Against Folksy Primaries

Mike Lux at OpenLeft offers up an almost shockingly conventional homage to the virtues of the small state primary tradition. And, of course, I suppose these kind of weird quirks might seem folks and reassuring to you if you, like the majority of the population of Iowa and New Hampshire, are part of the tiny minority of Americans who live in lily white rural areas. I think it'd be fun to see my favorite presidential candidates swipe their MetroCards in the subway or wait on line (yes, on line, damit) for a knish at a hot dog stand.

That said, it's hard to see how any liberal can be happy, at the end of the day, with the distorting effect the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshire have on our politics. It's bad enough the way cities are disadvantaged by the structure of the constitution, that to also add on this additional extra-constitutional mechanism for further re-enforcing the existing biases of the system is insane. People talk themselves to death trying to design alternative primary schemes, but at this point I'd take pretty much any change you care to name. It would make more sense to enter the names of every registered Democrat in a hat, pick at random, and then let that guy choose.

Comments

Historically, Iowa and New Hampshire have not been all that determinitive on the REpublican side. I have no idea why Democrats figure they should vote for the guy with the most delegates when only a tiny fraction of those delegates has been selected.

I mean, what about Kerry's wins in Iowa and New Hampshire made him the best guy to nominate. Oklahoma and South Carolina were the only states to stop and think, "Hey, it's not over yet, we still have a choice."

Posted by Adam Herman | August 17, 2007 8:39 AM

Look back over the last 30 years or so, MY, and tell us what nominee the Democrats would likely have gotten in one of the unsuccessful races who would have won the general?

This system gave us Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. Are you suggesting that in any of those races, some other system would have given us a different nominee and that that nominee would have done better?

(I don't think any system would have come up with anyone other than Mondale and Gore, and I don't think that you can put responsibility for Dukakis and Kerry on the rural lily-whiteness of IA and NH, nor can you put responsibility for the victories of Bush and Bush in the general on the lily-white rurality of IA and NH. In short, this is silly urban elite whining).

Posted by CharleyCarp | August 17, 2007 8:39 AM

I agree, except for 2004. If Democrats had ignored Dean's stumble in Iowa, which had less to do with his lack of popularity than his bad ground game, Dean would have won the nomination.

I don't know if Dean would have done better than Kerry did. It's kind of a roll of the dice. Dean was a better fighter and debater, but also more prone to turning voters off with politically tone deaf statements.

Posted by Adam Herman | August 17, 2007 8:41 AM

Adam, Carlie. I know the answer.

Al Gore!

P.S. Michael Moore is Fat.

Posted by mdhatter | August 17, 2007 8:43 AM

I'm not sure if having a different primary structure would have produced better Democratic candidates - the problems there seem to me to run deeper - but the basic point that it's wrong to have only rural white people choose the Democratic candidate seems right.

Dean's decision to add Nevada and South Carolina to the mix, with their large African-American, Hispanic, and Native American populations, seems precisely right to me.

Posted by DivGuy | August 17, 2007 8:45 AM

one mans "politically tone deaf statement" is another man's principled stand against your bull****. (not yours, per se, adam).

Posted by mdhatter | August 17, 2007 8:45 AM

>but also more prone to turning voters off with politically tone deaf statements.

Well, there you are...the meme that Dean was gaffe prone (when it turned out he was right about....everything....the media decided was a horrible gaffe) has seeped down to the point that people who should know better assumed he turned off voters.

The voters I talked to in Iowa weren't turned off Dean...they really like him...they are just afraid that Kerry was more electable.

Ha ha.

Posted by Nanorich | August 17, 2007 8:48 AM

silly urban elite whining

Lots and lots of Democrats in cities are black and brown people, and they're the ones who are really marginalized by Iowa and New Hampshire. So let's not have this "urban elite" bullcrap.

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 17, 2007 8:55 AM

- but the basic point that it's wrong to have only rural white people choose the Democratic candidate seems right.

1. Why? They're the people we have trouble winning. We have everyone else's vote.

2. Maybe the way to handle this is not to let NH and IA be determinative.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 17, 2007 9:03 AM

There is plenty of Real America within a few hours drive of DC that the oracles of politics could consult if they needed a muse -- York, PA, Cumberland, MD, Dover, DE and Harrisonburg, VA come to mind. The fact that they never do tells you that their fascination with Real America is nothing more than a quadrennial tic from urbane elites. The glowing coverage out of Iowa sounds suspiciously like a racist talking about their one black friend. Me thinks thou doth embrace too much, DC pundits.

You could probably find a demographic match for every Iowa county within 100 miles of DC. If reporters consulted the people in their own backyard once in awhile they wouldn't look at Iowa like Martians landing in cornfield but with some useful perspective.

Posted by joejoejoe | August 17, 2007 9:25 AM

>but the basic point that it's wrong to have only rural white people choose the Democratic candidate seems right.

For the record, Democrats who vote in the Iowa Caucus aren't just white rural people. Most of the people who vote in the caucus:

...live in the cities, like Des Moines. Which does have decent restaurants, by the way...

...are more liberal than the average Democratic voter, because who goes to the trouble of leaving their homes in the bitter cold to spend hours in a school room being nagged and cajoled and scolded by precinct captains...but members of the activist base?

Most people don't bother with the caucus, which has to be seen upclose and personal to be truly understood.

So using Iowa as a benchmark for electability shows how little people understand about this stage in the primary system.

New Hampshire Democratic voters are also urbanites, and tend to be well educated and professionals.

Posted by Nancy Richardson | August 17, 2007 9:26 AM

I think SomeCallMeTim has the right idea. IA and NH are both swing states these days, and a candidate that can appeal to the electorate in swing states is probably not a bad idea.

OTOH, just like a GOP candidate can lose Iowa and NH but do just fine if he wins SC, perhaps we need a system where a candidate's viable if he does only so-so in IA and NH, but wins Maryland, let's say.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | August 17, 2007 9:29 AM

3joe, not York PA. Even if you want the fake "Real America" that the traditional media elegizes, go to Gettysburg or Hanover or even Lancaster. York is another time and place (say Alabama in the 1950s). My hometown is an embarrassment to Pennsyltucky.

Posted by bruce | August 17, 2007 9:44 AM

SomeCallMeTim and low-tech-cyclist should read Whistling Past Dixie.

You won't win those voters in the general by pandering to them in the primary.

Posted by crack | August 17, 2007 9:44 AM

crack - while I haven't read the book, I've read a great deal of what Schaller has posted online, and agree with his thesis.

Since neither Iowa nor New Hampshire is exactly part of Dixie, even under a broad definition, I don't understand your point.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | August 17, 2007 9:58 AM

I don't have a problem with Iowa and New Hampshire going first. It's just that I don't think they should be the only ones going first.

A system where, say, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Dealware and Oklahoma all voted on the second Tuesday in February would likely provide a result where several candidates could claim victory of some sort. This would enable several viable candidates to go forward without the "campaign in crisis" tag, while winnowing out the real no hopers.

Alternatively, if someone sweeped all six states, that would be a pretty good sign tha the nomination was his. After all, each of those six states is ideosyncratic and not representative of the nation individually, together they are a pretty good sample. Indeed, I think a system of anti-regional primaries--in which you have a few states from each section of the country each round--makes more sense than the rotating regional primary people keep proposing.

Posted by jlw | August 17, 2007 10:00 AM

First of all, you have to start the primary season with a series of fairly small states. There is no other practical way to do it, unless you're going to have public financing of primary campaigns that bans candidates from spending any private money. And even as an Iowan, I can't really justify Iowa going first every year.

I do think anyone who wonders why so many white people gravitate to folks like Rush and Hannity and the Republican Party in general need only consult the online bitching about the Iowa caucuses. Imagine a conservative complaining about South Carolina being too early in the primary process because it's "too black".

Mike

Posted by MBunge | August 17, 2007 10:01 AM

I actually emerged from reporting the New Hampshire primary in 2004 a believer, and here's why. It's a tough job grilling politicians in a way that gets past their bullshit, for ordinary people and reporters both (maybe especially for reporters...). What impressed me was that there has evolved a culture of citizens in NH that has genuinely cultivated and mastered that skill.

Get rid of the NH barrier for candidates, and you throw away that accumulated wisdom.

Posted by Rick Perlstein | August 17, 2007 10:13 AM

I am totally with you on this one. Cities dominate American civilization. Why isn't the most important primary - if we have to have one at all - in Illinois or Missouri, so at least Chicago or St. Louis would play a significant role? Sorry, but the Quad Cities don't cut it. Plus, it's all German, and the food sucks. Breadbasket of the world and they can't cook a decent cake.

Posted by DCBOB | August 17, 2007 10:42 AM

I do think anyone who wonders why so many white people gravitate to folks like Rush and Hannity and the Republican Party in general need only consult the online bitching about the Iowa caucuses. Imagine a conservative complaining about South Carolina being too early in the primary process because it's "too black".

This is a real problem with this country (and I don't mean to pick on you, Mike, your analysis is probably right). White people have a lot of privilege that they simply don't question. The primary system takes power away from black primary voters, by giving disproportionate power to states that don't have many black people (maybe I can't judge since I've never been to the caucuses, but even Des Moines is pretty white); and to suggest that maybe it would be a good idea to give black people equal representation in the process is easily spun as an attack on white people.

So yeah, it's a problem that the early primary/caucus states aren't black enough, and only schmucks think that the early primaries and caucuses ought to be dominated by white people. Unfortunately, you can't win without the votes of schmucks.

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 17, 2007 10:53 AM

Maybe I shouldn't say schmucks, and I definitely didn't mean to call MBunge a schmuck; he may well be right on the optics. But I think a reflective, decent person can't think hard about America's situation and decide that it would be an outrage if the Democratic primaries weren't slanted toward white people.

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 17, 2007 11:30 AM

"Get rid of the NH barrier for candidates, and you throw away that accumulated wisdom."

Not to mention that if you get rid of the small states at the outset, you eliminate the only bulwark against the Beltway careerists foisting their choice on the Party.

The only way to defeat a candidate like Hillary is to defeat her in the small states at the outset. Get rid of the small states at the outset, and candidates like Hillary truly would be inevitable.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 11:39 AM

Lots and lots of Democrats in cities are black and brown people, and they're the ones who are really marginalized by Iowa and New Hampshire. So let's not have this "urban elite" bullcrap.

I agree that such people are marginalized by American society as a whole. I do not agree that holding the early primaries in more diverse urban areas will help win elections. If the purpose of de-marginalization can be undertaken without risking general election viability, I've got no objection to it; if you're saying you want different candidates, though, you'll have to convince me that your system is general election result neutral (at the least). I've never heard any credible argument for this proposition, and frankly suspect that it would go the other way.

We'll never know, of course, but I have never seen anything that leads me to believe that Dean would have won any states that Kerry lost. At the end of the day, the thing was a referendum on Bush (no surprise there) and among those who were able to vote (and have their vote counted) in Ohio and Florida, the referendum was to keep him.

Posted by CharleyCarp | August 17, 2007 11:39 AM

The bottom line is that IA and NH decide nothing. They are small states with not that many delegates. The fact that Democratic voters tend to just rubber stamp their choice is a problem with Democratic voters.

Republican voters have no such qualms. The winner of Iowa or New Hampshire rarely gets much of a bounce in the Republican primary. That's why they don't fret over those states having early primaries.

Posted by Adam Herman | August 17, 2007 12:06 PM

Your basic gripe is, not enough black and brown people live in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Perhaps the problem is looking at everything as a racial and ethnic paradigm. This is garbage philosophy Matthew. We must change the system -- you'll take anything right -- because we just can't trust voters that are white.

Posted by Gabriel Sutherland | August 17, 2007 12:18 PM

But I think a reflective, decent person can't think hard about America's situation and decide that it would be an outrage if the Democratic primaries weren't slanted toward white people.

The point of a primary is to select a candidate who can win in the general. To win in the general, you need white people from less urban dominated states. You just do. Furthermore, it's not as if anyone is obligated to simply give up after the first couple of primaries.

I don't really care one way or another, but the pretense that we can procedurally guarantee a good (meaning more electable) candidate by tweaking the primary process strikes me as wrong.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 17, 2007 12:20 PM

I do not agree that holding the early primaries in more diverse urban areas will help win elections.

Holding early primaries in more diverse urban locations will help us nominate better candidates who are more qualified to serve the American people as President.

I swear there are times when I wish we could just do away with primaries altogether, as that at least would end this quadrenial mania in which people start having delusions of themselves as cagey political insiders.

We'll never know, of course, but I have never seen anything that leads me to believe that Dean would have won any states that Kerry lost.

You must have had your eyes closed pretty hard in 2006.

Posted by Dawn | August 17, 2007 12:24 PM

Okay, as someone from Iowa, who's participated in the caucuses (and isn't "lily white", btw) let me defend them a bit

The views of Iowa democratic activists is very different form the views of the state as a whole. If you look at the republican caucus, you see crazy conservatives, but if you look at the democratic caucus you see the opposite. Iowa Democrats are very liberal and care about liberal issues.

That said, the main reason I support them is because it's fun to have candidates running all over the state, see your home town in the national news (I'm from Ames), etc. I got to see Obama's first public event as an official candidate, for example. I got to meet Elizabeth Edwards in a small venue with like 20 people. It fucking rocks. Going to a national primary would mean that very few people got these opportunities, rather then a slightly larger group of people which (and here is the important part) includes me.

Posted by Chad Okere | August 17, 2007 12:25 PM

> Not to mention that if you get rid of the small
> states at the outset, you eliminate the only
> bulwark against the Beltway careerists foisting
> their choice on the Party.

Instead the kabuki artists of the traditional media get to make the choice (ref: Dean, Howard; 2004).

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 17, 2007 12:26 PM

Dawn, 2006 wasn't 2004. It would have been nice to run the 2004 elections with that electorate, but we didn't have that option.

Posted by AlanC9 | August 17, 2007 12:38 PM

On electability... don't make all the assumptions that the DC Media Elite make. Dean may have done better than Kerry because Dean was much more of a fighter who was willing to go negative on Bush. He forced the other candidates to do so during the primary, and that made Bush's numbers plummet for the first time. Bush squeaked through that "referendum" on him. Perhaps if someone had been attacking him in the mainstream media, it would have gone otherwise.

I'm tired of hearing Iowans and New Hampsherites tell us how seriously they take it all. A tiny percentage of Iowans actually caucus, and the amount of influence they have is insane. NH may do a better job of turning people out and of grilling candidates, but any state with that much attention and responsibility would do the same.

Posted by Tricia | August 17, 2007 12:41 PM

Imagine a conservative complaining about South Carolina being too early in the primary process because it's "too black".

Well, that wouldn't happen, because the GOP primary electorate in SC is a microcosm of the party's southern base.

(In fact, SC is interesting because the two party primaries have very different demographics, and having the GOP running a Bob Jones primary while the Dems run a SC State one. Meaning that the dynamics are also quite different from IA/NH.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 17, 2007 12:50 PM

This is a real problem with this country (and I don't mean to pick on you, Mike, your analysis is probably right). White people have a lot of privilege that they simply don't question.

Matt, in my experience, they don't even realize that they have privilege. They can't see it, they can't recognize it, they just don't get it, period. They are blind to it, and any attempt to show it to them generates a violent response.

Posted by Apprentice to Darth Holden | August 17, 2007 12:53 PM

"This is a real problem with this country (and I don't mean to pick on you, Mike, your analysis is probably right). White people have a lot of privilege that they simply don't question."

Well, there's white privilege and then there's the fact that white folks are the majority in America now and will likely remain the largest plurality in the country for the rest of our lives.

I don't have any problem with some other state going first or there being some other system, as long as that system has the same ease of access provided by Iowa and New Hampshire. But the apparent mindset that it's perfectly okay for candidates to appeal/pander to minority voters, women voters, poor voters, etc. but GOD FORBID they appeal/pander to white voters provides some insight into why the GOP has been so successful in winning those white votes.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | August 17, 2007 1:25 PM

I have no idea whether it would lead to "better" or "worse" results to get rid of Iowa's and New Hampshire's status. I also don't care.

I live in California. My vote, along with the votes of my more than 30 million fellow Californians, doesn't count in the primary and doesn't count in the general election.

The fact is that the Iowa/New Hampshire dominance DISENFRANCHISES large numbers of people, and therefore, it doesn't matter whether they are smarter or better informed or the campaigns are more folksy or anything else. We aren't supposed to have a system of Platonic guardians in this country. We are supposed to have a democracy.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 17, 2007 1:40 PM

"The fact is that the Iowa/New Hampshire dominance DISENFRANCHISES large numbers of people, and therefore, it doesn't matter whether they are smarter or better informed or the campaigns are more folksy or anything else. We aren't supposed to have a system of Platonic guardians in this country. We are supposed to have a democracy."

Actually, we have a republic where the democratic process is controlled/regulated in many ways.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | August 17, 2007 1:49 PM

I have real questions whether the '72 decision to pick candidates by primary was a good idea. Traditionally, primaries were the way for insurgents to get noticed.

On the other hand, I trust Cow Hampshire more than most places and would start voting for the socialists before I'd let southern dems pick the candidate.

Posted by PSP | August 17, 2007 2:23 PM

"It's bad enough the way cities are disadvantaged by the structure of the constitution"

Not a bug, but a feature.

Posted by Knemon | August 17, 2007 3:04 PM

MBunge:

Stop it. "We have a republic, not a democracy" is something that snobs like to say to feel superior to the rest of us. I wasn't making a point about the theory of representative democracy and how that should best be categorized; thus, your comment was inappropriate.

The point wasn't what label one puts on our governemnt; the point is, we are supposed to have a relatively equal fanchise. The whole Iowa / New Hampshire thing makes the votes of two states count for almost everything and the votes of large states, including mine, count for nothing. If someone simply proposed a law saying that California's votes wouldn't count for President, everyone would agree it was a bad idea. But that's what the Iowa/New Hampshire thing effectively is.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 17, 2007 4:04 PM

Esper,

The difference between a republic and a democracy is not an issue of snobbery. It's vital to understanding how democracy actualy works in a large nation-state like America. You complain about disenfranchisement...but the whole point of a republic is to disenfranchise people. A republic specifically exists as a barrier to the reality of "one person, one vote", especially a federal republic like the United States.

And you folks in California aren't disenfranchised by Iowa and New Hampshire. You're disenfranchised because it's so damn expensive to campaign in your state. That's the reason why nobody outside the state wants you guys closer to the front of the primary season and why Republicans don't bother to campaign there during the Presidential race.

If the nominating process started with a big state like California or a regional primary, then right now, almost 6 months before the first ballot is cast, we'd probably have no more than 4 Democratic candidates (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich) and we might only have 4 GOP candidates (Romney, Guiliani, McCain, Paul). I don't think a system that only allows big money, establishment candidates, media sensations or fringe lightweights to effectively run for President would in any way be an improvement on the current system.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | August 17, 2007 4:36 PM

OT
"On line" -- is that a City thing? I grew up 100 miles away and we NEVER said that. We waited "in line". However, my sisters who grew up in VA say "on line". Never fails to mystify me.

Posted by ajw_93 | August 17, 2007 5:03 PM

Well, there's white privilege and then there's the fact that white folks are the majority in America now and will likely remain the largest plurality in the country for the rest of our lives.

I'm not suggesting that the early primaries be held in black-majority states, just that they be held in states that look more like America as a whole, which means not disproportionately white. That does mean fewer white people, but it doesn't mean white people are marginalized. Any winning candidate is going to have to appeal to white people (though I'm suspicious of a call to appeal to white people as such; the other party has already carried out the Southern Strategy).

SomeCallMeTim: The point of a primary is to select a candidate who can win in the general.

I'd say it's to select the candidate the party voters want. Of course the party voters want a candidate who can win in the general, but they may also want one who agrees with them on certain issues, and they may be better judges of the latter than the former.

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 17, 2007 5:09 PM

Here's my simple solution: Don't hold the first primaries, the ones that 95% of the time determine who the Democratic nominee will be, in states that most often do not vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

It's beyond stupid to allow states that are bedrock Republican to decide who OUR nominee should be.

Posted by Jennifer | August 17, 2007 6:01 PM

"I'm not suggesting that the early primaries be held in black-majority states, just that they be held in states that look more like America as a whole, which means not disproportionately white."

Why? I'm not trying to be flip, but why does the simple fact of a state having a more diverse population make it a better place to start the nominating process? Is there an assumption that if black folks in Illinois like a candidate that black folks in Georgia, New York and California will as well? If Latinos in Arizona like a guy/girl, does that mean that Latinos in Texas, South Carolina and Pennsylvania will too?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | August 17, 2007 6:05 PM

What's the ultimate goal of the nomination process? Isn't it to choose the candidate with the best chance of winning the Presidency in November? Or is it to give Democrats in other states more of a voice in the process? On either count, the system we have now is a complete failure. We don't get good nominees (Kerry and Dukakis in particular and Carter didn't exactly kick ass considering the Watergate debacle and he got blown out as an incumbent in 1980) and the process is anything but fair.

Only one candidate has won his party's nomination since 1972 and not won either Iowa or New Hampshire. Bill Clinton in 1992. And I think you can make a case that had Tom Harkin of Iowa NOT run for the Presidency (thereby making it meaningless), Clinton may have been sunk after his finish in New Hampshire.

Matt's exactly right about this. Any process that gets us more Democratic Presidents is better than what we have now, whether that be a national primary, a smoke-filled convention (which as undemocratic as it is has a better batting average than Iowa/NH), or some random Democrat picking a name out of a hat.

Posted by DoubleB | August 17, 2007 8:13 PM

I don't think a system that only allows big money, establishment candidates, media sensations or fringe lightweights to effectively run for President would in any way be an improvement on the current system.

If the aim in the primaries is to bring forward the candidate best suited to win a general election, fought through TV ads, rallies and ground support, then you might as well have a national primary conducted on the same basis. Changing the primaries isn't going to change the nature of modern general election campaigning, but it might kill the Broderist myth that somehow eating enough corn dogs and funnel cakes at state fairs in IA and NH will raise Jefferson and Adams from the grave.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 18, 2007 12:58 AM

A. California should never be first. Never. It makes early money way too important, and, as we're going to learn shortly, this distorts the system in favor of entrenched elites, not the other way around.

B. People who think that the results of midterms in 2006 have anything to tell us about general in 2004 are morons. Sorry to be so blunt, but, well, there it is.

C. P in NC gives the game away when he points out what the real objection to the whole thing is: media pretense that IA and NH people are real, while urban dwellers are not. Sure it's stupid and annoying. It also has nothing to do with our selection of nominees. Nothing to do with who wins in the early races, or with who can lose those races and still convince (a) funders and (b) voters, that he/she can and should keep going.

D. Dean? Could have won? OK, here's a little exercise: make a list of all the things you think caused Dean to not only lose early, but fall apart in doing so. To lose, by the way, in the state next door to his home (next door for Kerry too, but the true Dean profile is certainly better suited in NH than the Kerry profile, in nearly every way). To lose Iowa not by a little, but by a damn lot. OK, make your list. Now cross off everything on that list that wouldn't have had at least twice the impact in the general: media, establishment mindset, ground game/organization, fill in the blank. What's left? The whole damn list. The guy who couldn't beat John Kerry in Iowa would've beat Bush/Rove/Osama in Ohio? The great fight-back guy who couldn't get over media foolishness about a single silly episode?

E. OT; I know there are a whole host of people going through the exercise right now of making oaths that they'd never vote for HRC. Three things on that: (1) if you think that on virtually any measuring stick the least bad of the Republicans is going to be better, you need to recalibrate; (2) publicly knocking our eventual nominee (if she wins) in such terms is itself harmful in formulating the national narrative -- I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't speak their minds, just that they'd damn well understand the consequences of doing so, and take responsibility for them; and (3) to come back to my Dean point, who's going to say that the guys who can't resist the Hillary magic -- such as it actually is -- could beat Romney (or whoever)?

Posted by CharleyCarp | August 18, 2007 8:45 AM

The great fight-back guy who couldn't get over media foolishness about a single silly episode?

Wasn't just the media. If Dean had been the nominee, he wouldn't have had other Democrats with better institutional connections shiving him left and right through those institutions. Or put another way: Kerry wasn't a great candidate, he was a risk-minimized candidate. The goal wasn't to ride Kerry to victory, but to allow Kerry to ride the party to victory. (This is basically the argument for HRC as well--"She won't fuck up in the general.") Which he almost did. Maybe Dean blows up or maybe he wins; people pretending it's clearly one or the other either know the candidate much better than is evident, or they're making things up.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 18, 2007 9:08 AM

-- I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't speak their minds, just that they'd damn well understand the consequences of doing so, and take responsibility for them
.
That plays both ways. If HRC can't overcome the poor-mouthing of people on her side who don't like her, maybe she shouldn't be the nominee. We know she has unbelievably high negatives. We have some reason to believe that negatives are persistent. People who vote for her in the primaries need to be cognizant of the consequences of doing so as well, and accept responsibility for their decision, too. If she wins the nomination and loses in the general for all too predictable reasons--high negatives, little charm--the party needs to clean house vigorously.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 18, 2007 9:13 AM

SCMT, I agree that people who choose her are responsible for that choice. And I'll add that HRC supporters who run down Obama or Edwards are doing the same disservice, should either end up the nominee.

As for the party cleaning house, I have no idea what you could possibly mean. People get to self-select for membership. They get to self-select for candidacy for a nomination. People have influence within the party that they've earned one way or the other. You want a purge of the people who think she's a better nominee than Sen. Obama?

Posted by CharleyCarp | August 18, 2007 9:19 AM

Maybe Dean blows up or maybe he wins; people pretending it's clearly one or the other either know the candidate much better than is evident, or they're making things up.

This is a fair criticism. I've never seen anything to lead me to believe that Dean would have done better, and his supposed superior fighting back skills were/are nowhere in evidence. Maybe he'd have done better at GOP smears than he did with the shivs, but I've no reason to think so. And the burden certainly ought to be on the proponents of alternate history.

Posted by CharleyCarp | August 18, 2007 9:23 AM

. You want a purge of the people who think she's a better nominee than Sen. Obama?

No, not at all. I think there are a number of reasons to prefer HRC as a candidate: you think she'd be the best President, you prefer her policies, you want a female president, you find her charismatic and believe others will as well, etc. All well and fine.

But there are a set of people who are deciding who is the best institutional candidate; that is, who will present the smallest profile for Republican attacks and can best ride a wave that looks to be favorable to Democrats. I think this is what claims contrasting Obama's "gaffes" to her lack of the same are about from some set of people. If HRC doesn't win in a year that looks to be very good for Dems, then I think we can say--on the strength of successive choices of Kerry and HRC by such people--that they aren't very good at such determinations. Therefore, Democrats who are high in the informal candidate choosing structure ought to stop listening to such people. I don't see this as very different from claiming that Presidential candidates ought to stop hiring Shrum, or that NFL teams really shouldn't hire Matt McMillan as GM.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 18, 2007 9:44 AM

Mike and Charley:

You both miss the point. If someone proposed a law that says California gets no vote at all, it would not only be unconstitutional but nobody would support it. So everyone theoretically supports an equal franchise for Californians (or at least that California gets a proportional franchise under the electoral college formula or something similar).

Thus, this isn't an issue of direct vs. representative democracy. (And by the way, Mike, since you insist on being a snob, our government is not a republic either. Ours is a government of separated powers, with a republican-style Congress, a quasi-democratically elected President, and an undemocratic judiciary. It is not a republic either. Just because you learned the "gotcha" phrase "it's a republic, not a democracy" from your parents doesn't mean it is true.)

Rather, this is an issue of whether California gets a say at all. And spare me all this BS about how the election will be worse if California gets a say. We are citizens of the United States. Maybe we are a bunch of superficial idiots, and maybe you need to spend millions in advertising to reach us? So what? I could make similar arguments about how there are a bunch of uncosmopolitan rubes in the smaller states.

The solution to the "problem" that elections cost a lot of money (which is actually inevitable and not solved by the Iowa / New Hampshire thing, as those campaigns cost a lot of money to be successful too) is not to disenfranchise the biggest states with the largest numbers of voters. That's stupid, ridiculous, and anti-democratic (even in the limited sense that this country is supposed to be democratic).

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 18, 2007 12:26 PM

In line. In line. In line!

Posted by mikem | August 18, 2007 2:39 PM

If you're going to go state-by-state, how about the DNC adopting something more automated?

Here's my back-of-an-envelope model: have the early primaries in states where the last presidential vote was closest to 50-50, and expand outwards.

Yes, that overprivileges swing states. Yes, it misses out the South, but that's not a huge problem for Dems, since the trend is isolating that region anyway. Yes, it annoys Californians. But it keeps IA and NH in the game, brings in states like Wisconsin, New Mexico, and isn't too punishing on finances. Most of all, it's got a degree of logic to it.

But Dilan is right: the primary stretch is just a small symptom of a bigger problem, which is that elections cost too damn much. If you could hold a national primary without it being yet another massive wealth transfer from individual donors to local network affiliates and cable companies -- because that's what it is -- then it's vastly preferable.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 18, 2007 2:50 PM

Dilan, I'm not sure you understand what this conversation is about. A political party would be perfectly free to announce that it is not going to hold a primary in California. Or that it is not going to seat any delegates from California at its convention. What provision of the Constitution do you think is violated by this?

It's dumb, and no party that hopes to win nationally is going to do it. But there's no issue of equal franchise when you're talking about selecting nominees. How do you think Iowa gets away with caucuses?

There are good reasons to start in smaller states, and good reasons to start in small states that have a history of hosting the early race and a political culture that has evolved in light of that history. People who read David Broder deserve what they get.

Now I agree that Maryland would be a much better place than Iowa to have the first race: more diverse, more people who are very well informed on what the federal government is and isn't doing for urban areas, but not without rural areas, and I think candidates ought to come to my house and ask for my vote personally. The thing is, none of these factors would necessarily lead to a better result, and not a word's been written above that suggests to me that a Maryland-first system would have led to victories in 84, 88, 00, 04.

Posted by CharleyCarp | August 19, 2007 12:14 PM

Charley:

Actually, under Smith v. Allwright and Terry v. Adams, I am quite certain that a major party cannot decide not to provide Californians an opportunity, through some means, to seat delegates at the convention. You see, the Democrats used to do that to blacks, and the Supreme Court stepped in and held that the party was a state actor and the Constitution applied to its actions. Those decisions are still good law.

But be that as it may, the broader point is that disenfranchising California is unfair to Californians. And we are disenfranchised both in the primary and the general. And in both instances, we receive lectures about how it's really better for us that we don't get a meaningful vote.

This is antithetical to the American system, whether or not it is legal and constitutional. We aren't supposed to be making judgments about whose voters are more fit to make these sorts of decisions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 20, 2007 4:59 PM