Kos: Kill the Iowa Caucuses

[WI_DEM]

and to a lesser extent the influence of the NH primary:
"Two overwhelmingly white, small, rural states are deciding a nominee for tens of millions of Democrats around the country. I couldn't care less how the Republicans choose their nominee, but for Democrats, the current system is untenaable. It must end."

http://www.dailykos.com/

you'll have to scroll down a bit

[LibInternationalist]

1. I agree wholeheartedly

we need to have larger and more diverse states first -- plus, Iowa and NH are swing states anyway, don't they get enough attention?

[greenohio]

104. I knew it was Iowas fault somehow

Give me a break guys. This is not the fault of Iowa being the first primary state. We don't like the outcome so lets change everthing.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Notice how close Iowa was

both in 2000 and 2004.
I think it's fine.
What we should do is move up Wisconsin and other independent states.

[Eloriel]

5. No, the caucus system leaves it too open to manipulation

by the powerful in the party. Not at all democratic. I'm with Kos on this one.

[zulchzulu]

7. How does it do that? Perhaps you can enlighten me

I've participated in a caucus and know how it works. How is it "not democratic at all"?

[Cheswick2.0]

33. D'oh

How does it work? Exactly what happened. The party powerful call in all their favors and because the vote is not secret people are affraid to resist.

Give the Dean hate a break. Your candidate just lost us the big one.

[zulchzulu]

38. Whuh?

Read my thread about how it worked. It was very democratic.

As for you and your childish crack about my "Dean hate" and how "My candidate" just lost a big one, I see where you stand.

I like Dean. Iowa didn't. Get over it.

[Cheswick2.0]

44. give it a break

I know perfectly well how caucuses work. Iowa was rigged, you get over it.

BTW, I spent the last month working 16 hours a day for Kerry even though in my opinion he was the guy the republicans wanted to run against and now we know why. So they caucused for Kerry in Iowa too...not a good deal at all.

[zulchzulu]

55. "Iowa was rigged"

Is that tinfoil under your orange hat?

[T Town Jake]

71. You're wasting your time with the poster...

...see, this is how it works: anytime anyone says anything that can even be remotely construed as critical of the former Vermont governor, the Deaniacs come running and do their own version of the Dean Scream. What *W is to Dittoheads and Freepers, Dean is to them: an object of veneration beyond any and all criticism.
To the larger point, their should be, IMO, one nationwide primary for the Democratic Party held on the same day. That way we would get a candidate truly representative of nationwide Democrats. Just my .02.

[IndianaGreen]

78. At least you knew where Dean stood on the issues

Dean never went windsurfind to figure out on which side of an issue he should be.

[Placebo]

91. What Republican Training Manual Did You Pull THAT Line From?

Jeez.

[IndianaGreen]

100. Actually it was Joe Lieberman who first said Kerry waffles on issues

And we have seen from Kerry's premature concession speech, before all the ballots have been counted, that he flipped from Edwards's assurances a few hours earlier that all ballots would be counted.

Do you really need to take a poll to know what to say about a Bin Laden tape? Duh!!!!!

[Skidmore]

102. I don't understand this. I am an Iowan who caucused for

Dean. I certainly would not endorse getting rid of our system. The analogy of horse trading just doesn't fit what goes on at a caucus. People arrive at a consensus. Everyone has the right to stand up and say whatever they wish about their candidate of choice or to argue why the other guy isn't the right choice. It is the one part of the election process where I know my ideas really are heard and respected.

You know, we all go home at the end of the night still neighbors and friends.

[FuzzySlippers]

103. I'm an Iowan, too.

I've never experienced anything remotely like strong-arm tactics at a caucus. It's all been very polite and genteel. I don't necessarily think the Iowa caucuses should be the first contest in the nation, but all this talk of them being rigged seems ridiculous to me.

[Larkspur]

49. The Iowa Caucuses are a Byzantine system

that favors party hacks and extroverts. It's like a Middle Eastern Bazaar, where Caucus goers haggle for their candidate. Party hacks can control the system by pushing caucus goers, who don't support their canidate, off to the side. That's what happened to Dean caucus goers in Iowa. The Kerry-bots took over and pushed the Dean folks away from the undecides.

In short, Iowa Caucuses are not the same as Primaries.

[zulchzulu]

57. Are you serious?

If so, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I was in Iowa and participated in a caucus in Des Moines. Those who were for Dean showed up. Those for Kerry and the others showed up.

When it was time to go to each candidate's alloted section, they did. There were no cartoonish "party hacks" that pushed anybody anywhere. People were very involved in the campaign and made their decision, fair and square.

[IndianaGreen]

79. Iowans picked a LOSER!

Time to change the system by grouping states into regional primaries with enough time between the primaries to avoid the premature "inevitability" of a presumptive nominee.

[zulchzulu]

81. This is getting funny now

So if Iowa picked...um...let's say, for example...oh...um...Howard Dean, your opinion of the process might be just a tad different?

If anything, blame Joe Trippi for allowing Dean to lose. The guy wouldn't even answer Howard's phone calls. And Dean spent $41 million in Iowa only to get third or fourth place...I forget...

[Placebo]

92. Bingo.

[IndianaGreen]

101. Kerry was marketed as "Mister Electable"

Polls showed that the majority of Democratic primary voters agreed with Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich on the issues, but many of them voted for Kerry for one reason only: they thought he could win based on Kerry's inflated bio. We saw how far that went!

[Rambis]

106. Dean

Dean came across as an angry man who talked at poeple and down to peopple no one here in Iowa liked that we can think for ourselves.

[Rambis]

105. That did not happen

Dean was not the best candidate he finished 3rd or 4th and Deniacs can't get over it. Well get over it! No one controlled the caucus that is BS. The caucuses were attended in record numbers. Our town usually has 8-10 people attend there were 113! All but 13 people had never attended before. You picked the guy that you thought would be a good prez. No one controlled my decision to support Edwards and we supported him through the county convention because he asked us to. Kerry and Edwards were an even split and Dennis K had a standing order to throw support to another candidate if he was not viable. How many of you went to hear each of the candidates speak and carry notebooks with issues outlined and what they wanted from their guy. People callied out the politicians when they said something negative about another one of the guys running. People did their homework on these guys big time. Great process-

[foo_bar]

9. that's called sour grapes

If Dean got creamed in a regular primary, we'd hear no end of BBV conspiracies and purported machinations by the powers that be. In fact, we heard precisely those allegations when he lost New Hampshire a week later. Any outcome that doesn't select Dean is a Citizen Kane "Fraud at Polls!" headline waiting to happen.

[Kahuna]

19. Can we get some states with a diverse population in the process?

Wisconsin is just more of the same. :eyes:

[zulchzulu]

28. Milwaukee has a large black population...

While I wish the Midwest and other parts of the country were more diverse, they aren't.

Travel the US and you'll see that a LOT of the country is pretty rural, pretty white and full of malls that look the same as others in the rest of the country.

That's what we have to work with.

[Kahuna]

31. So what's wrong with states like, PA, NC or even NJ?

Nothing! That's what's wrong with them.

[zulchzulu]

35. New Jersey? What exit?

Nothing wrong with those states...except maybe Jersey. :->

If this is meant to be a "I hate those damn Iowa cracker farmers" thread, then it's not too productive.

Otherwise, PA, NC and NJ should possibly vote sooner than they do.

[Kahuna]

60. It's not about "Iowa crackers" as you call them. It's about a primary..

that reflects the Democratic party at large. Freaking IOWA and NH didn't even select Clinton. That's how in touch they are.... NOT!

[Blue Gardener]

63. Gee, I can really feel the love

I've lived in Iowa my whole life, and you think I'm not in touch? Thanks for the vote of confidence.

[Kahuna]

67. No offense..This isn't about you. But since you did take offense

give me one reason why I should give IA a vote of confidence? They didn't even pick Clinton when the had the chance. When is the last time IA picked a Democratic winner?

And another thing, what's with this birth right mentality that IA has to go first? That's bull. I do think it's high time that other states have a crack at it. If that hurts your feelings, :shrug:

[Blue Gardener]

68. Not a birthright

If the party wants to change it, fine with me. I would go along with whatever the powers that be decide.
However, if we do have first in the nation caucuses again next time around, perhaps you could come and observe a caucus so you have a feel for the process? It really is grass roots politics when you gather with all your neighbors in one big room to hash everything out. It takes more time than pulling a lever, so for the most part the people that attend have done their homework, and truly want to be there to participate in the democratic process.

[Kahuna]

69. I don't need to hash out my vote with my neighbors. I don't do it in..

the general election and I don't need to do it for a primary. My vote is my vote. And I don't need anyone's consensus to cast it. If you like your caucus, fine with me. I could care less. That doesn't make it better or worse than states that don't hold caucuses.

[zulchzulu]

77. Amen

I felt blessed by being able to participate in a caucus in Des Moines to actually see the process occur. People (a mixed race of people, even) participated in the process.

What was cool was how so many people observed the caucus (like me) that were not from Iowa. I was there to monitor the event for Kerry. There were some cool people from California who were there for Dean, someone monitoring for Kucinich and another for Edwards.

Like you said, people were very serious about the democratic process and were well informed.

Granted, the "party hacks" magically appeared with the "Kerry bots" and overtook the room and made it so Dean lost becuase they were evil bastards from the DLC, which stands for Devils Like Corruption.

Not.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. the wisdom of the DLC

yes lots of white folks live in America and they voted for bush. Nothing like shitting on your most faithful constituency. :eyes:

[Kahuna]

62. There is no law and it is not written in stone that IA and NH get to go

first. That IS NOT what we have to work with. The system is broken. It's time to fix it. It's not pre 1960s any more. A lot has changed since then. It's time that we regroup accordingly.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. I've been saying this since last year.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Switch to IRV and hold state primaries all on the same day

--------------------------------------------------------
Have you secured your town and state voting systems yet?
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Goldmund]

11. Exactly.

[girl gone mad]

73. I'm all for Super Tuesday being the day. n/t

[zulchzulu]

6. I liked the caucus in Iowa...it was invigorating actually

I was a monitor in Des Moines for the caucus. It was actually a pretty interesting way to vote.

In case you don't know what and how a caucus operates, it goes like this.

You go to an agreed location at a specific time. The room is large enough for people to gather. Each candidate then has a portion of the room allocated for people who support that candidate.

Each candidate has a representative or someone who would like to talk about their candidate go up to a podium or obvious location in the room and declare why they like their candidate. Everyone gets a chance to speak about their candidate, not someone who is "in power". It's pure democracy.

Then people go to their candidate's corner or section in the room. A tally of how many support that candidate is counted. Those candidates with less than 20% of the total amount of people in the room then are declared not viable. This is when those supporting that candidate make their second choice. This is actually similar to instant runoff style voting in a sense.

The candidates that are viable can speak to the people whose candidate is no longer viable why their candidate is better than the others. This can lead to a debate of sorts.

Finally, those who then choose to either side with a candidate or remain neutral make their decision and the tally is then counted.

Based on the count, the candidates get a percentage of the total vote based on the amount of people who went to the caucus.

Then the results of that are called in independently by those that monitor the event, so that multiple reports of the caucus are verified.

That's it in a nutshell. The whole process takes at least an hour.

Anyone who says that it is a "corrupt" way to vote or has some kind of control within the party to control the vote don't really understand what happens.

In terms of racial breakdown, there were a number of hispanics and blacks and a wide economic cross-section in the caucus I participated in.

To presume Iowa is "all-white" has never been to Des Moines or Davenport.

[WI_DEM]

8. while I think a caucus would be interesting to participate in

I have a problem with the vote switching. When a candidate doesn't qualify for the 15% your vote, it seems, is up for grabs and campaigns can bargain for it. Watching the caucus on C-Span, I found that aspect of it not very appealing.

[zulchzulu]

12. Is your opinion on the caucus based on your support for Dean?

In the caucus I participated in, Dean was one of the candidates that didn't have enough votes to be viable. It didn't help that the guy representing Dean was some arrogant asshole who figured Dean was going to clean up in Iowa. He was in shock to see so many for Edwards and Kerry. The person representing Kucinich was very accomodating and didn't act like a twit. There were no votes for Gephardt or Clark.

Edwards actually won the caucus I saw with Kerry in second place.

[WI_DEM]

22. No

the caucus I saw on TV there was a lot of trading featuring Gephardt manager going from caucus to caucus and Edwards to Kucinich. At the time I actually was upset becuz the Dean guy wasn't doing much of that and seemed content becuz they had the minimum.

[zulchzulu]

25. If you're for your candidate strongly, you speak your mind in a caucus

I vaguely remember a Gephardt representative asking for people to consider him as a candidate. They didn't bite.

As for the Dean guy being complacent, he needed to speak his mind. People might have reconsidered if he had made valid points.

Dean is a white guy from a very white state of Vermont, so blaming the whites for not being fair to him is a tad silly.

[WI_DEM]

29. I never did

I just posted Kos's comments. So please don't read anything on my part into it. By the way, Dean had many African-American and Hispanic leaders behind him. I also don't think Vermont should be a first primary and I certainly don't feel we should do away with the Iowa caucuses, perhaps we should have another more multi-racial state like SC on the same day.

[zulchzulu]

32. We do need to extend the primaries so they aren't front loaded

I'm all for that. Choosing states that are "more diverse" first doesn't really solve anything...you'd still have to campaign in less diverse areas sooner or later.

[Cheswick2.0]

40. maybe skinner will give you the addresses of all dean supporters

and you can have us all harrased at home as well as on-line.

[zulchzulu]

42. Oooh... playing the "Victim" card

Give it a rest. I'm a Dean supporter...have been ever since June or so.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. yeah right... lol

I am not in the least vitimized..just realistic.

BTW, accusing some one of playing some victim card or another is a really ugly white guy back lash kind of thing to say. I guess I know where you stand.

[Kahuna]

21. So what percentage of black and hispanic voters in IA? I%/ 2%?

How many?

[zulchzulu]

23. Is this supposed to mean all states need equal racial percentages?

Should we relocate races to somehow satisfy some twisted idea that all of America contains equal percentages of race?

There are a lot of Asians in Iowa too. I forgot to mention "them".

[Kahuna]

As a group, African Americans are the most loyal voting constituency..

of the Democratic party. I don't think it's too much to ask for a little consideration in the selection process. But apparently, you do.

[zulchzulu]

43. Sheesh

Perhaps you need some reading comprehension classes.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. is that the best you can do?

an insult about reading comprehension?

[zulchzulu]

54. You apparently don't read well...otherwise you wouldn't accuse me...

..of being some kind of...ah...nevermind.

[Blue Gardener]

66. Or Cedar Rapids, or Waterloo, or countless other small towns

Like many other states, Iowa has seen an influx of minorities over the past several years.
I have participated in several caususes, and they are very democratic. Maybe those that aren't aware of how they are run should pay us a visit next time around. We may just be able to change your opinion.

[LiberalEconomist]

10. There needs to be primaries going on in other states

coincide with the Iowa caucus. This way Iowa alone will not be so instrumental in picking our nominee. The other thing is to undo the compressed primary season. Let it unfold like it had prior to 2004 so that we don't get steamed-rolled by some "electable" or "presidential" candidate.

[zulchzulu]

13. I'm for getting rid of "Super Tuesday"

It's silly to assume that candidates have to campaign and advertise in so many states. That should be broken into a couple different days.

[Mike L]

14. Why?

"Overwhelmingly white, small, rural states decide the general election. Seems to me that's the perfect place to hold the first primary/caucuses.

[Kahuna]

18. Glad you don't think diversity in our process is necessary...

But you look for blacks and hispanics to flock to the candidates that only white people pick to get them elected. Think about what you just said.

[Mike L]

65. I mentioned a political fact.

I didn't say it was fair.

[Bread and Circus]

15. That's what I've been saying for a long time...

The initial round of primaries should be performed
in the same manner as real elections w/ ballot boxes,
private voting, etc. They should be held in the 10
or so "battleground" states all on the same day. This
should kick off the primary season. We need candidates
that play well in the hotly contested battleground states
that have a big electoral impact.

The way the Dem party does it is just traditional hokey crap.

[Pithy Cherub]

16. May the kos be with us,

as this Iowa model-T is put into the Smithsonian to be studied by historians!

[Kahuna]

17. Agreed. They have been screwing us Dems over for years... How many

more elections must the screw up for us before we learn?

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. I agree.

We need regional primaries, in some form or another.

[Rambis]

24. We picked the guy most likely to win

Dean wouldn't have won
Edwards wouldn't have won
Clark wouldn't have won
We sent the candidate most electable to the table and we didn't get it done. The fact the campaign they ran sucked isn't our fault. Bush should have been destroyed and we don't know that he wasn't. The lawyers I talked to in Ohio on election night said we have a huge case of fraud with multiple witnesses.

[Cheswick2.0]

48. nonsense.. we sent the candidate most desired by Karl Rove

[Larkspur]

52. Nonsense. Dean was withing 6 pts of Bush in early December

and was more electible in the long run against Bush than Kerry, who had the IWR vote as an albatross around his neck.

[zulchzulu]

86. More nonsense. Dean was projected to win Iowa by 20 points in January 04

I was there. I saw it.

Joe Trippi was too paranoid to leave New Hampshire for fear of losing his gig to help out Dean in Iowa. He left Howard out to hang.

I think one of the worst political commercials I ever saw was one with Dean in Iowa where they filmed him with a very pasty white background. It showed whatever imperfections in his skin and made him look like shit. I'm sure it's on the net somewhere. I remember Dean fans in Iowa being shocked at how bad a move it was.

This Deandroid crap that is bubbling up in this thread is nauseating and makes me remember why I thought so many of these people were so obnoxious and arrogant.

[maxsolomon]

26. let DC pick first

since they get no congressional reps, seems only fair.

i bet chocolate city comes up with something different than IA or NH.

[zulchzulu]

30. Sharpton won in DC

I bet America would have picked him over Bush...huh....

[WI_DEM]

36. Dean actually won the non-binding primary in January

Sharpton won the binding caucus in March.

[Blue_Tires]

27. i've been saying this for years

i would love seeing more input from different races, which means more diverse states (a better cross-section of society)

why can't there be, say, a Maryland primary to lead things off?

[Kahuna]

34. I've no problem with MD. I'll take any state with a nice cross section..

of racial and economic demographics.

[TheDonkey]

39. Have 4 states do it the same day, too expensive for all state

on one day. The bottom line, $$$, is why Iowa and NH are the first up and spread apart. We don't need highly expensive country-wide elections just within our party that would be a financial and practical nightmare.

But I believe we should give states from each region a choice the same day, have it on a random or rotating system for greater equity.

Also remember though Iowa an NH ARE swing states.

[AP]

53. SC, Colorado, NM and RI?

[Buck Rabbit]

74. Right Idea but put an always blue west coast state in the first round.

Either Oregon or Washington. Cheap campaigning because the vast majority of the democrat in both states live with a 50 mile radius of the airport in each state.

That way a progressive candidate has a chance to show well in one of the "first day" races. My choice would be to add Washington and drop Colorado from your mix.

[AP]

75. Also, make sure it's a state Southwest flies to!

[Politicub]

41. I agree

I guess the current logic is that the dems are trying out the candidates in a fairly conservative state. The problem is it is only really the party faithful who care enough to do a caucus.

With that being said, I love being a dem. The true diversity of our party gives me warm fuzzies.

[zulchzulu]

46. Let's not let "overwhelmingly white, small, rural" communities vote

Those honky crackers vote the wrong way, man.

/sarcasm

[toddaa]

47. Oh sure, blame Iowa

The fact is, Iowa rarely picks the eventual nominee. It's your own fault you listened to us this year.

Anyway, the problem with shifting the first in nation status to a larger primary state is the crossover vote of Republicans tainting the outcome. I suppose it's possible that it could happen in a caucus, but because it's not a secret ballot and we'd root out the spoilers pretty quick.

I've had my own beefs with the Iowa Caucus from the first time I went to one, but what I like about it is the open debate that takes place during the process. I even remember one in which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict almost heated up a few thousand miles away from the Gaza Strip. Talk about democracy in action! Anyway, the caucus gives you a real feel for what issues are going to pop up in the general election and I think this helps the eventual nominee focus in on the key message for the general campaign. At least, it used to before the religious right mucked everything up.

[zulchzulu]

50. Seriously, here's a site with ethnic breakdowns of states

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/News-Research/NewVoters/Ethnicity.html

Perhaps this could be a guide to set up the primary season in 2008.

State           White   Black   Indian  Alaskan Asian   Hispanic
Alabama 	71.1% 	26.0% 	0.5% 	0.7% 	1.0% 	1.7%
Alaska 	69.3% 	3.5% 	15.6% 	4.0% 	5.4% 	4.1%
Arizona 	75.5% 	3.1% 	5.0% 	1.8% 	2.9% 	25.3%
Arkansas 	80.0% 	15.7% 	0.7% 	0.8% 	1.3% 	3.2%
California 	59.5% 	6.7% 	1.0% 	10.9% 	4.7% 	32.4%
Colorado 	82.8% 	3.8% 	1.0% 	2.2% 	2.8% 	17.1%
Connecticut 	81.6% 	9.1% 	0.3% 	2.4% 	2.2% 	9.4%
Delaware 	74.6% 	19.2% 	0.3% 	2.1% 	1.7% 	4.8%
Dist. of Columbia 	30.8% 	60.0% 	0.3% 	2.7% 	2.4% 	7.9%
Florida 	78.0% 	14.6% 	0.3% 	1.7% 	2.4% 	16.8%
Georgia 	65.1% 	28.7% 	0.3% 	2.1% 	1.4% 	5.3%
Hawaii 	24.3% 	1.8% 	0.3% 	41.6% 	21.4% 	7.2%
Idaho 	91.0% 	0.4% 	1.4% 	0.9% 	2.0% 	7.9%
Illinois 	73.5% 	15.1% 	0.2% 	3.4% 	1.9% 	12.3%
Indiana 	87.5% 	8.4% 	0.3% 	1.0% 	1.2% 	3.5%
Iowa 	93.9% 	2.1% 	0.3% 	1.3% 	1.1% 	2.8%
Kansas 	86.1% 	5.7% 	0.9% 	1.7% 	2.1% 	7.0%
Kentucky 	90.1% 	7.3% 	0.2% 	0.7% 	1.1% 	1.5%
Louisiana 	63.9% 	32.5% 	0.6% 	1.2% 	1.1% 	2.4%
Maine 	96.9% 	0.5% 	0.6% 	0.7% 	1.0% 	0.7%
Maryland 	64.0% 	27.9% 	0.3% 	4.0% 	2.0% 	4.3%
Massachusetts 	84.5% 	5.4% 	0.2% 	3.8% 	2.3% 	6.8%
Michigan 	80.2% 	14.2% 	0.6% 	1.8% 	1.9% 	3.3%
Minnesota 	89.4% 	3.5% 	1.1% 	2.9% 	1.7% 	2.9%
Mississippi 	61.4% 	36.3% 	0.4% 	0.7% 	0.7% 	1.4%
Missouri 	84.9% 	11.2% 	0.4% 	1.1% 	1.5% 	2.1%
Montana 	90.6% 	0.3% 	6.2% 	0.5% 	1.7% 	2.0%
Nebraska 	89.6% 	4.0% 	0.9% 	1.3% 	1.4% 	5.5%
Nevada 	75.2% 	6.8% 	1.3% 	4.5% 	3.8% 	19.7%
New Hampshire 	96.0% 	0.7% 	0.2% 	1.3% 	1.1% 	1.7%
New Jersey 	72.6% 	13.6% 	0.2% 	5.7% 	2.5% 	13.3%
New Mexico 	66.8% 	1.9% 	9.5% 	1.1% 	3.6% 	42.1%
New York 	67.9% 	15.9% 	0.4% 	5.5% 	3.1% 	15.1%
North Carolina 	72.1% 	21.6% 	1.2% 	1.4% 	1.3% 	4.7%
North Dakota 	92.4% 	0.6% 	4.9% 	0.6% 	1.2% 	1.2%
Ohio 	85.0% 	11.5% 	0.2% 	1.2% 	1.4% 	1.9%
Oklahoma 	76.2% 	7.6% 	7.9% 	1.4% 	4.5% 	5.2%
Oregon 	86.6% 	1.6% 	1.3% 	3.0% 	3.1% 	8.0%
Pennsylvania 	85.4% 	10.0% 	0.1% 	1.8% 	1.2% 	3.2%
Rhode Island 	85.0% 	4.5% 	0.5% 	2.3% 	2.7% 	8.7%
South Carolina 	67.2% 	29.5% 	0.3% 	0.9% 	1.0% 	2.4%
South Dakota 	88.7% 	0.6% 	8.3% 	0.6% 	1.3% 	1.4%
Tennessee 	80.2% 	16.4% 	0.3% 	1.0% 	1.1% 	2.2%
Texas 	71.0% 	11.5% 	0.6% 	2.7% 	2.5% 	32.0%
Utah 	89.2% 	0.8% 	1.3% 	1.7% 	2.1% 	9.0%
Vermont 	96.8% 	0.5% 	0.4% 	0.9% 	1.2% 	0.9%
Virginia 	72.3% 	19.6% 	0.3% 	3.7% 	2.0% 	4.7%
Washington 	81.8% 	3.2% 	1.6% 	5.5% 	3.6% 	7.5%
West Virginia 	95.0% 	3.2% 	0.2% 	0.5% 	0.9% 	0.7%
Wisconsin 	88.9% 	5.7% 	0.9% 	1.7% 	1.2% 	3.6%
Wyoming 	92.1% 	0.8% 	2.3% 	0.6% 	1.8% 	6.4%
United States 	75.1% 	12.3% 	0.9% 	3.6% 	2.4% 	12.5%

[WI_DEM]

56. I'd like to see Iowa and maybe a couple of other states start

the process on the same day. Maybe Iowa, SC, and Nevada, all smaller states and from different parts of the country and with enough diversity so that several elements of the Democratic coalition will have a say at the start.

[Kahuna]

59. All states do not have open primaries. I'm sure that we can find one..

a state that doesn't have open primaries with more diversity. I live in such a state.

[milkyway]

58. Why don't we just have a few voters in Alabama pick our nominee?

Us urban folks would like to have a little bit of a say in who our nominee is.

The media has blown Iowa way out of proportion. It wasn't until Jimmy Carter kick-started his campaign there in 1976 that people even paid much attention to it. Now it's become a one-game Super Bowl for the nomination, and in a non-representative state.

[zulchzulu]

61. Whoever wins in Iowa doesn't necessarily win the Primaries

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/events.phtml?s=c

[southlandshari]

88. My, what fun that would be for us red-headed-stepchildren of the party!

=)

Before you all have a coronary, I'm JOKING!

I'm guessing at least some of my fellow Alabama Democrats would agree with me on this (jump right in, friends, if I'm off here). Your sarcasm was well-placed on this one. Alabamians have no more right deciding who our presidential candidate should be than do residents of any other state (red, blue, urban, rural, whatever).

One of the most positive steps that could be taken to improve national party politics before 2008 would be to get rid of the current primary system completely. New Hampshire and Iowa are no more representative of the diverse millions that make up the Democratic Party in this country than Alabama and California would be (in fact, the latter would be a heck of a lot better cross-section).

Eliminating the primary system as we know it would have several immediate, positive results as I see it.

-- Candidates could raise money and develop strategy over a longer period of time before campaigns go public, resulting in less political fatigue and cynicism among the general population and (in theory, anyway) more intelligent platforms from those vying for our votes.

-- Less personal attacks on candidates from other candidates in their own party who are trying to win over a tiny fraction of the nation's voters in one particular state or another. These attacks come back to haunt us in the long run, particularly when the VP candidate on our ticket comes from among the presidential candidate's former opponents.

-- A more holistic approach to campaigns at the outset of an election season, one that forces both parties to look at the entire country as its “battleground”, all states as potential “swing states” from Day One.

-- A total reinvigoration of the national convention system. I’m only a couple of years too young to have clear memories of what political conventions were like when the party’s nominee was actually determined at the convention, by the votes of each state’s delegates. For heaven’s sakes, why else do we send these folks to these events? When candidates had to do more than deliver canned speeches and hit media talking points. When it was actually impossible for the media to pre-plan its coverage because no one knew for sure what might happen before the final night of the convention drew to a close. I may not remember it, but I know the things I describe are neither myth nor idealistic thinking. It used to work this way. I think it still could.


I'm no political scientist, so maybe I'm missing some obvious benefits of the way the primary process has evolved in recent decades. I welcome feedback on my amateur analysis on this!

[milkyway]

97. Great post, I knew there would be an Alabama Dem that would see this.

As you know, I was just using Alabama as a more extreme example than Iowa of a state that's not representative of the Dem party. If I'm remembering correctly, the turnout for the Iowa caucuses wasn't very high. So it seems strange that so much influence is given to a small, rural, very white state.

The best argument for maintaining the current system is the candidates have to campaign almost on a local level, where they meet voters in small groups. Iowa and New Hampshire act as small screening committees for the rest of us, and they get to know the candidates much better than if the system were arranged differently.

I think it was in reference to New Hampshire that someone said, "the people there would never vote for someone they have never personally met."

[southlandshari]

99. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Look, look, look, everyone! An Alabamian and a New Yorker are on the same page here - who would have believed it was possible?!

In honor of our meeting of the minds, I want to amend my last post to propose Alabama and New York (sorry, California!) as fine alternatives to New Hampshire and Iowa as the vanguard states in the primary system (unless, of course, we just ditch the whole wretched system entirely).

I like the way you think, milkyway. Of course, that may not be much of a feather in your cap, me being of the southern red persuasion and all...

=)

[AngryAmish]

64. A possible proposal for the primaries

Break the country into about 5 or 6 sections more or less equal in electoral votes. Have each of the areas contiguous, ie NE, SE, Midwest, Deep South, Mountain, West Coast. Randomly select an area three years before the next presidential primary to go first (can't go first two cycles in a row) through sixth.

Benefits: larger areas, more diverse. But it will not allow a real dark horse to emerge.

(I like Iowa - not enough good golf courses (University course is good)- but people are really nice. But they should not select first.)

[sendero]

70. I've been saying this forever...

... I'm tired of Iowa and NH deciding who the nominee will be.

We will never get a good nominee with these quicky states calling the shots.

[American Tragedy]

72. Why the hell can't we have them all at once?

For once I would like to get to vote in a primary before the candidate has been selected.

[kurtyboy]

76. I wouldn't matter, it wouldn't matter, it wouldn't matter.

For example:

Change the first state to South Carolina--deep in GOP territory, big Vet population. Every state that follows would have to hear the headlines about how the SC Primary picks a Dem that can compete with the GOP.

Change the first state to Wyoming---Who gives a s**t? Let's wait for the others.

Change the first state to a Super-Duper Tuesday, 25 States all trying to nominate the best candidate--If one does emerge, they might be viewed as untested over time (legitimate argument, BTW), if one does not, what was the point?

Change the first state to California--diverse, 12% of the nation's poulation, easy Dem pickin's. Every state that follows will be up against the invincibility of California.

Change the first states to New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania--a pretty-super-but-not-overwhelming Tuesday. Hey, that might work...or not. I don't see how it would be better than what we have now.

Maybe all 3-Electoral vote states in the first week, all 4 EV states the next, and then escalate the EV numbers each week---pretty suspenseful, tests the staying power of all of the candidates, and at some point, teh scales get tipped to an obvious winner. Hell, I like this one! Maybe it would make a difference---let's find Out!!!!

[kurtyboy]

90. Here's How that would look. It would cover four months.

Based on 2004 Delegate allocations (2162 needed for nomination)

WEEK ONE--3EV states & territories. (Major Geographic diversity, 6% of Delegates on the line) Alaska (18), American Samoa (6), Delaware (23), Democrats Abroad (9), Dist. of Columbia (39), Guam (5), Montana (21), North Dakota (22), Puerto Rico (57), South Dakota (22), Vermont (27), Virgin Islands (6), Wyoming (19)---Total delegates at stake: 269 (6%)

WEEK TWO--4EV States. Idaho (23), Hawaii (29) Maine (35), New Hampshire (27), Rhode Island (32)---Total delegates at stake: 146 (3%)

WEEK THREE--5EV States. Nebraska (31), Nevada (32), New Mexico (37), Utah (29), West Virgina (39)---Total delegates at stake: 168 (4%)

WEEK FOUR--6EV States. Arkansas (47), Misissippi (41), Kansas (41)---Total delegates at stake: 129 (3%)

WEEK FIVE--7EV States. Connecticut (62), Iowa (57), Oklahoma (47), Oregon (59)---Total delegates at stake: 225 (5%)

WEEK SIX--8EV States. Kentucky (57), South Carolina (55)---Total delegates at stake: 112 (3%)

WEEK SEVEN--9EV States.Alabama (62), Colorado (63), Louisiana (72)---Total delegates at stake: 197 (5%)

WEEK SEVEN--10EV States. Arizona (64), Maryland (99), Minnesota (86), Wisconsin (87)---Total delegates at stake: 336 (8%)

WEEK NINE--11EV States. Indiana (81), Missouri (88), Tennessee (85), Washington (95)---Total delegates at stake: 349 (8%)

WEEK TEN--12&13EV States. Massachusetts (121), Virginia (98)---Total delegates at stake: 219 (5%) This would be the first week that a nomination could be clinched--very unlikely in this distributed scenario, however...

WEEK ELEVEN--15EV States. Georgia (101), North Carolina (107), New Jersey (128)---Total delegates at stake: 336 (8%)

WEEK TWELVE--17&20 EV States. Michigan (155), Ohio (159)---Total delegates at stake: 314 (7%)

WEEK THIRTEEN. 21 EV States. Illinois (186), Pennsylvania (178)---Total delegates at stake: 314 (8%)

WEEK FOURTEEN--27EV State. Florida (201)---Total delegates at stake: 201 (5%)

WEEK FIFTEEN--31EV State. New York (284)---Total delegates at stake: 284 (7%)

WEEK SIXTEEN--34EV State. Texas (232)---Total delegates at stake: 232 (5%)

WEEK SEVENTEEN--55EV State. California (441)---Total delegates at stake: 441 (10%)

If this was started the last week of January, It would wrap up by the middle of May. If a there were to be a split on weeks that have disparate EV totals (weeks 12 & 10) the season would extend to the first of June--perfect, if you ask me. Going at things this way assures that small states get their voice early (and perhaps for the only time), and bigger states get to do the heavy lifting after enduring a lot of jockeying by candidates.

The big drawback is that a huge amount of resources are expended by viable candidates over an extended primary--the very thing the DNC was trying to avoid in this latest run. But ask yourself--What did an early, obvious nominee gain for us this time? (BTW, I was a Kerry supporter starting in Sept 2003...)

Check this over and let me know what you think

On Edit: Check out how each week has a very broad geographic (and presumably social) spread--this can only be a good thing. I can't see how a nominee would be chosen before the last five weeks....And note the early attention to RED states.....Perhaps the Nom would be extra-strong in the ensuing race with the GOP.


Kurt

[HR_Pufnstuf]

80. NATIONAL PRIMARY DAY...

Give the media NO TIME to spin out whomever they want to (eg. Dean Scream).

[zulchzulu]

82. The richest candidate would win

Running for office is expensive. If a candidate had to campaign in all 50 states for one day of voting, it would be left to the person with the most money to spend on media, print, radio and ability to travel the country.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

84. but Dean tapped into that money.

you and i.

[zulchzulu]

87. Dean spent $39 million in Iowa

Remember? It was more Trippi's fault than Howard's.

Let me say I really like Howard Dean now....

[goclark]

83. Pick some other states please

It seems like this is just a pay back for Harken.

Let's spread it aroung to ther Reds, starting now. We need to have high profile Democrats making frequent visits to all the Red states as often as possible.

Lots of small town hall meetings.

Have them pick a church to visit , Baptist, Catholic etc.

[L84TEA]

85. Where were the Deaniacs???

I went to the Iowa Caucus and Deaniacs took one seat... it was rather humorous to me, because I know some Deaniacs...NOT THAT I DON'T LIKE HOWARD DEAN, LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR...HE IS GREAT...But I was pushin for Edwards, Edwards took the most, Kerry a close second at my precinct. It is really fun... you try to get smaller groups to join up with your group...


I wish everyone could experience because it is pretty exciting.

[zulchzulu]

89. Oh..let me update you on what happened

Apparently, the caucus gatherings were taken over by "party hacks", "Kerry bots" and people who supported Dean were forced into some corner and not allowed to vote...because it was all "rigged".

That's what some people are saying in this thread.

Also, there are too many white people in Iowa. This would obviously conclude that they should not be allowed to vote first in the Primary season. Apparently, people who liked Dean think he would have done better in say, Pennsylvania or oh...um... New Jersey. More brown people are there. See?

Hence, Iowa "chose" Kerry and that's why we lost. Oh, the white people in New Hampshire also made Dean lose too. Those stupid, cracker bastards. Then those stupid southerners...

Actually, I was there in Des Moines and it was a very cool democratic voting experience.

[L84TEA]

93. Well NOT at my precinct

Infact...
Deaniacs BROUGHT snacks and that still didnt' get them much support. I was really truely surprised, I listened to all of the canidates speak and I was impressed with Dean, but Edwards won my heart.
Kerry didn't even stick in my mind and I saw him speak twice before the caucus, so I was surprised with all of his support in my precinct.
Oh well...
It is over.
ho hum...

[zulchzulu]

94. Were the Dean caucus snacks in a "brownie" configuration?

Kidding! Yep...it is over.

[Sean Reynolds]

95. The media has too much power in deciding who we pick.

Remember, it was the media that told us Dean was too liberal and crazy to beat Bush. That Kerry was the more electable character and that the sane voice of Iowa was proof of this.

I agree with you WI_DEM, don't have New Hampshire and Iowa decide the candidate. We all know that in today's media the winner of these two states has the momentum to win the nomination, why? It's not democratic in any sense because by the time I went to vote in the Democratic Primary my candidate had already dropped out.

[LightTheMatch]

96. Totally agree.

The first primaries should be large states and geographically and demographically different... maybe something like New York, then Texas, then California... something along those lines.

[zulchzulu]

98. If primary season was NY TX then CA, we'd have a 'winner" then too early

First of all, the media charges would be the most expensive. The grassroots populist would probably be out of money by Texas.

We are all political junkies here at DU. But if you ask just about anyone else who isn't about who won the first contests in promary season, they would have no idea.