Monday’s political round-up

February 12, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Perhaps the strongest part of Hillary Clinton’s stump speech continues to be her references to those who hate her most. The Politico reported, “Campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton claimed that she — and her husband, the former president — are the Democrats that Rove and other leading Republican handicappers fear most. ‘I know what Gingrich tells people privately, I know what DeLay tells people privately, I know what Karl Rove tells people privately,’ she said. ‘I’m the one person they are most afraid of. Bill and I have beaten them before, and we will again.'”

* Barack Obama took what I think was his first veiled shot at Hillary Clinton yesterday, questioning the New York senator’s position on the war in Iraq. “I am not clear on how she would proceed at this point to wind down the war in a specific way,” Obama told reporters at a press conference in Iowa. “I know that she has stated that she thinks that the war should end by the start of the next president’s first term. Beyond that, though, how she wants to accomplish that, I’m not clear on.”

* The secretive right-wing Council for National Policy quietly held an informal straw poll to see which GOP presidential candidate had the broadest support from far-right leaders, mainly from the Dobson wing of the party. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee edged former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, sources told U.S. News.

* Hoping to dispel any rumors to the contrary, Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), whose recovery continues to go well, is planning to seek re-election next year. To help Johnson out, several top Senate Dems will host fundraising events on his behalf over the next few weeks, including Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Kent Conrad.

* State officials in New York are following the lead of California, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey, and considering a plan to move the New York primary up to the first Tuesday in February.

February 12, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Regarding moving primaries, there was a decent editorial in today’s paper coming out against it.

Michael W,

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree about the decency of that article.

One argument presented in that article is that New Hampshire and Iowa are small so a candidate gets to meet with most people in those states.

I’m sorry, but that is one of the most profoundly stupid arguments against a more fair primary system that I’ve ever heard. I don’t even think it justifies rebuttal; it’s more deserving of a blank stare.

The second point he brings up is that the system in Florida relies too heavily on money. Sounds like a great reason to reform the system, not to accept the status quo.

Frankly, I’m tired of a some states getting such an unfair advantage in picking candidates, and I’m not about to let a couple flimsy and ridiculous arguments sway me.

Over the weekend I saw or heard four different people ask Hillary for a DIRECT answer on her vote in October ’02 and four times she waffled and weaseled. Up ’til last week a simple, “I made a mistake” would have kept me with her. Now I’m done. She’s just another poll reading reactor. The significance of this is that I am a bedrock CORE DEMOCRATIC voter. I’d rather see Rudy Giuliani get elected.

I can get behind Obama, Edwards or Clark but I’m done with Hillary.

ok, doubtful, i’ll take the bait. having lived through it for years while also working in politics enough to have to strategize for larger markets, the small size of Iowa in combination with the lack of a dominant media market, a highly educated citizenry, and a tradition of activism requires candidates in Iowa (and presumably New Hampshire, but I have no personal knowledge) to deal at the retail politics level. In most states, that isn’t true – a candidate is better off to do a large media buy in the major market either because reaching enough people on a retail level is impractical, or because the media market is so dominant that it is more efficient. so the real question is whether one thinks retail political skills are valuable, and a retail politics setting is useful for vetting candidates. if the answer(s) are “yes,” then Iowa (and presumably a few other states as well) make great starting points. Iowa also has the advantage of being relentlessly swing-voting and ticket-splitting, which makes it a good test of a general, too.

I have been in Iowa and I really enjoyed getting to meet all the candidates. It was truely amazing how much time you could spend with the candidates. However, you do have to put up with the commercials. So I guess it is close to an even exchange.

The problem with frontloading the primaries aside from Iowa and New Hamshire is that the actual effect is going to be to INCREASE the value of Iowa and New Hampshire. If the nomination will be virtually clinched by the first week of February then the only bounces that count will be from Iowa and New Hampshire.

I think both parties, or at least one of them, should tell Iowa and New Hamsphire to stuff it and allow every state that wants to go first the chance to go first.

Have a lottery in 2009 to pick the first states in 2012. If your state joins the lottery to go first and loses then it has to go to the back of the pack. The national parties should have the guts not to sit the delagates from any state that doesn’t abide by the rules.

Here’s the fallicy of putting all the primaries early.

Early primaries create front-runners. It forces them into the spotlight, where they can be easily dissected and evaluated. Front-runners that don’t make the grade usually get “chopped” by the Super-Tuesday gang. Think of it as a political form of “evolutionary selection.” It’s never the early primaries that expose the problems that make a candidate not worthy of support—it’s the later primaries.

Those later primaries serve as a system of “checks and balances.” They provide American voters the opportunity to revisit a candidate, and compenstae of errors caused by things not known during those early caucuses. If the primaries all move up, then eventually the conventions will move up. What happens if a total schlock gets the nomination, and then falls apart midway through the general campaign? Do you hold a second convention? Maybe a third? Who pays for it? What city holds a major convention center and several thousand hotel rooms open on the premise that “it might be needed?”

Keep the primaries spread out—it’s a fail-safe factor….

Why not move all the primaries to the same date, i.e., have a national primary election, the way most civilized nations do it?

neil wilson,

I think both parties, or at least one of them, should tell Iowa and New Hamsphire to stuff it and allow every state that wants to go first the chance to go first.

Agreed, although I’m not a big fan of the lottery approach to selecting the states. A while back someone on this blog suggested that the first primary (and caucus) slots go to the closest swing states from the prior election. I can’t remember all the details but the basic gist was the Dems lost Ohio by 0.002% last election and lost Florida by 0.004% and won New Mexico by 0.005% then the first primary is in Ohio, the next Florida and New Mexico after that.

There’s a lot of merit in this approach. We must nominate candidates that appeal in swing states if we hope to win the general election. This would be one way to help encourage that.

the problems with a national primary are (1) less time to “get to know” the candidates; (2) even more impact of big money and independently wealthy candidates (as no one else could afford simultaneous campaigns in 20+ states); (3) easier to make a glaring error – if Iowa/NH get it “wrong,” the current system provides time to sort that out (as Iowa/NH mainly play a winnowing, not a crowning, role). The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates were little known and used the staggers, start-small primary system to build momentum. I’m not sure why Democrats would be clamoring to change to a system that would have gotten rid of Carter and Clinton but likely still would have nominated Kerry.

There’s only a very limited time window where the media actually pays attention to and reports on Democratic issues and that’s during the time when the primaries are competitive and they actually telecast and report on all the various candidate debates. As soon as a candiate gets the number of delegates to clinch the nomination, the entire remaining process is forgotten and the media returns back to it’s “horserace” narrative.

The Democrats, could, if they kept the primaries spaced out and put the bigger ones at the end, keep open a 3 month window where Democrats and Democratic party issues would be given media coverage. Think of it almost as a reality show building up suspense each week as the stakes get larger and larger and the also-rans start to drop out. But rather than have a 3 month window, they seem to be aiming more for a brief 3 week window – over before the end of February with all the remaining primaries and debates that could have been now rendered meaningless.

The Dems need to find a way to prolong the primary process (I remember 1968 where the primaries were competitive until June – and someone like Bobby Kennedy could still get in and chance the race in March after the first primaries had started) – frontloading a bunch of big states the first week or two and immediately turning the primariy process into who is able to make the big huge media buys upfront in order to compete in the big states will not allow any kind of campaigns to organically develop and almost ensures that the big media and money, rather than an informed electorate will be the ones who get to choose the candidate. They’re blowing a huge opportunity by front-loading.

I know what Karl Rove tells people privately,’ she said.

She’s going to make Karl Jr pick tomatoes…

Screw putting all the @#$%$#@!!! primaries in February and March. THE FIRST ONE SHOULD BE IN JUNE, with the last one the last Tuesday of July, then the conventions are held the end of August, and the campaign starts on Labor Day.

Nine months of total campaign is going to turn off so much of the electorate that if turnout is 30% it’ll be a bleedin’ miracle, and the lower the turnout the better the chances for the thugs.

I can’t believe Democrats are doing this, but then mentioning the words “Democrat” and “brains” in the same sentence is like mentioning the words “Republican” and “intelligence” in the same sentence.

What a bunch of professional tools.

Zeitgeist,

I don’t mean to bait anyone, if I sounded that way. This part of the system is flawed, and I’m not ready to roll over and let other states make a decision for me.

People feel shut out of the entire election system yet we cling to a system that continues to push them out. By the time the primaries get to many states, most or all the candidates have dropped out leaving people without a choice.

The argument that the public in general is disengaged, except in Iowa, is proof of that. The public could very well be disengaged because the system has marginalized their opinion. These people are being disenfranchised by the system.

If you felt your vote didn’t matter in the spring, what would change your mind by the fall? How should I explain to a disengaged coworker that he should vote in the primary even though the conclusion is foregone?

Let’s stop making excuses for a flawed system and start making a plan for a better one.

Simple ~ National Primary on the third Tuesday in June.

If there’s no odds-on favorite, every state can vote for ‘Favorite Son’ candidates. This virtually assures that there will be enough delegate pledged to local state Senators, Governors or party leaders to swing the votes for the nomination. The various delegation leaders can then gather in Smoke Free Rooms and nominate the candidates that the Parties can get behind.

Less Advertising and more back room deals: the traditional way. Open primaries have failed miserably.

Comments are closed.