:56:33 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site