Said John Lynch, the former governor of New Hampshire, quoted in "Democrats Overhaul Party’s Primary Calendar, Upending a Political Tradition/The proposal radically reshapes the way the party picks its presidential nominees, putting more racially diverse states at the front of the line" (NYT).
The headline says the Democrats have already done the upending, overhauling, and radical reshaping, but isn't it merely an offer that the states may accept or decline? Is it an offer-they-can't-refuse type of offer?
I'm seeing shaming of New Hampshire. One D.N.C. member scoffed at that idea that New Hampshire has a "divine right of privilege" to go first. What matters is "what the party says it wants in its process." Yes, but they want the state to run a primary. Do they think they have a "divine right of privilege" to tell the states when to schedule votes?
The new first state would be South Carolina — a state that hasn't gone blue in a presidential election since 1976 — chosen because it's Joe Biden's preference. It was the state that saved his candidacy in 2020. Its legislature is solidly dominated by Republicans.
So how do Democrats think they can force their schedule on America? The incentive, stated in the NYT article is a "risk" of "losing delegates in the nomination process, which could make delegate-hunting contenders question the time investment."
Why should the Republicans who run South Carolina care? The idea would be that they'd like to go first. They'll enjoy this invitation and love to welcome the lavish attention that comes with national priority. But the Republican National Committee has committed to the old order, and it has rules that "make clear that states that jump the order will lose delegates."
Are states supposed to hold separate primaries, one for Democrats and one for Republicans?
The Democrats also threaten to take delegates away from candidates "who campaign in a state that is flouting the party schedule." That's so antagonizing to New Hampshire, which can be a swing state in presidential elections. In 2016, it was 46.8% to 46.5%, so it's a good testing ground for candidates. And now they're going to punish candidates who want to use New Hampshire in the traditional manner?
And then there's Iowa, where caucuses are "deeply ingrained in the... political culture." Scott Brennan, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from Iowa, complains: "You’ve turned the Mountain and Central time zones into flyover country for purposes of a presidential nominating calendar, and that’s just wrong."
The last paragraph of the article is infuriating. It reads like a cute send-off, but it's cute only for those who like Joe Biden and who think it's cool for those in power to manipulate the processes of holding onto power:
[T]he reshuffle may only be temporary: Mr. Biden has urged a review of the calendar every four years, and the party has embraced steps to get that process underway. Some Democrats have taken Mr. Biden’s hands-on interest in the calendar lineup as a sign that he plans to run for president again. Mr. Clyburn said that he recently “made it very clear to him that I’m very hopeful that he will run for re-election.” Asked about Mr. Biden’s response, [South Carolina Democrat Jim] Clyburn replied, “He smiled.”
Posts
61 comments:
Democrats appear to be placing both hands on the scale of the primaries much like they have done on the elections. Want to change the results? Change how, when, and who gets to vote. But...here's what they're missing. The Iowa and New Hampshire events, while important, are also filters. They shake out the lame, the wannabes. It's the first filter. The next filters come later- what used to be South Carolina.
But now Dems want to front load some of the bigger ones like Michigan and Georgia. It might end up blowing up in their faces. Had they done that last time, Bernie Sanders would have probably been their nominee and Trump would be well into his second term. If they front load the bigger ones, lesser candidates who appeal early on, will have a shot at gathering armloads of delegates early. In the old way, Iowa and NH might allow for an early win, but not a lot of delegates, so there was still time for the party's real choice (like a Joe Biden) to come back in SC. Doing it front loaded, they may not have the time to make a correction.
I'm buyng my popcorn now.
Recall that the Iowa Dems couldn’t figure out to count the votes.
A few people at the top decide.
The media lets everyone know.
People are bullied and shamed to get onboard.
It’s how the party operates.
All states should hold their primaries on the same day. That empowers the voters instead of the Parties and operatives, a good thing.
And we should all vote on the same day, or at most 48 straight hours, in general elections. Exceptions for the housebound, or for travel, military, or those otherwise incapacitated should be restricted to those who can prove real needs, and voting booths can also be distributed more widely in nursing homes and other convenient places like hospitals, for use by necessary staff.
Why? Because our elections never end, and that has warped the political landscape in terrible ways that benefit only the consultancy class and wealthy donors.
Most other Western democracies have no problems with shorter election cycles and single day voting. They emphasize more televised debates and substantial position papers delivered over a short period of time.
Some always wail that limiting early voting dates is racist and oppresses the poor (by the way, all those northerners claiming that Georgia's new rules are racist should check their own state's rules: we have more days to vote than many of you and have for a long time).
But wailers should also consider this: shorter elections, far fewer voting days (with of course far more resources and sites), more serious debates and written proposals from candidates (instead of the consultants' arms race of stupid ads, stupid mailers and signage) will substantially weaken the importance of donor money in elections. It is empowering for everyone else.
And holding elections just for candidates, with the long, incoherent amendments voted upon at a different time for those who care to do so, will also speed up the process on election day significantly.
It would be quite a troll for South Carolina to switch to a single jungle primary a la California
The Democrat Party isn't some official government agency.
It's a private non-profit organization. It has zero power to tell the states of the union what they can and cannot do.
Who the fk do these people think they are?
Some states already hold their presidential primaries or caucuses on different dates for each party (e.g. Alaska, Arizona, Nevada). In 2020, the Democrats held their presidential primary on February 29th and the Republicans had theirs scheduled for June 9th. But in 2019, the Republican party decided to cancel its 2020 presidential primary entirely (opting instead for a vote by the state party convention in May 2020). However, all other offices up that year, for both parties, were decided in the scheduled June primary.
Tina Trent @ 7:56: great suggestions. Which is why the PTB will smother them all.
Just brainstorming here…
If racial blocks vote in unison, or close to it, why would a more racially diverse state be better to go first in a primary? Wouldn’t it be better for a couple purple states to go first, and both primaries held on the same day? Then each team gets a sense of how their ideas stack up against the competition both inside and outside the party, and adjust as needed.
If the purpleness of states changes over time, so does the primary order.
If you think you get a say in who the Democrats choose at their convention you’re behind…
Democrats cannot afford even one percent of blacks defecting or they will never win another fair election. Hence the cook the vote obsession…
If DJT had done something like this, there would have been another impeachment proceeding.
If Biden does run again, I suppose the DNC will block any candidate from running against him, like they did in 2020 after New Hampshire.
It will be interesting, if Biden doesn't step aside, to see if any high profile candidate will step up to challenge him in the primary. Will Sanders run again? Will Warren?
---It reads like a cute send-off, but it's cute only for those who like Joe Biden and who think it's cool for those in power to manipulate the processes of holding onto power
Apt observation. Journalists have traveled in two or three generations from ink-stained wretches to starf*ckers.
How pathetic of them. Yet they still think proximity to power makes them cooler-than-thou.
Bring back some hungry wretches. I would read them gladly.
"...all those northerners claiming that Georgia's new rules are racist should check their own state's rules: we have more days to vote than many of you and have for a long time".
Yeah, when the Jim Crow 2.0/Jim Crow on steroids BS was being hammered in the press, no one seemed interested in comparing states.
Republicans in (say) Georgia should have offered to adopt the voting laws of Joe Biden's home state.
South Carolina is a payoff for Jim Clyburn's rescue of Joe "Two Scoops" Biden. Clyburn has made <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/south-carolina-dem-james-clyburn-funneled-six-figures-campaign-funds-family-last-cycle-filings-show:>elections profitable for his family</a>. He's funneled work to his SIL and grandson. What a racket.
And we should all vote on the same day, or at most 48 straight hours, in general elections. Exceptions for the housebound, or for travel, military, or those otherwise incapacitated should be restricted to those who can prove real needs, and voting booths can also be distributed more widely in nursing homes and other convenient places like hospitals, for use by necessary staff.
Pretty much how we do it in Puerto Rico, Tina.
Except polls are only open for 4 hours. If you want to vote, you vote during those 4 hours. Subject to exceptions similar to those you mentioned. We have a higher registration and turnout than most of the upper 50.
I could live with 48 hours, though the shorter the better.
Also, paper ballots, marked with pencil, secure voter ID card, proprietary wavelength UV ink, no jokes about the dead voting. In 50 years of voting here, no allegations of fraud, either.
That's for general elections. Primaries are and should be run by the parties. No need for state involvement.
John Henry
>>>>Some states already hold their presidential primaries or caucuses on different dates for each party (e.g. Alaska, Arizona, Nevada). In 2020, the Democrats held their presidential primary on February 29th and the Republicans had theirs scheduled for June 9th. But in 2019, the Republican party decided to cancel its 2020 presidential primary entirely (opting instead for a vote by the state party convention in May 2020). However, all other offices up that year, for both parties, were decided in the scheduled June primary.>>>>>>
Somehow managed to leave out that the detailed description above is specifically what happened in South Carolina in 2020.
Could Donald Trump (or anyone else) identify as a Republican AND a Democrat and get on both primary ballots?
Huge entertainment value but I ask that as a serious question if anyone knows.
Bernie Sanders has never been a member of the Democrat party. His entire schtick has always been that he was an independent and does not raise money for or endorse the party or other democrat candidates. Yet the Demmies let him run in their primaries.
Could they prevent Donald Trump from running in their primaries?
I predict Sanders will run for prez again as a Demmie. There is too much money to be garnered.
John Henry
This particular change is irrelevant. The Democrats are all about manipulation of process. So the complication of process and extension of duration of process is their overriding strategy. It gives them maximum opportunity to tinker (ok, cheat) along the way to "correct" the outcome to their desired goal.
The counter-strategy? Simplify and shorten the process.
Welp, it's their party, they can do whatever they want. Clearly a Not Welcome sign to me.
What Tina Trent said at 7:56 should be reprinted daily in every newspaper in the country. It has been my question for years.
Why and how did it suddenly become impossible for people in the US to have one day to vote? If you put up tickets to Beyonce for one day only, you'd have 100 million show up on time for that. Those same people would whine and shout about having to vote in person sometime in the month of October.
On the other hand, if you watch some of the people working our voting sites, its a wonder we even arrive with someone who appeared on the ballot as President.
Dave Begley said...
Recall that the Iowa Dems couldn’t figure out to count the votes.
TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY not true. They counted the votes THAT night.. And Bernie Sanders WON.
What took days to figure out wasn't how to Count the votes; It was to figure out how to IGNORE the votes.
1st thing that happened in the 2020 race, was dems using fraud and high jinks to misrepresent votes.
This was a harbinger for the Entire race. Before what? Super Tuesday? The ENTIRE dem field..
Except for LieAwatha dropped out. She, OF COURSE, stayed in; because SHE was taking votes from Bernie. The next day.. She dropped out too.
The idea that democrats believe in the people's votes is ludicrous
Are states supposed to hold separate primaries, one for Democrats and one for Republicans?
Elections should be run by, and paid for by, the parties themselves. Who should be free to do whatever they want. It's none of the state's business.
BIII Zhang said...The Democrat Party isn't some official government agency.
It's a private non-profit organization. It has zero power to tell the states of the union what they can and cannot do.
Exactly. Republican Party too.
Democrats think they can force what they want because they have the backing of the democrat media. As we can see in this democrat NYTimes piece where the shaming has begun.
Also they have learned with covid that they can do just about anything they want.
Wait'll the Democrats tell you about their plans for your ballot.
Who cares? Or, rather, why should anybody care?
Isn’t this admitting what the candidate says is irrelevant? (Well, duh). It’s like arguing over when the next door neighbor has dinner, and what they are having.
New Hampshire's state government, to protect its priority, should pass a law directing that general election ballot access is restricted to those parties whose presidential nominating convention refuses to seat any delegates from a state that held a presidential primary before New Hampshire's.
Then, if the DNC wants to surrender four electoral votes (which went Democrat in 2012, 2016, and 2020) and two House seats (which have been held by Democrats since the 2016 elections) in order to displace New Hampshire from its traditional role in presidential nominations, well, hey, that'll be just fine with the state's Republican governor and state legislature.
On Tina Trent's idea of a one-day primary for all; I'll dissent. At a local level, those elections are used for more than just primaries. They may have other ballot elections going on for various state and local elections that need the mechanism of an election but would otherwise be costly to hold an election on their own. The timing of those state and local elections fit traditional schedules for those communities. Forcing a single day would require changing those state and local traditions.
Now you might think, so what? The primary is important to the country. Fine, but don't come later and complain about the subsequent federalization of elections. The more you force state and local elections to conform to national norms, then fewer barriers exist to simply having federally run elections. I'm happy with the states setting what works for them and their citizens and telling the national parties to take a hike.
Just tell the woke Tik Tok influencers that Frédéric Bartholdi’s mother was a slave holder and that Statue of Liberty will be on the next boat to Miami!
No, it doesn’t have to be true for liberals to believe it. Why do you ask?
Let's let the state with Democrat-written Jim Crow laws with the KKK to enforce them go first.
Rules written in vape (Juul) smoke-filled back room.
Same as it ever was...
New Hampshire is white privilege.
Jim Clyburn playing the long game. Gets his VP choice and remaps the Democrat primary system to maximize his own political power. Most impressive back room deal since, I can’t even think of a better deal.
Jim Clyburn playing the long game. Gets his VP choice and remaps the Democrat primary system to maximize his own political power. Most impressive back room deal since, I can’t even think of a better deal.
gilbar is a self-proclaimed expert in elections of the party he wants executed. Yeah, right.
Good clarification, John Henry. If the GOP were to challenge the Dems to make it a one-day primary deal, or just do it themselves, it would be interesting to see it play out.
Of course, the consultancy class and the media would never let it happen. Nor the big money on both sides.
FunnySadFact: many consultants at the state level have a spouse-run or LLC campaign literature printing company they pretend isn't theirs to double soak the candidates.
JAORE: I did do a state by state PowerPoint, and both before and after reforms, Georgia still has more early voting than many smug blue states. It's like when we required (free) state photo I.D. to vote if you didn't already have one or a driver's license: there were so many remote DMV sites and mobile services set up to accommodate the 5% who needed the I.D., Georgia practically flipped over onto Guam.
There's madness in their madness. Stand aside and let'em fuck up the system, it will only hasten the demise of the Democratic Party.
We didn't always have the current two-party system, which isn't a system. The Democrats grew out of the greed for Indian land and the expansion of the cotton empire westward along with slavery; Republicans weren't a thing until the Kansas-Nebraska act. And who remembers a time when the Whigs appeared on a ballot? Granted, the Democrats aren't the same party they were in 1854 -- they're worse. They were always warmongering racists, but lately, they have added doctrinaire fascism to the witch's brew, like an extra helping of newt eyes. The only reason they don't officially change the name to the Fascist Party is that Maxine Waters can't spell it. In twenty years the "two-party system" will be the Republicans vs. the Libertarians.
Super delegates. Leverage in casting couches. Democracy dies in darkness. Demos-cracy is aborted at the twilight fringe.
Blogger Breezy said..."Just brainstorming here…
If racial blocks vote in unison, or close to it, why would a more racially diverse state be better to go first in a primary? Wouldn’t it be better for a couple purple states to go first, and both primaries held on the same day? Then each team gets a sense of how their ideas stack up against the competition both inside and outside the party, and adjust as needed.". (emphasis added)
The democrat party doesn't want that. Seriously. They want to manipulate the choice of their nominee, knowing that they can count on their voters to pull the lever for whomever has the D after their name.
Blogger tim maguire said...
Are states supposed to hold separate primaries, one for Democrats and one for Republicans?
Elections should be run by, and paid for by, the parties themselves. Who should be free to do whatever they want. It's none of the state's business.
BIII Zhang said...The Democrat Party isn't some official government agency.
It's a private non-profit organization. It has zero power to tell the states of the union what they can and cannot do.
Exactly. Republican Party too.
This.
Temujin: it would be very interesting if the Georgia Dems put themselves first in the primary line. We are a true purple state now, and Stacey Abrams' very poor showing despite ungodly mounds of moolah (and she's somehow in debt again and is illegally using her campaign website to encourage donations to her "nonprofit" where she collects her six figure salary) would make the state a curious bellwether.
To make a wretched pun, I think the Blue Dogs would re-emerge to herd the radical sheep. And maybe it would nip the heels of the GOP too.
Putting the smaller states first means people have a better chance of meeting candidates, gauging their positions and personality and whatever.
Primaries in big states means primary voters mist rely on the media.
The USA has a lot of people and issues. A longish primary period helps check the candidates’ background and history, and allows time to spot many lies. Except when the already mentioned media allows a candidate to hide and avoid questions.
Doesn’t everyone know this?
Burying the headline:
Biden is expecting a contested primary, and thinks he has to put his best states first.
Second very obvious point: winning or losing New Hampshire is important because it is first, not because of the delegates.
You could give New Hampshire no delegates at all, but if Biden loses there, he's still in major trouble.
One reason the D's are doing this? They WANT separate primaries. One day for D's, the other for R's. That way D's can vote and influence The Republican SC and NH open primaries.
Getting rid of Iowa makes sense. Those clowns can't even count their votes. NH is an absurdly unrepresentative state for the D's. SC is the right choice. THe blacks vote as a bloc, and were the deciding factor in 1992, 2000, 2008, 2016 and 2020. Just go right to SC and let the blacks decide who's the front runner and who wins.
Besides, White D's don't care who is their nominee. Just stick a D in front of their name, and they'll happily vote for them. White Democrats just hate those Goddamn Republicans. They don't really care about Health care or Labor unions anymore.
Temujin said...
Democrats appear to be placing both hands on the scale of the primaries much like they have done on the elections. Want to change the results? Change how, when, and who gets to vote. But...here's what they're missing. The Iowa and New Hampshire events, while important, are also filters. They shake out the lame, the wannabes. It's the first filter. The next filters come later- what used to be South Carolina.
You seem to have completely missed the 2020 Democrat Primary.
Buttblug and Sanders won IA. Sanders won NH and NV.
Then Jim Clyburn got the black voters of South Carolina, the majority of the Democrat primary voters, to vote for Biden.
Not because of anything Biden did, but solely because of what Clyburn did.
The the Democrat Establishment ordered all the wimps to drop out (Looking at you, Amy K, who dropped out right before her home State MN caucuses happened), they did, and the voters fell in line.
IOW, no voter based filtering actually happened. The Boses ordered, and that's what happened.
And making sure that happens in the future is the sole purpose of this change
Zach said...
Second very obvious point: winning or losing New Hampshire is important because it is first, not because of the delegates.
You could give New Hampshire no delegates at all, but if Biden loses there, he's still in major trouble.
Biden lost there in 2020, and it didn't matter.
It's Feb 2023: who is going to step forward and challenge Biden?
Let's say Biden loses IA, NH, and NV again. And so drops out.
Who is going to be in the race to replace him? Who will have the campaign infrastructure setup to be able to compete in the following primaries?
Answer: No one that the Establishment wants.
Biden was carried across the finish line in 2020. The exact same thing will happen in the 2024 Democrat Primaries
Yancey Ward said...
It will be interesting, if Biden doesn't step aside, to see if any high profile candidate will step up to challenge him in the primary. Will Sanders run again? Will Warren?
Sanders? Yes.
Warren? No. Not if Biden is still in
No Democrat who has a future in the Party is going to run against Biden. If they were, then Newsom wouldn't have announced that he wasn't going to run against Biden.
"[Moving the primary is] like asking New York to move the Statue of Liberty..."
Give me your tired(*), your boors,
Your policy wonks yearning to write a bill,
The wretched grifters to their teeming cores.
Send these - but not the homeless - to shill,
For the way to nomination, the super-delegates man the doors.
(*) - Said in Hillary Clinton patois.
"[Moving the primary is] like asking New York to move the Statue of Liberty..."
"Give me your tired(*), your boors,
Your policy wonks yearning to write a bill,
The wretched grifters to their teeming cores.
Send these - but not the homeless - to shill,
For the way to nomination, the superdelegates man the doors."
(*) - Said in Hillary Clinton patois.
Tina, you're wrong about a nationwide same day primary
Having the first primaries be in small States means that you can't win those primaries with ads. You actually have to go out and meet and interact with regular voters.
This is a feature, not a bug.
At least, it is if you want the election results determined by the voters, rather than by the big donors.
IA, NH, NV, SC. Midwest, Northeast, West Coast, South. People from every region get a look at the candidates, and a say in the results.
Now, in 2020 the Democrat Establishment fought hard to completely cancel out the voters, and the Establishment won.
But having a nationwide one day Primary would just make their job much easier
Primary season is supposed to take a long time. Sifting and winnowing and all that.
I could see ranking the order that the states vote by population, small states with fewest delegates first.
Mark, i was born in iowa; and have lived her MOST of my life.
I've Been a card carrying member, of the iowa democrat party..
I went and caucused for Jesse Jackson.
Now, How About YOU? Mark? How long have YOU lived in iowa? How many times have YOU been to a caucus?
Well? Mark?? Speak Up! I can't hear You!
I'm Still Waiting Mark? Speak up!
The Iowa and New Hampshire events, while important, are also filters. They shake out the lame, the wannabes.
Not this last election.
But what if having one primary day for all removed so many of the toxic Party manipulation and media celebrity elements of focusing on one state at a time?
What would it add? What would it subtract?
Gilbar. Wiki below.
“ The 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses were controversial due to the delays in reporting the results. These delays, caused in part by problems with a mobile application created by Shadow Inc. that was used to report voting totals, led to the resignation of Iowa Democratic Party chair Troy Price.[4] Further controversy resulted from errors and inconsistencies regarding the calculation and reporting of State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs) in several caucus locations.[5][6][7][8][9] Following a three-day delay in vote reporting, the Iowa Democratic Party declared that Buttigieg had won two more delegates than Sanders.[1]”
Tina Trent said...
But what if having one primary day for all removed so many of the toxic Party manipulation and media celebrity elements of focusing on one state at a time?
It would make them worse. The only people who could compete in a nationwide primary are the ones who are solidly in with either big money donors or the Party Establishment.
The only people who could compete would be the ones with media celebrity, you'd never even hear about the others.
And if you have 15 competitive people on the ballot, that means that all you have to do to win a State is get 10% - 20% of the vote.
Or are you going to have a national popular vote Primary, where CA and NY completely decide the Dem Primary, and FL and TX do it for the GOP?
The new desired democratical primary schedule is actually tailor made for.........Michelle Obama.
She'll never have to bother with getting up close and personal with any of those "bitter clinger" "typical white people".
She can campaign from 30,000 feet and saturate the airwaves.
Game over on the dem side.
The DNC/obamas are working tirelessly behind the scenes to keep other candidates out of the mix which will make a Biden to Michelle handoff down the road into a coronation.
I agree with all of what Tina Trent his suggesting, except for the running of primaries. Why should the state provide all of the support for private groups of citizens who have gathered together to endorse candidates for office? (Yes the parties do other things as well, but that is perhaps their primary function vis-a-vis elections.)
Drago said...
The new desired democratical primary schedule is actually tailor made for.........Michelle Obama.
Which is a good point I hadn't thought of.
You're right, she could win the Dem primary if Biden dropped out after losing a bunch of early States.
And no, neither NH nor Iowa with their Republican Governors and State Legislatures are going to do anything to accommodate the Dems on this.
I give it even odds that NV won't accept getting dissed after NH and IA say no
Post a Comment