Time for the West to Speak Up
Over at Tidepool, they're running a syndicated op-ed by Dan Kemmis - the former speaker of the Montana House - in which he calls for a Western primary.
It's all great stuff, but we'll focus on the partisan play:
Western Democrats clearly believe that a Western primary could help generate some electoral votes in the region. As Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, D, wrote to the Democratic National Committee's commission, "In presidential elections, we are often viewed by party leaders, national political pundits and other national "experts" as a "Republican Red Sea" impossible to cross, like a great desert more to be endured than embraced."Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set the record straight, reminding the commission that "Democrats can win in Western states as evidenced by the recent ballot victories in Montana, Colorado and Nevada." Jerry Brady, an announced Democratic candidate for governor of Idaho told the commission, "Our request for an early, region-wide primary and caucus season is … based on the conviction that the time is right to capitalize on rapid gains already made."
But if Western Democrats are eager for a regional primary, many Western Republicans are also tired of having their states ignored by presidential candidates. Many Republicans also think their party would benefit from the grassroots invigoration a regional primary could generate. While either party may reasonably hope for partisan gain from a regional primary, the real winner will be the Mountain West itself.
Get in there and read the whole item. It's spot on.
Dan Kemmis was featured on Western Democrat here - including comments from the man himself.
Kari Chisholm | June 15, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
I'm still not sure whether a single, one-day western regional primary is either feasible or, more importantly, advisable for inserting western issues and voters into selection of the Democratic presidential candidate and platform.
Simply because it would be easy, even advisable, for some of the leading candidates (especially those whose name does not rhyme with Bill Richardson) to sit out a one-day vote, early in the cycle, far from DC and NY where the national media spends most of its time once IA and NH are wrapped up. In other words, lets say its still undecided coming out of IA and NH; either Richardson will be the frontrunner (unlikely) or he won't be (likely). Under those circumstances, if it looks like Richardson (or any other single candidate) is in a strong position to do well in the west, the other leading candidates will simply opt to campaign elsewhere.
Two quick examples to make my point -- the original "Super Tuesday," in 88, which was intended as a southern regional primary designed to nominate a southerner, was so clearly going to be won by Gore that it allowed others either to skip it entirely and concentrate on later states (Simon, who won ILL and almost snuck back in the race with a late surge in WI) or (Dukais) to add a few states into the mix (MA, MD, WA) and cherry-pick them -- thereby beating expectations. (What almost unrailed Duke was Jackson's surprise win in MI). Alternatively, in the GOP race in 2000, having several northern states scattered on successive weeks throughout the process (NH, WA, MI, NY) kept McCain in the game long after he had been swept in the south.
Point being, aren't we better off trying to organize a bloc of western super-delegates to make an early "western democrat endorsement" before IA and NH and/or then scattering western primaries throughout the process, to keep alive the or those front-runners
who best speak to our issues and to keep them coming back west rather than having Richardson sweep up, but get no real momentum from it?
Posted by: desmoulins | Jun 16, 2005 2:38:52 PM
10% of something is better then 100% of nothing. Get a Western primary in there early and a winner at anything gets some headlines. It's better then the nothing we're getting right now. I see the faults, but at least it has some buzz value.
Posted by: Gregor | Jun 16, 2005 5:13:32 PM
I think that although a Western Primary sounds good on paper, it is not a good idea at this time. It defeats the purpose of even discussing the idea of Western Values or Western Identities. Each of the western states has their own unique identities and issues, but also has a common underlying identity. I think that a Western Primary would mask our uniqueness and paint the picture that the west is all the same.
For instance, here in Wyoming, we are a very unique state. We have a huge budget surplus, thanks to high energy prices. We are actually saving money for a rainy day. We are investing in education and higher education. We are finally investing in our wildlife. Unemployment is low. Taxes are low. But we are one of the few states to still tax food, hopefully an initiative gets approved to change that in November. We still also allow open containers of alcohol in vehicles. We have the highest rates of adult and youth tobacco usage and alcohol usage. We live in the land of Yellowstone and Jackson, but are ready to pollute the rest of the state by drilling more coalbed methane wells. But we also face most of the same issues that plague the west and other rural states. We are losing our young generation, faster than we can reproduce, to higher wages in neighboring states. We face a lack of nurses and doctors and teachers and other skilled professionals, due to higher wages in other states. We are incarcerating segments of our population at higher than the national average and going on a building spree to house them. We are not taking care of our mentally ill, we are having a huge wave of methanphetimine related crime, and our school standards are woefully inadequate to raise our next generation.
I think that the national politicians need to finally recognize that we in the west are similar, but not the same, and need to pay attention to each and everyone of our states.
Posted by: Daniel C. Cardenas Jr. | Jun 21, 2005 10:31:23 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
