Democrats Make a Presidential Shift, Opting for the Money Primary

Foxnews.com ^ | 23 August 2006 | Susan Esrich

[YaYa123]

Question: How do you increase the influence of minorities and working people in the selection of the next Democratic presidential candidate?

Answer: Add Nevada and South Carolina to the first two weeks of the schedule.

That’s what the Democrats voted to do this week, and supposedly they did it to make the process of picking a candidate for president in 2008 more representative of the diversity of the party. But watch out. If a few decades as what we call a “rules junkie” has taught me anything, it’s to watch out for unintended consequences. And this rules change has that old story written all over it.

[YaYa123]

You never know when Susan Estrich speaks or writes if she's spinning for her side, or accurately describing the subject at hand. This article is interesting. It reminds me of how Democrats tried to "game" their primaries in 2004 by moving them to earlier dates to establish an early winner. They wanted to save money for the general election and prevent in-house cat fighting among the wannabees. The 2004 "unintended consequence" Estrich fails to mention, which clearly hurt John Kerry, and the Democrats' game plan, was the emergence of Howard Dean. And if not for Dean's Scream, he just might have been their candidate.

The good thing about Democrats is they never learn from their mistakes. Last time around, their gameplan gave them Howard Dean. Unintended consequences this time around could be even more disruptive to their plan. An early South Carolina primary could give a symbolic but meaningless win to Jesse Jackson, and an early far west primary like Nevada could generate interest in New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson.

[Caipirabob]

That is, to a large extent, what happened in 1976. The candidate that year, Jimmy Carter, went on, of course, to be elected president. But for the last 30 years, Democrats have worked hard to change the rules so that what happened in 1976 will not happen again.

Uhm, I would summarily state that this is what each and every American around back then has been trying to prevent.

Very interesting article. I think it will suffice to say that any effort to incorporate the opinions of minorities by the rats is simply theatrics. The party candidate will be most likely be determined by the radical left of the group. If it is Hillary, it will be because she threw them enough red meat while whispering "I'm a moderate" to their center. That may not even matter because whoever has the most "Soros Dollars" will get the most play in the primaries.

In the end, the dims will ignore their minorities as they always do. They will dismiss their pleads and cries with a casual wave over their shoulders..."That's nice, now go wash my Lexus" and carry on.

[YaYa123]

You wrote: "...incorporate the opinions of minorities by the rats is simply theatrics. "

I couldn't agree more!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003211798_dems20.html

This link shows how black politicians are hard-selling this slight of hand maneuvering to minority voters. As 2008 nears, I look to see Hillary and Bill return to their Amen corner, hand-clapping black church roots to maintain their mind control over their most gullible voter base.

[visualops]

After what she wrote the other day about crossing the border I concluded she's even more of a scatterbrained flake that I'd previously thought. That said, the Dems fiddling with the primaries shows they are desperate and aren't interested in developing good candidates. Having several primaries early in the year moves alot of campaigning to 2007 and I tend to think the farther they move activity from the actual election the higher the probability for people getting saturated and disinterested, and them nominating a poor choice.

[tlb]

There are no unintended consequences in this move. It's well thought out to diminish the power of the liberal northeast yuppies of the sort who listen to Air America and voted for Lamont over Lieberman. The minorities of the south and southwest are more likely to remain loyal to the Clinton mystique without applying an Iraqi litmus test. An effective primary challenge to Hillary has become that much harder.

My guess is that minus the effectiveness of the moveon.org/ANSWER/Kos revolt over Iraq this change would not have gotten beyond the talking stage it's been stuck in already for years.

[LS]

Rush's take on this---and I think he's right---is that if they give the south and west more influence early, it will badly hurt She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Do you really think South Carolinians would elect here in a primary?

[Joe Boucher]

Hopefully by moving up the South Carolina primary(which hass a high percentage of blacks) it will give the candidacy of Al Sharpton a boost.
Would love to see Mr. Sharpton in a power position in the UnAmerican democRAT party.

[YaYa123]

You wrote, "There are no unintended consequences in this move."


In the link I provided, note Bill Clinton opposed the change, (to keep Hillary in favor with New Hampshire Democrats), while Alexis Herman, a member of his cabinet, was credited with making the change happen. Once again, the Clintons come down on both sides of an issue.

Maybe you're right, maybe Howard Dean was forced into accepting this pro-Hillary Clinton maneuver. If so, he and the "moveon.org/ANSWER/Kos" wing of the party have to be pretty ticked off. Which practically guarantees "unintended consequences".

[YaYa123]

I momentarily forgot about black Illinois senator, Obama. He's already being touted as presidential material, and no doubt will do well among South Carolina black voters.

[Joe Boucher]

Don't thinnk he will get into thei frey. Will bide his time till next go around or be a v.p. nominee.
He while being a new darling of the dems is a big too new.