Hey, I’m honest enough to admit when I’m wrong about something – and although I could weasel out of this, I won’t: it is clear from context here that my expectations were that the Democratic party would redesign their Presidential primary system (to prevent someone doing unto the President as he did unto Clinton) at some point in 2010. Well, that was flat-out wrong of me, and I’m sorry that I called it so badly. It wasn’t going to start within a year at all.
It was actually going to start within three days.
Andrew Malcolm sums it up:
As The Ticket reported here in March, it’s a delicate delegate process because certain states — we’ll call them Iowa and New Hampshire — believe they have a right handed down by Thomas Jefferson to go first in the selection process, which is deemed to make them more important. Or at least help fill the state’s hotels and restaurants and empty the rental car lots during a normal winter’s months when inbound flights to Des Moines often have vacant seats.
At the “suggestion” of its nominee at last summer’s Democratic National Convention in Denver, delegates voted to establish a commission to examine everything including improving the caucus process, which can seem even longer than Iowa winters, reducing the number of unpledged delegates and quite possibly tinkering with the calendar window for the caucuses and primaries for the 2012 presidential election cycle.
To translate: ‘improving the caucus process’ means ‘removing the benefits that comes from flash-mobbing states that won’t vote Democratic in 2012 anyway;’ ‘reducing the number of unpledged delegates’ means ‘getting rid of as many votes as possible that aren’t locked to a specific candidate on the first ballot;’ and ‘tinkering with the calendar window’ means ‘shoving as many states together as possible to keep an insurgent campaign from gaining momentum.’ In other words, they’re going to eliminate or at least cripple probably every mechanism that might allow somebody to challenge the front-runner.
The funny part? Depending on how the mid-terms go, the Democratic establishment may enthusiastically support that. Not so much for 2012, but 2016…
Moe Lane
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Hillary in 2012?
6eorge Jetson (Diary) Saturday, June 27th at 7:50PM EST (link)If Zer∅’s agenda is passed, it wouldn’t surprise me for some Dems to start calling for Hillary to run.
Of course, that scenario is highly correlated w/ an outlook for a likely Dem loss in the general. So, no, I don’t see the possibility of an actual Hillary 2012 candidacy. But don’t think the need for a Democratic 2012 Hail Mary is out of the question.
Well if she runs it will hurt Obama
scarlos (Diary) Sunday, June 28th at 2:41AM EST (link)The last 3 presidents to lose re-election campaigns had to ward off primary challenges from their own party (Ford in 76, Carter in 80, and Bush Sr. in 92), so a democratic primary challenge is at least a bad omen for Obama.
But I wouldn’t bet on her running again, simply because her role as Sec of state ties her to the administration (and it’s failures) too much to differentiate herself from him (a problem she had last year too).
if he does face a challenge, my money is on a young Hispanic liberal.
Socialism is Oligarchy in disguise
supreme court
Bill Higgins (Diary) Sunday, June 28th at 4:23AM EST (link)I thought that Obama would nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court to get her out of Democratic Party politics
Follow me on Twitter!
www.twitter.com/BillHiggins1968
Check Out My Blog!
www.billhigginsonline.wordpress.com
Yes, she'd have to resign her Secretary of State position
6eorge Jetson (Diary) Sunday, June 28th at 1:47PM EST (link)w/ enough lead time.
All this is too much. The stars aren’t going to line up.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if in 2012 a great deal of Democrats find themselves wishing it was Hillary instead of Obama.
Well heck, Moe, we're trying to learn from y'all
Gengisdon (Diary) Sunday, June 28th at 12:10AM EST (link)I mean, after all, part of the reason why we bloodied ourselves almost to the convention floor was because we weren’t clever enough to have multiple winner-take-all primaries. Republicans did not have this problem, thus allowing McCain’s wins in a few key states to register 100%, not 35% or 45%. I’m all for competitive primaries, but 2008 was pretty textbook on how NOT to do it.
Can you imagine if McCain did not have a majority of delegates and Huckabee or Romney (or both!) took it to the convention floor? Even if the anti-McCainites and/or Huckabee and Romney partisans around here think that would have been a good idea, surely you don’t, for obvious reasons.
More points for the soft touch on Michigan and Florida too – losing half their delegates is infinitely more palatable than having their delegation stripped of credentials entirely.
In all seriousness, both parties, and the country as a whole, would have much to gain by not allowing the same two states, with all their unique quirks, to hijack the process every presidential election. I personally thank (blame) Iowa for Kerry in 2004.
But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’— that gives a choice. It might be the most important word in the world. That says the way is open. That throws it right back on a man. For if ‘Thou mayest’—it is also true that ‘Thou mayest not.’
Impossible to get it wrong when nothing is right...
Max Venom (Diary) Sunday, June 28th at 12:40AM EST (link)BHO and his clandestine operatives have been planning this ever since they decided to manipulate the U.S. Census to redistrict.
And where are the Republicans on this? (….pin drop….)
This is straight out of the Gestapo playbook, revised for our system.
CVW-14_-_10_-_Nov_2000.jpg
GOP commission
charliebravoNH (Diary) Sunday, June 28th at 12:56AM EST (link)Michael Steele also has the option of setting up a 15 person commission on the primary process. He should set this commission up. This primary process is a joke, especially here in NH. It is not fair many people in other states get shut out, because the nominee gets chosen early on.
A lot of the people I talk to here in NH are sick of the whole 1st in the nation primary thing. The TVads, robo calls, push polls and junk mail and signs all over the place. This goes for an entire year before the primary.
For the GOP NH has been a disaster. With its same day voter registration open primary. Registered Republicans here don’t even pick their own winner here. Independents do, and Democrats will join them in 2012. In 2008 McCain won the independents, Romney won the Republicans and McCain won the primary. McCain’s campaign would have ended here if Romney had won. Pat Buchanan in 1996, John McCain in 2000 and 2008 won here because of independents. What happens here being the first in the nation primary is the Republican vote is spread across many candidates where the independents coalesce around one or two.
It is time for some new thinking in regards to the GOP presidential primary.
Support the PC Strategy Alliance
http://concordproject.org/ http://party.procinct.net/
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/
ChBRVNH
man up
observant Sunday, June 28th at 9:40AM EST (link)one leg at a time, we must all forsake the pajamas and don camouflage. we must forsake the garage for the battlefield. we must be willing to send the best and brightest on missions with uncertain results. not a task for the indelicate, nor for the faint of heart. I reckon there are no caucuses for the republican party, but after a search I am wrong. Still are the results non-binding?