Interesting thread at MyDD on Dem Primary schedule

[TayTay]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/15/02643/6952

Looks like, for better or worse, Iowa and NH will still be first in the nation primaries in '08. But some of the schedule after that looks like a train wreck. I think Iowa and NH are likely to be as important as last time, due to this odd bunching up of later primaries.

Anyone?

[ginnyinWI]

1. it reminds me of a Hillary lovefest I saw on tv

This guy Strauss on Charlie Rose (some sort of longtime WH consultant--sorry I'm so ignorant) was all gushy about Hillary. No! I still want Kerry! How can Hillary possibly win on the national security issue? Whenever we are having a war, repubs seem to win on that issue. :( Well there's hope if Howard Dean can rebuild the Dem reputation (and if the repubs keep self-destructing).

Iowa loved Kerry last time; hope they will then.

[whometense]

3. I still feel like the only people

really pushing the Hillary-for-president bandwagon are cynical right wing repugs.

I don't know where those poll numbers are coming from. Who are they asking?

This whole eternal campaign is really starting to get to me. I think Kerry is doing exactly what he needs to do right now, whether he plans to run or not. But it's 2005, and the stories - ONCE AGAIN - in the MSM - are all about the horserace. I'm so sick of that.

It's the MSM version of *'s high stakes poker game. Presidential Survivor, the 4-year elimination match, is all that captures the interest of the talking heads.

Edited to add: off my soapbox - forgot to answer the question. My answer is that I wish I had something intelligent to add about this. The whole primary schedule question makes my head spin. I really like the small scale campaigning required in NH and Iowa, and think it's vitally important. I can also understand why other states resent it, and want to have a bigger say. I don't know what the solution should be.

It seems, though, that a lot of the primary whiners look at the question completely backwards. They are saying to themselves, Kerry lost. Kerry won Iowa and NH. So Iowa and NH can't pick our nominee. This thinking is (even if you concede that Kerry lost, which I do not) idiotically illogical - ass-backwards, in fact.

[sandnsea]

10. Lieberman was in front too

So much for front runners. Although I do think Hillary is liked much better than Lieberman. I think we're still too afraid of being laughed at by the Limbats. It's easier to say "I never liked that guy anyway", then to fight off the ridicule from the right. Who has no spine again? It isn't the leadership.

[Mass]

2. So states who have no chances of voting Democrat in the GE

(ND, SC, AL, SC) will take a large part in deciding who is the nominee while solidly Democratic states once again will have no stake.

I still do not understand the logic, but last time, CA and MA primaries were so late that there was no impact in the selection process. This seems fairly unfair.

[paulk]

4. I think a lot of the "change the primary schedule"

is being driven by disgruntled supporters of candidates who didn't make the cut in 2004.

I don't have any problem with Iowa and NH being first, or the frontloaded schedule. I think they gave us the candidtae with the best chance of winning. Too many people bought into the media spin on who was "leading" up until Iowa, and felt ripped off by the process.

[TayTay]

5. The weird thing is that IA and NH keep getting more important

when the schedule gets front-loaded. The DNC had a great Sat. discussion about this that I saw on C-Span one snowy Sat this past Feb (I think.) There was a woman there who presented a paper about IA and NH and why they suck up so much media. Part of it is because the rest of the primaries are so cose to them.

All the money and volunteers and candidate's face time goes into IA and NH in order to generate the big momentum. Then, wham, you get all those delegate heavy primaries in Feb/March and it's over by mid-March. Oddly enough, if the various states want to diminish the importance of IA and NH, they should schedule their primaries for later in the season (May or June) and let the voters have time to digest the results of IA and NH and see if a credible 'Stop Candidate X" movement can emerge.

New Hampshire is a strange place for a primary. Compared to the states that most of the folks on this forum come from, it is tiny. The action occurs in a relatively compact area that hugs the Masachusetts border. That makes it both time and cost effective for allocation of resources. (It also makes it a truly bizarre event. If you haven't had a candidate for President of the United States cook you pancakes or serve you chili and you live in NH, you aren't trying hard enough.) If Kerry runs, my house will be open for volunteers and I can drive the area from Manchester to Portsmouth. It should be fun. (And weird as hell. Seriously, you just have to see it to believe it. Personal fav is still 'Bowling for Edwards', that was so strange it was surreal.)

After the last primary the Dems held a Unity Dinner at the Sheraton Nashua and all the Dems, from Clinton to Kerry and all the primary opponenets came. Thing was held 4.2 miles from my house. (More people would have come out to gawk at the candidates if it wasn't a wind chill of -40 that night. That kind of cut down on the crowds outside. But fun was had.)

[paulk]

11. I really feel it's not possible to judge the success or failure

or the "front loaded" primary schedule based on the 2004 election.

I think the Democratic field was pretty weak, actually, with a lot of potential candidates scared off from competing against a sitting wartime president. The only candidate who had any real standing was Kerry, IMHO.

Kerry was the de facto favorite going in, and it wasn't until the left of the party attacked him on his IWR vote that there was even a "race". The press pumped up Dean because his supporters were making the most noise, and because, well, that's what the media does. They want a horserace.

Once Dean imploded in Iowa, the race was essentially over.

The 2008 race will be a much better judge of the "front loaded" concept, especially if it comes down to Clinton vs. Kerry. I expect that race would go a lot deeper into the schedule than 2004 did.

[LittleClarkie]

6. What did we used to do

that made it so that we didn't know who had the nomination until the convention? Was that sysytem so bad? I kind of miss how that made the convention successful.

[JohnKleeb]

7. Yeah I think that is what was done

I agree with paulk though that it has to do with disgruntledness on part of people.

[karynnj]

8. Part had to do with many of the electors being pledged

to favorite sons and many being controlled by political machines. I think the change was when they changed the rules after 1968. These reforma led to McGovern.

[TayTay]

9. Actually, Carter

the reforms were too new to affect McGovern and that '72 race. The modern primary structure really starts with Carter, becuase he was an unknown who came out of nowhere to get the nomination. He never would have gotten the nomination under the old 'smoked-filled backrooms' time of machine bosses.

Conventions themselves are far less interesting. This pisses off the press which wants fights and inside gossip and such. But this was a democratic reform that put the power to decide the nominees of the party in the hands of the grassroots. It was a good thing, even if it means 'the grand old men' of the Party can't select the nominees.

Strange, but the democratic reforms now have to be re-reformed. Because the people don't feel they have enough input. Hmmm, and this is because, well, Iowa and New Hampshire have too much democratic control. Well, if that don't beat all. Democracy bulges at one end and contracts at others. Hmmmm.