Front-loaded primaries: are they good, or bad?

[jpgray]

[IndianaGreen]

1. Anything that comes out of Terry McCauliff is by definition

bad and corrupt.

Global Crossings anyone?

[Paulie]

2. LOL You sure know how to keep it real! :)

I hate fighting my party AND the opposition.

[w4rma]

3. You'd have to label everyone who is wealthy as corrupt by that definition

He didn't do anything any differently from anyone else who makes big money in the stock market with Global Crossings.

Hate the game, not the players.

[snoochie]

5. I think this is a huge problem with society

Unethical behavior, if technically legal, is for some reason considered okay.

It's like for some reason people think that ethics don't matter anymore.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

8. Three Cheers for McAuliffe! Now Do the Right Thing and Step Down,

Published on Sunday, July 7, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Three Cheers for McAuliffe!
Now Do the Right Thing and Step Down, Terry
by Bruce F. Cole

So it's with curiosity that we witness Terry McAuliffe, head New Democrat and DNC chair, highlighting the Harken scandal these many years later (after a tailor-made situation presented itself) to call the Thief in Chief to account. This is, after all, what real opposition parties do; they oppose. But no matter how encouraging it is to see the DNC chair doing his job, there's one big problem here: hypocrisy.

Yes, well all know that for George W. to stand up like a televangelist and piously rail against corporate corruption is the height of hypocrisy. But for Terry McAuliffe to piously rail against Bush for the same reason is hypocrisy's depth. The Chairman, you see, is no stranger to shady deals and dump trucks full of cash. After all, he's arguably the most successful raiser and distributor of soft-money, the gangrene of American politics. Moreover, his office helped convince the FEC to gut the new McCain/Feingold soft-money ban last month. (There have been mincing denials of this, but we don’t see the DNC joining in the suit against the FEC to restore the law, do we?) And then, there's Global Crossings.

Global Crossings is the fiber optic outfit that went from nothing, to multi-mega, to bankrupt in the span of four or five years. Gary Winnick, GC's CEO is (or was) a good friend and heavy contributor to the Clinton/McAuliffe political cartel, just as Enron's Ken Lay is (or was) to George W. Bush. The company was awarded a huge defense contract just as it was about to go bankrupt, but the contract was later called back because of allegations of irregular bidding processes. Terry McAuliffe channeled massive sums from Global Crossings to the Democratic coffers, and during the process made himself about $18 million --180 times his investment -- from Global Crossing's stock in about three years. He sold when the stock was worth around $60. It fell to less than a buck. Congress is "investigating" both Enron and Global Crossings. Heading up the Senate investigations is that fearsome debater and McAuliffe pal, Joe Leiberman. Meanwhile, Enron and GC employees and shareholders are suing for the loss of their pensions and life savings. Oh, and two more things: Global Crossings' accountant was Arthur Andersen, and sham transactions were involved. The little people were again left holding the bag.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0707-08.htm

[AndyP]

4. What does

"Front loaded" mean

[charlie]

6. Compressed in time

Primary after primary, without sufficient time inbetween for a breakout upstart to turn his/her momentum into campaign contributions to competitively finance later primaries.

[AndyP]

7. ok

Well then I'll have to go with BAD. I think we'd have more John Kerry's. I'm not saying he's a bad guy- I AM saying that I think people are voting for him because it's the thing to do right now. I would like to see his hotness cool down a little and have some debate. I say- steel cage match.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Mostly bad but this time around I think it's good.

The DLC had basically written this election off due to 9/11. While MacCauliffe has taken (rightfully so) his share of knocks for his poor leadership of the DNC, I DO think having a frontloaded primary THIS time around gave us a lot more free coverage in the media and a FREE airing of issues than we would have gotten otherwise.

He KNEW we were going to be short of funds and this was a way to tap donors carefully without breaking their piggy banks. It remains to be seen if it was wise, but I believe it was strategic based on presumed limitation of funds for the GE.

I also think that had Dean not given a "we're behind now" speech in Iowa and had written it off as no big deal and just a fluke, he would have gone into NH in a much stronger postion than he did. IT wasn't the scream but the speech itself painting him as the underdog that framed him as the come from behind guy.
He also maybe SHOULD have mortgaged his house and gone ON to the other states he had to skip because of the dough. He could have recouped the money in no time rather than skip campaigning in those states.

All around, while he wasn't treated well by the media, he also did NOT get the best advice from his campaign managers.

[jfxgillis]

10. Other: Yes I will elucidate

All elections, like all complex human social behaviors, follow certain broad patterns that are nevertheless infinitely variable in permutations and variations.

So, sometimes front-loading will be good, sometimes bad. THIS year, I think it's good (and not only because I've been a Kerry guy from Jump Street), both by plan and serendipity. Our intensely front-loaded primaries gave the Dems massive free media and repetition of our message at exactly the same time that Bush was getting hammered by the free media (Kay-WMDs, "AWOL").

I can think of other circumstances only slightly different where front-loading would be bad.

[Rowdyboy]

11. An extended primary season is good

It gives voters time to process, not merely glom onto the front runner. It allows for later entries, lessening the overall importance of Iowa and NH. It keeps the focus on the Democrats longer (once the nominee is chosen, we begin losing coverage). It adds excitement to the race.

Front loaded primaries are a really bad idea.

[Piperay]

12. BAD...

I'm in the most populated state (California) and as usual my vote and every other California Democrat vote counts for NOTHING, cause it is already decided! :argh: :mad: :grr: It's no wonder that the Democrats do so bad when whole areas of the country get left out of having input on who the nominee should be. :-(

[krkaufman]

13. Egg Freaking Zactly.

Just what I was saying to my brother tonight. This year's process is designed to minimize the people's collective voice.

My brother had a great idea for changing the process next time around... regional pairing for the first N weeks, take a 2-3 week break and *then* start with larger groupings.

Something like...

Week 1: Iowa & Minnesota
Week 2: New Hampshire & Vermont
Week 3: Ohio & Kentucky
Week 4: New Mexico & Arizona
Week 5: Washington & Oregon
Week 6: Nothing
Week 7: 5-7 states
...

The goal of the early primaries/caucuses would be to pair them up in order to minimize travel costs and to maximize dollars put into advertising. This would allow more voters to actually meet the frickin' candidates, and would give lower budget campaigns a better chance.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Idiotic; they gave us Mondale in '84 when Hart could have won

Don't think about the '88 Hart campaign, think of the '84 one.

Now we stand to get Kerry, when Edwards is an infinitely better candidate.

The essence of human nature is stampeding panic; a compressed decision-making period just amplifies that. It should be drawn out to see who can take it and dish it out the best, who comes up with the best platform and who can garner the most support.

Unfortunately, Dean tried to go for the quick early acceleration and kill, but failed for his own many flaws and astonishing missteps. Clark tried to jump in at just the right time and ride a wave of novelty, acclaim and Democratic Party self-loathing; he failed because he was unfocused, made too many mistakes, and in the end sank to unsubstantiated venom.

The short primary period is an attempt by party apparatchiks to coronate their choice, and a misguided need of the impatient to have an answer. It makes sense, really, in a world so prone to religion: uncertainty is just SUCH a terror.

Nobody can predict how things will work out over time; I prefer a long night of poker instead of betting all my night's wagering on a cut of the cards.

[lams712]

15. It's not that bad...

...I would like to see it done on a more regional basis. But the idea of having more primaries/caucuses earlier is a good one. I always feel bad for people in states who have primaries in April or later because the race is usually decided by then. I would like to see every state have a shot at determining who will get the nomination.

[Adelante]

16. Not bad, horrible nt

[serryjw]

17. Bad.......BUT I understand why TM did it!

He wanted to stop the bickering which he knew would happen, get our nominee as early as posible..and be able to start fund raising and getting our message out as asap!

My first choice was DK and Clark was my 2nd.....if they had had more time I think one of them would be our nominee. I will support Kerry but it will be business as usual and my first 2 choices could have changed the system