Here is Nichol's article on front-loaded primaries.

[madfloridian]

I often get misunderstood when I say the primary system does not allow the voices of some of the larger states to be really be heard. I have never been critical of Iowans, I have just stated that they have too much power to determine. Even Iowans are capable of being manipulated under certain circumstances. I am not posting this article to defend Dean's loss. I think enough turkeys are making money off analyzing his campaign....in fact the very people who should have been on top of things are making lots of money. I am posting it show my point, that there was no recovery time at all.

This article was written in February of 2003.
"Racing into 2004"
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030217&s=nichols

SNIP..."The speedup is entirely intentional. While presidential primaries in a handful of states were high-profile events in the 1950s and '60s, it wasn't until 1972 that control over the nomination process shifted from back-room bosses to caucus and primary voters. Party power brokers always bristled at the change, which created a process that was long, costly, frequently divisive and prone to empowering outsider candidates like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown and Pat Buchanan. After Republicans collapsed their nominating process into the fast run across Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan that guaranteed the nomination for George W. Bush by late February of 2000 (at a point when Al Gore and Bill Bradley were still sifting through the wreckage of their New Hampshire duel), Democratic leaders decided that they, too, would grease the selection process in hopes of gaining more time for their candidate to shake the money tree before the fall campaign.

Early in 2002, Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe and his allies at the DNC quietly engineered a reworking of the primary and caucus schedule that all but guaranteed the fastest-starting and fastest-finishing nominating process in American political history. Rule changes implemented by the DNC moved the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary dates deep into January 2004--maintaining what Michigan Senator Carl Levin condemned as the "perpetual privilege" of those two small, overwhelmingly white and disproportionately rural states--and then cleared the way for one more "retail" primary in South Carolina, on February 3. With big states and regional clusters of smaller states expected to grab every subsequent Tuesday in February for their primaries, the surviving candidates will then find themselves locked in a high-stakes, big-money-fueled, television-and-tarmac-driven sprint. Within weeks after Iowans straggle out of their midwinter caucuses, voters will choose thousands of delegates to the Democratic National Convention...."

This is NOT about the Dean campaign, it is NOT that Iowans are bad, it is that the system is flawed for a reason. It is a good article. Read it and save it for future reference.

[Protected]

1. If they want the process to be so fast,

then why don't we all have the primaries on the same date? Let's do away with caucuses and convert them to primaries, because the average person has no clue what those are about. I really hate the fact that in today's media dominated world, two states basically get to decide who the nominee is.

[madfloridian]

2. We should have an equal opportunity. Maybe same day.

I am glad someone agrees with me.

[Nicholas_J]

3. It really doesnt matter that much

Iowa and New Hampshire have historically been the two earliest primaries, and whetther they were brought up to January or all of the Priamries retained there original dates. Iowa and New Hampsire would have both been the two earliest places to begin the process for choosing the nominee. They have done so for decades. THe Iowa system is far from flawed, as it is pretty much like the caucus process in most other states that hold caucuses. There are a number of other states that are not primarily white and rural that also to through the caucus process. By and large, this has never been an issue until Dean's loss and the resulting sour grapes that he could not compete in Iowa's caucus process. In fact, when you looks at Iowa, it was a state that with a population breakdown that most closely mirrored Deans own Vermont. Very rural, with a very, very white population. Dean should have had a great advantage there for many reasons, including the fact that he started visiting and campaigning in Iowa eighteen monnths before the other candidates started, so much so that it caused an issue in his own state with people in the legislature compalaining that Dean was spending more time in Iowa than in Vermont for the last year of his term as Governor.

[sangh0]

4. Plus, the rules were the same for all the candidates

I don't see how front-loading the race could be a disadvantage to all of the candidates but one. They are all subject to the same rules and limitations.

[Nicholas_J]

22. And

Dena had much more exposure in Iowa than any other candidate, so he was at a major advantage in that state.

[madfloridian]

5. The system is not equal when the primaries come so early.

When half the candidates have had to drop out before we get to vote in the larger states.

No, it is not equal. My vote did not count in FL. My cousin's vote did not count in CA, and my uncle's vote in NY did not count. They did not count because our candidates were out of the running. Yet it was only March..

[sangh0]

6. That statement makes no sense

"The system is not equal"?????

Equal to what??

[Dookus]

7. I think it means

the "system" didn't elect Howard Dean, therefore it's flawed.

[madfloridian]

8. Not playing games.

I am backing off now. You two continue your conversation about what I mean. I made it clear, so I am backing off.

[Dookus]

9. ok

you do that.

Any time somebody says something less-than-laudatory about Dean, you play the martyr. Do you get stigmata?

MF... if you want to post a thread every time Howard Dean takes a dump, you should expect some push-back.

[madfloridian]

10. "Every time Dean takes a dump?" ! MF the Martyr?

Have I ever hurt you with the posts? Is it a board rule that I can not post info about his group? I was just going to post about a candidate he met with in LA today and had 600 people support her.

But maybe I shouldn't?

Wow, you would think I spent my time seeking out people to insult.

[Dookus]

12. do what you want

I've never said you should stop posting. But if you expect a big hug-fest every time you post a Dean thread, there's probably a better site to post on.

Go crazy - post all you want. I'll respond. Cope with it.

[madfloridian]

17. "Go crazy - post all you want. I'll respond. Cope with it." Your quote.

So what are you saying here?

[Dookus]

19. umm....

I'm saying post away. I won't be silenced by your feigned martyrdom.

I thought it was rather clear, myself.

[sangh0]

31. Well, what *I* am saying is a question

"Equal to what"??

[BuelahWitch]

30. MF you keep posting your Dean news!

I for one am always interested in hearing it. :bounce:

[JI7]

13. yeah, that's why you didn't see this type of post

when dean was leading. the system and the rules were the same for all before they got in the race.i guess none of the candidates had any problem with the system when they got in. but some act as if everything changed unfairly and something was wrongly taken away from them with kerry winning.

[Dookus]

15. exactly

some people act as if the date of the Iowa caucus was a surprise.

[sangh0]

32. Dean's supporters didn't mind if Iowan decided the nominee

when it looked like Dean was going to win Iowa. Many of them spoke with anticipation about Dean's lock on the nomination.

[JI7]

41. isn't that the truth

they had all declared Kerry's campaign over based on the assumption he was going to lose iowa and new hampshire. there was no problem then with that happening. no problem with declarining a campaign over even before the elections took place based on him not doing well in polls in just 1 or 2 states. but once kerry won some act as if there was some injustice. but that's what happens when you view everything based on what you want and then see things that did not go your way as a "problem" that needs to be fixed rather than just accept that not everyone agrees with you and there ARE some who actually like others and it doesn't always have to do with being against the person you like.

[Still_Loves_John]

11. I think what he's saying

is that all the candidates have to deal with that problem. And it's not like all the primaries in the midwest come first, the first primaries are from lots of different regions. If a candidate only had regional appeal and wins Iowa, he still won't necessarily win the nomination, because he has to campaign in lots of different areas of the country. This year, John Kerry got lots of momentum off of Iowa, but that was more the exception than the rule. Early wins do NOT guarantee the nomination, and I'm sure some of our more historically-minded DUers can help me out with some examples here.

[JI7]

14. RIGHT remember Clark and Edwards won Oklahoma and Soth Carolina

but Kerry came back later with wins in tennessee and virginia which allowed him to delcare himself a national candidate. the tennessee and virginia wins were very big for kerry because it made it tougher for his opponents to say he only had appeal among a certain region. but clark who did not run in iowa was still able to get a first place in a non home state and a bunch of 2nd places in the other states.

[Nicholas_J]

24. Early or not

Dean had more exposure in Iowa, anad was better known in New Hamphire than all of the other candidates. Starting them in January favored Dean, as he had far more exposure than any other candidate in Iowa, having visited Iowa more than all of the other candidates put together. And was more known in New Hampshire, in some areas moreso than Kerry. All that moving the primaries further up would have meant was that Dean would have had to drop out a month later.Very few primareis were moved up from their original dates in February, to the very end of January. For Iowa and New Hampshire we are talking about a two week differnce from the times they have been run in the past. same thing for the few other states that moved their primaries. No one moved them up two or three months, we are talking only a matter of a week or two in most cases. If Dean could not survive for an extra two weeks, he would not have made it until the Florida date which was a scant six weeks after the others. The early primaries had nothing to do with your preferred candidate dropping out. THe fact that they were sinply bad candidates who could not make the grade is responsible. I mean after all, Dennis Kucinich, doing rather not well compared to Dean still hund in long after all of the others dropped out. Even Edwards, who had no chance of winning, hung in until deep into the primary season. Dean and the others simply didnt have the will do go the distance. And were weaned out as being unfit to deal serve. Dean, who promised to fight clear up until the convention, Dean with his 48 state strategy, could not keep his own word to his supporters to run until the end. Why, because in a contest of equals, he couldnt pull more than five percent in all of those primaries and caucuses. Translation, he was simply a loser. Everyon else had to face the same caucuses and primaries as Dean, they all were on an equal footing. Dean was the FIRST of all of the candidates to state he was running for president, a full year ahead of everyone else. Sorry, he just could not cut it, and had the primaries been pushed back to their early February dates, Dean would have fared no better. perhaps even worse. Iit was no ones decision to drop out but Deans Blame your inabilty to vote for him on his dropping out and not keeping his word to hang in.

IN the past many other candidates have dropped out before the prmarties were finishedm and n some cases, dropped out before the primaries began. Gary Hart doprred out before the first primary this time, and Kerry himself decided to drop out in 2000 in order to not run against Gore.

The early drop out phenomenon is not limited to the campaign of 2004. It has occured many times in the past even when the primaries were not front loaded.

[madfloridian]

16. It has to do with size of states and recovery time.

This was bolded in my first post:
"I am not posting this article to defend Dean's loss. I think enough turkeys are making money off analyzing his campaign....in fact the very people who should have been on top of things are making lots of money. I am posting it show my point, that there was no recovery time at all."

It has to do with the fact that we should all get a chance. It is a change that needs to be made. It has only been this way for one election.

I can see that very few care, and that is fine. I just posted my view that FL, CA, and NY had very little say. That could have affected others as well.

I have made my points clearly. I recognize what is happening here, and I understand.

[Dookus]

18. there was no recovery possible

he fell from the far-and-away frontrunner to 18%. You could've held the NH primary 6 months later and he wouldn't have recovered.

[madfloridian]

20. Then why is he still making so much news?

I will continue to post about him, his supporters, the candidates he supports, and the organization. I don't see how that should bother you.

Love the picture.

[Dookus]

21. making so much news?

he's not, actually. You just scour the web and post every little article you find about him.

If you go out of your way to find the news, it's understandable that you think he's "making news". I can do the same thing and try to prove that Britney Spears is "making news".

edit: a search of Yahoo News shows that Howard Dean makes 9% more news than Britney Spears.

[madfloridian]

23. I don't even have a response to that.

I don't even know how to answer it.

[Nicholas_J]

26. Post all you want.

After all, even small figures get mentioned in the history books. Dean has had his 15 minutes of national fame, and if you want to hang onto your memories, you are free to do so.

THe possibility of his running again is slim, particularly if Kerry wins and Edwards becomes the heir presumptive. If not Hillary Clnton will more than likely be running in 2008, and Dean did not fare well in any poll where he was placed up against Senator Clinton. It is more than likely that Deans political career is over.

[Dookus]

27. I disagree...

I think Dean is unlikely to run for President again, but I can certainly foresee cabinet-level positions and maybe even the Senate for him.

[Nicholas_J]

28. Dont think that he will be offered anything

In the Kerry administration.

I stated that if he was smart, back in the beginning of his run for the presidency, that he would be smart to try to get a few terms in the senate under his belt, but Dean has seriously offended the DNC and the DLC. MOst of those who supported Dean;s run when they dropped out of the race are under a serious blacklisting cloud from the DNC. I do not thnk Dean will facre better, and no matter how much he can raise from his grass roots supporters, the political machine of the democratic party is an absolute essential to win.

It is very rare that a presidential cnadidate nominates a lot of those who ran against him to cabinet positions. Ususally the most you get is what we have already seen. The candidate selects one of those who ran against him for the Vive Presidency, and then the cabinet is made up of people who held high level advisory positions on hiscamapign staff. WE are more likely to see a bunch of people who most of us have never heard of placed in the cabinet.

[bbmykel]

34. I find this an interesting assertion

When Dean supporters complain that the DNC and DLC were "against" Dean, it is pooh-poohed. Now the same argument is being trotted out by the Dean detractors to argue that his political career is over.

In any case, it's nice to see the Kerryites arguing with the same charm and grace as always.

[WI_DEM]

25. I think Nichols is right

let the people not the press and pundits decide. It is a fact that one candidate gets a great deal of momentum due to a victory in one state.

[madfloridian]

29. Here is an earlier, better article on this.

This explains it a little more clearly than the other article.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020121&s=nichols

Primary Predicament

SNIP..."With little public notice and no serious debate inside the party, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe and his allies have hatched a plan to radically alter the schedule and character of the 2004 Democratic presidential nominating process. If the changes McAuliffe proposes are implemented--as is expected at a January 17-19 meeting of the full DNC--the role of grassroots Democrats in the nomination of their party's challenger to George W. Bush will be dramatically reduced, as will the likelihood that the Democratic nominee will run the sort of populist, people-power campaign that might actually pose a threat to Bush's re-election."

SNIP...."The change, for which McAuliffe gained approval in November from the DNC rules subcommittee, would create a Democratic primary and caucus calendar that permits all states to begin selecting delegates on February 3, 2004. That new start-up date would come two weeks after the Iowa caucuses and just one week after the traditional "first in the nation" New Hampshire primary. Thus, the window between New Hampshire and the next primary--five weeks in 2000--would be closed. Already, says McAuliffe, South Carolina, Michigan and Arizona Democrats have indicated they will grab early February dates, and there is talk that California--the big enchilada in Democratic delegate selection--will move its primary forward to take advantage of the opening."

"McAuliffe's changes will collapse the nominating process into a fast-and-furious frenzy of television advertising, tarmac-tapping photo ops and power-broker positioning that will leave little room for the on-the-ground organizing and campaigning that might allow dark horse candidates or dissenting ideas to gain any kind of traction--let alone a real role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention."

[sangh0]

33. If a front-loaded primary season doesn't work for grassroot populists

then whose fault is that Dean decided to go for a grassroots populist campaign?

[bbmykel]

36. Your statement doesn't even make any sense (n/t)

[Pastiche423]

42. They rarely do

[bbmykel]

35. Would it be possible?

to actually discuss whether the current primary/caucus system serves Democrats well, without all the invective about Dean?

I think there are legitimate issues to address regardless of who won this year. It's pretty clear that the current system leaves a lot of folks in a lot of states feeling like they didn't have an influence. Are there better ways to run the nomination process? Does this current process favor the "machine" candidate versus smaller candidates? It's not clear to me it does but I'm very cynical about any process Terry McAuliffe has designed.

It seems some are satisfied with the status quo merely because their guy won.

[madfloridian]

38. Here is what my first post said, and I agree with you. The system.

From my post:
"This is NOT about the Dean campaign, it is NOT that Iowans are bad, it is that the system is flawed for a reason. It is a good article. Read it and save it for future reference."

[bbmykel]

39. I wasn't referring to your post MadF

I should have been clearer. I was trying to direct it back to the tone of your original comments.

[madfloridian]

40. Thanks.

I figured that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. My state voted June 8

someone has to go last, right?