Have the DNC set the schedule.

First four remain the same.

Mandatory 3 week break.

6 More moderate size states.

Mandatory 3 week break.

10 More moderate size states.

Mandatory 6 week break.

All 30 states on the same day.

Advantages.  Built in cooling off periods.  Candidates are winnowed more slowly.  With majority of delegates available on last day, there is no presumptive nominee.

Disadvantages.  What is a moderate size state?  Cash becomes more crucial after 2nd break more so than momentum.  National primary means candidate might fare well in unber states, but poorly in rest of country, making gen election harder.

Any state that deviates from the plan will have no delegates seated at the convention.

Also, no super delegates can commit until after national primary.

Maybe on paper, but historically the DNC Chair has been some combination of corporate fundraiser in chief and lap dog of either the President (if same party) or other elected leadership.

Now Dean has broken the mold to some degree and claimed some independence in ways that have the Rahms of this world with their skivvies in knots, but dropping the whole baby in Dean's lap is not quite fair.

There are maybe 10-20 Democrats in this country who have the power to knock heads together and make this mess go away. Dean is one, some governors are others, and certain majority leaders in the House and Senate are also out there. But it is not entirely clear that this is a mess that needs to be cleaned up.

The traditional argument against a bunching of early primaries is that it prevented challengers from getting their message out in favor of well-funded frontrunners. But is that really totally true in the age of the netroots? Over the last four years we have shown that message can precede money and even generate it. A lot of ground is going to be plowed before the first doorbell gets rung in New Hampshire and the advantage will not necessarily go to the candidate who has proven credibility by raising money early.

To the extent that Hillary or Barack use their money to establish ground operations early on well the better it is for local Democrats, but realistically they can't start media buys too early without risking burn out of the electorate. Things have flip-flopped, it isn't all about getting some good writeups in the Des Moines Register or the New Hampshire Union Leader to get some donors to return your calls.

Retail politics used to be limited to Iowa and New Hampshire. Now there is a blogosphere and your ability to get your message out is limited pretty much by the appeal of your message and your willingness to push it.

Its too late.

And I don't say that to be cynical. I just don't know what Dean could possibly offer these states when its such a sensitive issue and much of the anger on all sides is justified. It's a perfect debate because small states and big states, and whole regions can argue that they are ignored with authority.

Even if Dean had something substantive to offer, it would be rewarding those who dared to oppose the party's schedule, fueling further efforts.

I hope I'm wrong. Somebody please convince me otherwise.

I'm fairly uninformed and am playing devil's advocate a bit, but:

If you want to identify the athlete on your team who runs the fastest marathon, you have them all run a marathon. You see who's fastest. Ta da! You don't make them run sprints, and do the javelin toss, and pretend the winner of those competitions is your best marathon runner.

I'm aware that the fear of a national primary is that the person with the most money and name-recognition (Hillary, in this case, my personal third-least-favorite Democratic candidate) is thought to have a tremendous advantage.

However, 1) is there any evidence that these advantages hold steady through a national primary? Is it true that 'dark horse' candidates couldn't emerge before a national primary (flogged by the press for the excitement of the horse race, and slipping through the massive attacks against the frontrunners unscathed)? 2) How often does a candidate with low name recognition and meagre warchest going into the first primary win the general? How often does a candidate with a high name recognitin and large warchest gonig into the first primary win the general?

I don't know what the solution is, but at the moment we choose a presidential nominee though a system which is quite unlike the system through which we chose an actual president. Seems odd, at least in terms of efficiency. And I'm genuinely unsure if the fear of the Dominant Frontrunner is justified, or just common sense that could be entirely wrong.

I would like to see this primary election turn into a big mess.

It would shake up the media narrative which is probably the biggest problem with the race in my opinion.

Probably too late now, but here's what I would do if I were in charge:

11-Week primary season.

Week 1: NH and IA
Week 2: SC, NV, DC, and a state to be selected at random.
Weeks 3-11: 5 states per week, selected as follows:

• the two smallest states left
  
• then, the two closest states left (defined as the percentage of the popular vote separating D and R candidates in last presidential election)
  
• finally, one state to be selected at random

What this would accomplish:

• creates a balance between preserving "retail politics" and maximizing the number of states that have a true say in choosing the nominee
  
• helps prevent the nominee from being "coronated" too quickly...the bulk of delegates are saved for the later weeks
  
• no "Super Tuesday" means no states are stuck going after "Super Tuesday"
  
• the calendar would be re-calculated every four years using the same process, preventing the current "mess" while also giving states that went last previously some hope of going earlier next time

There are rational solutions, but this is a hybrid matter, it's not only the Party that has a say, it is State Governments also.

I strongly favor having a few retail politics caususes and primaries at the front end of the process so that it isn't only the biggest money candidates who have any chance of winning the nomination.  But the front end should be diversified more.  Personally I think Washington DC should be added to the front end.  It is compact and candidates lacking big money could pull off an effective ground game there without it.

Then I would love to see a 2 week break to raise money and reorganize, followed perhaps by rotating regional super primary days interspersed with a few of the biggest states weighing in, perhaps they should rotate also.  One Presidential election Califronia would go before New York, the next New York before California, and so forth.

I think a sane fair system can get designed, the trick is in getting it enacted.

Dean has got to do something, even the nuclear option -- follow the rules (and hopefully new ones), or we don't seat your "delegates."

I believe that threat was already used against NH if they tried to move up over Nevada.

The only way to solve the problem for THIS year is to say that any state that violates a pre-defined DNC schedule (whatever that is) loses its delegates. If he really wants to get around the frontloading problem, he should restore the old 2/3 rule, which would make it almost impossible for anyone to win on the first ballot via the primary route - especially if all the states voted around the same time period - as it now appears.

If he wanted to get wacky, the DNC could also rule that any candidate that runs TV ads will see its delegates unseated at the convention. That would certainly get around the "frontrunner" problem, now wouldn't it?

This reflects why Will Rogers said he was not a member of an organized political party; he was a Democrat.

Personally, I like the idea of a primary, caucus or convention held the same date in each state, with the state providing delegates to the national convention in the same proportion to the tabulated votes in that state.  At least each state would feel that they participated and didn't have a candidate forced down their throats.

Practically, the only thing that Dean can do to enforce the desired calendar is to threaten to strip state parties out of compliance of ALL delegates, not just some, as has apparently been threaned in the Florida case.  Turning unauthorized primaries and caucuses into meaningless straw polls is the only real weapon the DNC Chair has.  Since this will obviously piss off state parties, and potentially hurt general election chances in swing states, there is little chance the violaters can be brought into line.

Sorry to be a pessimist, but although primary reform is badly needed, it will be difficult to get there.

It's the media war, not retail politicking, that elects Presidents nowadays.  Let's see a national primary where a couple states don't have disproportionate influence over who our nominee is.  

So far, it looks like CA, TX, FL, IL, MI, and NJ might be a part of Super Early Tuesday.  Seems like a great idea to me...

I just don't see the DNC being the primary cause of this mess. It seems like the state parties are all behaving pretty selfishly, more focused on being first rather than creating the best nominating process.

When that is the mentality of the state parties, what kind of a solution could Dean have come up with that would have pleased anyone?

One of those states that changed positions to become an early primary state is Nevada. And it is holding an early event for candidates.  SO :

WHAT IS OBAMA THINKING?

The first important gathering of Democratic presidential candidates in an early primary state will take place on February 21sr in Carson City, Nevada. The Forum is sponsored by the Nevada Democratic party and the municipal employees union.

Senator Barack has elected not to participate. His campaign manager, Dan Pfeiffer, said that the Senator could not work this event into his itinerary.

Candidates Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and others managed to clear their schedules to attend the Forum. It is the first opportunity to meet with their rivals on the campaign trail. For Obama to skip this event seems just short of madness. Absent an absolutely overriding reason, fully explained, many prospective voters may wonder whether Senator Obama is not ready for such a confrontation or thinks that he is above the fray.

For someone who favors Obama, having read both of his books, this decision is most disheartening. For a candidate new to the public eye, who expresses his wish to bring his message of change, hope, and consensus to the nation, to miss this early opportunity makes us wonder about the wisdom to be expected during his campaign.

from Homer at  www.altara.blogspot.com

But this was utterly predictable once the primary calendar was allowed to be altered, there would be no end to altering it.

My comments have probably disappeared and maybe I made them at dkos, but I said this was a pandora's box.  It would result in an accelerated primary calendar, which would be detrimental to the darkhorse, small monied challengers that progressives could be behind.

I was in Iowa in 2004 and it really was a place where retail, small, thoughtful, let's build the  momentum candidates could emerge.

Adding more states, just makes money even more important and that fvors candidates who have access to money.  

Even the netroots needs real, small retail events to find if there are other candidates out there than the big name, big money ones.

    There are 48  other states which would like participate in a meaningful way in the primary. IA and NH have done their best to block any meaningful rescheduling and that just hurts everyone. There are other small states which could substitute for the first two. How about Montana or Delaware or CT? States like Michigan, New York, California and Illinois also deserve to have some influence over the process. It's time to move IA and NH to the back of the line. Besides, I hate the caucus method of selecting delegates.  

States like Florida and California make a strong argument that because they're more ethnically diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, they would produce candidates that better reflect the country's diversity. I know that in Florida, the idea of moving the primary date forward is a major priority for Cuban-American House Speaker Marco Rubio of Miami (R).

On the other side of this whole debate, this makes small states much less relevant in deciding presidential elctions, where at least they play an important role in the primary.

Regardless, this could be a huge boost for candidates able to raise huge sums of money and with high name recognition (like Hillary and maybe Rudy???). It's going to cost a lot of money to introduce yourself to a state with 16 million people. I don't see how candidates like Dodd, Richardson, Biden, etc. will be able to compete.

What about a lottery for a few slots at the beginning? and more DNC funds to states that have later primaries?

Divide the states into 4 bins, corresponding to about 30 million general election voters each.

Bin 1: states with 3-9 electoral votes
Bin 2: states with 10-15 EVs
Bin 3: states with 17-27 EVs
Bin 4: states with 31-55 EVs.

Week one, reddest (by percentage) of Bin 1.
Week two, bluest of Bin 1.
Week three, bluest of Bin 2.
Week four, reddest  of Bin 2.
Week five, reddest of Bin 3.
Week six, bluest of Bin 3.
Week seven, bluest of Bin 4.
Week eight, reddest of Bin 4.
Week nine, rest of Bin 4.
Week ten, rest of Bin 3
Week eleven, rest of Bin 2.
Week twelve, rest of Bin 1

Advantages:

1. start with small states, which allows less well financed candidates to emerge.
   
2. rewards activists who did especially well.
   
3. allows accurate answers to the questions about who appeals to conservative voters.
   
4. Gives non-swing-state voters a chance to make a difference
   
5. Gives swing state voters relief from constant political advertising.

If put in place for 2008 (which, of course, it won't be), the first eight states would be:

UT, DC, MA, IN, FL, IL, NY, TX

Has anyone else heard the (quite serious, actually) rumor that if New Hampshire attempts to move up that Michigan will leapfrog both Iowa and New Hampshire?

Also, I would say that having CA moving to Feb 5th does not necessarily benefit the candidate with the most money. It will benefit the candidate with the most momentum. There's a lot of thinking that if Obama and Clinton are the top 2 going into CA, that even if Clinton has twice the money Obama has, Obama's likely to win.

This is one step closer to a national primary.