Lets discuss primary front loading

[Hippo_Tron]

There's a lot of discussion about how democratic the process of selecting a nominee is, especially since Iowa and New Hampshire going first.

In today's system it is almost impossible for someone like Jimmy Carter to come out of nowhere by winning the Iowa caucus and just going onto the nomination. This is because of front loading. In 1976 following Iowa and New Hampshire there was essentially one primary per week up until May. In 2008 there will likely be 10 states (many of them possibly huge states like California) that will have their primary on February 5th.

What does this mean? It means that to be considered "viable" you need to raise $100 million before the Iowa Caucus. Back in the days when there was one primary per week, a candidate who did well in the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire Primary would have time to begin raising money off of their momentum from their victory. Now there is no time to raise money off of an Iowa or New Hampshire victory because you have to compete in 10 states the next week.

As a result, the only three candidates (at least right now) who will be able to compete when the window opens are Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. Gore will likely be able to raise that kind of money if he enters. A second tier candidate like Richardson or Vilsack has a shot but in order to get anywhere they would need to be so impressive in the debates that they will be able to pull off a late fundraising effort to compete with the top tier candidates in money.

The fact is that because of the so-called "money primary" our nominee is largely determined before the candidates even face a single voter. Furthermore this gives a lot of influence to party insiders who are needed for the fundraising efforts.

We are in this situation because every state wants to move up their primary as early as possible so that they have a say in the nomination. I realize that Californians and New Yorkers feel that they should have a say because they are the biggest blue states. But the fact is that by moving California and New York up to the front, it makes it so that the party insiders who can raise money for candidates are the ones who really have a say. Candidates can't win on door to door campaigning in California and New York like they can in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Dean's solution of moving South Carolina and Nevada up before the window opens isn't a good solution, IMO. The window should be closed until sometime in March with only one state going every week so that candidates who didn't win the "money primary" actually have a chance to compete.

Again, I realize that other states want to have the same influence is Iowa and New Hampshire but if we continue this trend of front loading, the only people who will have a say are the party insiders that raise money.

[DURHAM D]

1. Do you have a list of the caucus vs. primary states ? n/t

[Dinger]

3. How About A List Of All The States & Dates Of Primaries/Caucuses? (nt)

[hopein08]

12. I second that request. And want to know when Pennsylvania's primary is! n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

19. It hasn't been determined yet

I do know that California and other big states are trying to go as soon as the window opens on February 5th.

[Mojambo]

2. What exactly is the drawback to one day and one vote? n/t

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Because only those with the most money have a serious chance

It costs a shit load of money just to run ads in places like NY and CA. Someone like Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton in 1992 could not get nominated today because of this. The best alternative would be a combination of public financing for the primaries and general, with having two or three small states on one day having the first primary (each cluster of small states will get alternated for each election year.) This would eliminate having perennial influence for Iowa and New Hampshire, while preserving retail politicking.

[Mojambo]

10. Thanks. n/t

[dmkinsey]

7. It would be what Hippo_Tron described but more so

It would be a national election requiring the same massive advertising budget as a general election. That would make "party insider" fund raisers even more necessary and reduce the presumably desirable retail politics to basically nil.

[Skink]

5. It means Barbara Boxer could sweep the feild...

Nough said.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Native son (or in Boxer's case daughter) candidates neutralize a state's primary influence

Don't get me wrong, Barbara Boxer would make an incredible President. But when candidates win their home state primaries, even if they are early, the media doesn't pay any attention to them because it's a given. The Iowa Caucus was considered irrelevant in 1992 because Tom Harkin was going to win no matter what. If Boxer ran the same thing would happen for California. Sure she'd get a big share of the delegates, but if she couldn't raise the money to compete in the other states then she still wouldn't have a chance.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. Every primary season they should have a lottery or some way to keep

it from being top loaded and unfair. It is just not right. I know that my state is moving up to help Obama and though I support him for prez, I don't see the sense in doing that. All the states crowded together makes it harder for candiates to be able to talk to and get to know voters and spend time in the states.
This is getting out of hand and something must be done.

[Clark2008]

8. I understand why Cal and NY want to have a say, but, let's be

honest... since they are the two most liberal states, the candidate they choose might not be able to win the purple states in November.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Thoughts?

[saltpoint]

9. Those with late-season primaries often feel that their vote is

less important and less urgent than Iowa or New Hampshire voters.

The votes ought to be equal, and of equal import. A 50-state vote, so to speak, if not all at one time, then much more closely scheduled.

What about caucus/primary votes in 3 waves? In mid-January, 17 states hold their vote, the 17 selected by draw each 4-year cycle from more than one part of the country. Second week of February, another 17, similarly selected. First week of March, the remaining 16 states plus territories. In any one calendar vote, all corners of the U.S. map would be represented, so there wouldn't be a "Southern" primary, a "New England" primary, etc. The first wave schedule might include Connecticut, New Mexico, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Kansas, Hawaii, Oregon, etc. The second would schedule Arizona, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Nebraska, Texas, Illinois, Rhode Island, etc. Candidates would have to address nation-wide issues on virtually a non-stop basis.

The whole thing could be condensed and moved up to April / May / June, which is when many states hold their primaries now anyway.

If by the end of the 2nd wave of votes no one candidate holds a definitive lead in delegates, the third wave offers the opportunity for late-comers if they have the cash to compete.

If by the end of the 3rd the delegate totals of candidates have not produced a first-ballot winner, consensus candidates would have a richer environment to build on.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. It's a good thought, but...

Remember that if you put 17 states on the same day, then early fund raisers are going to be the ones that have the money to compete in all 17 states. If a second tier candidate gets one or two states, nobody is going to pay attention when the front runner won 15 states.

Here's essentially the problem with letting everyone in the country have a say. There's 144 million registered voters in the United States. Lets say that 1/3 of them are Democrats. That's 48 million voters not counting open primaries where Republicans and Independents can vote. Trying to appeal to 48 million voters is extremely expensive and requires you to have a political machine behind you. In the general election, candidates automatically have a machine behind them, their party.

If you hold a national primary then candidates will have to build a political machine within a party. This means that unknown people who aren't insiders, aren't connected to the party machinery, like Jimmy Carter can no longer stand a chance at becoming President. I admit that the Iowa/New Hampshire system isn't fair to the states that go later but it is fair to the candidates because everybody has a shot.

[saltpoint]

20. I hear you, but if the whole thing is moved up to April/May/June,

there's time for anyone who can to raise the cash.

If they are unable or unwilling to fundraise at the competitive level, they just don't announce, or drop out if they have.

It's not unlike it is now.

I disagree with you about the party machinery. On one hand there has always been a party machine. Carter used it to great effect in my state, by the way. Morris Udall, who was an established Democratic Congressman, and a much-longer member of that traditional avenue, lost to Carter. The Wisconsin primary was pretty close. But Carter prevailed.

If an independent, non-machine candidate wanted to get in at any point in a 3-wave vote, he or she could. First, the cash, then the incentive and context, but after that, they have access to the same media markets and political endorsements and grassroots commitments as anybody else.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Time isn't the factor for fundraising

Candidates start fundraising and running right now, which IMO is part of the problem not part of the solution. It's not like if we give them until April to raise money that the second tier candidates will suddenly have more time to raise the money they need. IMO, if candidates started running in January the year of the election instead of January the year before, then more candidates would consider running. Brian Schweitzer is a great example of this. A first term Governor isn't going to spend a year raising money to get a nomination for fear that voters will throw them out of office for abandoning gubernatorial duties for a year. If it were only a month, it wouldn't be a problem.

As long as there are multiple primaries on the same day early in the process then fundraising will play a huge advantage. And while Carter eventually used the machine once he gained momentum, he didn't have it until after he won the Iowa Caucus.

[saltpoint]

28. Public financing and a condensed schedule are both pretty

worthwhile.

But the front-loading of states' primaries still favors the big-money fundraiser and further isolates the voter in Mississippi or Alaska.

My emphasis is to cluster the vote in 3 waves. Candidates have to gauge their resources. If they blow it all on Maine and Nebraska they may not have enough left for Arkansas and Maryland.

If primaries were held in 3 waves in spring/early summer of the election cycle, anyone who wished to raise money could. Brian Schweitzer (I hope he's on our ticket in 08) could raise money, just as well as any incumbent. Giuliani is free to fundraise because the fool doesn't have anything else to do. As loathsome as he is, it's not Giuliani's fault that Schweitzer currently holds office. That's politics. Incumbents or non-incumbents are free to go for the prize. They either raise the cash or they don't.

You'd be surprised how much state party support Carter had prior to the first votes. He was a smart cookie that year. (I was a Udall supporter.)

[Hippo_Tron]

29. I don't quite understand your system

I don't see how extending the time period for fundraising would make it possible for all candidates to raise money. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards would still be able to raise more money than other candidates because they have name recognition, media attention, and connections.

And while 3 waves might support rationing, candidates still need to be able to raise enough money to compete in 17 states at one time instead of only having to raise money to compete in one or two states at first.

The fact is that running TV ads in 17 states is extremely expensive and not everyone can get the money to do that even if they spend a year and a half raising money.

[saltpoint]

30. The money is the problem, of course. If there was public financing

ONLY, which I think would be legally challenged (but a sound socialist principle), anyone on earth otherwise qualified could compete. They'd all begin with the same amount. How and where they spend it would still be their business.

Extending the fundraising calendar and condensing the vote into 3-clustered-together events gives any candidate plenty of time to plan and raise cash. Incumbents may choose to step down and let a Lt. Governor take over, for example, but in any case, they'd all have the same time and the national market to strategize in.

If media markets are expensive, they'd be expensive for 1-at-a-time schedules or 17-at once. The web is also a potent venue for advertizing; a less-rich candidate can make a lot of headway on the web.

For me the issue is making sure all Democratic primary/caucus votes matter. Right now they don't.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Your plan does work IF there is public financing

But the problem is that mandated spending caps were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which leaves a huge problem with most campaign finance reform proposals. Thus getting real public financing isn't going to work unless there are constitutional amendments.

And while ultimately candidates will have to spend the same amount to compete in the 17 states whether they are spread out or not, timing is the key issue. If you only have to campaign in one state per week, you can raise money off of your momentum from a previous week's primary win instead of raising it because of your party connections before you even compete in the primaries (again this wouldn't be a problem with public financing because everybody would start with the same amount).

Again, your solution would be great if we had public financing that actually worked. The fact is that we don't and getting public financing passed is going to be very difficult at this point in time.

The fact is that out of all of the methods we've had of choosing a nominee, the one where Iowa and New Hampshire decided the nominee is the most democratic because any candidate had a chance. Until we can actually implement a system like yours, the best solution is to return to the good old days.

[Mojambo]

21. It sounds like public financing has to be a part of any truly fair solution. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

25. I agree, but public financing has huge problems

Particularly that involuntary spending caps have been ruled unconstitutional. I'm a huge proponent of campaign finance reform but I'm just not sure how you implement it.

[CK_John]

13. Regional grouping would be the most practical, for ad spots and

voter contact. But...states control and set the dates. We are a federal system not a central government.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Only after the window opens do states get to pick their primary date

The DNC can nullify your delegates if they don't like when your state is holding its primary.

[Clarkie1]

14. Is it state legislatures or the Democratic Party that determines primary and caucus dates?

My understanding is that it's the state legislatures, so how much control does Dean and the Democratic Party really have over this?

[DURHAM D]

15. I heard Dean in an interview the other day - it is the state legislatures.

In addition to a list of the states with caucus system vs. a primary we need a list of those states that Dems control the legislature and perhaps the Governor's office.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. The DNC gets some say, they can nullify your state's delegates if they don't like your primary date

As I recall DC held a primary in 2004 before the Iowa Caucus but it didn't count.

[Clarkie1]

22. Hmm, interesting. It would of course also depend on the party in power in the legislatures. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

27. States can have a GOP primary on one day and a Democratic primary on another day

It doesn't happen often but it can. So far the RNC hasn't accepted Nevada's date and so for now only the Democratic caucus will be held on that day.

[DURHAM D]

36. I was not aware that the state parties for Dems and Repubs

have ever paid attention to the caucus dates of the opposing party. One not related to the other.

[Clarkie1]

38. Interesting. nt

[dmkinsey]

24. Can you say "scream bloody murder'?

Very unlikely that the DNC would really be able to nullify delegates. Just too difficult politically.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. What, New York is going to vote Republican if we tell them they can't go first?

Ooh I'm shaking on my boots...

Oh and by the way if any Democratic Candidate for office in New York wants the DNC to help them raise money, then they will go when we tell them to.

I'm not saying it comes down to conversations like that because the state party has some strings it can pull on the national party as well. Ultimately they negotiate and decide when states get to hold their primaries.

[crispini]

32. The DNC needs to come up with a rotating system.

Dean needs to do some old fashioned horsetrading. All states should be divided up into 3-5 groups. A group should have a mix of geographic areas, socioeconomic areas, and there should be no more than 1 big state in a group. Then those groups could rotate being first, second, third etc.

I understand your concern about having ANY big states first, but to be honest, those voters in those states essentially get totally disenfranchised from the primary process and it is REALLY not good for the Democratic parties in those states.

Guess who ELSE is taking about moving it up to February 5th? Texas. Hahahahahahaha. We'd certainly counterbalance California! :rofl:

You know what though? I somewhat discount your concern about campaigns being only able to reach out to voters in big states by having a lot of money. Primary voters are more likely to go out and make up their own minds. And anyway, a campaign that appeals to the grassroots will have people who just organize and work for that candidate because they want to. You think we've EVER had an "officially" organized presidential campaign in Texas. Ha! We just roll our own.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. If primary voters made up their own minds...

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards wouldn't be raising $100 million to run TV ads to get their votes.

I realize that the old system did disenfranchise people in certain states but the fact is that the system at least gave every candidate a chance. If the new system continues, everybody will be essentially disenfranchised but the party insiders who can raise the big money.

[jcrew2001]

34. Hillary does not have a lead

National polling is pointless. Hillary does not have a lead. Winning the Dem nomination only consists of the primary states.

Kerry won by winning both Iowa and NH - coming out of nowhere, and Dean didn't have the money to rebound. A candidate can come out of nowhere and win Iowa and NH and win the nomination.

The first primaries are Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC.

Edwards will win Iowa and SC.
Richardson will come close in Nevada.
Hillary has a shot at NH - due to her NY influence and NY volunteers.

If Edwards win Iowa, SC, and NH. It will be very very difficult for Hillary to come back.

But since Hillary is the establishment candidate, there may be enough pressure on dem voters to carry her in California and NY.

[jcrew2001]

35. Wiki has the nom schedule

Wiki has the primary schedule for the 2008 election.

[ieoeja]

37. I'm not sure I buy that.

While I am opposed to front-loading the primaries, you couldn't have picked a worse historical precedence to back your argument. Jimmy Carter did not get a big enough boost out of Iowa to sweep to victory. He didn't even win enough primaries to get the nomination. But as the first candidate in primary history to run in every primary, he had enough delegates from second and third place finishes to go into the convention with a plurality.

And he didn't do this because the money started coming in after Iowa. He did this because he had the support of a massive, volunteer grass-roots organization in all the primaries (the Moral Majority).

In fact, consider 2004. All but one candidate concentrated their initial efforts on Iowa and/or New Hampshire. Some of them, like Kerry, had huge amounts of money at their disposal. That one candidate also had huge amounts of money, but only as a result of his nationwide grass-roots support. A front-loaded primary in 2004 would have pitted Kerry's money vs the Deaniacs. In a situation like that, where you don't have the "Iowa and New Hampshire went for Kerry, so maybe I should take a look at him" dynamic in play. The populist Dean would probably have won by default.

Damn. I have almost talked myself into supporting front-loading primaries. I will have to think more about this.

[nodular]

39. This is an excellent post, thank you.

I just made a similar comment, but much less articulately (no insult intended!)

I've had a thought about this. What if we passed a federal law setting the primaries up as you say, once a week? Here's what could get the states to buy in. First, we divide the states up into maybe five categories, strictly dependent on size. Then we set up a "primary template" for all the primaries will work. There would be a large number of small state primaries, then a big state, then some were small states, been a big state, etc. The template would be the same every year (note, no actual states would be named in the template, just a pattern set up based on the sizes of the states.)

Than a lottery would be held, or a random drawing so to speak, to decide which states get to go earliest in the next presidential election, fitting into the template. The random drawing would determine the entire order of the states in each category and that order would be maintained in perpetuity (hopefully, if the law could be maintained.) That way, each of the big states would get an equal turn being the earliest big state in the primaries over the course of a few decades or so, etc.

I suppose this is so complicated no one will know what I'm talking about.