Our New Invisible Primary...a Disaster in the Making

by BigDog, Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:55:07 PM EST

As the DNC started to fiddle with the existing Primary system in an attempt to create a more balanced electorate, I felt sure it would come to a disaster.

Their actions opened the door for every other state to begin to fiddle with their own electoral importance. And that's exactly what's happened.

As a commentor today said that it 'is/could' become a pure money race, it's my belief that early Primary victories (and nominee's) are absolutely not in the best interests of the Democratic Party or the nation.

I've authored a longish 3 part series, including a full electoral breakdown of Feb. 5, 2008.

I won't waste the bandwidth trying to restate all the prime points of the series. If it's a subject that interests you then visit the articles and see for yourself.

Since the comment system here at MyDD is 1000% better than The Political Dogfight I would encourage interaction on this blog not my own.

I believe this topic to be 100% more important that simply 'supporting' one candidate over another this early in the game.

The game has changed. I believe, based on long experience,that it has changed for the worse. I call our new system: The Invisible Primary.

The Invisible Primary: A Disaster In The Making?

The Invisible Campaign Part 2: An Authentic Voice?

The Invisible Campaign Part 3: Death Knell?




Tags: Primary 2008, Democrats, Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Clark, Biden, Dodd (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment


great point (3.00 / 2)

sad what's happening


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:46:21 PM EST

A strong case but (none / 0)

I think you make a strong case but I'm not sure I agree. I believe you are right in your assessment that Feb 5th decides the race and that money + media coverage will determine the winner on that day.

Clearly the likes of Richardson, Clark and even Edwards are in deep trouble as a result. But is that a bad thing? I would suggest perhaps not. The presidential election is a single day event determined largely by free media coverage and strategic advertising in key states. So why shouldn't the primaries test the same qualities?

Like it or not, George Bush had star quality, while far more admirable human beings, Kerry and Gore did not. He won, they lost. No doubt they would have made far better presidents but as you point out 2nd place is nowhere in this race.

Our Feb 5th national primary destroys the chances of well qualified candidates that lack a big media personality. That really is the name of the game now. Bob Dole - honourable guy, yet out of his depth against Bill Clinton in 96.

Edwards, Clark, Richardson all serious men, all talented, all might make fine presidents but can they capture the imagination, can they motivate people to vote? Doesn't seem so.

Iowa and New Hampshire did nothing for the democratic cause. Retail politics counts for very little in a presidential campaign.

If the 2nd tier want to get in the race they have light the fire, they have to do something that gets a response, they have to take risks, find an issue that motivates, that inspires. Then they will get the media coverage, then they will rise in the polls, then they will be able to raise the funds.

And if they can't, well then the chances are that their presidential campaign would have been equally ineffective.

Is it a harsh system? Of course. But it is a far better test of the qualities that win or lose a presidential election than the old primary campaigns contested over several months. And a lot better than the Iowa fiasco of 2004 in which the candidates bet everything on winning a caucus, leaving no-one with the funds to challenge Kerry once he'd established the early lead.

We do not appoint the best president, we vote and the winner gets the job. You might think that Obama or HRC are ridiculous candidates yet they clearly capture the imagination of huge numbers of voters. Something that neither Kerry nor Gore, nor for that matter Dole on the republican side, managed to do.


by kundalini on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:04:49 PM EST

does it matter if voters are informed? (3.00 / 2)

I don't think the wholesale purchasing of TV ads that this primary will force will actually educate voters on candidates' positions.

I doubt any of the people being polled on healthcare have a clue what the proposals are..

getting people to the polls is different than asking people who only watch MSM who they prefer...

the whole let's buy TV ads everywhere is a sad replacement for house parties and small meetings with candidates that people in Iowa and New Hampshire get to enjoy


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: does it matter if voters are informed? (none / 0)

Hey, I'm interested in winning presidential elections. Something the democratic party has not been very good at over the last 30 years.

MyDD may love to debate the details of policies and plans but your typical voter can't process that level of detail. I couldn't tell you which Health Care plan is best because I simply do not have the detailed background knowledge of the subject to make such a call. I am completely ignorant on the matter despite having two parents who were both doctors. I have an economics degree yet I would struggle to make sense of the respective plans to boost the state of the economy.


by kundalini on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:26:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If that's your criterion Hillary is a disaster (none / 0)

the democratic primary frontrunner in an open primary hasn't won the general election since 1960..

If that's your criterion you should get Hillary to quit


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that's your criterion Hillary is a disaster (none / 0)

That makes no sense at all. And isn't exactly true either because Bill Clinton was the front runner at certain moments in time prior to the start of the 92 primaries.


by kundalini on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that's your criterion Hillary is a disaster (none / 0)

front runner means first favorite...

Hiillary has been since last year.

I didn't design or make this graphic..

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that's your criterion Hillary is a disaster (none / 0)

I'm afraid your graphic is a joke. How can you possibly have Cuomo as frontrunner for 92 and yet not have Gore and HRC as frontrunners for 2004? There's no consistency. Super Mario never started the primaries so it is nonsense to describe him as a frontrunner. He, like HRC and Gore in 2003/2004 decided this wasn't the time for him.

Bill Clinton was, at certain points, the frontrunner for 92. And he won.


by kundalini on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is BS (3.00 / 1)

So what you are willing to give into is even MORE money in politics.

Step right up.. come on don't be shy.. we have real live Presidents for sale! Want one? It will cost ya.. but the return on investment is INCREDIBLE!

By giving in to the Feb 5th NONSENSE we are taking a HUGE step to shutting down and semblance of democracy when it comes to the primaries!

Federal, state and locally funded elections is the ONLY way to help cure this!


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is BS (2.00 / 1)

No we aren't. More people get to vote while the race is alive. Feb 5th come out and vote.

So it shuts out the likes of Clark. So what?

Money and free media coverage. If you can't score high on either then you don't deserve to play at this level.


by kundalini on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're missing the point (3.00 / 2)

do you care if voters actually know what a candidate stands for..

If not the best way to win your primary is to whore yourself to every corporation - military,pharma, insurance etc..
buy a  bunch of TV ads to mislead the voters .. and then win.

the intimacy and retail politicking of Iowa and NH gives people the chance to question candidates and learn


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're missing the point (none / 0)

I hate Iowa and New Hampshire. I hate that such a small number of people get to determine the nominee. Yes they take their duty very seriously, but it just has not worked for the democratic party. If it had been a winning formula then that's a whole different matter. But it has failed us consistently.

What percentage of voters in a presidential election actually get to see the candidates face to face, retail style?


by kundalini on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So... (3.00 / 1)

then what is wrong with this idea?

"The primaries should be broken into 10 groups of 5 states with a balance of demographics and population."

From me.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (none / 0)

Sounds OK. Difficult to know how it would play out in practice.


by kundalini on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (none / 0)

Why is that? How much more difficult would it be then what they were doing and what they are now doing?

You seem OK with how this "new" bunching up will play out.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So... (none / 0)

Well if look at the old system. The idea is fine yet the reality in recent years has been that Iowa and New Hampshire, instead of being the start of the race, have become the whole race.

Personally I think a national primary or, as we seem to be heading towards, a close approximation on Feb 5th, is far preferable to what happened in 2004.

Your proposed system might find that in reality the first round or the first two rounds determined the nominee. Again it is difficult to predict what would actually occur. And then there is the all important question of whether the system produces winners.


by kundalini on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are a fool (none / 0)

I am thinking a hillary fool?


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way... (none / 0)

You might as well have no primaries and just have IVR if that is how you want it.

The rethugs would win every time.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oops (none / 0)

I meant IRV


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A strong case but (none / 0)

I think you are missing a huge factor -- the media decides who gets the news and who doesn't.

There is absolutely no reason to not give equal time to all the candidates, yet they choose who the "newmakers" are and push those down our throats. Just as they do with everything -- OJ Simpson, Lacy Peterson, Anna Nicole -- whatever THEY decide is infotainment, that's what they push.

Many people, (majority?) who have no time to be online searching out information and watch teevee to get that information, are woefully uninformed and misguided.

We are living in a media driven society and the damage done in the last 6 years should have been enough to wake people up, but so far it's not looking good.

Anyways, thanks BigDog for putting this together. I'll get over to your blog tomorrow to read it.  


by jen on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A strong case but (none / 0)

Sorry I don't understand at all. Since when did we live in a fair society? Politics is not fair. The media is neither fair nor balanced. Ideally we might be able to change it over time but it is not going to happen by 2008. The rules of the game are clear. I might not like them, you might not like them, but they aren't going to be changing any time soon.

Mike Dukakis was a better guy than George Bush yet he lost.

Al Gore is a far superior human being to George W Bush yet he didn't end up being president

John Kerry is a far more honourable man than George Bush yet he lost too.

And from the other side I think you can make a decent case that Bob Dole is a better man than Bill Clinton. (not saying he would have made a better president just that he was a good guy that I have a certain amount of respect for)

Larger than life characters seem to win presidential elections, especially against perfectly decent, intelligent, honourable men. Surely we have learnt that much by now. So the fact that candidate X has a great CV or happens to be an amazing man, is worth nothing in a presidential election.

As you correctly point out, this is a media driven society. If for whatever reason, a candidate cannot generate media coverage, then their chances of winning are not good. These are the rules: can you generate free media coverage and can you raise funds to use for getting your message out (and ground game etc)

(at least I bothered to read Big Dog's 3 part series before commenting)


by kundalini on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A strong case but (none / 0)

One of my points, however minor in the context of the series, is that it is possible to create a private alternative media network for a candidate and bypass the traditional media.

It's a complicated topic. But I'll get more published in the near future.

It would take a paradigm shift by the communications team in a campaign.


just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A strong case but (none / 0)

The ability to raise money in a primary is not the same as the ability to raise money in a general election.  John Edwards may lag behind Obama and Clinton in fundraising (although I say let's wait and see what the numbers are), but should he be the nominee, he will raise more than enough to give himself a good shot at winning in November.  I think the same is true of most of our non-Kucinich/Gravel candidates.

Forcing the primaries to be about more than just money allows voters to pick good candidates who can then become great fundraisers with the party's support.  We definitely don't want to nominate great fundraisers who are otherwise mediocre or non-progressive candidates.


by LPMandrake on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:35:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That comment you mention (3.00 / 1)

Came from me. It goes like this:

I don't know why the parties would allow half of the states to primary on the same day. It turns our primaries into a TRUE money show. There is no way ANY third party will ever be heard from again and smaller candidates will have a hard time getting the message out to take a lead anywhere. I believe this has been pushed by the "corporate" people within each party, TV and MONEY. It will become mainly a TV primary. This is BULLSHIT!

The primaries should be broken into 10 groups of 5 states with a balance of demographics and population.

This should be something we fight against!

The comment came from:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/20/1716 27/771


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:14:28 PM EST

I was not sure about my state.. (3.00 / 1)

but now I am OK with what the parties did. I live in WA state and the parties have rejected the primaries for caucuses, which we have had for a loooong time.

Last prez election was the first one that I and thousands of other attended, it was great!

Since primaries are for the parties, why not keep the media and money at bay?

We (Clarkies) just needed more people to do what I did in my caucus.
I showed B&W outline map of the USA with the states colored in  that had already had primaries or caucuses. I had at the top of the map how many delegates were needed to win the primaries. I had each of the candidates listed with how many they had. I had the words "Don't let the media tell you who to vote for" below that.
I passed out these printed out maps and spoke my words.
I moved people who wanted Clark but were going to vote Kerry, "because he has already won", back to voting for Clark.
I was nervous as hell so the first vote went bad for me (and Clark) but after I did what I said above, I (Clark) TOOK that caucus!  

I was on a high! I was pumped! I guess you could say I was happy.  :)

If only MORE people would have and would do as I had done... oh the happy thoughts I am thinking.

me.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:28:36 PM EST

Re: Our New Invisible Primary...a Disaster in the (none / 0)

The nice thing about the new primary is that it forces the candidates to speak authentically on television.  

The old way bred elitism whereas the new way is helping the most authentic candidate in my opinion.


by sterra on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:37:35 AM EST

Re: Our New Invisible Primary...a Disaster in the (none / 0)

With the exception of Edwards I think your judgment of the quality of communication we are getting is misplaced.

True authenticity takes more than 20 sec's on the evening news or a highly polished commercial.

There is an alternative....but it's not being used effectively yet.


just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg frontpaging at The Democratic Daily...
by BigDog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: