Early states join forces

John Curcus Roseville michigan — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:55:12 GMT

Tell the Demodrats to shut up already

Early states join forces

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:16:07 GMT

Can the candidates really afford to do this? I think it would be great if they took a stand and forced those leapfrogging states to move back, but I'm not sure if I would be willing to chance it if my future depended on it.

Early states join forces

RH Oregon — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:19:16 GMT

Sounds like a bunch of whinning "me first". We need a rotating regional primary system. Or a one day, all at once vote.
Why should these 4 states have anything over any other states?

I also wonder if the push to break up California's electoral votes isn't a good thing. There are 4 states that have over 25 votes each, and Cali' has 54. Maybe more of the people would be better represented.

Early states join forces

John Rolands, Houston, TX — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:20:37 GMT

Candidates should not be held hostage by the failure of parties both at State and national levels to work out their problem.

Early states join forces

nuanced — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:28:45 GMT

John Curcus -- tell them yourself wimp

Early states join forces

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:34:57 GMT

*** B U S H S U C K S ***

Early states join forces

Richard M. — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:37:05 GMT

Republicans are mean spirited. Dirty tricksters and with to do away with any sign of government. From Reagan to W.Bush there has been a concerted effort to eliminate medicare, social security, no money for highways, turning forests to private industry. They have ruined the Railroads, they are ruining the airlines. They have tried to debunk science and have lied,lied, lied for OIL OIL in the middle east. Cheney was pres. of Halliburton. Guess what Halliburton got all of the no bid contracts for Iraq and Katrina. Billions of dollars. He has lied about his hidden adjenda for energy and with whom he is in league. That has gone to the Supreme Court. They have ruined our economy. 1% of the people in this country have 80% of all the wealth. 99% have 20%.
I know lets give them another tax break. They only pay 15% now. Go Bushie you Idiot

Early states join forces

RH Oregon — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:07:49 GMT

Rich - What other company has the varied resources to do what was asked of Halliburton? I am in no way defending no-bid contracts, but beyond the past connection to Mr. Cheney what is the issue with Halliburton?

Early states join forces

Gerry, Anchorage, Alaska — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:10:29 GMT

Interesting. Until now, I think it was generally accepted that the candidates would quietly ignore the DNC and campaign in all states, with the expectation that, by convention time, a nominee will have already been chosen and that nominee will pressure the DNC (and, on the Republican side, the RNC) to count the full delegates even from states that had broken party rules. This would undoubtedly make the rule-abiding states quite angry but reality is reality.

Now, however, the ballgame may have changed significantly. If candidates don't "pledge," I wonder if we'll see these early states banding together in threatening to deny delegates to any candidate that campaigns in the "outlaw" states? THAT would really throw things in flux. The candidates must be hating life right now...

Chuck or Mark, I know you guys don't make a habit of weighing in on the boards here, but what are you seeing/hearing about this and where do you think this whole thing will ultimately end up?

Early states join forces

Gerry, Anchorage, Alaska — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:14:56 GMT

RH,

Agreed, and I actually think they ought to break up all the states' votes in a similar pro-rata manner. Not only is it more "democratic," it also puts a lot of states back in play that were once solidly red or blue. This would increase the chances of voters of the "less popular" party in a given state seeing the candidates from their party campaign locally, which I think can only be a good thing.

Early states join forces

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:26:24 GMT

RH - Someone has to be first. And a one-day, winner-take-all primary is not the solution unless you are planning to completely reform the system vis a vis fundraising. If you hold an one-day primary in every state, it's almost a guarantee that the person with the most money will win...because they can afford to bombard multiple states with advertising. It goes back to wholesale politics. The current system, at least in IA and NH, is all about retail politics. We don't really give a damn what your ad says. We care what you say when you come to our state, when you attend our events and when you speak to us. The person with the most money and the biggest name does not always win in Iowa.

Early states join forces

Sierra, SF — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:40:41 GMT

RH:
California's BIG !!
Oregon is little....
jealous ??

When is an Oregon team going to the Rose Bowl, RH ??
We kind of miss you guys ;-0

Early states join forces

Bruce, NV — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:59:52 GMT

California should be two states, make that three: the righty SoCal, the Loony Left Bay Area and NorCal, and the normal middle in the middle.

Early states join forces

diane — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:04:24 GMT

I know someone who is with the fla. democratic party and she knows what the real deal is and what is going on and why.
Dean is right. And he is savvy enough to see what tricks are going on underneath it all. The fla. dems are owned by the clintons. The states Fla. and Mi. are trying to move things up, against their agreeing to the schedule of no moving up earlier than Feb.5th, in an attempt to nominate Hillary under table and trying to play an end run.
Dean knows this is in essence trying to cheat. He knows this is totally unfair in the nominating of the legit nominee regardless of who it is. he knows they are trying to take away from the country the fairness in the nominating process and sneak Hillary into forgone nominee illegitimately.
How sad that the clintons cannot do anything in an above board manner. they always have to be playing games.
I applaud Dean for seeing what is going on with our nominating process, and is instilling order and not allowing this to happen.
It is unfair to the voters of the country.
We deserve, after the gops games with our machines, to finally go back to having legit elections.
And if the Clintons are trying to cheat, then Hillary doesn't deserve to be nominated./

Early states join forces

diane — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:07:50 GMT

Carrie, I live next door to Iowa and I am a firmly behind you and N.H having your traditional place.
Don't pay attention to those who are carping. They are only thinking about themselves and not what is good for the country, for the voters or about picking the right person as the nominee. that is the ultimate selfish way of thinking when you put your own wants ahead of what is best for the country.

Early states join forces

Andrew Caswell, Wellsburg, WV — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:16:48 GMT

I agree that the retail politics of small states like Iowa and New Hampshire is important. But Iowa and New Hampshire aren't the only small states capable of vetting candidates. In fact, given Iowa's and New Hampshire's deplorable record over the years--giving Democrats John Kerry while passing on Bill Clinton--it's time for other states to actually have a say. I'm sick of these arrogrant voters and their perceived superiority.

Early states join forces

doug d. southampton,ny — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:22:03 GMT

The issue with Halibuton is the overcharging for services such as food for the troops and the increased price for gas supplied to our troops. They have bilked the country of Billions in overchages and fraudulant practices.

Early states join forces

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:00:52 GMT

Carrie,

Right now Biden, Richarson and Dodd have agreed to the pledge, I assume Edwards will also. If Obama agrees, and Hillary is the only Democrat candidate who refuses to sign the pledge, and actively campaigns in those states it will hurt her in the first 4 states that are on the approved calendar. And presumably nationally people will see a very ugly side of the Clinton campaign. (The side that has been spreading false stories about the other candidates in Iowa....) Her campaign has said it is studying the pledge (it isn't the tax code, it shouldn't take much to study the pledge), but added it has always been her intention to campaign in every state where there is a race. In other words, screw the calendar, screw the other candidates, it's all about me! A win in a state where you are the only candidate campaigning, and who has violated the previously agreed upon calendar rules will substantially diminish any boost from the win, and a loss in any of those states (Michigan for 1) would be crippling.

Many have suspected that her campaign is behind the leap frogging, and given the federally elected officials from Florida pushing this are all Hillary supporters those suspicions appear to have merit. If Hillary and Obama both campaign in the violating states it will diminish the negative effect.

Whether Iowa should be first, or a multiple state primary, or one day national primary, etc is an interesting discussion, but the time to have that discussion has long past. Those options and others have been discussed during DNC meetings with representatives from every state, after lengthy discussions and debate the delegates from all 50 states (and DC) arrived at a calendar and voted on the calendar, as well as the sanctions for violating the calendar. The DNC vote was unanimous, not a single delegate from a single state voted against the calendar or sanctions! The failure of states to follow the calendar this late unto the campaign is unconscionable.

I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that this was orchestrated by Hillary's campaign. Despite the publicly released poll numbers in Iowa (which her campaign knows are meaningless, and don't match their less rosy internal polling) her main campaign strategist suggested in early May (via memo) that the campaign should skip Iowa, because of the cost and time it would take to even make an acceptable showing in Iowa. They probably would have done this if the memo hadn't been leaked to the press, so now her campaign has had to devote time, energy and money to Iowa where they believe the best they can hope for is second. Soon after the memo was leaked, and the campaign immediately came out and discounted it as just one guys random suggestion, all of a sudden other states started to want to violate the calendar. It seems Hillary's campaign feels if you can't win in Iowa, then make sure Iowa isn't first. What class!

Early states join forces

Jerry Dean Webber Shelby, N.C. — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:10:01 GMT

I ahte George bush. He should be in Jail and prison amd be tried for the murders of the 9/11 fiasco

Early states join forces

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:06:23 GMT

Andrew Caswell,

In 1992 when Clinton ran Sen. Harkin, Iowans jr senator was a candidate for President. Harkin was first elected to the senate in 1984, and is the only Democrat senator to be re-elected in recent history. (He has served 24 years, and will be re-elected in Nov. 08) No candidate competed in Iowa in 1992 they ceded Iowa to Harkin, who won with 72 or 78 % of the vote. So your criticism of Iowa with respect to Clinton is unfounded. In 1988 Dick Gephardt won Iowa, but not NH. I think Gephardt was more electable against H.W. Bush than Dukakis was. No state has to follow Iowa or NH's lead (and the two states don't always go for the same candidate), but what they do is require candidates to face real people with real questions, and unlike debates where they gave give a scripted non-answer, if they try this in IA and NH the voters will turn on them. You may feel Kerry was not the perfect candidate, but if you really believe he was not the candidate with the highest chance at being elected among those running in 04, then I think you are guilty of revisionist history. Which of the candidates would have done better? Edwards? Did you see how poorly he did in the debate against Cheney? Dean? Come on. Joe Lieberman? Kucinich? Gephardt? Sorry he was my guy in 88, but he was far to supportive of the war, not merely having voted for it, but unwilling to find any fault with it.

Kerry wasn't perfect, and he made mistakes, as all campaigns do, but you forget that he received more total votes for President than any prior Democrat candidate. Unfortunately the GOP got a huge turn out of culturally conservative voters by having gay marriage issues on the ballot in key states, etc.

Whether two other states should be first is certainly something the DNC should tackle in 2009 and 2010, as they do each time between election cycles, but after the calendar has been unanimously approved states and candidates need to stop playing games. This isn't about whether Iowa is best at starting off the process, or not, it is about respecting the calendar that all delegates to the DNC from every state previously agreed to. The time to fight about when your state should hold its primary is not after the calendar has been set and agreed to, but during that process.

Early states join forces

trinity, dallas, tx — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:03:43 GMT

Wow Sara!

Thank you for the great article. It was excellent reading. I truly enjoyed it.

Early states join forces

Independent, Texas — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:51:52 GMT

Perhaps you guys can help explain this whole situation to me.

The State Government funds the primaries, right? They pay for the polling places, the equipment, the staffing, etc. Right?

Must be true at least in Fla as it was the Fla government (under R leadership) who voted to move the primary earlier in the year.

Since both the DNC and the RNC have renounced this move, how does the local D party or R party have ANY say in this decision and, therefore, why should any retribution be targeted toward these parties rather than the state legislature?

Have I misunderstood the whole thing? (always possible.)

Early states join forces

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:41:24 GMT

Independent, Texas

There are two kinds of primaries, there is a complete primary, with all candidates (local, state and federal races) on the ballot, and then there are primaries limited to Presidential race only. No state holds a complete primary in late winter, most of these start in late May, and run as late as August. In Iowa the caucus is run by the state political parties. They cover the full cost, and the lists of who attended are property of the state. They sell these lists (for 100,000 this year) to the candidates, or anyone willing to pay 100,000 to help recoup the cost of running the caucus. (no polling group has bought the actual caucus list, so that is why they don't start with a valid sample)

Who pays for a Presidential primary is dependent upon the individual state law. The Supreme Court has held that the political parties control the presidential nominating process, so the Florida legislature could not force Florida to hold a Presidential primary in January. 100% of Florida Democrats voted for the date change knowing in advance that their own state DNC representative voted in favor of the calendar, and sanctions for violating the calendar. Had the Democrats not gone along with the move it is unlikely the GOP in Florida would have tried passing it. In any event Florida Democrats can still take the position that the Democratic primary in January is non-binding (referred to as a beauty contest), and they won't be penalized. Presumably Florida is not holding congressional primaries, etc in January, and the binding race on the Democrat side could be run at that point. It will be late and the race decided, but they'd be able to seat their delegates.

Washington DC tried to leap frog in 04, and they were sanctioned also, so they changed their January Primary to a non-binding beauty contest to avoid sanctions.