Shortened Primary Season?

I guess I should explain that I mean THIS PRIMARY'S shortened season

on one day.

Hmmmmmm...I like your thinking. That would make all states equal, even though each state would have the right number of Reps.

I like.

This is just stupid. Are there any primaries left? How do the people in thbise states feel? Is their vocie being heard? Nope, it isn't. I voted Bad Idea.

Why force the candidates to spend all their money early on waging a national campaign for the primary? Imagine if John Kerry had not been able to raise as much money - then he could not have possibly won more than a few states. Meanwhile, the guy with the most cash would have a lock on the nod... how is that beneficial?

The fact is, any state holding a primary after March 2nd was screwed as far as having any impact on the race is concerned. Iowa and New Hampshire get WAY too much attention in proportion to their importance in the general election. Yes, Dr. Dean was an idiot for saying it out loud, but he was absolutely right.

The worst that would have happened had we held ALL of the primaries at once would be a contested convention, which we haven't had in decades. Imagine - a national convention that actually had a purpose other than to crown the already-chosen nominee. That is something people would watch.

which I have advocated several times on DU.

Instead of having all the primaries at once, group the states into four groups of eight and two of nine. Spread the geography out, so that on a given day each region of the country is represented by one or two states. Every two weeks, one group has its primary. Thus you have a ten-week series of primaries where everyone gets to vote. The people near the end don't have quite as influential a role as the people near the beginning, but that's why every four years, the groups rotate so that that unfortunate group #6 from 2008 becomes the lucky group #1 in 2012.

The result is that Iowa and New Hampshire lose their undeserved influence, while states at the end like my own NC get a little bit more. Over the course of time, each state gets to be in the spotlight. Furthermore, groups of states are small enough that a candidate who can't raise $40 million can campaign in those states alone and hope to pick up momementum and fund-raising after a good showing.

...give the candidates a fixed amount of public money which they can spend on getting elected and allow no private influence contributions and special interest money in campaigns at all.

I really think there would be calls for Bush's impeachment, if we had all 9 of the old candidates out there right now. It might not work, but the Democrats would be getting more air-time--for every section of the party, be the centrist or leftist.

in October. This is just way tooooo long. I don't think I can stand seeing smirks face 10 times a day (and I don't watch TV till 9PM) from now till Nov. :puke: :puke: :puke:

What's your opinion on this shortened Primary in 2004?

Start it later:

June not March:

That would work better in many states who have their state (as ooposed to presidential primaries later. It cost alot to have an election.

10 week season:

10 elections (primary or caucus) ever other week. Geographically diverse each time. This allows more candidate to raise money longer ans stay in the race longer. giving more people the ability to cast meaningful votes.

Nominating Conventions in August:

General Election campaign starts on Labor Day.

guess I will know for sure after the election. Hind site is always easy. Kerry has taken more heat for a longer period, or, some other candidate may have won.

The DLC and the whores got who they wanted through mass hysteria and deception, and very possibly voter fraud.

the DLC wanted Dean to lose, I really don't see how the front loaded primaries helped or hurt one specific candidate. If Dean had won IA, it's very possible he would have gone on to almost sweep the other states.

Not that I thought the front loaded primaries were a good idea. As soon as it was obvious who the nominee would be, the excitement plummted and so did turnout. The only positive thing was from a fund raising angle.

I don't really remember any mass hysteria or deception. What day was that?

The consistent parroting of "Dean is unelectable". "Dean is crazy". "Dean is too angry" and then the flipside "Only Kerry can beat Bush". Hammered away in the media 24-7. Repeated ad nauseum by DLC/DNC puppets everywhere.

Then there's the "Dean = Osama" ad, courtesy of Kerry/Gephardt/Torricelli.

And the conveniently arranged 3:00 AM robocalls to Iowa residents.

And then the manipulation of a 2 second scream which was digitally enhanced into something far worse than it ever was in reality (barely audible above the crowd) and constant repitition with the added spin that it was some sort of "mental meltdown"

It was an assassination just as surely as RFK,and for much the same reasons, only less messy.

For every pundit that said Dean was unelectable, another one said Kerry's campaign was dead. You can call them puppets if you want, but that's punditry and it helps and hurts both sides.

Don't know about the Dean=Osama ad, or the 3 AM robocalls, but an equal amount of deception goes on at DU when people call Kerry Bush-Lite and when they call Clark a Republican. You can blame it on the DNC if you want, but it that's politics and it helps and hurts both sides.

As for the scream - I saw it live, and I shuddered. It wouldn't have mattered if it was played over and over again, it scared me to begin with. I don't want a nominee who will scream like that in front of cameras.

a deceptive hysterical fraud perpetrated upon a gullible public threatened by real change.

Having one caucus virtually determine our nominee isn't short enough?

The season needs revision. Mass primary day would be all right I suppose. It's far more democratic than this inherently skewed deal we had this year. But I have to admit it was quite the interesting fiasco.

and without Democratic unity, there'd be no chance of defeating Bush. I'd like it to be more equal, I'd like it more if my guy had won the primary, I'd like it if there were still 10 people our there attacking Bush. But in the end, one would have won, and the rest would have been mighty bitter, as has always been the case in the past. I think it worked out for the best this time. Though if Kerry loses in November, a lot of people will tell me I was wrong.

:shrug: I was against it at first because while the primaries were going on it peaked everyone's interest and after it was pretty much decided interest slacked off. Now though with all the scandal involving Iraqi tortures it may be a good thing that attention isn't diverted away from that with primaries and campaigns going on. It also may be a good thing that we have a President in waiting to jump on chimp about everything that is going wrong.

Rove was whetting his chops that the Democratic candidates would beat each other over the head until the convention, leaving no time to recover, and allowing the fight to define whoever stumbled out alive at the end.

Its good this was done early. We had a real battle, my primary candidate wound up losing, and now we've united a pretty damn good alternative and moved on with the common, single-minded goal of beating George Bush.

Now, while its a good thing that the primaries are decided quickly, I don't think its a good thing that the states with all the power are New Hampshire and Iowa. Two rural, overwhelmingly white, largely agricultural states should not dictate the course of the national Democratic party. The South Carolina, Missouri and Arizona primaries, which come a week after New Hampshire, help somewhat to remedy this problem, but I still feel that vast swathes of the voting electorate are marginialized and alienated by the current selection process. But that's really an issue for a future DNC chair with a lot more power than Terry McAuliffe will ever have; for this year, we're fine.

There was only one week from Iowa to NH this time around, not enough time for the losing candidates to catch up with the momentum of the Iowa winner. For instance John Kerry caught a big tail wind in Iowa and had the momentum. His main opponent in NH, Howard Dean, kept getting hit because of "The Scream"--a real non-issue that the press decided to exploit for reasons only they know. However, by the end of the week Dean was making a recovery but it was too little too late--it could also be argued that had it been the usual two weeks between Iowa and NH that perhaps the front runner from Iowa may have come under increased scrutiny--which would have aided the other candidates from Dean to Edwards to Clark.

There was only one week from Iowa to NH this time around, not enough time for the losing candidates to catch up with the momentum of the Iowa winner

Kerry and Edwards seemed able to turn their campaigns around in the final week of Iowa, so why should any other campaign be unable to do so?

it could also be argued that had it been the usual two weeks between Iowa and NH that perhaps the front runner from Iowa may have come under increased scrutiny--which would have aided the other candidates from Dean to Edwards to Clark.

All of the candidates were scrutinized for MONTHS in NH. Any NH citizen who wanted to, could personally interview the candidates.

the shortened political season didn't allow the front runner after Iowa to be scrutinized the way the front runner in 2003 was--day after day--but what is done is done and water under the bridge. The democratic party purposely wanted a shortened political season so they would have a nominee quicker rather than a longer season where it be drawn out. I'm not sure that was the best thing for the party. Certainly when you consider that Kerry was in third place behind both Dean and Clark prior to Iowa--he got a bounce in Iowa and the time between Iowa and NH was short enough where that bounce was sustained

It's a widely reported fact that in NH, the candidates engage in retail politics. They knock on doors, and appeal for votes person to person.

There are both costs and benefits to whatever decision is made. Though a long primary allows the candidates to bash each other for an extended period, it also provides the media with a lot of material, and as a result, the Dems get a lot of media coverage. IMO, there's no clear formula for how long the primary season should be. Under some set of circumstances, I can see an argument for a long primary season. Under other conditions, I see a short primary season.

Given the wide-spread hostility to Bush*, I don't see the benefit of having a long primary season because the fighting would have provided some people with reason(s) for not voting ABB.

but the results of one state (Iowa) certainly influenced the results in NH when you consider that Kerry wins in Iowa and suddenly moves from third to first in the NH polls. It would have been the same for Dean had he won Iowa he would almost certainly had gotten the same type of boost and went on to win NH--and like Kerry the nomination because of the momentum from the two early wins.

Though "the Scream" may have turned NH voters off of Dean, they weren't pushing Kerry. In NH, Dems had a variety of candidates to vote for, and they chose Kerry even though no one was telling them to do so.

Kerry won in Iowa, and the media reported it. The media did nothing to help Kerry win in Iowa, and they did nothing more to help in NH other than report on his IA win.

Furthermore, NH is a state known for the independence of it's voters, who have regularly ignored the media's conventional "wisdom", and voted for the candidate they liked the most, instead of the candidate the media liked.

Using your logic, I could argue that an additional week before NH would only have given the media another week to talk about Kerry's come-from-behind win, thereby solidifying Kerry's lead.

I still voted for Dean, but most of my stupid state voted Kerry only because HE ALREADY WON!!!! :grr:

I've beat this horse to death, though.

Put it back the way it was or change it for the better (i.e.: 4 or 5 States at a turn, with plenty of time between rounds, and change the order each election cycle so there will be no more Iowa, NH, type of domination).

Imagine how great it would be to have multiple candidates on the stump *right now*, talking about the latest issues. At least there would be some opposition voices being heard.

No offense to Kerry -- IMO, he's holding back, trying to prevent any "fatigue" associated with his name. But all this lack of responsiveness (and coolness when there is a response) does get frustrating.