Jim Clyburn & Harry Reid want to blow up the Democrat presidential primary process, other want a Rust Belt primary, others want to eliminate caucuses

[basquebromance]

i like the idea of a Rust Belt primary. but i think it's tragic that different formats result in different outcomes. the outcome should be the same, no matter what

Dems could dethrone Iowa

The party, uncomfortable with the overwhelmingly white state's sway, is thinking about blowing up its presidential primary calendar.

www.politico.com

best excerpts from the article:

Reid said he and Clyburn had spoken several times about the timing and possibility of both states going at the same time. But, the former Senate Leader said, he would be comfortable with South Carolina taking the lead, if necessary

“I’m not going to arm wrestle Jim Clyburn,” Reid said.

But there’s already pushback to the idea of challenging the traditional order. New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley said adding multiple states at once would mean a TV-driven campaign, supplanting the intimacy that comes when an individual state is the sole focus of all the campaigns.

“People have been kicking around that flawed concept for decades,” Buckley said. “Only the self funders or celebrity candidates would be able to compete. Without question, that plan would have prevented JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden from ever being nominated. It would make having hundreds of millions for slick TV ads more important than one-on-one conversations with people. That idea should stay in the trash can of discarded ideas.”

When told Buckley referred to the concept of consolidating early state contests as flawed, Reid shot back, “I think he’s flawed to think that’s a bad idea,” and dismissed the idea of candidates not visiting the states as “baloney.”

“South Carolina rescued Obama. If Obama had not won South Carolina, he would never have gotten the nomination. It’s that simple.”

Pennsylvania is another state that might see its status change. There has been talk of Pennsylvania, Biden’s birthstate and a critical battleground, voting earlier in the calendar along with similar Rust Belt states.

Sharif Street, vice chair of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party, said that after the primary last year he spoke with other state parties about creating a "Rust Belt primary” in which multiple Midwestern states would vote during the second week of March. He said DNC leadership at the time did not oppose the idea.

Jim Zogby, a longtime member of the DNC, said, “I have always been a fan of the Iowa caucuses. I remain a fan of the Iowa caucuses.”

He called the idea of consolidating several states for the first voting day a “horrible" idea: “If you do Super Tuesday the first day, then the guy with the biggest money wins."

 

[MarcATL]

They don't want a real populist like Bernie Sanders to rise organically so they're going to try to force their will on us.

But will they succeed?

 

[San Souci]

They don't want a real populist like Bernie Sanders to rise organically so they're going to try to force their will on us.

But will they succeed?

Since Bernie is a filthy Communist ,who cares. The ONLY Populist was Trump.

 

[Gdjjr]

Since Bernie is a filthy Communist ,who cares. The ONLY Populist was Trump.

According to what I saw- bernie was the democrat populist over hillary-

 

[Dragonlady]

They don't want a real populist like Bernie Sanders to rise organically so they're going to try to force their will on us.

But will they succeed?

I would never vote for Bernie Sanders, even though I like what he stands for, and would normally be inclined to voted for him, and I think he's a bad example. Sanders is not and has never been a member of the Democratic Party, except when he runs for President. To me that tells me he doesn't play well with others, and if there's one thing you need to be able to do to effectively govern, it's the ability to build a strong loyal team around you, WITHIN THE EXISTING SYSTEM.

To me the situation isn't that the party don't want a real populist, is that they DO want a real Democrat who has a power base WITHIN the party. Had Sander stayed IN the Democratic Party after 2016, he might have changed Democrats view of him, but he didn't.

What about a viable third party holding a substantial number of seats sufficient to ensure bi partisanship? I'm a fan of Minority governments because they have to compromise and work with other parties to get anything passed. Of course under parliamentary government, if the government loses the "confidence of the House", and their bills are defeated, we have an election in 41 days, and that's not an option for you.



.

 

[MarcATL]

I would never vote for Bernie Sanders, even though I like what he stands for, and would normally be inclined to voted for him, and I think he's a bad example. Sanders is not and has never been a member of the Democratic Party, except when he runs for President. To me that tells me he doesn't play well with others, and if there's one thing you need to be able to do to effectively govern, it's the ability to build a strong loyal team around you, WITHIN THE EXISTING SYSTEM.

To me the situation isn't that the party don't want a real populist, is that they DO want a real Democrat who has a power base WITHIN the party. Had Sander stayed IN the Democratic Party after 2016, he might have changed Democrats view of him, but he didn't.

What about a viable third party holding a substantial number of seats sufficient to ensure bi partisanship? I'm a fan of Minority governments because they have to compromise and work with other parties to get anything passed. Of course under parliamentary government, if the government loses the "confidence of the House", and their bills are defeated, we have an election in 41 days, and that's not an option for you.



.

I can respect this view.

However, the current system is setup to keep outsiders out, like the outsiders you were suggesting.

It's simply not possible.

So, like Bernie attempted to do, and was almost successful, until Obama had him jumped, he was using the system to redo the system.

Someone else who's smoother will do it next.

Hopefully AOC.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would never vote for Bernie Sanders, even though I like what he stands for, and would normally be inclined to voted for him, and I think he's a bad example. Sanders is not and has never been a member of the Democratic Party, except when he runs for President. To me that tells me he doesn't play well with others, and if there's one thing you need to be able to do to effectively govern, it's the ability to build a strong loyal team around you, WITHIN THE EXISTING SYSTEM.

To me the situation isn't that the party don't want a real populist, is that they DO want a real Democrat who has a power base WITHIN the party. Had Sander stayed IN the Democratic Party after 2016, he might have changed Democrats view of him, but he didn't.

What about a viable third party holding a substantial number of seats sufficient to ensure bi partisanship? I'm a fan of Minority governments because they have to compromise and work with other parties to get anything passed. Of course under parliamentary government, if the government loses the "confidence of the House", and their bills are defeated, we have an election in 41 days, and that's not an option for you.



.

I can respect this view.

However, the current system is setup to keep outsiders out, like the outsiders you were suggesting.

It's simply not possible.

So, like Bernie attempted to do, and was almost successful, until Obama had him jumped, he was using the system to redo the system.

Someone else who's smoother will do it next.

Hopefully AOC.

I like AOC, a lot. Her questions in during Hearings have been sharp and revealing. She's prepared, gets right to the point, and does so without ranting, grandstanding, and hissy fits (yes Jim Jordan, we're talking about you). But when you coming from a position of facts, and data, and you aren't trying to obscure the truth with a big show of outrage, it's easier to do it quietly without all the drama.

Katie Porter is my favourite of the "new girls", but she's more a traditionalist. A student of Elizabeth Warren's. I'm sorry they took her off the Finance Committee. What a HUGE mistake. She brutalized those smug assholes from Wells Fargo, and made Mick Mulvaney look like a condescending liar who thinks the rules don't apply to him. Oh wait!

Republicans have been trained by the billionaire media to distrust both the MSM and government, now put their faith in corporations and the private sector - the economic sector whose primary goal is to separate consumers from ALL of their money, all while providing the least in return for the dollars spent.