home

A Little History

One of the ironies of this campaign is the role some prominent players and issues in the current drama played in the past. We have heard about the fact that Harold Ickes was the primary champion of caucuses and proportional allocation of delegates. As Chris Bowers notes, the most important reason Barack Obama won (not Iraq, though I wish it was and am willing to help create that myth) was the brilliant plan the Obama campaign executed in caucuses in Red States. And credit to the Obama campaign and discredit to the Clinton campaign for that.

Now I am not as old as some, but the biggest upset in political history I can remember was not Obama's win, despite that new myth, but George McGovern's win in 1972. Wikipedia has an interesting article on the 1972 race and convention and some interesting name, themes and issues pop up:

The new rules for choosing and seating delegates created an unusual number of rules and credentials challenges. Many traditional Democratic groups such as organized labor and big city political machines had small representation at the convention. Their supporters challenged the seating of relative political novices, but for the most part were turned back by the supporters of South Dakota senator George McGovern. McGovern had amassed the most delegates to the convention by using a grass roots campaign that was powered by opposition to the Vietnam War.

Many traditional Democratic leaders and politicians felt that McGovern's delegate count did not reflect the wishes of most Democratic voters. Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter helped to spearhead a "Stop McGovern" campaign. The stop-McGovern forces tried unsuccessfully to alter the delegate composition of the California delegation. California had a "winner-take-all" primary format, which was contrary to the delegate selection rules. So even though McGovern only won the California primary by a 5% electoral margin, he won all 273 of their delegates to the convention. The anti-McGovern group argued for a more proportional distribution of the delegates, while the McGovern forces stressed that the rules for the delegate selection had been set and the Stop McGovern alliance was trying to change the rules after the game. As with the credential fight, McGovern's army carried the day effectively handing the nomination to Senator McGovern. The Illinois primary required voters to select individual delegates, not presidential candidates. Most Illinois delegation members were uncommitted and were controlled or influenced by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley. The delegation was challenged by McGovern supporters arguing that the results of the primary did not create a diverse enough delegation in terms of women and minorities. The credentials committee, headed by Patricia Roberts Harris, rejected the entire elected delegation, including elected women and minorities, and seated an unelected delegation led by Jesse Jackson and pledged to George McGovern.

(Emphasis supplied.) Pretty interesting, ironic and funny stuff.

One personal anecdote. In 1972, I was a kid and my family used to spend their summers in Miami Beach. And I remember being fascinated by a map in the Miami Herald showing all the candidate's headquarters (they were at all the big hotels that existed at the time). And there were many many candidates at the Convention. Even Ted Kennedy. But I was a kid and was not paying much attention. But we all know the story of McGovern's 3AM acceptance speech.(The next summer I apparently became politically aware because I remember watching the Watergate Hearings quite religiously. My parents are Republicans so they were sure that Nixon was being railroaded. The detested John Dean especially.) By contrast, the GOP Convetion in Miamai Beach later that summer ran like clockwork.

There is no real point to this story other than to evidence once again that, as Will Rogers said, we Dems are not an organized party.

< NY to Study Wrongful Convictions | A Good Decision >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    LOL! (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    We Dems are not an organized Party indeed! We haven't gotten the hang of getting a nominee who represents the strongest election coalition yet. Twice in 40 years isn't the best record IMHO.

    I think Obama and Clinton supporters can unite behind one thing: the desperate need for primary election reform. This primary, while addictive and fascinating, was mind-bogglingly vague and open to interpretation.

    Meanwhile, McCain coasts to "presumptive nominee" status with just a few bumps in the road. Their process worked. It's the ONLY thing they're good at!

    The way we nominated (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    and nominate leaders suugests that we will not see UHC in our lifetimes.

    It's funny how Dems are bashed by teh GOP for wanting UHC. The structure of the party precludes the such reform.  

    It's like we sacrifice reform for the sake of Kennedy's, Pelosi's career and the good of the party, instead of taking the reforms as the core of the party and making the party fit around that reform.

    They can't even get their crap together in Mass to have a state wide single payer system.

    [ Parent ]

    i disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    i've been holding off on this, but can no longer. sen. obama ran a sleazy, chicago-style campaign, complete with baseless accusations of racism, threats of blood running in the streets should he not be nominated, and extorting support from black superdelegates by threatening to ruin their careers if they didn't.

    sounds just like a republican. so no, i shan't be "uniting" behind sen. obama's campaign, should he be officially declared (it isn't august yet) the dem. nominee. sen. clinton on his ticket will make absolutely no difference, i find him to be a dangerous man, for both the country and party. more dangerous, with a dem. majority congress, than a pres. john mccain.

    i doubt i'll have to worry about that though, since he'll be handily trounced in the GE, just like mcgovern was in 72.

    [ Parent ]

    Not the only thing they are good at (none / 0) (#71)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    they are also good at WINNING.

    [ Parent ]
    That's what I meant! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    They are good at picking nominees that can win. Their system is better than ours in that respect.

    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Melchizedek on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    we sure as hell know not to put a speech in front of a green background and 200 supporters.

    "Cottage Cheese in lime jello" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    It is funny.....

    [ Parent ]
    one other thing (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM EST
    something I have been called out for on this site.
    smearing McCain by making fun of his age, his teeth, his cancer scars.
    whatever else you think about his policies McCain is  a legitimate american hero.
    the man volunteered to stay in a cage rather than leave the men he came with.
    McCain is not loathed my the MSM as Hillary and Bill are.  you guys start the same crap with McCain and you are going to have a major backlash on your hands.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by rnibs on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    that's one thing I've always admired about McCain.  His current policies, not so much.  But then I don't admire Obama's either.  That's why I won't vote for either of them.

    [ Parent ]
    And I was going to do (none / 0) (#88)
    by rnibs on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    a write in for Hillary, but now a friend told me that in some states, if you do a write in for a Democrat, they'll count it for Obama anyway, so now I may not even do a write-in.  Don't know if it's actually true that they do that though.

    [ Parent ]
    Some states do, some don't (none / 0) (#158)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM EST
    If you're not sure, just vote downticket and leave President blank.

    Not as satisfying as writing her in, if that is what you want to do, but better than getting your vote taken away because of the rules.  As we have daily seen.

    [ Parent ]

    Check your state's voting rules (none / 0) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    before you do anything out of the ordinary. I recall during the FL recount that someone in charge said if there was no vote cast for president, the ballot was rejected and none of the voters choices were counted.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think heroes, American or otherwise (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by akaEloise on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    should repeatedly and unapologetically use racist language.  McCain has done that.  In my opinion, this alone disqualifies him from consideration as a leader.

    [ Parent ]
    That's an accusation that requires (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    a link to prove that he is on record with such a thing. Obama's people already tainted enough exceptional Americans with that d*mn racist tag.

    This tactic had better stop immediately or it's going to turn on Obama real fast.


    [ Parent ]

    Here you are (3.00 / 1) (#213)
    by akaEloise on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:14:43 PM EST
    True, and there were others (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    who refused early release too.....

    [ Parent ]
    none who are candidates (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:53:27 PM EST
    in 2008

    [ Parent ]
    SHHHHHH (none / 0) (#128)
    by janedw420 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    some things children need to learn the hard way

    [ Parent ]
    James Carville (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    said he had to give the Republicans credit for finding an audience for McCain's speech that was older than McCain.

    Take it up with Leno, Letterman and all the rest....

    [ Parent ]

    IMO Carville is a pud (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    who should be put out to pasture, having said that, that was funny.  making fun of his cancer scars and a million other comments I have seen on blogs today are not.


    [ Parent ]
    Being a war hero (none / 0) (#181)
    by independent voter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    does not exempt you from being a decent human being the rest of your life. He is an angry, hot tempered man and probably unstable. I am NOT criticizing him, I would be angry, hot tempered and unstable too if I endured what he did (if I even lived through it). HOWEVER, it does not mean he is a good fit for the Presidency of the US. You can honor his service and still recognize his short comings.

    [ Parent ]
    geez (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    and they call us republicans.  this almost word for word the Bush smear in 2000.  good luck with that one.
    btw
    you forgot the illegitimate black child.

    [ Parent ]
    YES! (none / 0) (#196)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:18:56 PM EST
    I've been making this same point from time to time here, too.

    It is nothing short of grotesque for people to be sneering at deformities caused by torture, and I have nothing but total contempt for anyone who would do that.  I don't care if the man is Jack the Ripper.

    I would ask Jeralyn and BTD to consider adding that offense to the site rules and banning commenters on the spot who violate it.

    [ Parent ]

    we keep hearing about (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    the awful background behind McCain last night.
    I suspect it was the message printed on it and not the color that is rubbing some the wrong way.
    it was catchy.


    [ Parent ]
    I wasn't put off by the green. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    It is less distracting than the yards of American flags Obama seems to need in every frame.

    [ Parent ]
    A leader we believe in? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Thanin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    I wouldnt call that catchy.  Inaccurate maybe, but not catchy.

    [ Parent ]
    It was Obama's message. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:39:30 PM EST
    And I saw a few "Latinos for McCain" signs in the audience.

    Add that to the pro-Hillary stuff, and I was thinking, "Uh-oh. McCain knows who to target and how to target them."

    How will Obama handle it?

    [ Parent ]

    He'll stomp his liitle feet (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    And demand that Uncle Howard and Aunt Nancy tell McCain to stop it OR ELSE.

    Boy oh boy I must be insane. I never thought that a candidate would come along to make McCain interesting. And I never in a million years would have thought that would be Barack Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    From the sounds of things... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Thanin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    Obama wont handle it well.  I dont see how HRC isnt going to be his VP considering how close this race was, regardless of whose popular vote figures you go by.  Either 'win' is a statistical tie.

    [ Parent ]
    I just don't see (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    Obama offering the VP to Clinton, should he make it all the way to Denver.

    We'll see what happens, but the evidence of the past is not in favor of that.

    [ Parent ]

    I've been thinking about our process (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    and how to make it fair(er).

    Bowers might be proud of the impact that they had on the race, but my personal feeling--one I held before the first contest this year--is that they are undemocratic and distort the will of the people. They must go.

    I also come down hard on the kind of proportional representation we have. Winner-takes-all is perhaps not fair, but I can imagine compromises that might work out better. I think, for example, that we should do at-large delegates as winner-takes-all, and delegates by district the same that. That means that if you lose a state by ten points you probably won't walk away empty handed, but you also won't get nearly as many delegates as the winner.

    On your point: Isn't Miami the kind of place people would run away from in the summer? My parents spent a July 4th weekend there a few years ago, and they said it was like being in the Amazon.

    Cubans (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:19:18 PM EST
    What can I tell you. Summertime is beach time.

    [ Parent ]
    Super delegates (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    If superdelegates prioritized honoring their state's wishes they could play the at-large role you envision. I would think that only extraordinary circumstances should make them step out of that role for the good of the party. But this cycle showed that will not work.

    The whole super-delegate concept seems broken. This cycle has set the perception that SD's first priority is to rubber-stamp, and amplify, the national elected delegate margin. So they become national at-large delegates rather than state ones.

    Thus, perhaps, SDs should vote separate from the states at the convention and get rid of this fraud that they are part of a state's representation.

    [ Parent ]

    And I wish (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by rnibs on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    they'd get rid of that bit where they get money from  the people running for office.  If Obama or Hillary want to give the SD's election campaigns money, can't it be done in a way that the SD doesn't feel beholden?

    [ Parent ]
    I'd like to see who contributed all that (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    money to Obama's PAC so he could bribe the SD's, myself.


    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    The original concept behind the superdelegates were to coalesce the establishment's support behind a particular candidate in the face of a serious populist challenge from the heathen-infested hinterlands. This year in particular (at least so far), that concept's worked to near-perfection.

    In that regard, we should just end the charade. The Democratic superdelegates were generally no more representative of constituent desires in their respective states, than were congressional Democrats effective in ending the war in Iraq.

    At the very least, we can note their consistency.

    [ Parent ]

    The other component of awarding delegates (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:41:23 PM EST
    has to do with the practice of tying the number of delegates in a district to how that district performed in some number of previous elections, with districts having an historically higher turnout in those prior cycles getting more than those that had a lower turnout.  

    In theory, I understand it, but in practice, it means that there is no reward for a district that has tremendous turnout in the current election.  I think that you could have two districts where District A, based on high turnout in the previous cycles gets 5 delegates, even if their turnout this year is poor, and District B gets 3 delegates based on their prior performance, even if their turnout surpasses - as a percentage - District A.

    I don't like winner-take-all; this protracted primary season may have been emotionally trying, but more people had an impact and more people felt the importance of their vote than if this had been over in February on a winner-take-all basis.

    I definitely want to see the end of the caucus system, want to see more of an effort to increase voting-by-mail , more early voting, and some way of standardizing the votes-to-delegates number; it still irks me that a delegate in California or New York represents more voters than a delegate in Idaho or Alaska.  And I think there has to be a better way to handle the determination of who is and is not eligible to be a superdelegate.

    I'm pretty sure that before we know it, we will be staring down another presidential election season, and most of these issues will be unresolved.


    [ Parent ]

    The ideal solution (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    is to get rid of delegates completely. Why do we need delegates when we can count votes?

    [ Parent ]
    Since when can we count the votes? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If there were a desire to count the votes, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    we could.

    [ Parent ]
    Because South Dakoda... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:55:45 PM EST
    Has two Senators, and fewer voters than your State Senate district in Philly.

    [ Parent ]
    heh, (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    Circular explanations are indeed prolific in American politics.

    [ Parent ]
    Counting votes ... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:02:13 PM EST
    What a novel concept!  

    It's just that I have the sinking feeling that the Dems would find some way to monkey even with that.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree.... (none / 0) (#212)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:05:46 PM EST
    but the fans of letting the elites run things will say "McGovern, McGovern!!".

    And I'd say, whoever gets the most votes has the support of most Dem voters and most certainly can win.  And if not, better to lose the right way than win the wrong way.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not as hot (none / 0) (#93)
    by splashy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    As it is in the Midwest in the summer time. I grew up in FL, and there is always a breeze and it rarely gets above 90 or so.

    In the Midwest, it regularly gets very very still, humid, and above 95 in the summer. It's like being under a magnifying glass when a high pressure bubble sets down and stays, and stays, and stays. It's much worse, IMHO.

    And to be on topic, I like the proportional representation, hate the caucuses. Caucuses don't represent the electorate, also IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    I like your plan (none / 0) (#198)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:23:30 PM EST
    It's clear from this election that although we need fair representation of the popular will, we also need some mechanism by which the winner is clearly the winner, even in a close race.

    Your idea seems a darn good way to do that.


    [ Parent ]

    1972 (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by marisol on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    was the first election in which I could vote, and I remember all of that vividly.  We 60's idealists were sure that we were taking over from the old party powermongers and changing the course of America.  Unfortunatley, we ended up with Richard Nixon instead.

    The memories of 1972 and 1968 have informed a lot of my thinking about this year's primary contests. I wish I felt more hopeful about November.

    we must be about the same age (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    thats funny (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    in 1972 I was a McGovernbot.  I was living in NYC surrounded by McGovernbots and almost never talked to or even encountered anyone else.
    I was absolutely convinced he was going to win and was so crushed and disillusioned when he did not that I did not participate or become invested in another political campaign for 8 years.

    At least us poll addicts (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    know the national score. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Poll addicts (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    would have found it much harder to get their "fix" in 72. Polling information for people not directly involved in the campaign was much harder to come by then. I was just about your age in 72 and just as much a politics junkie as you appear to be.  I hope you stay involved.

    [ Parent ]
    Disconnect (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    I'm concerned that we will have that same disconnect with Obama. Too many of his supporters truly believe him to be this great progressive. He actually isn't. And if and when he's elected, they're going to find it out the hard way.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, it's going to be PAINFUL (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    I'll have to wear earplugs to avoid damage from all the wailing, and protective goggles to avoid eye damage from all the fingerpointing.

    [ Parent ]
    That's funny. I was in Ann Arbor (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:24:28 PM EST
    and was also surrounded by McGovern fans.  Who wouldn't vote for him?  What a shocker.

    [ Parent ]
    Worst part is going to be (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    if there are election hijinx a la 2000 and 2004.  Something tells me the likes of Pelosi are going to be standing there scratching their heads when the folks who were outraged in 2000 are staying home.  [sound of crickets]

    We need a one day national primary. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    I really think that is for the best.  We can seed candidates who are not well known and give them a start.  

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    At the very least Carl Levin needs to be supported in his quest to stick it to IA and NH.

    [ Parent ]
    We must! (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:24:21 PM EST
    I favor a weekend AND making both days a national holiday (for folks who do weekend shifts).

    That way everyone can participate.

    And of course, no delegates or superdelegates. It's silly. Direct popular vote only.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with the national election (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by splashy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    And the days off, but there will still be some that have to work (emergency workers, hospital workers, food service workers, etc.) because they often don't get holidays off, and/or take care of family members.

    I'm thinking have an entire week, all day long, so most everyone can get counted. We have that in Arkansas and it works very well.

    No caucuses. Caucuses bad.

    [ Parent ]

    In Washington (none / 0) (#164)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    you can register as a permanent absentee (I have).  Such registration would take care of the folks you mentioned.

    [ Parent ]
    So, you think you can be an informed voter (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    if there's no time for vetting the unknown candidates?

    I might have voted for Obama in January. I thank the system for making sure I got a chance to learn more about him before I made that mistake. I voted for Hillary, and in November, if I can't vote for her again, I'll vote for anyone but Obama.

    Fun poll is going on in the wake of yesterday's declaration of victory.


    [ Parent ]

    Strategic staggered primaries. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    That would be the ideal way to go.  How you get the states to go along with one party's schedule is the real trick.

    Strategic staggered primaries are set up to break the tiny state dominance and Super Tuesday effect.   States are clustered in a combination of geography and GE relevance.  Geography to make campaigning feasible, GE relevance would mean a mix of blue, red and swing states - striving for a roughly equal amount of EVs per primary date.

    [ Parent ]

    a two tier (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM EST
    would allow ofr a a regional insrregnt to make a strong bid. Teh intervening month would allow for plenty of vetting.

    The vetting is supposed to be carried out over a few terms in statewide or national office.   Experience.  The idea of needing to vet and promotiong minor figures to greatness is a contradictory demand.

    [ Parent ]

    I did a diary at DKos in 2005... (none / 0) (#41)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:33:57 PM EST
    with a draft plan for nominating, that went like this:

    I'm watching another symposium on the nominating process.  Here is my draft plan.  The main idea is to have fairness for all candidates and voters.  In my opinion, rotating between states will not achieve fairness.  My plan does not deal with the actual number of delegates and/or use of superdelegates who may serve as a further means of balance in comparison to the electorate.  

       1.  No campaigning until Jan. 1

       2.  Allow Iowa and NH prior to March 1.  This permits smaller candidates to have a more level playing field through retail politics.

       3.  National primary run-off on April 30, where the field is narrowed to the top 2 or 3.

       4.  National Primary on Tuesday nearest June 30.

    Throughout the entire 6 month period there will be multiple debates and TV time offered to candidates to use as they wish, paid for by the DNC by pooling a percentage of resources from the candidates.

    The main idea is to keep the costs and length of the campaigns down and allow all voters an equal say in the decision.

    It may be simplistic, but having nominating campaigns with the influx of money as we now have and the media manipulation is a huge step backward from 1972.

    [ Parent ]

    I could go for that, but with one change (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    Iowa and New Hampshire cannot be allowed to monopolize the early period.

    [ Parent ]
    At the time...there was less craze... (none / 0) (#57)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:43:13 PM EST
    but I think some small and diverse states would have to come at the start to allow for the less known candidates to compete and make a mark.

    [ Parent ]
    Or one big state (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    But we could choose early states on a rotating, random, basis. I would be ok with that.

    [ Parent ]
    You need to have a state (none / 0) (#99)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    that has some diversity, but is small enough for candidates who do not have a large war chest to compete in.  New Hampshire is small enough for some up close and personal campaigning to reach lots of people and also for media buys to be semi-reasonable in cost. Because southern NH, the Nashua area, is actually almost a suburb of Boston since many people commute from there to the Boston area, there are some of the Mass liberal types living there and some people of color.  Northern NH is farmland. Although I don't think any state should have a lock on going first or second, a "New Hampshire like" state isn't a bad choice. A large state where media buys are expensive and door-to-door is too many doors would keep many candidates from even beginning a race.

    [ Parent ]
    id just go to the French way (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    if you want
    UHC that is.  

    I don't care about insurrgencies.  I want a single frikking reform.  I don't care about the careers of the politicians.

    If you want good policy have the structure of the party reflect a system that has alsready produced that reform.

    [ Parent ]

    "Diversity"? (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    Both Iowa and New Hampshire are over 90% white!

    You want a small state with diversity, there's no state better qualified than Hawaii, locale of the 12th most populous single municipality in the United States (the island of Oahu, a.k.a. the City & County of Honolulu), and its larger neighbor islands area-wise, which are entirely rural and small-town in nature.

    And to be honest, having lived in several parts of the country, I've found Hawaii's citizens to be generally more intuitive politically than their mainland counterparts, and much less cynical regarding the applicability of basic Democrative Party principles and values in their everyday lives.

    Not surprisingly, this is per capita probably the most Democratic state in the country. Yes, we have a Republican governor, but she's strongly pro-choice and pro-civil rights (unlike most of her mainland counterparts), and Republicans constitute but 11 out of 76 Hawaii state legislators.

    This is the first state to legalize a woman's right to reproductive choice, the first to ratify the equal rights amendment, the first to codify into law basic rights and privileges for non-traditional couples, and the first to pursue the concept of universal health care coverage. Further, the late Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy Mink is known unofficiaaly as the "Mother of Title IX", having authored the legislation ans steered its successful passage and approval in 1972.

    I must admit, though, that because island-born and native son Barack Obama (Punahou '79) was in the race this year, local pride in his candidacy has really skewed his poll numbers out here, completely out of all proportion to the rest of the nation.

    (In fact, current polls show that on a state-by-state basis, Sen. Obama's strongest level of support is currently found in Hawaii, where he leads Sen. John McCain by a whopping 35 points, which is nearly double the comfortable lead he enjoys in his present home state of Illinois!)

    But generally, if you want a fair and representative glimpse of where the heads of Democratic voters might be at any given moment, there are few places more qualified to fit the bill that the Hawaiian Islands.

    [ Parent ]

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    Campaign workers and volunteers wouldn't have to freeze their a... fingers off doing door to door...

    [ Parent ]
    Frankly, I'm cold to the "door-to-door" (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    argument. That's not how you win a general election, which supposedly the primary is a proving ground for.

    [ Parent ]
    You have to have small and cheap (none / 0) (#112)
    by Panhandle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:08:24 PM EST
    The reason Iowa and NH go first (or at least the only reason that makes sense to me) is because they are small enough that you could literally meet every person if you tried, and cheap enough that you could begin a campaign with no name recognition or established machine behind you. I don't agree that it has to be Iowa and New Hampshire everytime, but it has to be small states (population-wise) and cheap states (media buy-wise)

    [ Parent ]
    who cares. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    does it deliver UHC?  No not at all. the Proportional delegate Primary  props up the influence of the media and party elders.

    The party should be structured around the goal.  The career prospects of Joe Pol doesn't interest me in the slightest.

    The party should be redesigned around the reform that it wishes to perform.

    [ Parent ]

    i'd love a candidate that offered UHC (none / 0) (#174)
    by Panhandle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    Give me a candidate that does and I'll work my ass off for them. As it is we get candidates that offer Universal Health INSURANCE. It may be a step in the right direction, but it's not Health CARE. INSURANCE is not CARE

    [ Parent ]
    Totally with you... (none / 0) (#179)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    Same here.

    UH Insurance might be a good start, but it has to be viewed as just that: a start.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#180)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:46:55 PM EST
    As long as you have health insurance, high-quality health care is not hard to find in this country.

    [ Parent ]
    yawn. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:29:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, the fact of the matter is (4.00 / 2) (#115)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    that most Democrats live in big states, not small ones. And this idea that people who live in big states have to essentially be left out of the early decision making process seems inherently unfair.

    [ Parent ]
    big states aren't cheap (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Panhandle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    the point is that anyone should be able to run for president, not just someone who starts out with millions of dollars. Few candidates would be able to compete in say California without A)already having national name recognition and B)Truckloads of cash. So if some small state governor, like a Bill Clinton in 1992, had to start by competing in California, they'd be screwed from the start.

    [ Parent ]
    Too bad (none / 0) (#185)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    You need money to run for President. Lots of it.

    [ Parent ]
    My idea... (none / 0) (#150)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    My idea would be to start off with big state, small state, middle state, tiny state, to where 4 states start.

    After those 4 vote, the top 4 candidates stay in the race, the rest leave.

    However we just know who the top 5 are. The rest of the campaigning and the results would be kept secret until either the convention or June 30th or some such date, when all the votes would be counted and the winner announced.

    Candidates would be working on merit, not momentum, the no chance guys would get weeded out etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Not announce the results?N (none / 0) (#153)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    No way. Killing momentum is bad for the party.

    [ Parent ]
    But... (none / 0) (#168)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    Nobody gets momentum. Anyone of the 4 guys/gals left could be ahead, there is no way to know, so everyone has pony in the race until the very end.

    And of course everyone is desperate to know how things turned out...

    [ Parent ]

    You just doubled the number (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    of elections a state has to finance.

    Elections are a resource intensive effort.  If you want the states to play along, keep it to one election.

    [ Parent ]

    You're right (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:54:43 PM EST
    My concern is that we not end up with a plurality winner.

    IVR has many advocates, but I think it is a cruddy system (it is not monotone, for example). So getting a second round, if needed, seems like a good idea. Vote by mail is a system that I advocate.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonesense (none / 0) (#82)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    a two tier race is used in most European leadership contests.

    It would be easy to have a vote one one day and a month later to finish it off between the top two from that pool.

    [ Parent ]

    There's a number of reasons (none / 0) (#98)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    caucuses are popular.

    Control is the obvious one.
    Cost is another one - the states don't have to pay for them.

    Put the two together and caucuses allow state parties to control every aspect of the caucus - including scheduling them at any time, without relying on state legislatures to approve them, run them or pay for them.

    [ Parent ]

    But... (none / 0) (#133)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    Look at Washington State. We have a primary that the Rs use to choose half of their delegates.

    The Dem party still insists on a caucus, even though formerly we now they have to pay for it.

    It's control by the parties, not the States, I think, that decides primary vs caucus.

    [ Parent ]

    The party can help pay... (none / 0) (#143)
    by citizen53 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    or the election could be done by mail.

    Better than one candidate raising $300 million and the other $225 million.

    [ Parent ]

    It will be interesting to read the book that's (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Rhouse on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    bound to come out about this election cycle.  It is sure to be stuffed with heros and villains and epic fights for change of course.  I just wonder who's going to write it and which side they were on,  because I think Hunter S. Thompson  is/was the only one who could have done it justice.

    I want Hillary to write it, and get it made into a (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    movie.

    My hope is that she can make $100,000M doing it.

    I'm convinced Obama's decision to run after a few days in the U.S. Senate was because he discovered what Bill Clinton makes in speaking fees, consulting and his books. Bill, remember, was 44 when he became president. Obama had no time to waste. His goal is to be a former president. We know he fancies himself a greater talent in speaking and writing books than anyone else in the world.

    He won't be able to give his book away on this primary.


    [ Parent ]

    The 1972 election (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:24:01 PM EST
    was the first time I was eligible to vote, and I did it in Massachusetts.  My dad was chairman of the local Democratic committee, and I got to be at a lot of the planning meetings for the McGovern campaign in MA.  Everyone was so excited about how successful McGovern would be because of his stance on the war. On the drives home my dad would tell me to curb my enthusiasm until I looked at how the rest of the country felt.  There was no internet - just the daily papers, weekly magazines, and network TV.  Cable TV was still in the future. Information was much harder to come by. By election night my dad had predicted that Nixon would be President, but none of us were prepared for the landslide. BTD, this post brought up some bittersweet memories for me. Thanks.

    What's Really Funny (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    Is that so many of that McGovern generation, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, think Obama is unelectable.  Perhaps there's a reason why?

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:27:48 PM EST
    I was only 5 in 1972, so I have nothing intelligent to say about it.

    I think the parallels, from what I've read and heard from my ex-McGovernbot hubby, are very interesting. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Take it from me (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    I campaigned for Gene McCarthy and I campaigned for McGovern too. Ardently.

    In my opinion, Obama is not electable.

    [ Parent ]

    Not just that generation (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    People of my generation (baby boomer/buster cusp) who have studied even a minimal amount of history don't expect Obama to win. I don't really expect that Clinton as VP would put him over the top, but it might help. If it were just for her sake, I'd want her to stay out of the election altogether and wait until next cycle. By then people (except the most ardent Obama supporter's) will have figured out that he is a false messiah for the party and might be more willing to support her. If she runs with him and he loses, then she will be creditied with poisoning his run. Even now, as she is publicly speaking words of kindness toward Obama, there are many who claim that she is relentlessly attacking. There are none so blind as they who will not see.

    [ Parent ]
    Bowers also has a post re MI and FL (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:25:57 PM EST
    in which he pointed out that even counting all the delegates with full votes Obama would still be the nominee.  His point in this was that Clinton should concede.  But to me it made the point that the party, and Obama, should have seated the full delegations, not because it was right or fair, I don't want to restart that argument, but because it was the politically smart thing to do and Obama would have won anyway. Ah well.

    Zactly (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Nope. (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    The DNC as no right to authorize uncommitted, meaning he would have ended up 20 ahead.  The supers would have had a lot of room to go for which ever candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    WHY? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    Because it would have been political suicide to split the votes.

    As it is, Saturday will be seen as the day his campaign failed to win the GE.  Gave the Republicans all the ammmo they need.

    [ Parent ]

    So, he lost the biggies and the swings... (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    ...but he won the caucuses that will not get him EV's in November.  Look, I have nothing against him winning the caucsses.  What I object to is that my vote in NJ is pretty meaningless.  And we have a nominee who lost CA, NY, NJ, MA, FL, OH< MI, TX, PA etc, etc.  
    He LOST them.  
    Now, if you want to say that he won the most number of delegates and he did it by winning the caucuses, fine, I'm not going to stop you.  But in my eyes, he is a failure by not capturing the most Democratic states and the swing states.  
    I can't remember a time in recent history when a candidate could lose these states and still win the nomination not go on to win the presidency and I doubt that Obama will be the first.  

    Carter... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:27:34 PM EST
    but he won TX.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah-uh (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    In 1976, Carter won TX, PA, OH, FL, GA, IL and some little states like Vermont, CT, Maine, NH plus all of the south.  He didn't have to win CA because he had sufficient delegates from many other big states.  

    I can't find what he won in 1980 but we know how that ended.  

    [ Parent ]

    Found it! Theory still holds (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:19:59 PM EST
    Kennedy won CA, MA, NJ, NY, PA and a bunch of little states.  
    Carter won the south and FL, OH, TX.  
    Carter lost to Reagan in a landslide of embarrasing proportions.  
    I think there is something to it.  If a nominee is not the favorite of the heart of the Democratic party, he stands a good chance of losing.  
    Weird.  Another person just dropped by my office to say she will never vote for Obama.  She is a Republican and really wanted to vote for Hillary.  She says Hillary should run as an independent becauae right now, she's the favorite of a good many people in both parties.  
    Dean and Pelosi totally fubared this primary season.  

    [ Parent ]
    Dem Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    Is the worst I have ever seen. In this political climate they have managed to mess up everything they've touched. Before, we heard they couldn't stop Bush because they were the minority. Since 2006 they say they can't get anything done because the minority blocks them! They've taken a cake walk election and turned it into a possible disaster. They should all be replaced with someone with a backbone.

    [ Parent ]
    It gets better... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    Here are the stats for the Reagan/Carter showdown:

    Electoral vote     489     49
    States carried     44     6+DC
    Popular vote     43,903,230     35,480,115
    Percentage     50.7%     41.0%

    So, Reagan won by a little less than 10 points.  Not bad.  The popular vote wasn't a complete blowout.  Only 8 million votes out of nearly 80 million.  About 10%.  But look at the difference in the electoral college vote.  Carter won 10% of the delegates, Reagan won the other 90%.  
    90%
    And this is the danger with Obama not being the overwhelming favorite of the Democrats.  A difference of 10% in voters could end up costing you 90% of the electoral college votes.  
    I hear his campaign say they don't need us.  Survey says he does.  BIG TIME.  He can't take a chance that we'll stay home.  

    [ Parent ]

    I find it interesing that when (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:03:00 PM EST
    someone points out that Obama LOST all those states that we are told that primaries are not a good predictor of general election strength. They were saying it last night and today on both MSNBC and CNN.

    However, they then tell us how Obama winning those caucus and primary wins in deep red states show how he can expand the map.

    it makes no sense.

    [ Parent ]

    Spin Dr. (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    You can spin anything if you try hard enough. Just look at GWB. What drives me crazy about it is that people still regard them as "experts" when they are continously wrong. What do you have to do to get that job! I want it.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have fingers in your ears? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    while you sing, "la-la-la, I can't hear you."  
    What makes you think we're going to give into Obama?  I see no evidence of it.  We're PO'd now and we're going to be just as PO'd in August and November.  

    Believe it or not, some of us are not enamored with Obama.  Whatever he has that worked on Obama supporters does not work with us.  We lack the right receptors.  I'm pretty sure it's a biological thing.  


    [ Parent ]

    The first election I paid any attention to... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    Was Bill Clinton winning in '92. I was way too young to vote, but I wanted him to win and was thrilled when he did.

    I lost a big bet in 2000. I was SO SURE that the Supreme Court would never dare set a precedent of sh