Kos and the Primary

A starting point (4.00 / 2)

Would be Kathy Sullivan's statement to the DNC when they were considering changing the nominating calendar. I saw it on C-SPAN around the 2006 state primary election, and it's probably in the online archives. She pointedly addressed the problem of frontloading.

New Hampshire doesn't deserve to be a scapegoat for a broken system, and I think DailyKos is as good place as any other to make a good case for preserving our state's first in the nation primary. As involved NH Democrats, we need to do more to persuade Democratic activists in the rest of the nation to our position.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:34:37 AM UTC

Here's my post (4.00 / 2)

on dKos, last November.

Intended to be a fairly comprehenive look at the issues regarding the calendar.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:24:56 AM UTC

Excellent diary. n/t (0.00 / 0)

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:27:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it sucked. (4.00 / 3)

If it had been titled, Whiny NH Blackmails Nation AGAIN!!! it might have been front-paged.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:31:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

still... (0.00 / 0)

Your diary was a very good discussion on the issues involved.  We could resurrect parts of it for this effort.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:38:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now, (4.00 / 1)

don't have a hissy fit.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:39:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll repost my comment there: (4.00 / 1)

Thank you Elwood (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
  LithiumCola, nonnie9999

For the best discussion on the issues involved with the Primary Scedule i've ever seen on the Dailykos.

This is a very complicated issue, one i think is over-simplified on this site.

Many Kossaks focus almost exclusivly on the lack of diversity in NH.  While this is a good point, i think it ignores the other issues involved.

I was there, elwood, but your diary didn't get the attention it should have.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:34:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah ... (0.00 / 0)

Like probably the most diverse population according to income in the country, for one point!

Politizine.com

---

by: Tony Schinella @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:31:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is something we should hammer (0.00 / 0)

your point on frontloading:

Less seasoning of the eventual winner: pitching weakness doesn't become apparent until the playoffs

Had the primaries been more spaced out we would have seen Dean go a second round with Kerry, and the sickness with his stuffy responses might have hit before the big states voted.

The other point -- the national stage for more months -- reminds me of Hodes vs. CSP. I remember being amazed that 2 years of campaigning didn't bring Hodes the name rec that CSP's primary victory did. And not only a victory -- the media was full of her stance on the war, because it was a point of difference. The debate, as long as it doesn't give aid and comfort to Hannity, is good. Jackson chasing Dukakis gives Dukakis more airtime than Dukakis going through the motions -- ok, not the best example...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:45:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even the framing would have changed (0.00 / 0)

A Dean or Kerry gaffe would have triggered "That's the sort of slip-up that could hurt him down the road - be watching for that" instead of "Is this the end of his candidacy?"

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:08:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Incidently (4.00 / 1)

Living in the 2nd Congressional District, I didn't know who Carol Shea-Porter was until people got upset with the DCCC for backing Jim Craig. Then, at the state convention, someone asked Sen. Russ Feingold what his thoughts were on an element of the national party endorsing a candidate ahead of a primary. As I recall, he was against it, because he wasn't the establishment favorite in the US Senate primary in Wisconsin that he ultimately won. The overwhelmingly postive response of the delegates indicated to me that I'd better know damned sure who Carol Shea-Porter was, because she had the base.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:28:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think we'd look like whiners (4.00 / 2)

That's what they want to see.

Rather than defend the primary by talking about why New Hampshire is the best place, I think the best thing is get historical. The most vocal people against the NH primary on DKos are generally those whose sense of its history goes back to the Dean Scream and no further.

By get historical, I mean show things like how we pushed Gary Hart when the rest of the nation went with Mondale and lost the worst ever. Also how the DLC tried to use frontloading southern states to gain power (and how that backfired when Jesse Jackson showed up). We could also do something about what effect a brokered convention would have, and how superdelegates fir into that mathematically.

Most of these people od DKos that are vocal can't be bothered to crack a book or browse wikipedia, their sense of right comes from what they feel was a betrayal of Dean.

I think we have to stop talking about retail politics though, and start talking about myths. Myths like the nominee in New Hampshire always goes on to win the party nomination, or that the primary here is somehow more relevant to Republican demographics. I think If we could address the myths one by one, that might be a more fruitful approach....

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:32:37 AM UTC

My summary from dKos (4.00 / 3)

I posted this late last November in the futile hope of giving the discussion of the nomination process a bit more light and less heat. NHCD thought it might be helpful here...

Let's move up 30 thousand feet from the usual "Should state X be scheduled earlier?" discussion. In this diary I will try to set out the constraints on what we could do as a party and suggest some criteria for evaluating different models. In short: let's understand what we are trying to accomplish, first. I will use an FAQ format.

Disclaimer: I live in New Hampshire. Discount my perspective as desired.

1. Who controls the primary / caucus calendar?
   The primary date for each state is determined by that state's laws.  There is no national law establishing a calendar.
   
2. Does the Democratic Party have any influence on the primary calendar?
   Yes. The national Party establishes its own guidelines for when it hopes states will schedule their primaries. It threatens to refuse to seat state delegations if their state ignores these guidelines. For example, a state that scheduled its primary for late 2007 would risk having no convention votes.

   But this threat is a blunt instrument. The Party will be very reluctant to disenfranchise an entire state - especially when voters in that state may retaliate by voting against the Democrats. And the early smaller states - Iowa and New Hampshire - are influential because of press attention, not because of the relatively tiny number of convention votes they control. If the Party tried to force these states to schedule their primaries later, the two states would almost certainly ignore the mandate, have the primary, and lose their voting delegates.
   

3. Besides the pressure from the political parties, what other factors does a state weigh in choosing its primary date?
   There are a lot of factors:
   • Most states want to pay for a single primary for both parties - not separate dates for the Democrats and the Republicans. So, each party has some voice in the date selection.
     
   • Many states also prefer to combine the Presidential preference primary with the primary for state offices (e.g., Governor).  That also saves money. (New Hampshire's primary for state offices is held in the fall, about six months after the Presidential vote. That is an extra expense the state incurs in order to maintain its position.)
     
   • Presidential primaries involve national campaigns injecting themselves into state political organizations. Some state organizations welcome that new blood; some want nothing to do with it.
     
   
   
4. With this de-centralized model, it's surprising that the current system works at all. Is there any logic to it?
   Yes - we'll talk in a moment about how well it works, but there really are some plausible principles that underlie the current model:
   • Long-shot candidates deserve a hearing
     
   • A huge campaign warchest should not guarantee victory
     
   • We should balance voter passions and voter views of electability
     
   • We should provide a challenging but not fatal shakedown cruise for the candidate
     
   • We should give the candidate a national stage in preparation for the general election
     
   • We should give a voice to every American
     
   • We should give a voice to every group within the Democratic party, roughly proportional to its role in the general election
     
   
   
5. Okay, that's the logic: but does it work?
   I think we do a pretty good job on the first three points. Kossacks and others generally get exercised (fairly) about the last two. But I would highlight the fourth and fifth points as well. Frontloading hasn't impressed me in terms of providing a good shakedown cruise, or in terms of a national stage.
   
6. Frontloading? What is that?
   Howard Dean's predecessor at the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, deliberately encouraged states to shift their primary dates so that a likely nominee would be selected sooner.  This was partly the result of delegate counts, but also the result of eliminating affordable contests after New Hampshire. When candidates face a Super Tuesday, they had better have a big bankroll.

   Instead of a play in five acts of three scenes each, McAuliffe preferred a quick theater experience - two acts, then a chance to rest, regroup, and plan a fall campaign. Those goals are real advantages of front-loading. But the disadvantages include:
   

   • Disenfranchising most primary voters and party constituencies, because the nominee is a foregone conclusion before they vote
     
   • Putting greater emphasis on a candidate's ability to raise money, rather than the ability to motivate voters
     
   • Giving up the national stage that is available in a four-to-six month contested nomination
     
   • Less seasoning of the eventual winner: pitching weakness doesn't become apparent until the playoffs
     
   
   (As you can tell, I think that front-loading has been a terrible idea. I welcome the comments of people who can knowledgably defend it.)
   
7. Could it possibly be any worse??
   Much worse, IMHO. Here are several other models and their likely results:
   
   • Schedule a couple of big states (California, Texas) first. Likely result: Only those candidates with the strongest ties to the biggest lobbying organizations even start the race. The race is over even more quickly; a different set of states is made entirely irrelevant.
     
   • A single, national primary. Likely result: again, only the candidates with the biggest warchests even enter.
     
   • Three to four more early caucuses, like Iowa and Nevada. Likely result: greater influence for the most active politicos (who attend caucuses), less weight given to the average voter.
     
   
   

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:52:20 AM UTC

SURE, blame me for the massivly long comment... (4.00 / 1)

But it is relevant.

I like the whole thing. I think the voice you use is perfect.  It fairly presents the whole issue.  I like the FAQ format.  I like how you discuss the other popular solutions offered for the problem.

Now, WHY didn't it get the attention?  Was it the Title? A common problem of mine is picking a good title.  Was it because Kossacks don't want to discuss this issue? 

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:58:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

SOOO (0.00 / 0)

I think elwood's diary is a good starting point... what else should we cover in it?

anyone... anyone... Bueller?

Also, I think a good, sufficiently provocative title is: Why KOS is wong on the Primary Scedule

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:13:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One thing I didn't discuss (4.00 / 1)

Is just what a fricking joke caucuses are. Spend the whole damn evening playing some strategy game instead of walking in, voting, and going home to dinner. THAT'S a process designed to enfranchise the poor and minority communities.

Exercise for the class: pull together the numbers on voter participation in Iowa vs. NH.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:19:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I fear discussing Iowa's caucus (4.00 / 2)

coming from NH, but I have to say: I watched a caucus location on C-SPAN in Iowa in 2004.

That was the most insane exercise I've ever seen in politics.  People running from room to room being harangued and misinformed by others, social pressures and daggers for eyes everywhere.  It was truly a sight to behold, and mob mentality played a big role in it, IMHO. After watching it, I redoubled my appreciation for the secret ballot of a primary vote. 

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:27:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was watching c-span too (4.00 / 2)

on caucus night, and was horrified- the literal strong arm tactics, the high school like cliquey poularity syster- people yelling form chairs- Kucinich voters to Edwards--

It was painfully obvious how a party establsihment candidate with lots of connections to influential people would win-

All I could think of was how a whole lot of people would definetly not want to be announcing their prefernces in such a public way.

Being a strong Dean backer at that time, I did not feel good about things.

---

by: Kathleen O'Donnell @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:46:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rough Numbers: (0.00 / 0)

The Office of the Secretary of State put out a pamphlet walking all about the NH Primary, and it had a lot of statistics.  I read it in the library...

Voter participation in the NH Primary is about 85%.  I tossed that number around when I was on that kos thread.

I could look it up and source it, if I had to...

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:28:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice defense of our state (4.00 / 1)

NHcollegedem, you are all over that board... How many recs would we need to get a diary to on the rec list?

FWIW I just posted this over there, I was a bit flippant in the first paragraph in an attempt to get some attention.

You are giving us too much credit

Yes, I love being politically active person in NH. I love the fact that I have met Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh 2x, and was part of the Obamafest in Manch in December. I easily could have spoken with Biden, or Warner but was either out of town or tired of speaking with candidates. Kucinich will be in town next Saturday but I will be busy at a school warrant dilbrative session, so I will not be able to meet him.

despite all of the excitement of this thread, in 2004 NH  only controlled 22 of 2162 delegates needed for nomination so in actuality NH had ~1% say in who the nominee was.

It's to bad that all energy and vitriol for my state is not directed to the media, talking heads and the pundacracy that wants to anoint an early king/queen when only 1 or 2 % of democrats have shared their opinion.

Ironically, I think the other states are giving up their power by try "to be heard" and moving their states calendar. If everything is bold, nothing is bold.

In the words of Dylan...
No, no, no, it ain't me, babe,
It ain't me you're lookin' for, babe.

Head on over there if you want to jump on the thread.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:56:31 AM UTC

Re: Rec List (0.00 / 0)

Getting on the rec list has to do with two things; the number of recommends, and the speed at which recommends come in.  If we timed when we posted a diary, and a bunch of us came right as it was posted and recommended, we MAY get on the list.

This, of course, coming from a kossack who has never gotten on said list. 

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:03:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can we get it direct to front page? (0.00 / 0)

What if Bill Gardner were to write a post?

Or MissLaura to post on our behalf?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:09:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

I would never ask MissLaura to write this.  She decides what to write for herself.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:51:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right, I was just trying to think of an example (0.00 / 0)

of how we could get it on the front page and not fall by the way side.

I was actually thinking of the Mike Gravel, Real Maverick thread when I suggested MissLaura. That was as good an example as any in defense of our primary.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 04:59:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Testimonials (4.00 / 1)

What about the possibility of using the actual words of the candidates in support of the Primary in the proposed diary?

We have quotes from any number of the candidates who have gone through the Primary expressing support for New Hampshire's status.  Rather than a New Hampshire voter "whining," we will have the "experts" chiming in.

Great one liners at the end or the beginning with a line something like "You don't have to believe us, just listen to what the candidates have to say."

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:54:04 AM UTC

Turnout: Primary v. Caucus (4.00 / 2)

Here are the numbers from 2000, when both parties had contested nominations. NH source, Iowa source.
Party turnout is votes / party registrants; voter turnout is all voters over all voters (this time including Independents):

	NH	Iowa
Democrats	211,708	562,979
Republicans	286,244	582,455
Independents	285,645	657,155
Dem Votes Cast	156,862	60,760
Rep Votes Cast	239,523	87,666
Dem Turnout	74%	11%
Rep Turnout	84%	15%
Voter Turnout	51%	8%

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:39:14 PM UTC

Oh, and delegate counts (0.00 / 0)

Iowa had 57 delegates at the 2000 convention, New Hampshire had 29. So we turned out 2.6 times as many voters in the candidate selection contest, and got half the representation.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 13:55:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very interesting. (0.00 / 0)

Those numbers certainly demonstrate the power of the primary over a caucus system.

I wonder what the general election turnout figures in each state show.  In other words, does having the primary affect the general election turnout in a more positive way?  I am going to check out your sources, Elwood, but you might have the answer on the tip of your fingers.

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 14:03:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

General election 2000 (0.00 / 0)

Iowa: 1,315,563
NH: 578,656.

Not much difference: 74% of registered voters in NH, 73% in Iowa. And note that the state procedures for purging the checklist may vary widely, making turnout comparison suspect.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 14:11:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks. (4.00 / 1)

One difference between the two states is that Iowa went narrowly Republican and New Hampshire went narrowly Democratic.

Close states
Wisconsin, 0.38%  Blue
Iowa, 0.67%  Red
New Mexico, 0.79%  Red
New Hampshire, 1.37%  Blue
Ohio, 2.11%  Red
Pennsylvania, 2.50%  Blue
Nevada, 2.59%  Red
Michigan, 3.42%  Blue
Minnesota, 3.48%  Blue
Oregon, 4.16%  Blue
Colorado, 4.67%  Red

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 14:39:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is a very telling chart. (0.00 / 0)

Hard to argue for a caucus with those numbers.

I know NH has an engaged citizenry, but I don't think you can blame the amazing lopsidedness on that alone.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 15:32:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We really have to think this through (4.00 / 1)

Here's the problem. People say they want the best system. They don't, except maybe people in NH.

Others want a system that will produce their candidate as the nominee, or a system that gives props to their state.

So we can argue this and be 10 times as intelligent about it as anyone else, but here's what it comes down to: If NH had produced Dean as the candidate, Kos would have loved NH. It would have been Iowa is stupid, caucuses suck, thank God the primary system in NH produced Dean and corrected the error. Love live the primary.

But that didn't happen. We "rubber-stamped" Kerry, according to him. That's historically inaccurate, and ignores the reasons why some people were willing to give that scream more credence (don't beat me up -- I'm just saying I was here, kos is ahistorical here -- there were other things shifting on the ground)

OK, second point. My best guess is the reason why Kos is going after it now is he thinks it will produce HRC as the nominee. Which is ironic, because what is actually going to produce HRC as the nominee is CA jumping queue... which is a result of mucking with the schedule. Which we told them last year.

So as with the DLC shenanigans in '88, which produced a Jackson-Dukakis race and left Gore in the dust, the DKos grand plan is crap. They've just dug the hole deeper and deeper (apologies HRCers -- not animosity here -- just saying money becomes more important each day, and money = DLC and != what Kos wants).

So to wrap it up: we talk about theory, and what makes the best primary but that's not the argument going on in people's heads. Half the arguement is just Kos's Rikki Lake show he's running on this, which just likes something to kick around. And NH will do.

But I'm guessing the rational side of it is all about Kerry and HRC.

I don't know how to deal with that on this site. I'm not a big HRC fan, but I don't want to post and say hey, have us first because that's your only chance of beating HRC.

Yet that is precisely what the real argument is about. Until you solve that, no one will listen.

Anyway, my thoughts. I'd like to advance the argument that a strong NH primary with less frontloading results in a stronger challenge to Hillary. I'd like to do that without tapping into anti-Hillary discussions or getting branded as a rabid anti-HRCer.

If anybody knows how that might be possible, let me know.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 17:24:16 PM UTC

I have no illusions about changing Kos' view (4.00 / 1)

He is completely immune to logic and data on this, and he enjoys stirring up a hornets' nest.

But the activists on the site who are actually thinking about how the Democratic Party should operate, and how to position it better to win, may pay attention to the minority postings.

And IMHO, if Senator Clinton doesn't come out strongly and effectively against the war very quickly, New Hampshire will be her toughest challenge in the emerging primary calendar.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 17:42:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't frame it about HRC (0.00 / 0)

Frame it about fair elections.

This isn't about HRC, its about the process.  Frontloading the process ensures that a candidate will need much more money to be competitive in the primaries.  It also means a candidate has to spread themselves thinly to reach all the voters, so candidates with really high name recognition are at an advantage.

THIS time, the candidate who can strong arm their way through a front loaded process is HRC.  Next Time, it could be Hitler McSatan.  We don't know.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 17:44:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, we've talked about that for a year now (0.00 / 0)

And the attacks just get worse and more vulgar.

So it's not working.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 18:13:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure that's it. (4.00 / 1)

It certainly wouldn't be a rational response, since Dean's troubles began in Iowa, before the "scream."

IIRC, Kos has in-laws in NH. I wonder if that is in any way related.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 18:36:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right about the scream. (0.00 / 0)

Dean peaked a hair or two too early; the scream was a media assassination, enjoyed all the more fully because they were on to the fact that he had been trending downward (culminating in the loss in IA).

And I dare say you may be right about HRC, or a candidate of similar $$$ and connections.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 20:30:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mind-Reading (0.00 / 0)

It looks like you have decided to engage in mind-reading: Everyone says they want the best system, but they really don't. Markos says he doesn't like NH-first on principle, but he would have loved it had Dean won. And his opposition to NH now is because he's afraid it'll produce a Hillary nomination.

What's so wrong about this sort of mind-reading is that you are attributing bad faith and bad motives to people without evidence.

If I were to do the same to you, I'd say that you are unhappy or even angry to see your favored first-in-the-nation status bashed on the front page of a prominent blog in a way that you think is unfair, ahistorical and on the intellectual level of Ricki Lake. So you've decided to explain this phenomenon by attributing bad faith to the people who oppose NH-first.

But I won't. I don't like mind-reading, and I won't play that game. However, I will say that if you want to advance the ball and have a productive discussion on the primaries, accusing flatlanders of acting in bad faith is not the way to do it.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 18:43:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

David, (0.00 / 0)

I agree in principle -- but not in this case.

There have been dozens and dozens of DailyKos diaries examining the candidate selection process: the history of frontloading, the effect frontloading has on pre-empting campaigns, the constraints on building the ideal calendar.

Kos has completely ignored all of this analysis.

He has embarked on a personal, ill-informed vendetta that puts him in league with the DLC and others who prefer quick annointment of the beltway favorite.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 19:10:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which comments of Markos's (0.00 / 0)

Would you cite to support the claim that he "prefers quick annointment of the beltway favorite"?

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 22:00:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re-read. I didn't say that. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 22:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You wrote (0.00 / 0)

He has embarked on a personal, ill-informed vendetta that puts him in league with the DLC and others who prefer quick annointment of the beltway favorite.

So he is in league with "the DLC and others who prefer a quick annountment of the beltway favorite." Usually when Person A is in league with Group B that prefers Outcome X, it is fair to say that Person A also prefers Outcome X (in this case, "quick annointment of the beltway favorite").

This sentence could also be taken to mean that Person A shares the same tactics, but not necessarily the same goals, as Group B. This is not the first reading that would come to my mind (as evidenced by my earlier comment), but both readings are valid. Of course, only one is right.

Whatever my misapprehension, it does not come from a failure to read properly, but rather the ambiguities inherent in the English language.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 23:34:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope. (0.00 / 0)

If I had meant, "Markos wants a quick annointment" I would have said so.

To spell it out: by strongly endorsing frontloading, he is promoting the effects of frontloading.

Every analysis I've read (maybe I'm wearing blinders, educate me) says that frontloading favors early favorites with lots of money.

That is Senator Clinton in this race.

Ergo, he has joined forces with people who want a quick annointment of Senator Clinton.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 02:42:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, fine (4.00 / 1)

I'm not even disagreeing with you on the merits, but I do not appreciate the fact that you chalk up my misunderstanding of what you wrote to a lack of reading comprehension on my part - and then go on to maintain that my perfectly reasonable apprehension of what you wrote was unreasonable... simply because you say didn't mean it that way.

What you wrote was open to more than one interpretation. That's English, and that's life. I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but I didn't do so because I'm an idiot.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 03:38:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Point taken, but you ignore the history (4.00 / 3)

My point was that we have tried to talk about this in good faith for a year.

I'm not expressing a long held conviction here. I am expressing what a year of attempting to engage people on the issue in good faith has left us with: Nothing. Not even a reasoned response. The only response we have gotten is that we are acting in bad faith, so we should shut up.

This is after a year of keeping to the high road.

Markos has been the king of the bad faith argument on this for over a year. How else can you classify arguments made by our Governor and Representatives as "hissy fits", and concerns about retail politics as thinly veiled "whining" that we want to go first?

I know that you engage the issue in good faith (or at least I assume you do) so I hope you don't feel I'm going after you.

But it doesn't take a mind-reader to see that when EVERY argument that NH raises is dismissed by Markos as a thinly veiled power grab that that is the frame in which he sees this issue. There's nothing psychic about it. This is the level it is being discussed at, with only a thin veneer of theory splashed on it.

What I'm saying is our engagement on this issue has been a joke. We've made fools of ourselves by arguing abstract principles.

People from New Hampshire get on the comment thread and say we have this or that participation rate, or show that caucuses have generally produced less competitive candidates, or that historically New Hampshire has preserved dark horse candidates, and that before front-loading New Hampshire generally forwarded 2 to 3 candidates, not just the front-runner. And people on the thread say, quit whining, you've lost your precious primary, and now you're just throwing a hissy fit because your state misses the money. Too bad.

Markos makes those comments as well, both in posts and in the thread.

So if you want to talk about mind-reading and attributing motives, talk to Markos. We are quite ready to have a real discussion about the strength and weakness of the NH primary the minute someone is interested in doing that. But with every post, Markos shows he's not really interested in that. With all due respect to you (and I really do mean that) you and I both know it doesn't take a mind-reader to see that.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 20:16:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stopping HRC. (0.00 / 0)

It is clear from reading the last few postings that it is all about figuring out a way to stop Senator Clinton while you trip over yourselves trying to find a way to please Kos.

Bestowing a particular candidate with the Netroot crown strikes me as being eeriely similar to a DCCC or DLC cornation to which you so strongly object.

Good luck and may the best candidate win!

---

by: gradysdad @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 19:24:54 PM UTC

Absolutely Not, gradysdad (4.00 / 1)

Its about ensuring a PROCESS by which any candidate, even a lesser known one, who has the best ideas and will be the best president will win.

This is not about any one candidate.  This is not about ensuring that hillary will win or won't win.  That is precicely the point of our exchange above.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 19:30:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's really not (4.00 / 2)

Half my earlier post is qualifiers and apologies. I state multiple times I want to avoid even the appearance of dissing HRC. And I have very little desire to "please Kos", believe me.

What I'm doing is uncovering the real debate here. We have been saying for a year the multiple reasons why the NH Primary is good in theory, and has been good historically.

The blogosphere as a whole has not responded to that because they think that New Hampshire will nominate Hillary. And they are pissed about Kerry.

So nhcollegedem wants to get their attention and I'm saying they don't hear us because they are arguing self-interest, not process.

We can either show them how they are sabotaging thier own self interest or quit arguing. Doing what we are doing has no effect and is worse than useless.

I brought this up publicly because I know there are HRC supporters on here, and I wanted to know how they would react. Now I know.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 20:54:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Generalization, maybe? (0.00 / 0)

The blogosphere as a whole has not responded to that because they think that New Hampshire will nominate Hillary. And they are pissed about Kerry.

You presume to know the hearts & minds of the blogosphere as a whole? Come on. Be fair.

I've always favored an alternative to the present primary system, before Hillary and before Kerry.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 18:35:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Not responded to" != "supported" (0.00 / 0)

My experience has been that legitimate arguments for the pre-frontloading current system have simply been ignored. In general opponents have not engaged.

What I think Mike is asking for is not simple acceptance of Our Greater Wisdom, but an honest discussion of the issues involved.

That certainly is not happening on the DailyKos front page.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 19:21:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am willing to hear out (0.00 / 0)

And discuss all sorts of arguments about why all sorts of primary systems are good and bad.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 22:08:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Start (0.00 / 0)

here.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 02:45:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, come on. (4.00 / 2)

Slog through the sludge of comments on any Kos-led New Hampshire hate fest. I don't think you'll find enough individuality there to merit NOT making broad generalizations.

Point taken, the Daily Kos FP is not the be all end-all of the blogosphere. And to the point you don't participate in that crap, I certainly don't mean to tell you why you believe what you believe.

I'm sure you and the people on this site are quite capable of having a reasoned discussion.

But I'm not going to feel bad about making broad generalizations about mob behavior.

The last post was TITLED "The New Hampshire Hissy Fit". That's not a comment in it. That was its title.

It referred to Representative Jim Splaine, who posts here and has been a tireless advocate in this state for progressive reform as one of the "self-important egotists who want to hold the nominating process hostage to their own whims".

This is the Representative that stopped by a couple days ago to discuss the pros and cons of including independents in the process w/ the same-day deregistration, and said that New Hampshire's SoS could keep the primary first, but that keeping it relevant by constantly reevaluating what works and what doesn't is everybody's job.

This is Kos's "blackmailer" that he cites on the Front Page. He makes $200 a year as a Rep, yet he co-authored some of the most progressive gay-rights legislation in the country and got it passed under Republican rule. He will talk to anybody for hours about the finer points of running a relevant primary.

So while I have the greatest respect for your knowledge in this area, you're lecturing the wrong people about good faith. Whatever Kos's opinion, what does with this issue is truly offensive. My comment merely recognizes that when we try to argue this issue on the FP we are participating in a farce.

If you can really read through that page and see some higher discussion in there, you've got more mind-reading skills than I do.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 21:57:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

That is not the kind of rhetoric I like, and a sort I personally rarely, if ever, use.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 22:09:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know (4.00 / 1)

And I don't mean to unload on you. In fact, I'd love to get you to post something on the primary here -- while we have the occasional hothead you'd get a good discussion. And I have a lot of respect for your analysis.

I seem to remember, for example, you betting big on a little noticed race last fall. That worked out rather well, I think ;)

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 22:42:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sometimes (4.00 / 1)

You just gotta go "all in". :)

But, in all honesty, I actually don't have a strong opinion on what the primary calendar should look like. I know that I don't like front-loading, and I think the first state (or states) should rotate. Beyond that, I have a hard time evaluating the merits of specific plans.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 23:38:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great idea (0.00 / 0)

I don't have anything to add on the substance in the diary, but I am a kossack.

My impressions of getting on the rec list are that you're exactly right. Time is of the essence. Diaries compete with each other so there's no fixed number of recs that gets you up on the list. I've seen diaries get on the list with 12 recs and other days, I've seen diaries fall off the recent list with as many as 40 recs.

I read a diary about rec'd diaries over there. Some of the conclusions, based on stats: it takes on average one hour to get rec'd; no time of day is better than another time.

I think that early morning is the best, 7:30 - 8:00 AM ET, because you're not competing with possible breaking news diaries that early in the morning. I also don't recommend Monday morning, I think that more diaries come out on Mondays because bloggers often take the weekend off.

Good luck and let us know here the night before when you get ready to try the big orange. You have the same name over there, right? I think I've seen some of your stuff recently.

---

by: mbair @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 14:36:48 PM UTC

PS (0.00 / 0)

I never get on the rec list either.

---

by: mbair @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 14:37:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (4.00 / 1)

A frequent problem with the community, and there is no way to eliminate this, is that more known diarists get recommended because of who they are and NOT what they write.  I'm guilty of this too; I'll always recommend a Bob Johnson diary.

I usually write weekly, or a few times a month... so even If I have a well written diary about a topic that hasn't been covered on DKos, I can't get it recommended.  I have had a few diaries that have been rescued, however, most recently my diary on the NH Senate '08 race.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 16:00:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For those of us (0.00 / 0)

Who have been around DailyKos long enough, there have been plenty of excellent, thorough discussions of the primary calendar in the past. Chris Bowers at MyDD has also written on the topic at length.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 18:33:03 PM UTC

I'm not going to get in the middle (4.00 / 1)

of a good debate between two people I respect greatly, but I have had a number of things swimming around in my head pertaining to this that may merit noting down, in Elwood-Nietzsche epigrammatic:

? Having invested more time, money, and support than I had beforehand for Dean, only to watch him lose in Iowa, caused me to resent Iowa and its caucus until I later learned that the Dean campaign was tanking before then.  I wonder how those who were building a 50-state DFA campaign felt and feel about NH after he lost here.

? DailyKos is Markos' blog, so he can say whatever he wants, however ill-informed.  I write ill-informed things all the time.

? One of the distinctive traits of dKos is that, on the one hand, Kos sometimes cultivates an authoritarian tone, while on the other, the blog is the textbook example of a community blog, and I don't know of too many people whose main purpose for visiting dKos is to hear what he has to say.  Yet, sometimes the former, I feel, creates a "Kos said it, so it must be our new cause" reaction (despite his repeated assertions that the blog is not about him but about the community). His repetitive flogging of NH is one example.

? The problem with the primary as I see it is not IA or NH but Terry McAuliffe and his calendrical skills.  Terry McAuliffe is now a strategist for Hillary '08.

? This comment really made me sit back and take notice:

Primaries are a Progressive idea from NH (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
  Republic Not Empire, kittania

NH has the first Primary in the country because they had the first primary ever in the country. It was a Progressive innovation (in the 1930's I believe) to counter the "big party machines" that determined candidates in the past.

Everyone seems to think that the US always had primaries, but in the past, party bosses made the decisions on who would run.  NH's innovation of the primary changed that.  NH is the originator of people powered politics.

And you want to kill that...

? Lots of people make money in NH off of the primary.

? Lots of people in other states will make money off of their early primary or caucus.

? I don't think Peter Burling makes any money when he hosts candidates at his home.  In fact, I bet the opposite is true.

? When I sit in Peter Burling's living room and watch a candidate connect with a member of the community, who then goes back to her social network and tells everyone her firsthand impressions, and then I think that candidates were once chosen in smoky backrooms by oligarchs, I smile and think of the comment quoted above.  Money can't touch that kind of connection.

? The influence of 24-hour news media lessens the influence of New Hampshire's choice, especially when combined with lousy front-loading.

? A "rock-star concert event" with a candidate in NH is a contradiction in terms.  If that's what were moving to, we might as well give the primary up to some other state.

? Sec. of State Gardner is not to be faulted for ensuring that a state law be obeyed.

? Sec of State Gardner may be faulted for confusing "primary" and "caucus".

? Retail politics is a fantastic thing with a lousy name that by definition can only be done on a small scale.

? Elwood says somewhere that Reagan is the only candidate in recent memory that didn't do any small venues in NH.  That should tell us something.

? Some states have Disneyland. Some have big cities.  New Hampshire has maple syrup and the primary.  I'm not sure politically-invested critics of it understand that its place  in the state is larger than politics.  It's a defining feature of the culture of this state.  I didn't understand it when I moved here, but I understand it now.

? That NH lacks diversity, while true (except for GBLT), is a much smaller factor vis-a-vis the primary than it is made out to be by critics.  I came from an extremely diverse state and never knew more than a handful of civic-minded people.  In NH (perhaps due to the primary, or due to our huge state house, our to our fiercely autonomous towns, I don't know), I have been consistently struck with the level of information on politics (right or left leaning) local and national.  The lack of diversity does not necessarily imply racism or xenophobia (look at Obama's recent reception).

? In purely Machiavellian terms, the current political climate in NH in 2007-2008 (indigo blue, with one very vulnerable senator) creates conditions very favorable for Democratic candidates, and conditions very unfavorable for Republican ones.  If we care only about a Democratic president in 2008, we may want to hold off on this discussion.

? This debate is already pointless for 2008, since the candidates have already started coming, and they're not going to stop.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 23:46:14 PM UTC