Is this the beginning of the end for the Democratic Party?

[MODU]

Tangenting off of our discussions on primaries in general, what are your views/predictions as a result of the following (be sure to read the whole artile first):

"Dems Shake Up Nominating Calendar"

Democrats agreed to shake up tradition Saturday by wedging Nevada between Iowa's leadoff caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the 2008 presidential nominating calendar and adding South Carolina soon afterward.

The addition of Nevada's caucuses and the South Carolina primary to a presidential calendar long dominated by Iowa and New Hampshire is intended to give a greater voice to Hispanics and blacks _ minorities critical to Democrats' success.

Nevada has a sizable Hispanic population while South Carolina has a high concentration of black voters. The early contests in those states will give Democrats more prominence in the Southeast and the Southwest, regions that tend to support Republicans.

(Cont...)

[MasterJedi]

Hopefully it will force the Dems to become more moderate, that way if they win it won't be so bad!

[afleitch]

It gives the Dems some southern exposure which is no bad thing.

[© tweed]

What on earth does the thread title have to do with the article posted?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What on earth does the thread title have to do with the article posted?

^^^^^^^^

[opebo]

I doubt it, but it is certainly a bad idea to abandon the base for pursuit of regions of the country that are backward and religious.  Those sort of people are best written off, because their support cannot be won without losing that of educated liberals.

[TheresNoMoney]

What on earth does the thread title have to do with the article posted?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seems like just another lame attempt by "independent" MODU to take a shot at the Democratic party (like he always does).

[Boris]

Tell me, MODU, since a law was passed in 1977 that stated NH has to be the first primary on the calendar, how many Democratic Presidents has NH voted for? Zero. Even in 1992, when we finally get a winning candidate, it voted for Paul Tsongas.

How exactly would this incur the "beginning of the end for the Democratic Party" if New Hampshire sucks at nominating candidates anyway?

[MODU]

What on earth does the thread title have to do with the article posted?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seems like just another lame attempt by "independent" MODU to take a shot at the Democratic party (like he always does).

I take shots at all parties, thank you very much. 

No, what the title means is, with the threats by the DNC that they will punish any candidates which go to states which don't follow their rules, they will strip them of any delegate votes they receive.  So, states and candidates are now being forced to comply with arbitrary party rules.  So what if the states/candidates refuse to comply?  It might force state organizations and/or candidates to split away from the party.  If that happens, the Democratic party as a whole will lose some influence on the national level, and possible significant loss of influence on the regional level.  So, the title of the thread stands . . . is this the beginning of the end?

[© tweed]

I take shots at all parties, thank you very much. 

No, you don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both major parties have a primary schedule.  Every candidate has to follow them.  Changing a primary schedule doesn't lead to the destruction of a party.  Sorry for bursting your bubble, I really am.

[MODU]

I take shots at all parties, thank you very much. 

No, you don't.

Yeah, I do actually.  I might make more shots at the Democrats, but that doesn't mean I don't hit them all.  You forget (or ignoring), I'm probably the most vocal person for the collapse of the two-party dominated system.

Both major parties have a primary schedule.  Every candidate has to follow them.  Changing a primary schedule doesn't lead to the destruction of a party.  Sorry for bursting your bubble, I really am.

I'm not discussing the change in schedule (we've talked about that before, and I am in favor of it).  I'm talking about the threats by the DNC to punish candidates and/or state organizations who do not abide by the changes.

[© tweed]

I'm not discussing the change in schedule (we've talked about that before, and I am in favor of it).  I'm talking about the threats by the DNC to punish candidates and/or state organizations who do not abide by the changes.

That's clearly just a ploy by the New Hampshire Democratic Party to maintain it's place at the top, an empty threat.  It won't kill the DNC, I promise.

[angus]

What on earth does the thread title have to do with the article posted?

ha.  my first thought exactly.

well, anyway, I think they're experimenting a bit.  Though I think I disagree with MasterJedi's comment, for if the effect is to put more black, hispanic, and otherwise politically ignored groups in greater nominating power, then the democrat party is likely to shift leftward rather than rightward.  After all, it was white, upper middle class clintonistas who dragged the party rightward in the early 90s.  Oddly, such a plan did not spell overarching success for them as evidenced by the fact that after fifty years of control they managed to loose both houses of congress to the Republicans who have pretty much controlled congress since 1994.  Maybe a leftward shift, as a real alternative, is what they think they need.  The democrats, admittedly, do tend to have more interesting nominating conventions than the republicans historically.  At least for the president and vice president candidates.  Also, giving poor and relatively uneducated folks in the southwest and in south carolina early say may have the effect of toning down some of the less traditionalistic rhetoric among democrats.  Clinton, for example, being an arkansas hillbilly understood this well, and twice during his 1992 presidential campaign flew to Arkansas to witness executions of prisoners.  We're a hang 'em high kind of land, and populism seems to be working for the GOP.  Why not let leftist minorities with old-fashioned social mores nominate a presidential candidate.  It's worth a shot for them, given as how their other efforts in 2000, 2002 and 2004 largely failed.  Hell, it may even work.  They probably realize that such a schedule would offend some of the intellecuals of the party, but at this point it doesn't matter to the party since that group is largely ineffective.  That's my take on it.

Of course, I think it's probably not the best game.  The real game is to stick with the issues and hammer Bush and the neoconservatives by getting to their right.  Talk about the huge federal budget deficit and play up the Iraq war big.  Remind folks that a five hundred billion dollar war isn't very conservative, after all.  And avoid the "social" issues as much as possible, or at least try not to come off as so incredibly obtuse and intolerant.  It's a bizarre paradox that those who favor gay rights, for example, come off as more shrill and less open to opposition as those who don't.  That has more to do with style.  Listen to Teresa Heinz Kerry.  She has lots of good advice in this area.  And lock Michael Moore and George Soros in a box deep under ground till after the election.  One's fat, one's ugly, and they're both scary.

Then again, triangulation worked for Bubba, so this scheduling change may be just what they need.  It'll be fun to watch anyway.  For junkies, it's not so much who wins but how long you can stretch the game out.  And these presidential campaigns have become like 17-inning pitcher's duels with 0-0 score going into the 17th.  But without Bob Euker's acrid editorializing and the Village People's YMCA being piped in over the loudspeakers.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Allowing for a greater increased role for african americans and hispanic americans = good.  And considering the demographic changes occuring I'd say this will help not hurt the Democratic party.

Now what will hurt the Democratic party is the neo-con chickenhawk warmongers holding office.

[afleitch]

The 'educated liberals' are aware that the party does not belong to them or is there to privilage them in any way. There are many ideologies cheek by jowl within the Democratic Party and always have been opebo; its up to them to get together with a more united voice. The very fact that a dirt poor family can vote Republican at all levels even when they suffer financially is something the Dems have to adress.

[Democratic Hawk]

The very fact that a dirt poor family can vote Republican at all levels even when they suffer financially is something the Dems have to adress.

Well said . Opebo, of course, I'm sure is quite happy for the Democrats to continue being the minority party on the Beltway. The support of liberal purists, to spell it out, is simply not enough

The Democrats have lost a hell of a lot of ground to the GOP, which is something the party needs to address. The challenge for the Democratic Party is to regain lost ground among blue-collar and rural voters. If they can do that, I dare say the party is back in business

When an overwhelmingly Democratic state, like West Virginia, votes Bush 56 - Kerry 43, something must be going wrong

As for the proposed changes to the primary calender, bring 'em on. It's a step in the right direction

Dave

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The reason the dems are losing is because they deny their elite sdtatus andf attempt to act folksy/in touch with the peasants.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OH NOES, NEVADA GETS TO HAVE A CAUCUS BEFORE NEW HAMPSHIRE'S FIRST IN THE NATION PRIMARY. WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The dmes also need to lock out the anti-imperialist/pacificst types alogn with the socialsits/minority activists.

[Nym90]

The end of the party? Um, no. It's a positive change that will strengthen the party. New Hampshire has no God-given right to the first primary in the country; I don't understand how they can even have a law like that. What if another state decided to pass a similar law? Would the universe cease to exist due to this paradox?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Dems have the oppotunity now to present a viable alternative as opposed to the Republican-lites they have been trying to be.

I agree the Dems have lost a LOT of ground to the GOP - when one Yale educated son of a family of wealth is treated like on of the people just because he saws wood and is inarticulate - whereas another is regarded as brahmin snob because he won't have cheezewizz on a phillysteak - OH MY GOD!!!

I saw an interview with an older lady who said "I could never vote for a rich man to be President" then asked who she was voting for "President Bush". Bush is just as establishment as Kerry if not more so, but the Reps are the better salespeople.