Dean is next DNC chair

[jfern]

Donnie Fowler just dropped out and endorsed him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/6/01021/23899

[latteromden]

1. He did that yesterday, too. :P Either way, Dean DEFINITELY is.

And thank goodness.

[Rowdyboy]

2. I only have one problem with Dean as chairman....I'm really, really sick

of Iowa and New Hampshire determining our nominee for us. I want some more representational states to get a chance-say California or Illinois or Pennsylvania.

Other than that, I'm gung ho!

[jfern]

3. Something tells me that Dean isn't the most pro-Iowa guy

[murielm99]

4. What do you mean by more representational?

BTW, I feel no personal stake in it. I live in Illinois.

[w13rd0]

5. Perhaps...

...not having two states not known for being all that "representative" of the nation (Iowa & NH) decide our candidates EVERY cycle...

[murielm99]

7. That makes sense.

[Historic NY]

I totally agree....we need to change our ways...........

the current system just beats down the field mostly because of the ability to fight back with $$$....we spend too much time eating our own before the election cycle even begins.

[Lexingtonian]

12. That ain't changing

The points to Iowa and New Hampshire are (1) they're small, and (2) they're consistently representative of swing states.

Small is necessary because in large states the well funded, i.e. 'establishment', candidates so easily beat the lesser known and underfunded candidates.

You don't want your candidate chosen by either states s/he can't actually win in the general election- Lieberman/Biden '04 anyone?- or by states that are just a Party echo chamber. You want a healthy mix, with swing state primary voters providing much or most of the decision between the amount of purity and amount of centrism/compromise.

Personally, I'd prefer a rotation system- small states don't bear the strains of such intensive campaigning as well as they would like, and enduring it all every four years in a double whammy (as swing states, they get hit hard in the general campaign) is rough. I'd have Oregon, Wisconsin, and New Mexico join the rotation.

[American Tragedy]

6. Well, some of us NEVER get to vote in the primaries at all

until the de facto nominee has already risen from the pool. Most other states also have a very limited role in selecting the party's nominee. It seems strange and arbitrary that Democrats residing in the states of New Hampshire and Iowa should have such overwhelming power over the process, especially since the Democratic party nationwide comprises such diverse constituencies.

[murielm99]

10. It doesn't always work that way.

Gephart won the Iowa caucuses, and did not go anywhere.

They do not always get to be the nominee after winning New Hampshire and Iowa.

I do not think any state should have the primary role. But, how should we do this? Do you think all states should have a primary on the same date? Would that help? Would it make the primary season even more expensive, in terms of campaigning, and in terms of the length of the election cycle? I think there are drawbacks to any method.

Again, I don't feel strongly about Iowa or New Hampshire. I am not sure what would work.

[Rowdyboy]

8. Iowa is roughly 96% white...New Hampshire is the same...

Both are affluent states with little ethic diversity. There is very little poverty in either state and no major urban centers. Particularly, Iowa's caucus is unrepresentative because it is so difficult to participate, requiring traveling miles on a winter's night to spend HOURS at a neighbors house openly declaring your political views and pairing off against your friends and neighbors...I prefer a secret ballot.

[dansolo]

13. Why not just push back Iowa and New Hampshire?

If those two states were pushed back to the following primary date, where there are several states. They are all relatively small, and are geographically diverse with varying populations. Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the least representaive states, and I think it is rediculous that they get a grossly disproportionate amount of attention and influence.

[Placebo]

9. The only possible negative of Dean being DNC chair, that I see is...

Dean being or becoming the issue, which in turn prohibits him from being a good spokesperson & behind the scenes organizer.

Not being able to effectively draw attention to issues of policy because he brings with him so much negative political baggage, and his tendency to say stupid sloppy things in public or on live TV that really piss off everyone but his most ardent supporters, is a potentially fatal risk that I see. But only time will tell.

[shoopnyc123]

11. Good, I think he'll be great, because he can think out of the box...

...and on Capital Gang tonight the Novak and O'Bierne seemed more frightened than usual...

[FrenchieCat]

14. Fear from those two dinosaurs...

can only mean a good thing!