The primary calendar gets even worse
By Steve Benen Sunday Aug 19, 2007 7:10amWon’t someone please stop the madness?
According to sources inside both parties, the two state parties in Michigan have agreed to move the state’s primary — legislatively — to Jan. 15. This is a compromise date out of respect for Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, who really wanted to move the primary to Jan. 8. Others wanted the primary on Jan. 22 as a way to, essentially, play ball with the other early states. There was a nice window being created for a Jan. 22, 2008 event. But by moving to Jan. 15, this will put pressure on the other early states to either entertain a December event or lobby the two national parties to not sanction Michigan at all.
The state senate is going to move a bill next week and it will be legislatively driven; the state will pay for the primary, not the two parties.
The calendar was a mess anyway, but it’s reached a whole new level. Florida thumbed its nose at the national parties and picked Jan. 29, which threw the chessboard into the air. And now Michigan has blown up the chessboard, sending DNC and RNC officials reaching for the Maalox.
What happens now? It’s an unpleasant situation, which is likely to get worse.
If New Hampshire insists on a week-long buffer between it and the subsequent primary, and it does, the Granite State will have to vote by Jan. 8. Iowa could either accept a smaller buffer and vote in the first week in January, keep the buffer and vote in December, or allow New Hampshire to vote before Iowa (which is highly unlikely).
And then, of course, there’s South Carolina, which expected the marquee post-NH vote, and which may not look kindly on Michigan’s power play.
What’s more, several huge states (California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois) agreed to Feb. 5 based on mandates from the national parties. If Michigan and Florida have announced, “We no longer care about the parties’ ‘rules,’” what’s to stop other states from blowing off the agreed-upon Feb. 5 threshold? Absolutely nothing.
Michigan’s Carl Levin has been talking about destroying the primary calendar for a while now, and it looks like he’ll get his wish. The status quo is now, officially, broken. A massive overhaul is inevitable in advance of 2012. (I know, you’ve heard that before, in previous cycles, but it’s never been this broken before.)
Login or Register to post comments.
too bad we can't organize enough to have no one vote in these early primaries
They should have just left it as it was for all the states.
Why don't we just have the election now and be done with it!! Give me a break!! What are they doing!!!!!!!!!!!!
All primaries should be held ON THE SAME DAY, by law... with no results revealed until voting closes in Hawaii, or the Alutian Islands, whichever is further west.
Eventually, this will be the case, whether by law, or voluntary. It is totally unfair that one state votes earlier than any other, same as the general/final election. Whether this happens in 1 year, or 20 years, eventually, they will ALL be on the same day.
The fact so many states want to fight so hard to be "first" or among the first is a glaring sign saying something is wrong with the system. It shouldn't matter what order they go in.
this movement of the primary contest is good and should be embraced-- let's face it, the primary process is politics at its worst-- pandering, creating and highlighting false and petty distinctions (witness yesterday's debate). The primary is in many ways a 'public speaking' rehearsal school for hopeless, if commendable, candidates such as kucinich, richardson, biden, et al...a good bunch of stories for their libraries, but not much real value for either the party or the american public...... the sooner this is over the better....let's reconsider the notion that this is a change for the worse...
cmon now,"is obama experieneced enough?" is the kind of stupid and preposterous question that could only be asked in the context of a primary...and only in a primary does rove have the ability to try and 'frame' the general, with his bogus reverse psychology attacks on clinton, hoping the base will unwittingly rally to clinton in an effort to thump rove...
Simple solution in my mind. Keep Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two primaries/caucuses, but have them on the same day (I know they'd never go for this but I'm talking ideal world). Then have four consecutive Saturday or Sunday primaries of 12 states each. The group of 12 will always stay the same so you can either group them regionally or by population or some combination of both. Every election cycle the order of their voting will change. So that the 1st weekend primary 12 in 2008 will be the 2nd weekend in 2012 whereas the last weekend in 2008 will be the first in 2012. Easy enough to do. It would allow you to move the whole process back to a normal month like May or June. And of course it will never happen.
this is like trying to follow all the NFL teams in the playoffs. I can't keep up.
The Federal Government should set aside a date for a primary, like they do for the regular election. This is ridiculous.
My state's primary was last week. I missed it. :(
This non-issue is like arguing over the color of the drapes in the livingroom while in the middle of a hurricane - it serves to deny the reality that mom and dad (our current crop of numbnuts politicians) don't have a clue of what to do about the realities they face.
I'm hiding in the bathroom.
Are people real so stupid as to care when OTHER states have a primary? I don't really care who "wins" in Iowa when I vote in Delaware, and I suspect other people are the same way about this. I vote for who I think the best person is for the job, not who the people of New Hampshire think is the best person for the job.
Am I crazy? Or is the world crazy?
the sooner the primary process is over, the better...let us all hope for good quick riddance to biden, edwards (he'll take coulter with him), richardson and the other huff and puffs who add nothing further to the debate, to the party or to the american public, but hang around and persist, perhaps gathering stories for their memoirs, or perhaps they jockeying for some cabinet position...let's get real
is obama experienced enough? i laugh outloud everytime someone asks that question as if it's a serious and smart one worth considering....it's been quite some time since such a stupid question was pondered and debated as if it were meaningful..
but to some extent, why does it matter? It's just a variation on a theme. 30-40 years ago there were 3 main Bowl Games: Orange, Cotton, Sugar
and all the rest.
more and more other venues wanted TV revenue and everything shifted. Sugar Bowl moved to New Year's Eve, and how many 2nd and third tier Bowls are there now?
I'm not sure how all this plays out re democracy, but I actually like a swift kick in the ass to the status quo.
It makes no sense to me that "tradition" should play any role at all in how states run their primaries. As far as I view it: Tough shit, Iowa. You've had far too much influence for far too long. Other states matter -- and I think it's good that the general vibe being created is: Who SAYS your state goes first? Why should it?
That's my view. Iowa knocked out Dean -- due to DLC and Kerry/Gephardt funding of Osama bin laden ads smearing Dean. Conglomerate media looked for slightest faux pas by Dean, found one with what became The Scream, and they character assasinated him because of his intent to re-regulate media consolidation.
RESULT: Iowa had a disproportionate effect on the entire election cycle. California would have gone Dean -- and it would have made all the difference in the world -- as just one tiny example.
Screw tradition. For me any shakeup is good for this dying democracy anyway.
Let us all remember that in most States the primary is an exclusive Dem-Repug party function.
You have to declare a party affiliation and only vote for candidates in that party.
The current primary system is another example of the Dem-Repug lock down on our election process.
Typically if you want to petition for change in voting proceedures you have to submit a request or petition to Election Commitees
run by.............you guessed it Dems&Repugs!
I guess I just don't understand why this is a problem.
All states should hold their primaries on January 1st. That's an easy date to remember. And it's a holiday for almost everyone except illegal aliens, dope dealers, cops and the military, and they shouldn't be voting anyway. Sure, a lot of drunks will be voting on that day, but could they really do worse than the past few elections? (A lot of the drunks will just say, 'Primary? Primary? Here's your Primary!...and just keep partying)
Someone(s) will get nominated. And we'll have a almost a whole year before the election, to argue about what stupid choices we made. And how crooked the primaries were, how many votes the machines lost or changed, how many dead people voted, and how much cash some candidates gave voters to vote for them.
It'll be a fun year. And take our minds off the war-du-jour, the D.C. corruption and mendacity, the hypocrisy of the leaders and sheep of the Church of The Holy Pedophiles,
the next war being planned by the neocon zionists, and whether it will be nuclear, and how in hell to raise kids with a sense of responsibility when they are born with a $100,000 debt to the US of A, and attend schools whose toilets are leaking.
Can't they please make the electioneering shorter instead of longer?
And how about genuine campaign finance reform?
if this is the only change happening in our electoral process, i don't see what the big deal is.
for the first time in a long time, i'm kind of proud to be a michigan native.
The media wanted a horse race, they got a whore's race.
Obviously; The Ruling Class know exactly what the mood of the country will be as November 2008 arrives.
They are acting now to shut-out any third party candidates and to do whatever it takes in order to continue the "Regeime Rotation" and the game of Musical Chairs playeed between the Democrats and Republicans.
Calm
I see this as the equivalent as to when a long-running sit com introduces a baby, because they've run out of ideas.
I think NH just announced that they're holding primaries for the 2012 election next week.
You're in Florida. It's hot. It's humid.
You start to make love. You start to sweat. A fly lands on your ass.
You swat the fly.
You start to make love again. A fly lands on your ass again.
You swat the fly again.
You start to make love again. A fly lands on your ass again.
What have you learned?
Flies time when you're having fun.
Why are we going through this charade at all? Print the candidates' names on ping-pong balls and run them through the Vote-O-Matic. Whoever pops out of the chute first becomes the president!
(Or better yet, simply ask Diebold^H Premier Election Solutions who they want and live with the results like always...)
DEMS SEEK TO MOVE PRIMARIES ‘UP’ … TO 2004!
Tom @ 12:
No, the world around you is crazy. The reason states are pushing up primary dates is not because they care who the first state nominates but when other states have theirs. It's a game of reverse leap frog to try to trump Iowa and New Hampshire's first caucus and primary elections. I think they are jealous of the media attention and fan fair these two states get during election season and are trying to steal some of the action for themselves.
Much has been said about how much these two states do not mirror the diversity of America, but that's neither here nor there. They are still states, and if they get their jollies by being the first (even NH was rumored to call their major league baseball team should they get one - The Primey's) then let them have their moment in the sun. They're so desparate to keep their first primary status that they are going to move into December - a vote in December of 07 for a race in 08!? For crying out loud will this madness please stop!
Moving the dates is totally symptomatic of a society that's convinced itself that when you don't like something you can simply say 'screw it', do what you like and forget all about sitting down like adullts and talking about a solution that works. The system may not be perfect, but everyone deciding to go their own way is just plain chaotic and will likely stress what's left of the system until it breaks. Unfortunately, this sort of behaviour is now rampant in western politics, particularly among conservatives who flout established traditions the very moment they threaten their ability to do as they please.
This "argument" could easily be solved with a National Primary Day.
I'm sick of each state jockeying for "influence" on the Presidential candidates.
Fair is fair. When adults act like children, they must be treated like children.
This horse race is another brick in the American Idolization of politics. Pretty soon the primaries will be decided 3.5 years before the election. States need to quit trying to be first on everything
The american system of "elections" seems insane to everyone in the rest of the West. The system for primaries looks like a joke to anyone interested in fairness or efficiency.
The fewer of these faux debates for endless primaries, the better.
For example, that poser Edwards made two false claims at the last debate.
He claimed there is "very little" difference in the Democrats' plans to end the Iraq War.
Sorry, Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson want immediate withdrawal of all troops, while the others want to hem and haw to various degrees. Those are NOT minor differences.
Second, he claimed all of the Republicans are like "Bush on steroids" with regards to Iraq, conveniently ignoring Paul's position as if he were a typical media talking head.
Like the electoral college, state primaries are quaint anachronisms that diminish the popular vote for national candidates.
Like a poster stated above, I am still pissed that I couldn't vote for Dean even in my state primary.
bb @ 3:
What they are doing, is one hell of a job distracting people from talking about Impeachment!
"Pretty soon the primaries will be decided 3.5 years before the election."
The primaries will be decided 3.98 years before the election. Who neglected those extra six months?
Mark my words, eventually there will be people campaigning over four years in advance of the election they want to run in. All Campaigning, All The Time!
(Which also means, All Fundraising, All. The. Time.)
I think it would be best for American citizens if we were to solve this problem by banning both of these parties. They obviously have other agendas and priorities then the good of the nation anyway.
Iowa and New Hampshire need to accept that they don't DESERVE to have such an important position in determining the country's Presidential candidates. Neither is in any way representative of the country as a whole. Until they accept this fact, the calendar will continue to be a mess.
It just feels like it's a rush to get Clinton nominated instead of actually choosing whose the _BEST_ candidate. Clinton is running on name Recognition and nostalgia and there's isn't enough time for the likes of Obama or even Edwards to show the huge liabilities of a Clinton nomination. (aka knocking sense into people). Therefore, people will end up voting impulsively.
Anyway, the real cause of this mess is..well what Swashbuckler said. (no. 36).
This whole broken primary calendar is symptomatic of the nature of this election cycle. When you start an election cycle in 2006, it has to be expected that everything will get messed up. Although, I don't understand this need to have earlier and earlier primaries. No one really votes in primaries, and candidates still have to go to the states to get their electoral college votes. Additionally, I agree with a lot of the other people: there should be primaries all on one day. I still wouldn't vote on these days because I would be registered as an independent because of my hatred for the democratic and republican parties, but it would get rid of all of this worthless posturing.
[Deleted. Waaaay off topic]
The only way order is going to be imposed is a national primary imposed by the RNC & DNC with the winners being those candidates who get the most votes nationwide. This would eliminate six to eight hours of bloviating by sweaty municipal or state politicians who always begin with "The great state of..." and continue ad nauseum for ten minutes until they say what everyone already knows.
I think the last time a convention went beyond a single ballot was in the sixties (I could be wrong, but not by much) so the only people who will be po'ed are fifty Boss Hawgs who miss their ten minutes of fame.
FWIW - IMO the Electoral College should also be scrapped for a national popular vote.
Neither will ever happen because the smaller rural states won't permit it.
Can we vote on this? NO? Oh yeah, i keep forgetting this isn't a democracy.
You know, there is an ancillary issue here that I havent seen mentioned anywhere - that the constant shifting of the election calendar will yield significant profits for the media congloms. The earlier the networks start blabbing about the election, and candidates start taking out ads, the earlier the PR pros can cart out their 'new products' for public consumption, whether it's Edwards's faggy haircut or Giuliani's manly assertiveness. I noticed that before all the talk of moving the primaries up; the networks just started covering the election earlier anyway.
Questions: who benefits from the election narratives appearing earlier and earlier in the season? How does that affect news coverage? Does news coverage become more about "the person" and less about policy, theory, philosophy, and practical consequences? How likely is impeachment to be "put back on the table" if there is already a huge buzz about the next election? In fact, is any issue worth trying to tackle considering we're already talking about the next administration? Why should we pressure the current members of congress when there's an election everybody's talking about already? And if the next election is the be-all end-all, then we better not scare people into staying home on election day out of fear their votes might not be counted, right? So better not make too big an issue of election fraud. Not to mention the war, which the Repubs are carefully loading up for the Dems to inherit responsibility for. Better not hit the admin to hard on the war, with an election just round the corner!
This stinks of psy-ops. Dont think about how to solve problems, just think about the next election when we can try out a new "leader" to solve our problems for us. This is how the media trains us to think before they turn around and accuse people of wanting a "nanny state" or some such. It's classic bait & switch. Funny now with the Dems in power we dont hear the mantra, "elections have consequences" nearly so much??? The media isnt saying that because they are too busy laughing at us all.
Nothing will change until the media congloms get busted up.
This primary cycle is just getting pathetic. Too bad we can't just use instant runoff voting in the November election and just get rid of the primaries in their entirety.
jr @ 30:
I can agree in a way.... "Frist!" gets on my nerves sometimes, but I don't bitch about it when someone does it (for almost every thread). But I also consider these trials and tribulations like a chess match, people versus the federal governmental machine. One of our strongest pieces, our rooks after a fashion, are the States. there is supposed to be an underlying conflict (a necessary and good one) between the notion of federal jurisdiction and 'state's rights' which are too often forgotten altogether. So, I'm not sure I care who goes 'frist' on the state level... but I -do- care about how early it is happening altogether!
just media framing debate again... "here's the way we're dicking you, but WAIT! -- look over here! this shiny piece of american reality-show-type drama, loosely related to the way we're dicking you! *jedi media trix* this is how you want to think about it..."
But someone else up the thread mentioned that some states have primaries that are major party only, and you can only vote primary for your registered party. Someone could check that idea -- which states are restricting their primaries in this way, and are they the ones clamoring to push up their primary dates? are they historically/currently red states or blue states? Unfortunately, I am sorely lacking knowledge of how to put that together. I should study up more on states' rights and my 1-state, 2-state, red state, blue state Dr. Sleuth bookz.
I say we go to a national primary day, or a rotating regional primary where the US is divided into 4 regions (1,2,3,4) and in 2012 region 1 votes on one tuesday, region 2 the next etc; then in 2016 region 2 goes first, followed by 3, 4 then 1. you see the process
Splash @ 42:
BLAM! spot on. I'm glad you came out more eloquent than I did and said it str8 up. yay!
cetylovx @ 37:
Edwards (and his running mate Coulter) is part of the problem...he needs and deserves less time, not more--- the DNC establishment, along with Rove and the RNC establishment, want Clinton to win...(therein we see the so-called genius of Rove)...
If this is a rush to get clinton nominated, it is a rush to defeat, because, of the viable candidates ( ie obama and clinton), she is the only one that could be beaten by a republican...she will potentially turn away the marginal (and crucial) independent vote, whereas Obama will inspire huge turnout of that crucial, non-partisan voting block...
Sure, its not a problem, if you're in one of the early voting states. Those of us in the states that vote last, don't really have a reason to. We have no voice, the winners have already been chosen by the time we get to vote in a primary. Its pointless. We do not get to participate in this 'democracy'.
There really is no reason to preserve Iowa or New Hampshire as being first. Just because you felt sorry for the dorkey little red haired kid and picked him first in 2nd grade, doesn't mean he should be picked to lead the team into the NCAA final four. Ancient reasons are most often ancient mistakes, not reasons to corrupt our tomorrows.
HDon @ 48:
Have all the states vote on the same day. Give every state two votes, one for first place and one for second. He/she with the most votes wins. Be fair to everybody, or don't pretend you are a Democrat, when you throw 90% of the votes away.
One man one vote, one state one vote, one nation, one vote.
Screw Iowa and screw New Hampshire! Until someone convinces me of the merits of having states vote on different days in the national election, I say we need one, national primary date. I'd prefer June!
rhfactor @ 14:
Really.... couldn't have said it any better myself.
Yes to a same day primary. This race to be first in primaries is just more manipulation of the vote so that the popular or "leading" candidates are chosen. It's a party control procedure and works hand-in-hand with the delegate elections to insure that the loyal party candidates are winners. the losers?--us
lopaloo @ 47:
I disagree as to Hillary can be beaten by any Repig. My view is(based upon assumption
that there is not more voter fraud in 2008) that ANY Dem candidate can and will defeat
any Repig presidential candidate.
that
It will only get better when there is one National Primary day for each party and everyone who wants to vote for a candidate for their party CAN. It is absolutely ridiculous for these small states to be choosing the future President of the United States. NH. IA, SC? C'mon!
Who are the calendar girls of the primary calendars?
http://www.kozmikhoroscopes.com/munroe1.jpg
This is one of the reasons I have remained a 'Non Partisan' from Nevada. I can observe the madness from afar.
Michael @ 2:
Yes, because it was such a good and fair system to COMPLETELY ignore western states in nominating a candidate.
[...] return to smoke filled back rooms? I was reading a post on Crooks And Liars today and something occurred to me. I’ve been reading Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign [...]
I agree with holding a National Primary Day - but make it July 4th in the year OF the election. (It's already a holiday, an extremely memorable date, and far and away the MOST appropriate date to do this.)
And while we're at it, abolish political conventions - they have become meaningless and insanely expensive coronation ceremonies.
Let's just have the primaries now and get it over with!!!
In the future, right after inauguration, we can begin the next round of campaigning!
How about this?
The parties, be they Repub, Dem, Green, Lib, Const. whatever can FUND THEIR OWN PRIMARIES. They can decide their nominees that way. Or they can hold party caucuses or whatever they want to do to pick their candidate.
Then we have a general primary. Everyone who can get on the ballot is on that freaking ballot.
Then you pick your top 3 candidates. Mark'em 1, 2, 3.
The two candidates with the highest number of total marks (1 = 1, 2 = 0.5, 3 = 0.25) are in the general election.
The person with the simple majority of electoral votes is the winner.
In horse and buggy days, and in the days of transcontinental train travel, the primary season had to be a long one, to allow candidates to criss-cross the country.
Today, with the internet, and TV, it just doesn't make any sense.
There should be four regional primaries, spaced one month apart, in the laste spring/early summer of the presidential election year.
Having the four primaries "shakes out" the weaker candidates, and still allows for a dark horse to emerge. And it then gives the nominees the summer to run against each other in the general election.
The 'honor' of being first should rotate between regions. This tradition of having N.H. go first is just a curious anachronism.
Which will be the first state with the bold vision to hold their primary last year?
rhfactor @ 14:
And, um, of course... the Rose Bowl, Grandaddy of them all.
But, yeah, your point stands. ;)
I would say the BEST way to resolve these primary issues is to divide up the country into 3 (possibly 4) distinct voting regions and ROTATE every 4 years which group goes first. do it on 3 consecutive Saturdays in either Jan or Feb and then EVERYONE gets a chance to go first every 12 years.
To myself... it makes COMPLETE sense and is totally fair, sooooo, that means it will never happen. :)
Rather than this:
King of Mean @ 4:
I think we'd be better served with 3-5 rotating regional primaries. Divide the country into segments (not too hard) and then have those regional primaries once per month. Every cycle, rotate who goes first, second, etc.
Simple, efficient, fair. Way to sensible to ever be enacted.
Great minds think alike, Malamute! (See my post above.)
Malamute @ 65:
Progressive Pragmatist @ 67:
Some of us still have the true sensibility of our founding fathers ideals pumping through our veins. I understand why the primaries were/are the way they were/are, but its time to change. It's not like these candidates need a few days to ride their horse from state to state to primary anymore. I realize nothing happens fast in our government but i would say at sometime nearly post the ford model-T this should have been revised to suit the ability of candidates to travel easier to speak to voters.
So yes. If theres any real primary people that read this stuff, take the advice of 2 of the greatest sensible minds in this thread...LOL.. ;)
... Maybe it's their way of pushing Bush out the door ASAP...
Login or Register to post comments.