Primary/Caucus System

[muon2]

The one feature in favor of an extended season is that it is very hard to get to know a large field of candidates if they face each other in a single primary. A debate with more than three or four candidates provides little time for anyone to seriously get their issues out. Think about the debates between the Democrats for President a year ago. they were often lucky to get three answers out in a forum. The media coverage is just as spread out.

In the IL Senate race the primary debates for both parties were equally useless since there were 8 or 9 candidates for each party's nomination. If not for Blair Hulls exposed divorce records, the general election would have been between Hull and Ryan. An extended primary season (eg. by county) would have probably produced a race between Obama and Rauschenberger. A caucus system leading to a state convention probably would have produced similar results: Obama vs. Rauschenberger.

I used to like the idea of a single national primary, but now that I've spent a lot of time on the inside of party politics I see the shortcomings. When there is a large electorate the single primary will often eliminate the best candidate. The winner of a single large primary will more often go to the best funded or the one with the best central committee backing that can produce an instant turnout. A more deliberate process can effectively check out the candidates and get to those who will best represent their party in the fall.

[muon2]

With all due respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, we should no longer have two states that do not reflect America choose who is nominated.  I support a form of regional primaries.  Southeast one week then Northeast etc etc.

The results suggest that IA and NH have been pretty close to the national average in recent elections. In 2004 they tended slightly to the Democrat side, by about 3-4% in terms of total popular vote. If one added CO as a third state this year in February, the combination probably would have been a reasonable sample of national sentiment.

[muon2]

With all due respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, we should no longer have two states that do not reflect America choose who is nominated.  I support a form of regional primaries.  Southeast one week then Northeast etc etc.

The results suggest that IA and NH have been pretty close to the national average in recent elections. In 2004 they tended slightly to the Democrat side, by about 3-4% in terms of total popular vote. If one added CO as a third state this year in February, the combination probably would have been a reasonable sample of national sentiment.

I meant that both have very few Hispanics or blacks or Asians. 

That's one reason I suggested CO.

[muon2]

It's an interesting thought. I suspect that the ability to contest in small populations like a CD would enable minor and local candidates to carry blocks of delegates to the convention. It might possibly give the same result as a caucus-based system. In that case can we say that caucuses aren't so bad?

[muon2]

The Democrats should go back to the 1968 system. There should be a few states with state conventions.

If I would fault Terry McAulife with one thing, it would be putting the Iowa Caucus, NH Primary, and mini-Tuesday over a three week span. We need a much more drawn out and deliberatie process.

But he got exactly what he and most party leaders wanted. A candidate that came out without bruises and a lot of cash available between Super Tuesday and the Convention. Perhaps some of those leaders now recognize that vetting a candidate with the wider public counts for the General Election.