Question about the 2008 Democratic primaries....

[election_2004]

I've read several articles that say how the Democrats are discussing options they have for restructuring the presidential primaries in '08.

Does anyone know what the basic timetable will probably be, as far as when they actually make and finalize that decision?

That is, how soon will the DNC vote on and determine what the new calendar will be for 2008? Will they decide this fall, or will the decision be held off until 2006 or 2007?

What is the earliest point in time when they could set up the full and final schedule for the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries?

[Racenut20]

1. I don't know the answer to your question, but

If we continue to let a few people in Iowa and New Hampshire and the National Media pick the candidate, we will continue to lose.

[Thrasybulus]

3. I think Iowa and NH are good for the process.

The playing field is more level in these early states than anywhere else. Candidates must appeal to voters on an almost individual basis. Can that happen anywhere else?

Remember that McCain put Bush on the ropes in these states in 2000.

Here in Arkansas the legislature has a bill to move our primary to the first week in February.


I believe regional primaries alone will only increase the power of money in the system.

[renaissanceguy]

4. I don't think so.

We need a 50-state strategy. We have to stop relying on two states to determine our primary candidate, and one state to determine our president. All votes should matter.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21272015

[Thrasybulus]

5. I don't necessarily disagree.

But enlarging the electorate without a mechanism limiting the power of money will give us increasingly corporate-indebted candidates.

Iowa and NH don't seem to be keeping the Republicans out of office.

I believe that our problems are not with the primary system but with the loss of an aggressive and independent media combined with the massive infiltration of corporate money at all levels of politics.

And most of all with the manipulation of the electoral/judicial/legislative process by greedy and power-mad little men.

[Yupster]

8. I would like to see a state lottery each four years

where different states get picked out of the hat to go first, second, etc.

I don't think it's good for the same two states to go first every time, and I particularly think they are bad choices if you need to have the same two.

The one thing the two states have in common is their color, or lack of it. It doesn't seem right for the Democratic nominee to be picked by two of the whitest states in the union every time.

[Thrasybulus]

9. The Devil is in the details.

I like the concept of a lottery but the individual states control the timing of primaries-not the parties. And many if not most states have Republican controlled legislatures.

Either the Party agrees with the state funded primary date or has to pay for one of its own, which is beyond the capabilities of most state parties and a waste of precious resources.

They could always go the caucus route which is inexpensive but then you are reducing the number of people who actually participate in the election process to a fraction of those that would vote in a primary-which I think is the opposite of what we would want.

As far as race, didn't Jesse Jackson do very well in Iowa in '88. But your point is valid.

[MaineDem]

2. The DNC's next meeting is in September

I don't know if this is on the agenda or not but that's the next time they're getting together.

[Michael_Bush]

6. It is an imperfect system

I like the concept of the primaries, small states that allow candidates without tons of money to be in the game. I like the long slow process of slowly adding in more important states. It allows the candidates to be vetted and the skeletons to be rattled out of the closet before the General Election.

However, picking states that are not representative of mainstream America skews the choice somewhat but the Republicans have to run in the same states so it is a wash.

While a 50 state primary sounds nice, it means you have to have the money to run in 50 states, a very expensive proposition. Few candidates have that sort of money. Clark, who did amazingly well for a campaign started so very late ran out of money. There is no way the Greens could afford a 50 state run.

Lastly, since the media is at the very least skewed to the right, the Republicans will already have a headstart with the public. I think the system, as imperfect as it is, sort of works.

On a purely personal level I get SO jeleous watching those people in New Hampshire see the candidates stream in and out of their cafes, attending their PTA meetings etc. Here in CA the candidates fly into SF and LA for a bit of fundraising at $1,000 a plate and then evaporate off to some tiny state in the East.

I console myself that while I can't vote in the primaries (being in California it is all settled by the time they get here) it is easier for me to call a huge percentage of NH voters and thus I can have a relatively large impact on a personal level.

[election_2004]

7. my take on it....

While I'm not necessarily fond of the current system, some of the changes (to the primaries) that they are proposing have me potentially cringing.

That's why I want to find out who in the DNC to contact to voice my opinions on the matter.