CBS was talking about frontloading the primaries

[cornermouse]

this morning and I was wondering what everyone else out there thinks about it.

[Barad Simith]

1. Since I don't know what "frontloading the primaries" means...

...that makes me twice as curious as you.

[cornermouse]

3. A graphic demonstration of frontloading.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bw/20040217/bs_bw/b3871035

Business - BusinessWeek Online
Commentary: For The Dems, "Fired Up" Won't Cut It
Tue Feb 17,11:22 AM ET Add Business - BusinessWeek Online to My Yahoo!
... Party elders designed the 2004 nominating process to be short, sweet, and decisive, and the results to date are exceeding expectations. An intense Demo-cratic race fought out in a highly compressed calendar has tilted the voting in the direction of the Establishment fave, John Kerry (news - web sites), while filtering out the insurgent, Howard Dean (news - web sites).

[wyldwolf]

10. This story doesn't tell HOW Howard Dean was "filtered out."

Why is that?

Before Iowa and NH, Dean was leading solidly - days before hand.

What underhanded tricks did the DNC pull to "filter out" Dean?

WAIT! It was the Dean campaign doing underhanded tricks.

Sorry - none of this "cuts it."

People had every opportunity to vote for Howard Dean.

Dean had more money.

Dean had more momentum.

But when it came down to election day, more chose Kerry.

That is a how elections work.

[patricia92243]

16. Bush has more money, has momentum - he HAS tge job - so on that criteria -

we can't win. No "dirty trick" will make any difference - just as long as Bush gets the votes - he wins.

sarcasm

[wyldwolf]

23. but we're not discussing the general election...

...we're discussing the primaries.

[On the Road]

2. I Thought They Were Already Frontloaded

[cornermouse]

4. They were. I was wondering how other democrats

felt about it now that we have experienced it.

[tobius]

5. frontloading equals

disenfranchised voters. The importance of Iowa and NH is given way too much weight based upon their demographics and electoral value.

minorities,urban dwellers,... the diversity of the whole party is missing.

way past time for a change in the system.

[cornermouse]

6. New Hampshire and Iowa have always

been important kickoff points, but the something in the system was changed to exaggerate their importance and bring the process to an early end. And beyond the Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards stuff, that bothers me a lot.

[tobius]

8. Yes, the system was changed to move up

other primaries/cacuses because Mcauliffe and others at the DLC felt that with the "critical importance" of this particular election that the party would be better off unifying on a nominee earier than the past.

This theory posited that this would let the party focus longer on bush.

[w13rd0]

11. actually...

...when the plan was originally formulated, it was thought that deciding on an early nominee to lose to Bush, since a second term for Bush at that time was a foregone conclusion, would give the party time for house and senate races, and party building in prep for 2008.

make of it what you will...oh, and don't take my word for it. search some archives.

[wyldwolf]

14. nah

The DNC never put forth that plan.

[w13rd0]

18. No where did I say the DNC...

...did I?

[wyldwolf]

22. you didn't have to, because the plan that we speak of was developed...

...by the DNC, so it is a given. Surely you are aware of that?

[Algorem]

7. The people have been backloaded by "party elders" or whoever these

pricks are.

[Hekate]

9. Disenfranchisement of a major population segment, IMO

California moved its primary up to March 2 hoping to have a greater effect on the results, but it has not worked. All that's happening this year, as far as I can see, is that we will be ratifying what has already taken place. The only way we can hope to have any effect is for everyone to stick with their original candidates in the March 2 primary, hoping to send them to the convention with enough delegates to influence the platform. But voters are more likely to just work with the abbreviated slate of anointed front runners. :(

Hekate

[wyldwolf]

12. Anointed frontrunners?

I see by your avatar that you're a Dean supporter.

So let's talk about annointed.

Days before the Iowa and NH caucuses/Primaries, Dean was looking like the "annointed one."

Then the voters spoke.

[LWolf]

21. I agree.

And I will be voting for the candidate of my choice, regardless.

[SoCalDem]

13. I am more than a little annoyed

that California & NY never get the whole "buffet".. Can we wonder how the candidate roster would look if California & NY were the first ?

I favor a regional system

.. all set a week apart..

Each region has multiple television/radio opportunities and major transportation facilities.

AND.. even though the "news" venues would HATE it.. NO REPORTING until all totals in each region were verified and recorded..

[krkaufman]

15. * * * _ * * * _ R E A D _ T H I S _ * * * _ * * *

Here's a good commentary on McAuliffe's front-loading the process:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020121&s=nichols
Primary Predicament
by JOHN NICHOLS
From January 21, 2002 issue.

With little public notice and no serious debate inside the party, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe and his allies have hatched a plan to radically alter the schedule and character of the 2004 Democratic presidential nominating process. If the changes McAuliffe proposes are implemented--as is expected at a January 17-19 meeting of the full DNC--the role of grassroots Democrats in the nomination of their party's challenger to George W. Bush will be dramatically reduced, as will the likelihood that the Democratic nominee will run the sort of populist, people-power campaign that might actually pose a threat to Bush's re-election.

Give it a read, and I think you'll find that Mr Nichols wasn't far off the mark.

[w13rd0]

19. thank you...

...someone actually did a little digging rather than just being dissmissive.

[krkaufman]

20. Thanks goes to my brother. He dug it up a few weeks back...

... but I keep posting it whenever these "front-loading" threads pop-up.

Yes, a candidate's qualities, experience and performance matter, but you've gotta have tunnel vision to deny that this process is working just the way that McAuliffe designed it to. (Which makes me think Gephardt may have been a plant to take down Dean in Iowa; or, if not a plant, was convinced to fall on his sword by the DNC powers-that-be when they saw that Dean might actually get/have their cherished momentum coming out of Iowa.)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. But the article also acknowledges a key point.

Fundraising for the general. Progressives could JUST AS EASILY be a part of that as can grassrooters, but if they hold back out of some "insider" protest, they take THEMSELVES out of the equation.

I don't think frontloaded primaries are good but we faced a serious ability to afford to campaign when Bush vowed to raise 200 million for re-election.

[CWebster]

17. Poor strategy

Dean is the perfect example of why a solitary figure is at far greater risk. The media, like a greek chorus, has far too much power in shaping consensus because of the uniformity of its outlook. Last night I heard, George Mitchell, I think it was, pooh-pooh the media assasination of Dean, stating that it was the reality of politics and the media had created Dean. The media did not create Dean - how could they ignore him? They did cripple him, however with a campaign of relentless demonization. I'd like to hear George Mitchell sniffing that it is little more than a fact of political life when the 150 million dollar Republican guns takes aim. Keep that target moving as long as possible, otherwise by the time the election gears up, the hits are sure to hurt.