Praise the Good Lord: Democrats to study possible primary changes.
Within the hour I made the following comment in response to a comment under the post about the Dean had spoken about Cathy Cox running for Governor:
"I have always felt we should let the process work itself through, although I do wish we could get more control and input on how we pick our Presidential nominee other than just the early primaries."
And I am most pleased to post the following AP report from Orlando:
Dems to study possible primary changes
The Democratic National Committee formed a 40-member panel Friday to study whether to shake up the dominance that Iowa and New Hampshire wield in presidential elections.
Former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman and Rep. David Price, D-N.C., will lead the commission that is charged with studying the election calendar and recommending any changes. The first meeting is slated for early next year, with regional hearings planned and a final report due by the end of 2005.
Officials in Iowa and New Hampshire vigorously oppose any changes that would infringe on their status. They argue that their voters are uniquely engaged in the primary process and give candidates a tough vetting, while a national nominating process would focus on large cities and neglect rural areas.
The commission is the result of pressure from two Michigan Democrats — Sen. Carl Levin and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell — who contend that Iowa and New Hampshire lack the diversity to represent the country's interests and that no two states should have such influence on the presidential nomination.
Democratic Party rules require that the two states have the first nominating contests each election year. Victory in those states typically brings momentum that will lead to the nomination, as happened this year when Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., swept both states. Candidates spent much of the early campaign appealing to the interests of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, two rural states where the population is predominantly white.
Outgoing DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who chose the commissioners, was asked if they should change the system. "They better," he replied but added that he didn't want to prejudge the best way how. "The bottom line — put this party in the best position so that we have a nominee and we are ready to go to the general election," McAuliffe said.
The commission is several times larger than the typical government panel. The Sept. 11 commission, for example, had 11 members; the commission studying changes to Social Security had 16. In a conference call with reporters, Price said he wasn't concerned about reaching some consensus with a group of 40.
"It's a rather modest size as Democratic commissions go," he said.
"I have always felt we should let the process work itself through, although I do wish we could get more control and input on how we pick our Presidential nominee other than just the early primaries."
And I am most pleased to post the following AP report from Orlando:
Dems to study possible primary changes
The Democratic National Committee formed a 40-member panel Friday to study whether to shake up the dominance that Iowa and New Hampshire wield in presidential elections.
Former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman and Rep. David Price, D-N.C., will lead the commission that is charged with studying the election calendar and recommending any changes. The first meeting is slated for early next year, with regional hearings planned and a final report due by the end of 2005.
Officials in Iowa and New Hampshire vigorously oppose any changes that would infringe on their status. They argue that their voters are uniquely engaged in the primary process and give candidates a tough vetting, while a national nominating process would focus on large cities and neglect rural areas.
The commission is the result of pressure from two Michigan Democrats — Sen. Carl Levin and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell — who contend that Iowa and New Hampshire lack the diversity to represent the country's interests and that no two states should have such influence on the presidential nomination.
Democratic Party rules require that the two states have the first nominating contests each election year. Victory in those states typically brings momentum that will lead to the nomination, as happened this year when Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., swept both states. Candidates spent much of the early campaign appealing to the interests of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, two rural states where the population is predominantly white.
Outgoing DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who chose the commissioners, was asked if they should change the system. "They better," he replied but added that he didn't want to prejudge the best way how. "The bottom line — put this party in the best position so that we have a nominee and we are ready to go to the general election," McAuliffe said.
The commission is several times larger than the typical government panel. The Sept. 11 commission, for example, had 11 members; the commission studying changes to Social Security had 16. In a conference call with reporters, Price said he wasn't concerned about reaching some consensus with a group of 40.
"It's a rather modest size as Democratic commissions go," he said.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 9:06 PM
1 Comments:
Way to go! That's one of the best things I've heard in a while. There should be a national primary day, like election day. This way the candidates have to campaign EVERYWHERE and EVERYONE gets to pick the nominee (well, that depends on the level of voter fraud).
Joann
Post a Comment
<< Home