Iowa Dems think caucuses are safe for ’08

[janx]

JOHNSTON, Iowa — Though reeling from John Kerry’s presidential election loss last month, there is momentum within the Democratic Party to stick with its current leader, Terry McAuliffe, and continue a nominating calendar that starts with the Iowa Caucuses.
.
Jerry Crawford, a Des Moines lawyer and chairman of Kerry’s Iowa campaign, made those comments Friday on the taping of the Iowa Public Television program “Iowa Press.”
.
He said there is growing sentiment within the party to ask McAuliffe to continue as head of the Democratic National Committee, or DNC.
.
McAuliffe is about to step down, and several prominent Democrats are vying to take his place, including former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and former Clinton administration aide Harold Ickes. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack was viewed as a potential candidate until he removed himself from consideration last month.

(more at link)
http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1041740&l=1&t=Iowa+%2F+Illinois&c=24,1041740

[DeaconBlues]

1. Joy!

A few thousand people in a small midwestern state that is totally unrepresentative of the rest of the nation will continue to decide the fate of our party and our country. Don't get more democratic than that.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

22. and Iowa really picked a winner, didn't they?

:eyes:

Wes Clark 08'!

[Yuugal]

2. "growing sentiment within the party to ask McAuliffe to continue "?

WTF? :spank:

[IndianaGreen]

3. Planting the seeds for another electoral defeat in 2008

Gawd save us from small states with big egos!

[janx]

5. Note *this* logic:

“To be honest, most people assumed John Kerry was going to win and then he would do what every incumbent president does, which is select a chair of the DNC. The fact that he didn’t, when people expected he would, kind of left the party unprepared for this transition. I just think it might make sense to ask Terry to stay on for one more year and let this process be a little more thorough,” Crawford said in an interview after the Friday morning taping.

[Yuugal]

7. I'm not a Deaniac....

but I'm starting to believe them when they say the dem leadership will do anything to keep Dean down.

[janx]

8. Ironically, the chaos of the Iowa caucus process allows

party leaders to manipulate anything, really--Dean or no Dean. It doesn't matter who it is.

[Radical Activist]

14. Chaos is difficult to manipulate

That's kind of the nature of chaos. After having been in the caucus twice I'm not sure what you mean by that. It isn't easy to control or manipulate. Iowa voters didn't pick Dean because they decided they didn't like Dean, not because they were manipulated by someone.

[janx]

15. I didn't say that chaos can be manipulated.

Chaos provides the environment in which *results* can be manipulated.

Look at any banana republic for more extreme examples.

Again--and I'll appreciate it if you stop making this about Howard Dean, since it is not--this manipulation can happen to the advantage of any candidate. It doesn't matter who it is.

[Radical Activist]

16. Usually when this comes up

it is about Dean for most people when you get right down to it, or whichever candidate that person supported who lost in Iowa.

I don't see how a caucus is any easier to manipulate than a regular primary voting system. Do Banana Republics use a caucus system or a regular hidden ballot system? Can you give an example of how it would be easier in a caucus system?

[janx]

18. I may seem like an idealist on this one--

but I don't think that the first vote in the primary belongs in a caucus that allows for delegate swapping by the politicians who are supposed to be elected by the people. A straight primary would be a better indication of what the people want as opposed to any deals made before the voting begins.

And I really didn't appreciate the fact that the world watched such wheeling and dealing and crying/hysterics as the first part of the U.S. Dem political process...;-) It was pretty bad...

I appreciate the dialogue that the Iowa caucus prides itself on, but that dialogue, in this case, just looked like hysteria. It was completely frantic in some cases.

[Radical Activist]

25. democracy is messy

The caucus system works more like the ranked or instant run-off voting systems that some reformers talk about. I think it's good to allow people a second choice if their first choice doesn't get much support. It seems more democratic since people have greater choice. In a straight primary system you don't get a sense of who people would choose as a second choice when their candidate loses.

I also like that people are forced to stand up in front of their neighbors for who they believe in. The debate and discussion is healthy since there are so few places where that happens. Real democracy is messy by nature. Whether one likes that or finds it distasteful is a preference based on ones personality.

[janx]

26. Mess is fine. Second choices are fine. We had caucuses in my state.

But the party's using chaos to manipulate the will of the people is not. Anyone who can't acknowledge that it happened is politically naive or willfully ignorant.

[Radical Activist]

27. What exactly happened that you object to?

The Edwards-Kucinich deal? Gephardt and Kerry teaming up to stop Dean? Not sure what you're talking about here. Does this go back to the "because my guy lost" syndrome?

[janx]

28. You can't be that naive. n/t

[Radical Activist]

29. I'm wondering what grand scheme you object to

There are a lot of things you could imagine the party manipulated and I don't know which one you think is the problem. You think the Party apparatus backed Kerry and fixed it?

If you're going to make accusations at least be specific and back it up.

[DemOperative]

31. Many people harbor these notions after a rocky election.

It's normal. There's no reason for alarm.

[DemOperative]

30. There's no need to worry about the party.

There are professionals in place to take care of that. Iowa is always rocky. That's as it should be.

[janx]

33. That's exactly what I object to...

:eyes:

[Pithy Cherub]

37. The "professionals" don't exactly have strong backing

right now for a really great reason - the professionals :boring: are NOT winning hearts, minds or elections!

[Cheswick2.0]

38. Dean Dean Dean

still enthralled with him I see.

[Radical Activist]

39. Do you have a point?

Are only Dean supporters allowed to say anything about him?

[Cheswick2.0]

40. even topics that have nothing to do with Dean become about Dean for

you. I just find it curious.

Iowa with it's open caucus should not be first in the primary system.
MI, PA or IL would be a much better idea.

[Radical Activist]

42. Even forums that aren't about Dean

get ten new posts about how great Dean is every day from Dean supporters, and I don't post on most of those. So what's your point? I also brought up Edwards, Kerry, Gerhardt and Kucinich in this thread. Do you have an issue with that as well? If you only want to hear good things about Dean then stay in the DFA forum or DFA blogs. If you want to come out in the real world get used to people who disagree with you.

Go to this poll and pick one of these two options:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=2165381

Now, am I being "obvious" enough for you?

[janx]

4. That's probably the most unbelievable statement in the article.

I suspect that Iowa Dems, in particular, want him to stay as long as possible. He might preserve their frontrunner primary status...

[Pirate Smile]

20. I'm an Iowa Dem and I sure as Hell don't want Terry staying around.

[janx]

21. Please let these people know!

I'm fond of Iowa; I studied there undergrad and have extended Iowans as family (though they don't live there anymore).

[Radical Activist]

9. Absolutely insane

I can't imagine anyone being happy with that. What a huge mistake that would be.

[rfkrfk]

6. The 48 irrelevant states, should butt-out

attn: non - New Iohampshirians .
stfu

[Radical Activist]

10. Just because your candidate got smashed in Iowa

doesn't mean Iowa should be punished or that the current system is all bad. It seems like that is the main motivation for those who don't like the Iowa caucus. The voters of Iowa were smart this year. Get over it.

[janx]

11. See my post #8.

[Kahuna]

12. Iowa should be puninshed because of their poor track record.

They haven't picked a winning Democrat since Carter. Gimme a break. Let someone else have a shot at it. A state with some urban folks in it would be nice. That would actually represent the party as a whole. In case you haven't realized it, the Dems strongest region is not in the midwest. Let one of the states that truly represents the Democratic party have a shot at it.

[Radical Activist]

13. the Midwest should be a Democratic stronghold

We were once strong there and we need to be strong there again if we're going to win. Maybe having a Midwestern state go first will help us pick someone who can win a large region of swing voters we must attract to win.

[Kahuna]

17. Yeah okay. Whatever. I ain't buying it. But I have no problem..

with you believing what you want to believe. You're talking about "maybe..blah blah blah..." Iowa and NH have a poor track record and must be replaced, IMHO. And there is no logical reason why they should feel "entitled" to go first. THAT'S not democratic. The first states should be rotated.

[janx]

19. I wish we could all vote/caucus on the same day. n/t

[DemOperative]

32. Impossible.

Both in terms of logistics and cost.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Don't states get to choose when they hold their primaries I'M CONFUSED

I always thought that Iowa decided to hold their primary first. And doesn't the GOP do Iowa first as well?

[Radical Activist]

24. Yes and No

States set the date of their primary, but if the DNC doesn't like it they can refuse to seat the delegates from that state. The DC primary for example went first this year, but since they didn't get any delegates it was for nothing but show.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. So what happens when both parties are having REAL primaries

It's really not fair that the RNC and the DNC have to approve of a state's date.

[Citizen Kang]

34. If some people think Iowa....

and New Hampshire are the reasons we didn't win, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands than I realized. It's not Iowa and New Hampshire's fault we had a compacted primary process this time that foisted Kerry upon us. Its the DNC and its short-sighted scheme to shorten the primary process that gave us Dukakis-Version 2.0.

It won't matter who has the first primary as long as we have a system where the candidate is chosen without having to go through a real primary process. Get that through your heads.

[Kahuna]

35. Get THIS through YOUR head...

It's not just this election cycle that is the issue. Why did you ever think it is? :shrug:

[DemOperative]

36. Streamlining the primary process gave us a very strong

candidate. We were armed with a strong military leader with decades of foreign policy and domestic experience. We came very close and got one hell of a lot of votes. I wouldn't be too anxious to dump that process.

[high density]

41. This candidate was so strong he LOST against the worst prez in history!

:eyes:

[DemOperative]

43. Yes. But the process works. Think of it as a kind of aerodynamics.

By the way, you might be surprised at what is coming down the pike in 2008.

[w4rma]

44. Big ego, self-centered LOSERS! (nt)

[Castilleja]

45. Sounds like they are stuck in the mud...

and deathly afraid to get out for fear they will get dirty. Furiously going nowhere.