~ Snark
In a conference call with national reporters and major news outlets, DNC Chairperson Howard Dean just discussed important changes in the rules and procedures for Democratic primaries.
The conversation with reporters was followed with the release of a detailed memo explaining the changes to be made [excerpts below].
While the plan is quite involved, the essential element of the reorganization is to completely abolish Democratic primaries and caucuses in all but a few, large, and reliably liberal states.
See the flip side for full details.
Over the last few weeks of the primary election cycle reporters from the New York Times and Washington Post have unearthed DNC plans, apparently in the works for some time, to completely reorganize the Democratic presidential nominating process in future elections. The plan, it is said, is designed to avoid what is perceived as a brutal, bruising, and ultimately unhealthy primary battle.
Dean, on a conference call with the national media, said:
We cannot have this kind of divisive primary battle in future elections. We must find some way of making it easier for the party to unite behind a powerful candidate while minimizing the impact of voters in states where we know Republicans will win in the general election.
Dean then proceeded to outline the features of such a plan.
* 1. The plan completely abolished the super delegate system, acknowledging it the anti-Democratic and elitist farce that it surly is.
* 2. The new plan abolishes Democratic primaries and caucuses in states that are considered to be reliably Republican in the fall general election. These states are called "Excluded States." They are: Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Oregon, Washington, Main, and Vermont.
* 3. The remaining states are called "Automatic States" and will only include voting in 15 key states: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky,
* 4. No state shall be allowed to hold a caucus in the future.
Lanny Davis, a longtime DNC member and powerful inside Washington pol who also had a hand in creating the new plans, defended the winnowing down of state primaries this way:
Democratic voters have proven again and again that they can't be trusted. With the exception of Bill Clinton, who was the best president of the 20th century, Democrats have nominated one loser candidate after the next. I blame the voters in the states we just excluded from subsequent Democratic primaries. Besides, the voters in these states don't take into account important issues like electability, longtime Washington political experience, or who will make the best commander-in-chief. Why would Democrats want them to participate in the nominating process?
Geraldine Ferraro, the former Congresswoman and one-time Vice Presidential candidate who also helped craft the new plans, explained:
If we are going to abolish the super-delegates then we have to have a plan in place to ensure that only certain kinds of candidates are able to get through the primary system and into the general election. Voters seldom know their own mind and are easily mislead. I think the voters in the automatic states are the only ones who really can be trusted to vote the right way. It's about time we dispensed with the charade that anyone ever really cared about what Democratic voters in places like North Dakota thought.
When one of the reporters noted that the new plans appeared to disenfranchise Democratic primary voters in demonstrably more varied states like Washington and Virginia, Ferraro replied:
What? Washington is full of latte-sipping, Subaru driving, Microsoft yuppies. They have Bill Gates. They don't need a president. Besides, voters like that are much less likely to be susceptible to fear tactics. They just need to shut up out there and vote for who we tell them to in the general election.
Spokespeople from the Clinton and Obama campaigns have also weighed in on the new proposal. Some have noted that the new scheme appears to favor Hillary Clinton's broad campaign strategy while others have observed that the changes simply reflect the necessity of protecting Democratic voters from unnecessarily raising their hopes and preventing them from thinking that they actually can have a meaningful impact on the outcomes of elections.
David Plouffe, Obama's communication director said:
Well, to be honest, we are disappointed with the DNC's decision. We have been engaging in a 50-state strategy under the proposition that every vote in every state in every part of the country counts. It seems that this notion is now seen by some as misguided and somewhat outdated.
David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist noted that:
I understand that size matters. I guess I always thought that I knew that. I just thought that it was the size of a candidate's total delegate vote at the end of the primary that mattered but I see now that this was a mistake. It is the size of these important states that matter. Obviously, we made a tactical error in trying to win votes in every state throughout the country, treating all votes as important. I don't know how we will recoup from this.
Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson essentially agreed, noting that:
The whole idea of one person, one vote is so last century. I mean that principle, along with ideas like equal protection under the law; just don't seem to fit the new political realities of our age. Americans like winners and that's really what matters. As long as they have won the votes of the right people in the important states. And besides, anyone who thinks differently is like Ken Starr!
In an unguarded moment, Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's chief political strategist, admitted he really liked the new plan, saying:
Who the hell even gives a shit what some Democratic hayseed thinks in Georgia? To be honest, before this year, I didn't even know there were Democrats in such places. But now that I do, I certainly don't want them voting for president! We all know only certain states, and certain types of voters matter. It's about time we just focus our attention on these big, important states. I applaud the DNC on these new rules. It will ensure that a Clinton will win for, er..., I mean a strong Democratic will win the nomination every time.
When one activist from the netroots suggested to Penn that such an apporach to elections and campaigning might alienate voters and hurt other Democratic candidates down the ticket, Penn replied:
What the fuck do I care? I was hired to get Hillary Clinton elected and I give a shit about what happens to other Democrats. I am going to micro-target the shit out of this thing and win by 1 point. Screw everyone else! That's not my concern. And besides, voting for Obama is like voting for Karl Rove or Ken Starr rolled into one, or like voting for Hitler even, with his massive audiences and his rousing speeches. He would make an excellent VP though, don't you think?