Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who won the last New Hampshire presidential primary, opposes Democratic party plans to dilute the primary's impact.
Kerry told the New Hampshire Union Leader the early nomination calendar does not need to be fixed because it isn't broken.
"If they start cramming (caucuses and primaries) in there, it's harder for people to get places, see people and be seen by people, and it's harder for a candidate to break out, in my judgment," he said.
According to the Union Leader, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is pushing a plan to place one or two caucuses from more ethnically, racially and economically diverse states between Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire's primary:
Its plan would also put one or two primaries from more diverse states immediately after the New Hampshire primary.
The plan was designed by a DNC advisory commission, which found last year that Iowa and New Hampshire "are not fully reflective of the Democratic electorate or the national electorate generally," and, specifically, "do not represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the party or the nation."
The commission recommended that the additional early states be chosen by the rules committee based on "racial and ethnic diversity; regional diversity; and economic diversity including union density."
The commission said the changes were necessary to produce "the best and strongest Democratic Presidential nominee."
Is Kerry's opposition to the DNC advisory commission's plan another indication that the senator will campaign for the presidency? I think so. The only thing that will prevent another Kerry run is a lack of support.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
We could have the primaries all on the same day, nationwide. Instead, we have them on a different day in each state. What's the goal? To let small states play a role, to give candidates a chance to campaign harder in each state so their voters learn about the candidate, to make more opportunities for retail politics... fine, all good goals. Let's put together a primary calendar that best meets them!
The two big problems with 2004's primary calendar, IMO, were:
1. So many primaries are just 1 week apart or less, that each one is dependent on and partly determined by the media from the previous one. In effect, that meant Iowa was everything, beause it started an unstoppable week-to-week cascade of Kerry wins. Dean had a shot in New Hampshire, and if he'd won, or come close, then we'd have had a cascade of Dean vs. Kerry primaries. Realistically, I don't think there was much opportunity for any other state to matter in 2004, because of this.
2. Many states vote after the decision is effectively already made. Even if we hadn't had the week-to-week cascade, by the time the Super Tuesday states voted in early March, it would have been all over. What good does it do Kansas to hold caucuses long after California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, Washington, and Michigan have already voted?
For a good primary calendar, I suggest:
1. Start with very small states (like NH) whose delegate counts don't really matter, and don't move on to the big states until all the small states are done.
2. Leave at least two weeks between each primary date (though two states voting on the same date, especially if they're nearby, is a fine idea).
We could have a trickle of small primaries and caucuses from January through April, then a big blowout with all the big states voting on the same day in May. That would satisfy almost everyone's legitimate goals. Every state would matter. We'd have a short primary season. There would be plenty of time for retail politics in the small states.
Personally I don't believe in the efficacy of small parties, given our political system. I think a much more practical and effective way of pursuing one's political goals is to work within one of the two major parties. But that's my personal choice, which I'm happy to argue the merits of. I strongly support letting third parties compete fairly. At the very least, they provide something on the ballot for people who have neither the time nor interest to actually participate in the process, but still want something to vote for on election day.
Did you see my flyer about IRV? (It's Massachusetts-centric because I made it for the state party convention last year)
first time, and the way he ran against him,
I wasn't surprised. I got kicked off his blog
because I said something about him that
didn't sit well with his web lackey.
Kerry was the party favorite, not the
people's favorite, same as Shrub.
Anything to return the voice to the
people, I'm in favor of.
Well, I'd love that, but that's not what I was suggesting in my comment here. How we vote in the presidential primaries doesn't have much impact on how open the process is to third parties, one way or the other. I'm suggesting instant runoff voting in the general election.
(But yes, having it in the presidential primaries would be a very very good thing, and I've suggested that too, at other times and in other places)
No, I really didn't care one way or the other.
I'm a Lowell native. If you know that story,
you can understand why I'm skeptical going in.
I'm just saying that if Kerry could not at least
give Bush a run -- let's face it, this is certainly
one of the worst Presidencies in history --
in 2004, then he is in the wrong game.
Demos and Republicans have both given up their real voice.
Each party in the chase for votes, trying to be the other.
Clinton cleaning up the budget, pushing through the welfare reform, Bush rocketing the budget into the stratosphere, pushing through the prescription care addition to Medicare.
Demo Catholics and Protestant working people jumping onto the Republican anti-abortion and Patriotism wagon only to be tipped over on the way to our fresh Armageddon of (newest number) 12 million illegal immigrants.
Republican environmentalists, yes they do exist, and social liberals,
v e r y reluctantly vote with Democrats (these actually might have been the Nadar voters), now vindicated by Bush budget extravaganza and social confusion and blatant anti-environmental actions. Neither party seems to remember who they are as they stagger and swerve blathering unintelligible nonsense, like a common drunk head down spinning for the gutter.
I hesitate to comment on something that I understand incompletely, so I'll just repeat my thank you.
To address this post more directly, it is wrong for the Democratic primaries to be essentially decided by 2 small states that don't represent the population very well. Right now, whoever wins New Hampshire and Iowa pretty much has it sewn up. The media then keeps repeating that they are the "frontrunner," even though most electoral votes have yet to be assigned. Everyone buys it and hops on the band wagon. I would say 95% of Democratic primary voters actually have no say in the matter.