Our own Super Day
One of the most effective ways Southern Democrats solidified their hold on being the conservative soul of the party for the past 15 or so years has been Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday, like the Iowa Caucuses, focused the attention of Presidential candidates on issues that are now generally outside the range of most urban Democrats. The West can do the same thing in 2008 by creating a regional primary
One of the best ideas this year to help build Western influence in the Democratic Party has been the Western Primary.
On the surface it would seem like Republicans just as much Democrats would benefit from a unified Western primary, but the point is not necessarily building the party in the West. While that is an important goal, I think we should focus on the primary now in order to build the region in the party.
The Democratic Party needs Western Democrats and one of the best ways to influence the party is through primaries. If we want the Western Primary, now is the time to act: "Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is expected to appoint a committee over the next few weeks to discuss the primary calendar in 2008."
Emmett O'Connell | November 22, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
First off, I love the concept. A few thoughts... in order for this to be a draw it would need to pull together enough western states to ensure a significant delegate count... does that mean a menu of states that stretches past the inter-mountain west?
Also, unlike our friends below the Mason-Dixon line, the west has one state that dominates far beyond any other. Would California's presence in a western regional primary day overly dominate? Would the candidates then focus their stumps in L.A. and San Francisco in lieu of Bozeman and Sante Fe? Items to ponder...
I'm interested in McAuliffe's support of the idea, however his stock in the party seems to be so low right now, I'm unsure I would want his endorsement at this point!
Posted by: Tim Mooney | Nov 22, 2004 8:34:19 PM
I also love the idea. The document at the Western Governor's Association, though, is pretty old -- which is to say, the idea is even more plausible now.
Mail balloting, of course, is the law in Oregon - and, I believe, accounted for in the DNC rules.
As for Tim's thought, it's hard to imagine a Western Primary without California - but it's hard to see it working without.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 23, 2004 3:13:08 AM
You are a genius.
This is really a great idea and I'm going to pass it along to the powers that be here in Colorado.
Posted by: Ralph | Nov 23, 2004 10:57:14 AM
In my plan I would not include California in the Western Primary. But, because the states I would include (Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Alaska and Hawaii) can offer just about half (350) delegates as the original 1988 Super Tuesday states (677), I'm not sure we could afford not to include California.
It does look though that California is lumbering back to its traditional spot in June, so the question of moving it up with several Western states could be mute.
Posted by: Emmett | Nov 23, 2004 12:45:19 PM
It really is a tough call. California would deliver so much, however it would burn so much of the oxygen it could end up being a situation where everyone hits the Golden State, while making some side trips to border states. Now, assume for a second that someone is running away with California... perhaps the rest of the states become very relevant?
If California is intent on going to June, I see no reason why the rest of the west shouldn't go with the concept. Will it outpace Super Tuesday? Maybe not... bit its mere presence would have a big impact on the nature of the race and the nature of the candidates.
Posted by: Tim Mooney | Nov 23, 2004 6:01:49 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
