January 29, 2006

LET'S SEE, FRITZ GOT 41% AND BILL GOT 43%:

Under the radar, Clinton for president? (David D. Perlmutter, 1/30/06, CS Monitor)

The Democratic National Committee will vote in February on whether to accept a recommendation by one of its special commissions to insert one or two new first-tier caucuses and new primaries based on "criteria [of] racial and ethnic diversity; geographic diversity; and economic diversity including [labor] union density."

On the assumption that she were to run, this change could prove to benefit a 2008 Clinton presidential campaign by positioning "safe" Clinton states immediately after Iowa and New Hampshire. As history attests, Bill Clinton established himself as a front-runner even after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992 by winning Southern states with huge African-American Democratic bases. Similarly in 1984, Walter Mondale's campaign was saved by victories in Georgia and Alabama after Gary Hart's strong second place in Iowa and upset win in New Hampshire.< /blockquote>
Is the Democrats' big problem really that they haven't been sufficiently co-opted by special interests that differ from Red America?

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 29, 2006 8:44 PM
Comments

"Primaries based on . . .racial. . .'diversity'."

Now there's a PLAN! You do that, lefties. It makes such perfect sense. Set up some kind of Nurenburg Law, Loni Gueniere system for your primaries to positively ensure that your candidates are not the ones best suited to stand before a non-quota electorate in the general election.

After the "Assault" "Weapons" "Ban" this is the second best idea you've ever come up with.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 30, 2006 10:54 AM

The current primary system doesn't necessarily select candidates that are viable in the general election, so shaking things up could improve their selection process, even if by mere chance.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 30, 2006 11:13 AM

This is too good to allow one to sit back and watch.

The primary system fails when is allows the extreme fringe to exert disproportionate influence by virtue of committment. That committment allows a wing of a party to win a nomination but is so diluted by greater numbers in the general election as to fail utterly. Just think 1964.

The Democrat proposal would insitutionally cement that disproportion. "Diversity," used this way, being a code-word for "quota."

This is an excellent proposal, from our point of view.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 30, 2006 2:12 PM
« "THE BEST MONEY YOU CAN INVEST": | Main | SHIFT? THAT DOESN'T COME UNTIL STEVENS STEPS DOWN: »