Unite or Prolong?

Today Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post asks if it's better for Democrats to campaign to the end, or is it hurtful?  David Broder wrote on Sunday in his piece entitled "The Price of Delay" that it's hurtful.  Clearly the public angst wants this over with as it seems like the primary jumped the shark a long time ago.

The elongated primary process is helpful in that it is allowing Democrats to build an organization in nearly every state.  However, Senator McCain wrapping-up the GOP nomination in March puts us at some disadvantage because he is campaigning without being challenged at the moment.

But that doesn't change the fact that Democrats have begun talking to rural and small town voters again, as well as registering new people in droves.  All of which will be extremely helpful in the fall election.

What we are essentially getting right now is something that Americans have asked for over and over again: a primary process where all states get to participate.

Whereas a national primary is a horrible idea (it favors the candidate with the most money and name recognition, and could produce a nominee who only garnered 30% of the vote), there are a couple of alternate proposals out there which I blogged about on April 1st.  These alternatives are the Rotating Regional Primary plan offered by the National Association of Secretaries of States and the "American Plan" offered up by someone out of UC Berkeley.  I like the NASS plan myself.

 

Comments

[eagleye]

4 new superdelegates for Obama today -

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/12/121235/800/405/514199

[Dan]

Sorry, Mr Super, but I have to agree with Broder on this one. I think this primary should come to an end soon, either this week or right after May 20. By that point, most of the states will have voted, so the "building the party" argument becomes moot.

Remember that Puerto Ricans can't even vote in November. And the deadline voter registration in South Dakota is May 19.

And anyway, it's not as if Obama's field organization in MT and SD will simply close up shop; they'll continue to get out the vote right through June 3, even if Clinton drops out before then.

[Chris O.]

I don't think anyone should listen to David Broder. That said, a more compressed primary schedule would really be helpful. Those six weeks between MS and PA was just not beneficial at all.

I like the Rotating Regional plan, but we shouldn't have to still bow down it Iowa and NH if we do it. Instead, let a small state or two in the region go before the others. That way you still get some grassroots campaigning, but it wouldn't just be about corn all the time.

[Joe]

Do you think that Obama will be able to get over the top after Oregon?

On another note, with 'jump the shark' and a mention of Natalie Portman... you're a Slashdotter, aren't you? You'd almost have to be.

[Truth]

The longer Obama doesn't have to go face to face with the Republicans the better. He needs a serious tutorial on the details of the issues; most notably the economy. His views here are enough to make people on the fence switch to McCain (or stay home or go 3rd party). We all know it will be about the economy come November.

Obama needs to sharpen his economic skills or his winning the nomination will be meaningless. If the Republicans give a simple primer on the capital gains tax, Obama will lose even more EV's. Joe claims to be an ex-Republican, so go ahead and tell them that Obama not putting to rest the thought of doubling the capital gains tax sends shivers down the spines of those worried about the economy. JFK would not be amused.

The $1,000 middle class tax credit is anything but.
1. It is just a fancy name for an EIC, but more complicated
2. If you don’t fill out your W4 correctly (or amend once passed), you will not see this credit until tax time if you even catch it (most won’t).
3. If you don’t have children, you will not see this $1,000 ($500 max per taxpayer if you actually read it).
4. If you make too much money (which means lower middle class) you will not get the EIC
5. If you make too little money, you will have already paid too little taxes to see the full $500 … see the loophole here?

It is sad because most Obama Supporters actually think they will get $1,000 more from the government (which is your money to begin with). A very narrow margin of people will actually see this “Making Work Pay” affect their lives. I’ve even heard some say it was made to combat gas prices (Obama did suggest this, which was deceptive).

If Obama is serious about the middle class and stimulating the economy, he would:
1. Let the capital gains tax go back to 20% max. It seems to be the magic number that balances investment with federal revenue.
2. Reinstate the top 3 Clinton era tax brackets. This would actually encourage investment to keep money in the capital gains area, which stimulates the economy
3. Lower the 10% & 15% tax bracket (I’d make it 0%) so people can more easily jump to the 25% tax bracket.
4. If he is too afraid of the lower tax brackets, dramatic increase in the Standard Deduction. Brackets are better for those smart enough to itemize, which I’m sure most Middle Class people do.
5. Make good on his Social Security Tax cap raise (although he proved he doesn’t even know what that cap amount is in debates), but drop the 6.2%/6.2% to 4.2%/4.2% so it encourages payroll expansion (wages or new jobs) by lowering the labor burden to employers.
6. Allow 401(k) plans to be taxed at the long term capital gains tax rate to further encourage retirement savings along with economic investment.
7. Bolster the Office of United States Trade Representative to enforce trade rules that are already there.

Obama can’t be caught saying things like “Social Security cap at $97,000” in 2008. He can’t sound so out of touch on actual tax cuts and capital gains.

Automated IRS tax returns sound great, but I’ve helped quite a few people with the IRS telling them they owe $300,000 in taxes only to get them a refund. I wouldn’t trust the IRS to do my taxes. What happens if the IRS figures your taxes lower than they really are (think debt forgiveness), will the IRS take responsibility for its mistake and not hold you responsible? If you think yes, you don’t know the IRS.

Until Obama takes the economy seriously, he won’t get my vote (or many people just like me). Side note, matching his health care plan to Clinton or Edwards would also be an indirect help to the economic well being of the lower/middle class.

Before you ask me if I have read Obama's Blueprint for Change, ask yourself if you actually have and understand it.

[Blame]

A modest proposal.

Why not have the delegates chosen by lottery from democratic supporters? The lucky winners get to be locked in a small room and bombarded with propaganda by the candidates. Then those who survive hold a caucus and chose the candidate.

But wait, this doesn't take into account the importance of campaign contributions. OK. put 40% of the delegate spots on eBay, all proceeds to the democratic party election fund.

A plan with no downsides. The results should be just as valid as the current system, faster, and cheaper to run.

More important it is humane, at least for the rest of us. No doubt we could work out an aftercare package for the delegates. Modern psychiatry can do wonders.

[=j]

It depends on the tone of the campaigns. If both campaigns are focusing on voter registration and GOTV activities, more contested primaries are a good thing. If we have a 'kitchen sink' campaign from one or both sides, the party overall will suffer from the division.

That said, the race seems much quieter over the past week relative to the run up to PA and IN.

[John]

What "public angst" is there for the primary/nomination process to end that you write about? Majorities of Democratic voters want both candidates to continue AND also for Obama to choose Clinton as veep. There is angst among the chattering class (Broder et al.) and the hard-core Obama supporters, but not among the voters and the nominal Obama supporters.

From USA Today/Gallup poll released today (source: The Page):

–55% of Dems want Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate.

–35% of Democrats say the New York Senator should drop out, while 55% say both should stay in.

[Nathanael Nerode]

You know what I really want to happen?

I really want a national primary conducted using *approval voting*.

This means: each person votes up or down on each candidate. The candidate with the most up votes -- the most "approval" -- gets the nomination.

This avoids all the problems with multiple candidates "splitting the votes" and stuff like that. It guarantees that the candidate will be approved of by more primary voters than any other candidate.

I don't see how to reconcile this with the arcane system of delegates and a national convention, unfortunately.