Tag: Clinton

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

From the about section of the ActBlue page I’ve created:

Despite the self-important screechings of the traditional media, the hurt feelings and ruffled feathers of the primary season are not insurmoutable. Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked to unite the Democratic Party with their rousing convention speeches and gracious support of Obama during the delegate voting process. Now it’s time to reward Hillary for being a team player by helping pay off her campaign debt.

And while we’re at it, lets give Barack Obama, who was equally gracious in victory, the funds he needs to expand the map, create coattails for down-ballot races, and end the conservative governing that thinks that all social issues are due to gays, Atheists, Hollywood, and working women, that the way to solve all economic ills are tax cuts for the super rich, and that war will solve all of America’s international problems.

We’ve noted with glee that Obama is advertising in states like Alaska and Georgia and opening campaign offices in states like Indiana.  And this strategy of expanding the map and out-organizing McCain will yield results in down ballot-races as well.  An Obama get out the vote operation in Georgia helps Senate candidate Jim Martin.  Organizing in Alaska helps make the words “Senator Begich” or “Representative Berkowitz” possible.  

Let this unified party money bomb:

http://www.actblue.com/page/un…

cross-posted from Election Inspection.

The latest Pennsylvania primary polls show a lot of movement towards Obama:

Pollster	Date	Obama	Clinton
PPP	3/31-4/1	45	43
Quinnipiac	3/24-3/31	41	50
SUSA	3/29-3/31	41	53
Rasmussen	3/31	42	47
ARG	3/26-3/27	39	51

Analysis below the flip.

Compared with the previous result from each pollster, all except ARG show a net gain for Obama:

PPP: Obama net gains 28 from two weeks prior

Quinnipiac: Obama net gains 3 from two weeks prior

SUSA: Obama net gains 7 from three weeks prior

Rasmussen: Obama net gains 5 from one week prior, 8 from 3/12, and 10 from 3/5.

ARG: Obama net loses 1 from 19 days prior.

PPP published an article immediately before they released their PA poll today touting their accuracy in prior contests like Texas and Ohio. Looks to me like they’re trying to protect their reputation in the face of the fact that today’s poll and the prior one in the state are major outliers in opposite directions. In other words, let’s discount PPP for now; and ARG while we’re at it, since ARG polls tend to be way off until the final day of the contest. That leaves a spead of 5, 9, and 12, which is right in line with my analysis from Monday suggesting that as things stand today, Clinton would win Pennsylvania by 5-15 points. However, the trending suggests that the race continues to tighten, and if this continues, Clinton will win Pennsylvania by single digits, if at all.

And as I’ve said previously, a single digit win in Pennsylvania will make any suggestion that she could win this nomination sound mathematically ridiculous instead of merely far-fetched. Clinton’s campaign should be in full panic mode by this point, because this is their last chance and it is slipping away.

Election Inspection’s current delegate breakdown: Clinton 55, Obama 48

It’s reached the point in Florida and Michigan where neither remaining candidate in the Democratic Party Marathon is even trying to sound reasonable, much less presidential.  Hillary Clinton is arguing the unsupportable position that the original primaries should count, as originally formatted, even though they were held in opposition to party rules and with the understanding by all candidates  that they would not count.

Obabma is arguing an equally unsupportable position that, because the political powers in the two states (and in Florida, this means the Republican-controlled legislature) broke the rules, the people of two of the largest and most critical states should be disenfranchised with regard to the party nominee.

normboyd40 :: Methinks I Smell Raw Politics: Boyd’s eye View

 

I have two thoughts on this issue.  First, a pox on both their houses. Let the contest go as it is going.  Let them get to the convention, refuse to allow the superdelegates to vote, and nominate Al Gore on the second ballot, with John Edwards as his running mate. (Or John Edwards, with Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson)

Second, stop the stupid squabbling. Hillary – get over it! The original primaries may have seemed like a dream come true for you, but that’s because they were a dream.  In the sense of not associated with reality. Get over it!

Obama, knock off the pontificating.  It makes YOU look stupid when you talk to us like WE are stupid.  Of course, you would love to ignore two states that may just vote for your opponent, but don’t stand there, as “candidate for all the people, all the time” and then say the millions of Dems in these two super-sized states can be ignored. Your camp says “There are serious concerns about security and making sure that everyone gets to vote”.  But then you say that the better alternative is to simply guarantee that nobody gets to vote.

So, both of you are exposed for just what you are.  Typical machine politicians ready to do anything at all for a victory. Yes. it is true, I will still vote for one of you, if that’s how it ends up, but only because the alternative is unthinkable. No longer will I be able to cast my vote proudly and happily for someone I see as a great American and a potentially great President.  No, I will be voting to end the Bush years, to avoid the Bush Lite ascendancy, and get us out of Iraq and back into the rule of law and reason.

A plausible solution for Florida and Michigan has been waved in our faces by a Democrat who, quite frankly, isn’t the most progressive or most loyal to Democratic causes, Sen. Bill Nelson. He would like to tweak the system to favor his candidate,  naturally enough, but that can be dealt with. Florida and Michigan have enough big money Democrats to finance this do-over as a mail-in primary.  Don’t tell me the US Mail is less trustworthy than Dieboldt Corporation. We can do this.  We can do it fairly and efficiently, and we can get a nominee. If not, go back to my first scenario and draft either Al or John.

Oh, and Gov. Dean?  May we humbly suggest going back to winner-take-all primaries next cycle?  God, I hate it when the GOP is more competent that we are.