E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Boston Globe: "Intent on preventing a repeat of the chaotic presidential primary schedule in 2008, Republican and Democratic parties are completing plans to create an orderly timetable that would push most contests back while ensuring New Hampshire’s celebrated role as the first primary in the nation. Officials from both parties have separate proposals that would ban states from holding their vote before the first Tuesday of March, with four exemptions: the Granite State; Iowa, which holds the first caucuses; South Carolina; and Nevada. And no state can hold a contest before Feb. 1."
How will they prevent a repeat of the 2008 free-for-all? "The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee are taking steps in that direction, through incentives to persuade states to hold later contests. The Democrats are dangling the prospect of extra delegates; Republicans are discussing allowing winner-take-all contests in later states instead of proportional allotment of delegates."
Leave a Comment:
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one in the world that occasionally pushes the wrong button on the tube machine.
Saaayyyyyyyyy...........THIS is the best news I've seen all year!
Are you guys running some kind of contest or something where WE get to name the post? LOL
Always good to see even the pros occasionally mess up. I'm no pro but just did it again by failing to log on first, making a comment and poof--black hole. It isn't the first time since the new look that I've wiped out my thought and probably not the last.
We don't know what the glitch was here. Sometimes the software is a bit buggy. You all have a nice, clean headline now.
Thanks Domenico!
It's all the 'critters' around here that can cause the 'clog' LOL
I don't like that New Hampshire always gets to have the first primary, that's not very democratic to me. I think over time every state should be able to be the first state to have the first primary. Needs to be a rotating schedule to make it fair so that a few minor states like New Hampshire or Iowa don't always get to decide who comes out of the first primaries with the lead.
The GOP already has winner take all delegates, so how is allowing later states to be winner take all delegates a change?
Eric, I understand the compliant of states that follow Iowa and New Hampshire, but the reality is the compliant never had validity and 2008 proved the fallacy in the argument that NH and Iowa decide the race, or have too much influence. Neither Iowa nor NH decides the nominee in a practical or literal sense. Ironically if Michigan and Florida honored the DNC and RNC rules their own state delegates agreed to they would have had a large say in 2008. The number of total delegates Iowa and NH (and Nev and SC) have compared to the total number needed to win the nomination is minimal. Iowa and NH weed candidates out, but they do not and can not decide the nominee.
In 1992 Iowa's caucus was ignored because Senator Harkin was in the race. He carried the caucus by a huge margin. In New Hampshire Tsongas won the primary and Clinton came in second, Clinton dubbed himself the come back kid, but he was 9% behind Tsongas. As Hillary pointed out during the 08 race Bill did not secure the nomination until June of 92.
Not to let facts get in the way of the myth that Iowa and NH decide the nominee, or have too much power, the next contested race was 2000. As VP Gore was the prohibitive favorite. Gore won Iowa's caucus with 63% and Bill Bradley receieved 35%. In NH Bradley had his best showing with 46% to Gore's 50%. In 5 states after NH, prior to Gore securing enough delegates Bradley received between 40-43% of the vote, but in most states his support was much lower. On super Tuesday Bradley only had a lower level of support in Georgia (16%) than he received in California (18%). One would have expected the Democratic primary in California to be a good place for the more liberal Bradley, but he didn't have the resources to compete in California. California is a money race, races are won with commercials. It is the reason starting the nomination in states where the biggest war chest doesn't win is superior to any other option.
In 2004 Howard Dean was the candidate with the money, and the media assumed he would win, but elections in Iowa are run on the ground, and Iowa Democrats agreed with Dean politically, but believed he was unelectable. John Kerry came in first with 38%, embarrassingly Edwards was a very close second, and Dean a very distant 3rd. It's possible had the scream not occured (which was unfair, and over played in the media) Dean would have done better in subsequent races. Kerry came in first in neighboring NH with 38% and Dean was a strong second, with more than twice the vote of any other candidate (other than Kerry). Dean had the resources for the long haul, but voters in other states, except his home-state of Vermont turned away from him. Dean received 4% in California, Edwards 20% and Kerry 60%.
In 2008 Obama inspired Iowans who doubled the previous high caucus turn out. He actually received more than 50% support of caucus attendees but given the archaicrules only beat Edwards by 10% and Clinton by almost 11%. NH turned out for Clinton in slightly higher numbers than for Obama, and most people remember how the primary even continued on to Puerto Rico.
Here are some simply facts.
1. Candidates often drop out after Iowa & NH, although more do before the first caucus, than immediately following Iowa. Iowa and NH don't pick the nominee, but simply force candidates (other than incumbents) to engage in retail politics, where they are tested.
2. Starting off in Iowa and NH allows candidates without a huge war chest to compete, allowing voters in other states to decide between the candidates and not merely the wealthiest or the candidate supported by the most special interest groups.
3. States following Iowa and NH are not required to follow our lead, and are free to vote for who they prefer.
4. Voters in Iowa and NH are more politically engaged, they have higher primary and general election turn out on a yearly basis.