Western Primary discussed at DNC
This morning, the DNC Commission on Presidential Nominations met and discussed the timing and structure of the primary system.
Elaine Kamarck, a politico and professor at the JFK School, encouraged the party to think about two issues: 1) Do we want to encourage the kind of retail politics found in Iowa and New Hampshire - particularly early in the process? 2) Do we want to create some extended time between the early states in order to encourage thoughtful reflection on the outcome and to create meaningful campaigns in follow-up states?
Art Torres, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, fired the opening salvo on behalf of a Western primary, reminding the panel that Iowa and New Hampshire simply aren't representative of the nation as a whole. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan suggested that while retail politics is a good thing, there are plenty of states capable of that - especially more diverse ones. It doesn't have to be NH and IA.
The strongest case for a Western primary came from political consultant Mike Stratton. He reminded the commission that the purpose of these discussions is not to generate an interesting primary battle - but rather to win the general election. As he put it, "these primaries help us build a base for November."
Stratton pointed out, as we have in the Western Democrat manifesto, that John Kerry would have won had he picked up Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. The down-ballot results of 2004 prove that all those states could be competitive presidentially. With Democratic governors in New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, a regional Rocky Mountain primary is a possibility.
Kamarck had argued that a Western primary wouldn't attract enough attention without the inclusion of California, simply because there's not enough delegates. Never mind that California would likely cause the rest of the states to be ignored. As Stratton argued, even though the half-dozen states of the Rocky Mountain West may not contain massive numbers of delegates - a Western primary would generate plenty of attention - and ultimately, would help create the momentum to a win in November 2008.
And isn't winning in 2008 the point? As we've asked before, should we run a campaign for a Western Primary?
Kari Chisholm | March 12, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
I think you make a very good case for a western primary. I think, however, the point is not to convince people like me; its to convince journalists to take the idea seriously.
In that respect, your point about the southwestern states that Kerry could and should have but did not win (NV, NM, CO) is not only well taken but a winning one.
I would suggest therefore that rather than pushing the idea of a primary system that would include putting swing states early in the process , push the idea that we need to emphasize the primaries in those states where our base needs to be mobilized. CO and NV are good examples; we did unexpectedly well down ballot thanks largely to higher than usual base vote turnout, but at the Presidential level not enough of those folks (union households, Hispanics, african-americans, single women) pulled the lever (or touched the screen) for Kerry.
Our primary system needs to be a way to build our base for our presidential candidate or put differently, pick a candidate who connects with these base voters the way that our downticket democrats are clearly doing already.
Posted by: desmoulins | Mar 12, 2005 3:28:45 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
