Dem panel to debate schedule of primary votes

[Freddie Stubbs]

Levin, others want Michigan to have earlier caucus in '08

By Kathy Barks Hoffman
Associated Press

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe is on the verge of appointing members to a national Democratic commission that will consider whether the primary calendar should be changed for the 2008 presidential election.

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin of Detroit, whose pressure helped create the commission, hopes it will challenge Iowa and New Hampshire's status as the leadoff states. Iowa holds its presidential caucus first, usually in mid-January, followed eight days later by the New Hampshire primary, a schedule that's followed by the Republican Party as well.

Democratic officials in those states have said the current system works just fine and shouldn't be changed.

"We engage the candidates in vigorous debate, and we make them earn their rankings when they leave Iowa," Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said in July when the DNC Rules Committee approved setting up the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling.

more: http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041126/NEWS01/411260319/1001/news

[Julien Sorel]

1. Here's the problem I have with this.

"Most states think there ought to be fairer system where no state or two states have a privileged position every four years," Levin said Wednesday. "We're not a party of privilege. We don't like people having privileged positions. And that applies to our own primary and caucus system, I would think."

The more states that go early, the more the whole thing turns into a media buying contest instead of a campaign. Whoever raises the most money will be best positioned to compete in a far-flung primary sytem -- and that is a system of privelege: the candidates who do the best job of raking in bucks will win. This is especially true when states like Michigan get involved, which has a fairly large (and so presumably expensive) TV market in Detroit. As things stand, less well financed candidates, like Edwards was in 2004, can still do well if they run a good retail campaign, as Edwards did in Iowa. Spread the primaries around, and suddenly that's out.

[KoKo]

2. Why is Terry McAuliff still there and making key decisions like this?

He's lost credibility with failed elections. Does he think if he keeps trying he'll find a way to win? How many tries does a loser get? Sheesh.

He has no base left after this last election...what is he smoking.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. His term doesn't expire until early next year

And he has made it clear that he does not want another term.

[AP]

4. I think more swing states should have eearly primaries. That way,

you get more bang for the advertising buck. You introdcue the candidate during the primary, and then remind them of what you're all about in the General Election.

I wonder how much it helped Democrats to have contested Wisconsin once already?

I guess OH didn't work out that well and neither did Mexico.

But I'm all for MI, WI, OH, NM being early primary states. MI and OH have lots of media markets which make them expensive, so I guess I wouldn't want them to be the earliest states.

[Cheswick2.0]

5. no caucus should be first

They are too easy for the party and special interest groups to manipulate. If we are going to front load the primaries so that one or two determine the bandwagon everyone jumps on...then it certainly should not be a state with a caucus system like Iowa. It also should not be one with an open primary where the other party can have a say in who is nominated.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. There's been some talk of Arkansas being an early state

Its a real swing state, it would seem, has representation of all the major US demographics and should be (relatively) cheap for media.

I think this is an example of what an "early" state should be.

Pick a number of smaller "microcosm" states that mirror the larger national electorate. Maryland also comes to mind. Where else? Montana, perhaps, given their dramatic Democratic win in all but the prez race?

Any others?

[Kahuna]

8. I could live with AR.

nt

[JNelson6563]

7. I'm with Levin on this one

I say let Michigan go first! :-)

Julie

[Kahuna]

9. I think MI would be great. Very diverse. Very Democratic.

:thumbsup:

[TayTay]

10. I like Michigan

It is cold like NH and Iowa, but is it too big? Michigan would be a bold move because it would break the 50+ year stranglehold of NH and IA, but I am worried that a state this size would favor candidates who can raise money. (Kerry comes to mind, as does Edwards and anyone else who has name recognition.) In the 'Be careful what you wish for' category, Dems should do this carefully, lest they wind up inadvertently emphasizing the worst aspect of the old system. Law of unintended consequences and all that.