Why does the Democratic Party keep insisting on front-loading?

Frontloading has simply not produced a winning candidate! Look at the last two times that Democrats have been successful in the general election. In '92 Clinton didn't actually lock things up 'til April ... and in '76, Carter had to keep running a primary campaign 'til the end of May (thanks in part to that plucky one-eyed Arizonan, Mo Udall, who came tantalizingly close to dethroning Carter in several large-state primaries).

If the Dems are so hell-bent on picking a candidate early and want to keep most folks out of choosing him or her, why not just dispense with the primaries and pick the candidates at an early convention? At least then the few people who are involved in picking the candidates would be geographically balanced!

If it claims to speak for all Americans, the Democratic Party really needs to replace IA and NH with two other, far more representative small states that actually affirm, rather than actively undermines, the notion of one person, one vote: NM and HI.

"And for the love of God, it's not NH and Iowa that threaten the democratic process, it's the obscene front-loading, the jamming of huge numbers of primaries one after another without any time for voters to digest the results and study the candidates and reflect." ---NH Dem

I agree that front-loading has some big problems. But they are problems that are largely neutral on the subject of maintaining "the democratic process" as you put it. We still have one person, one vote. Every vote counts equally, whether you have 2 early primaries or 6.

In contrast, nothing could be less democratic than having an entirely unrepresentative group of rural - almost exclusively caucasian - voters from IA and NH act as kingmakers for the rest of the party and country. Why should a handful of rural white Democrats hold class A shares in a stock - the Democratic party - that count for ten times the vote of urban people of color who hold class B shares in the back of the bus?!

The arrogance of those who feel entitled to maintain IA and NH's all-white country club status of privilege within the Democratic primaries is stunning and offensive.

Edwards all the way! Made my own bumpersticker already! We need populist
leadership in this country to restore the America Dream. Not this Preditory Capitalist, "Free Market" Pooh we have been fed for the last 30yrs. This new
Guiled Age is destroying the fabric of our country. Now is the time for progress or we will not exist as the light in the dark!

Sherry------

I agree that in 2004, having 9 or 10 candidates at debates was joke. But without the polls or a caucus vote in Iowa, how else to get rid of the 4 or 5 who have no chance of winning? So, the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire will remain the first ways to test the political waters and get a few to drop off. New Hampshire was one of the first states to hold a primary (over 70 years ago) and the Democrats screwed up the 2004 race by the front loaded system. Terry McAwful said he wanted get it wrapped up quick so the Democrats could spend their money hammering on Bush. That is why Kerry lost. The focus was on getting rid of Bush, not who was the best Democrat for the job. Now they whine and complain about the system while they are the ones who screwed it up. Typical left-wing whining.

CORRECTION:

"Under state law, no presidential contest in another state can be held seven days before or seven days after the New Hampshire primary. Secretary of State William Gardner believes a caucus in Nevada would trigger the law, forcing him to move the date of his state's primary."

These two sentences are false. An accurate revision would be as follows:

Under state law, the New Hampshire primary must be held at least seven days prior to any similar election in another state. Secretary of State William Gardner is concerned that a caucus in Nevada might trigger the law, forcing him to move the date of his state's primary, but he has not made any final judgment.

And for the love of God, it's not NH and Iowa that threaten the democratic process, it's the obscene front-loading, the jamming of huge numbers of primaries one after another without any time for voters to digest the results and study the candidates and reflect. Iowa, then two weeks, then Nevada, then two weeks, then NH would be great. Iowa, then five days, then Nevada, then three days, then NH is a freaking disaster that throws any consideration for the voters and the process out the window. Remember how well front-loading worked out for us last time? Yeah, we really need more of that.

Quentin Langley's history and thesis are both correct. He failed to mention that the old system, in which California and New Jersey, voting on the first Tuesday in June, still played important roles in choosing the nominee, was also a heck of a lot more fun to observe and study than our new all-over-by-March-1st system.

Robert in Seattle credits staggered primaries with producing the Clinton nomination in 1992. Who does he think would have won had there been a single-day national primary? I submit that it would have been Clinton, at least if the same candidates had run.

What's intriguing is considering the impact a single-day national primary would have had in 1988--again, assuming the same cast of candidates. My guess is that Jesse Jackson would have won the nomination had that been the case then. How would the Jackson-Bruce Babbitt ticket have fared against Bush/Quayle? I don't have a clue.

Unfortunately, this all but takes Feingold out of the running. Adding Southern and Western states to ONE Midwest and a New England state doesn't bode too well for my chosen horse...

Although, I met some very interesting Warner people (work with his PAC, Forward Together) over the weekend. I think he's kind of liberal, but just moderate enough to get the key votes. I also heard Vilsack speak over the weekend (I was at the College Democrats of America National Convention, which also included speeches by Wesley Clark, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and a video address by Evan Bayh). The content of Vilsack's speech was good, but his delivery was, on the whole, unimpressive, to say the least. I loved what Clark said and how he said it - I think people are forgetting about him. Anyway, I got a little off the path there. I really think Warner could make a push in South Carolina, but the odds of a Bill Richardson victory anywhere other than Nevada are highly unlikely. As many have said, candidates that are beyond the regional support (ie Hillary, Kerry, Edwards) have the best chance. Also, CC's latest post about Obama all but seals the idea that, if he were to run in 08, he could potentially be a serious force.

CC-

Your example of Bayh is a little off I think. You are assuming he does not have the resources to have operations in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina at the same time. Any funds garnered from an Iowa success would go to fund contests in March anyways. Any candidate hoping to raise enough money to impact the immediate schedule, regardless of having Nevada in the mix, is a lost cause.

Also, it is the likely pattern that early primary and caucus wins are from regional candidates anyways.

Iowa- Vilsack, Bayh
New Hampshire- Clinton, Kerry
South Carolina- Edwards, Warner
Nevada- Richardson

Then Super Tuesday comes and the test for regional candidates to break out. The Great Lakes and Midwestern primaries are another such test and winnows the field.

Clearly, Clinton and Gore are beyond regional candidates at this stage. Kerry and Edwards may be as well.

Biden and Dodd are going to be hamstrung as "new englanders" and Warner as a "southerner", Richardson as a "westerner", Bayh and Vilsack as "midwesterners".

I am in the "Go Johnny go" camp, so I like the new schedule. I feel that Edwards might have won the nomination in 2004 if the primary schedule had been more leisurely Instead dozens of primary states in the compressed schedule quickly fell to the frontrunner Kerry, who was propelled to an insurmountable lead by voters who really had little idea who he was (and who had almost no exposure to his mind-numbing speaking style and less than scintillating personality). Even though my candidate Edwards now has name recognition and can benefit from the even more compressed new system, I'll admit that it's a lousy system. I agree with Quentin's suggestion of a slower paced schedule but only if there are strict controls on money (it will never happen, of course). Otherwise Democrats are wasting huge sums of money that could be spent in the General Election on battling each other.

After "fixing" the primary schedule, how about doing something about the debates? Those nine-candidate debates are impossible. Nobody gets a chance to say anything meaningful. I realize it's hard to correct (my candidate Edwards was low in the polls initially in 2004, so maybe he would have been bumped off the debate panels if poll numbers had been used as the criterion). Still there is no way that Sharpton and Kucinich should still have been included in the debates at the tail end of the 2004 primary process. Maybe more debates have to be scheduled with limited numbers of participants randomly scheduled for each. At least that way every one would have more of a chance to say something.

CC-

You missed one winner-

Gov. Bill Richardson, the only regional candidate in the west. Nevada is in his backyard and gives him an early competitive chance to build upon.

I say get rid of the electoral college. It's an insult to the idea of one person, one vote. All the original rationalizations for it have disappeared over time.

The debacle that was dubya, and all the damage that has ensued, including the twisting and warping of the courts, would never have happened if the people had been allowed their clear choice.

A suggested timetable follows. In accordance with the principles outlined above, it has mostly small states voting early, with the biggest states voting at the end; some preference is given to swing states and they tend to vote earlier; in the early weeks I try to cycle the four main regions; I try to balance red and blue states, but this conflicts with the rule that small states vote early and big states vote last. Florida is the first of the biggest states to vote, followed by Pennsylvania and Ohio, because they are all swing states. The biggest state in each region (none of which is especially close in presidential contests, except in unusual circumstances) votes last.

These are only general rules. Some smaller states, especially in the West, where most states are small, vote fairly late.

Please let me know if I have made any errors.

Date State EV
W3 Jan Iowa 7
W4 Jan Nevada 5
W1 Feb New Hampshire 4
W2 Feb South Carolina 8
W3 Feb Kansas 6
W4 Feb Oregon 7
W1 Mar Vermont 3
W2 Mar West Virginia 5
W3 Mar South Dakota 3
W4 Mar Alaska 3
W1 Apr Delaware 3
W2 Apr New Mexico 5
W3 Apr Alabama 9
Arizona 10
Indiana 11
Maryland 10
W4 Apr Hawaii 4
Wisconsin 10
Rhode Island 4
Mississippi 6
W1 May Arkansas 6
Colorado 9
Maine 4
Missouri 9
W2 May Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Oklahoma 7
North Dakota 3
Connecticut 7
Kentucky 8
Virginia 13
W3 May Wyoming 3
Washington 11
New Jersey 15
Michigan 17
Florida 27
W4 May Minnesota 10
Massachusetts 12
Louisiana 9
Tennessee 11
Idaho 4
Utah 5
W1 Jun Georgia 15
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Pennsylvania 21
W2 Jun California 56
New York 31
Texas 33
Illinois 21

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

What do you mean Gore would lose again? He won almost 600000 more popular votes than Bush in 2000.

The winner is a fellow named "Unintended Consequences" -- attempts to manipulate the primary/caucus calendar always backfire or result in something wierd.

I think all of the Dem candidates seem sane, rational and decent-- and any one of them a big improvement over The Moron. I still like Gore best, but I could, and will, support any who get the nomination.

I look at the republican field of loonies and losers and thank god I am a democrat.

Let us not forget Al Gore, he is the one candidate because of his statue and name recognition who could jump in at the last moment and take the nomination. But he would still most likely lose again as will HRC who is the most polarizing politican in my memory. Mark Warner is by far the best candidate the democrats have, who would in all likely hood, would win in November. By we are lucky in our opponents, because Warner is far to moderate and sensible for the crazies who control the primaries.

Bringing forward the dates of a few relatively small primaries and caucuses does give greater advantage to those with the financial and organisational strengths. But the real problem started a few cycles back, and it was bringing forward the big states like California, New York and Ohio. To some degree it started with the invention of southern 'Super Tuesday' (including Florida and Texas) in the 1980s.

When California voted in June, there was plenty of time for candidates to establish a reputation in February and March and still raise money for the really expensive media markets later in the year.

Even then, it was rare for the contest to go all the way to the convention without a clear winner. I believe the Republicans in 1976 and Democrats in 1960 are the most recent examples.

If we were designing the system from scratch, one small state a week from mid-Jan to the end of Feb; a cluster of small and medium sized states in March, with the ten largest states spread from April to June would seem like a good system to me.

By the way, I think Chris missed one possible beneficiary of Nevada's new slot: Bill Richardson. There are a great many Hispanic voters in Nevada.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I would just love is the primaries where just about policy and less about money. I wish there was a spending cap so that almost all candidates have the same money so less about money and more about issues. Wait I wish the general election was like that too, but I mean honestly who wants a fair debate about who should rightly and better off governing the country. I mean the American people sure don't...wait.

Kerry won NH in 2004.

What if the primaries were staggered but the release of the results delayed? Is that too far out there?

I'm still a Hillary fan and think Warner would be a great running mate. The south will tell the story in 08, that is pretty well agreed on, and for a red state Gov. on the ticket, things are looking good now, but so many things can happen in a matter of days. I still cant see Rudy or McCain for the pubs, what am I missing??.

Robert in Seattle makes a really good point, holding all the primaries on the same day would be much more of a detriment to the election system currently in place than I think people realize. Pat said that candidates not having enough resources isn't a sufficient reason, but take that one step further. Doesn't that mean that the true determining factor would become the amount of money one can fundraise, rather than any political views, skill, or talent. The voters in all the states would suffer from less information about candidates before voting for them, and would have less individual impact on elections than they currently do. Voters do get get to "hold them all on one day," on election day, which is what really matters.

As far as Greg in LA's comment on nothing indicating that people will actually vote for Clinton, I'd argue the contrary. Hillary may not be embraced by the liberal wing of the party but her presence in the DLC and fundraising capability more than speaks to her popularity inside and outside the party. The one thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the presence of Bill Clinton, who remains very popular. Let's not forget the last time either New Hampshire or Nevada were carried by a Democrat it was by Bill. Critics of Hillary talk about electability but then again isn't that why everyone liked John Kerry?

It is not too bad of a change and I can see their mentality. Like each state represents an area of the country west, south, midwest, and northeast. It is just sad although it helps out my candidate John Edwards like no other that other Democrats like Bayh and Warner will have it harder for their voice to be heard. Hopefully Warner will not rule out making his stand in South Carolina where I think Edwards is favored but not necessarily guarenteed a win. For example, Warner spoke to South Carolina Democrats last December or November and he got a lot of praise. The chairman down in those parts was very receptive and almost sided with Warner. So Warner may make a surprise fight in that state. Bayh has to put all his marbles down on Iowa and hope to finish okay in South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire to fight another day. So in all the changes are not bad for long term nomination process but since one of the top contenders if not the top is from North Carolina and dominated the primary in 2004 there is bad this time around. I wish since Ohio is a good reflection of the way national tides go as far as 2004 results that I wish it was on the board. It is small enough to get one on on action and since Ohio is one of the most crucial states to win it would be a good choice. Ohio is a nice mix of cities like Cincy, Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton with many rural parts dominating the rest. On the otherhand I could see that since Iowa is a Midwest state and so is Ohio they might want different regions.

I tend to agree with PopDem, the ones who are hurt by this are some of the most legit other contenders, Bayh and Warner. I think that's a shame in that both of them have compelling stories to tell, and I think should be considered closely. But I also tend to think that any of the three of Edwards, Bayh and Warner could create a pretty exciting team for Democrats. Maybe I'm nuts for my like of Edwards, but I think an Edwards-Bayh combination, two Dems whose message will appeal nationally and whose history might help in the South and Midwest, could be interesting. Replace one with Warner and I think the same could apply.

I agree that primaries and caucuses should be staggered. Otherwise, little known but very talented politicians won't have a chance to win over a few states, several hundred voters at a time. I think that's the only way we got Bill Clinton. I've always had a problem though, with two small, overwhelmingly white states choosing the nominee for a much more diverse, urban political party. And I'm annoyed at the arrogance of NH in acting as though it's their birthright to have more a say in the democratic process than anyone else. I LOVE John Edwards' political views. But I was very disappointed in his performance in the vice presidential debate. Watching that, I couldn't believe he was a famous trial lawyer. Instead of attacking issues and Republican answers directly, he just repeated whatever line he had memorized on the subject. I'm a liberal Democrat who very much hopes for an HRC nomination. I think she'd do exceptionally well in a presidential debate - in stark contrast to Edwards, Kerry, Gore. Nor is she just a media creation. She's one of the leading fundraisers for her party, and is often asked to campaign for other candidates. I believe (hope) she wins the nomination. And I believe (hope) she can beat the Republican nominee.

Pop Dem: U are right on, these few caucuses and primarys will have very effectively shut out the vast majoriy of voters across most of the country.

I am still hoping Warner can pull it off.

Polls and underlying polls are showing the signs for a Edwards win. Example the Iowa poll showing Edwards in the lead with 30% of the vote, but more importantly in mind is the poll that showed that out of all Democrats Edwards is the most accepted or agreed upon Democrat to win the nomination. The poll showed that 71% would like a Edwards win with Clinton trailing behind him once again. That shows that his message expands farther than any other Democrat. I think he has a good shot. Sadly, for Democrats like Bayh and Warner the change may leave them behind.

"If, as expected, the nominee will be decided by Jan. 30, 2008, Clinton remains the strongest bet."

I actually have a problem with the truthfulness too. I have yet to see anything convincing that people will actually VOTE for Hillary. None of the states at the top of the list have "lean Hillary" tendencies and frankly Kerry, Warner and Richardson are just as likely to benefit from the new states. And Edwards being the big winner here makes Hillary the big loser. Because, as with many front runners, once the bleeding starts, people will pounce on Hillary.

I remain convinced that Hillary 08 is a media creation. I'm not saying she won't run, but I suspect she will get nowhere near the nomination. Quite the contrary to the Fix suspect predictions, I think she could go 0-for-4 and be out by the end of Jan. 08.

So essentially, any four states grouped at a close time span benefits Hillary Clinton? Or are there other reasons why, an early Nevada, and South Carolina caucus benefit Hillary?

What if there is no momentum for anyone? what if Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada all go their own ways?

Seems like a caucus or primary on the same day all across the country would be the most effective. Think of the $$$ that could be spent or saved, depending on ? each has.

I hate to say it, but this also helps Kerry, as one candidate who (even more than Hillary) has a truly national organization. Of course, it may not amount to much (see Howard Dean, 2004) when it comes to voting day. I hope not.

Otherwise I agree -- Edwards, Hillary and Kerry are the three who can compete in four states at once (I suppose Gore could if he shocks me and decides to run). And I think Edwards benefits the most because of his strength in Iowa and SC (the stuff about how he is so well-positioned in NV is news to me, though that does not mean it is not true).

Edwards should have been at the top of the ticket in 2006, but the calendar and the Scream (dominating the news cycle) worked against him. His ground team is laying the foundation now to be a serious force in 2008. I'm with EvilEye. Go Johnny Go!

Go Johnny Go!

I agree that NH's position is diminished, as it should be, but the growth of the West is an obvious response to the actual population shifts in the country. We here in the West offer solutions, not jawboning.

I think that only a handful of states decide either party's candidate is a disgrace to the entire system. That's how we got boobs like Kerry and W.

What on earth is the rationale for not holding all primaries on the same day? The candidates don't have enough resources to deal with it? The states who now get to decide won't let it happen?

Well any candidate who can't handle a national election needs to not get nominated.

And I'm so sick of the politics of the short-sighted and the selfish - isn't that what we've had for the last six years? Okay, okay, probably longer than that, but when do we take a lesson and wake up to what we are doing to ourselves and worse, our children - and theirs, and theirs and so on?

If anyone could convince me that they truly have the good of the country IN THE LONG TERM at heart, they'd have my vote in a heartbeat, I don't care what party they might be representing - if any.

"If, as expected, the nominee will be decided by Jan. 30, 2008, Clinton remains the strongest bet."

I have a problem with this statement. Not with its truthfullness, but the thruth which makes it valid.

Are you saying "Four states vote and its pretty much locked up?"

If that doesn't sream hold them all on one day nothing does. Imagine, every state having an equal say in who can be president...

All this is true. However, I think the biggest losers in this are still the overwhelmingly Democratice citizens of the District of Columbia. DC has unsuccessfully attempted to move it's primary date forward since the last election. Now the 650,000 DC residents have an even smaller potential to have any say in their own self rule or influence on national politics.

Since the concern of most Amercian's is to roll back **everything** the Bush lunatics have managed to do, any of the named candidates will work just fine, thank you very much! And, since most of us would like a national health insurance plan, a sane one anyways, sometime this cenury AND want to end or curtail outsourcing and guest worker programs AND want us out of Iraq AND want to end these silly tax cuts for the wealthy, Edwards looks just fine to this Independent voter. Hillary looks just like Bush in drag.

Edwards is somebody nobody really expects to be the nominee, but he is in good position to win Iowa(based on polls)Nevada and of course South Carolina. If he does that, the money and good press will follow and he could become formidable. Sure am looking forward to 08. Gonna be a lot of fun.