Not me.

Earlier, front-loaded primaries mean we'll almost always get the default candidate, the most well-known.

Not for me, thank you.

I'm all for ending the IA/NH monopoly over the front of the calendar, but I am NOT all for chaos and 18 month-in-advance nominating contests.

The calendar should move back to February and the DNC needs to revise the calendar to devise a better system of diverse opinion in the early going.

Sour grapes.

I care.  Clinton keeps talking about how the earlier primaries were going in June, but the truth is that those primaries also started later and weren't so front loaded with states trying to get more power for themselves.

Primaries shouldn't be a contest based on name recognition going in, it is supposed to be able to look at the candidates and vote on their relative merits.  This is why we usually start with some smaller states so that candidates that might be less well known and might have less cash in the beginning have a chance to make their case.

If you don't punish these two big dawgs, the even bigger dawgs are gonna start hopscotching up.

me I don't care what they decide, but I understand the DNC's position, they are responsible for the next primary, and NO they don't want it to start on Janurary 22, 2009.

they have to maintain control of the party and also,

what happens the next time they sanction a state, and the candidates campaign there saying screw the DNC you are just going to seat them anyways, do we really want another Florida in 2000 or another 2008 primaries?

if they didn't get a penalty then we would all know that if the DNC sanctioned a state again they wouldn't mean it and the candidates would know it too, and the one who was losing would do exactly what Hillary did here.

anyone doubt this?

says the supporter of the DLC candidate,

exactly what is the DLC for again? what state are they for? You support a candidate who believes in a strong central Elite leadership for the entire party.

So let's get this clear -

The DNC should have no role in dictating how and when the states select their delegates?

rethink what you are saying...first of all there are reasons for the rules in the first place...have you even investigated why the states are kept from voting early and the consequences of not having some controls on the schedule would mean?

Candidates with less finances could not even compete and gain any traction...why? Because it cost more to campaign in big states, also allowing big states to jump way up would mean candidates with big name recognition and or big corporate sponsors would have a completely unfair advantage in winning.  using the early state strategy it is more cost efficient to introduce the nation to the candidates and allow the other states to learn about their positions and policies before the huge delegate rich states weigh in and the early states also represent a good mix of the voters throughout the country.  Are you really proposing that anarchy is a good structure and rule of thumb to follow?

It's not solely a state's decision.  They're deciding the candidate for a private political party, and so the DNC has a right to being involved in the formation of the schedule.  In any event, maybe you should outline what you see happening in a free market environment and why that would be a good thing.  I myself don't particularly look forward to a day when primaries are held over the holidays in the year before the GE.

I don't get it.  What's to be gained by letting states constantly vote for earlier and earlier primaries?  Hasn't this primary season been too long?

riiigghhhtttt... mind pointing these signals out?

her RBC supporters who might not vote how she wants? Terry saying its over in June? Howard WOlfson saying its over in June?

hell all the supers saying we will endorse and end it in June, she can go to the convention all she wants but whats the point if the supes say do that and we vote against you?

... there's not going to be enough money for a convention.  The DNC is already so far behind schedule in raising funds for the convention, and not having a presumptive nominee only exacerbates the situation.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina are considered to be a good cross-section of the electorate.  The idea was to put them up front to get an idea how the various candidates will do in these demographics.

Selection of a nominee is an internal party function rather than a contest between two parties for political office.  The reason the party holds primaries at all is to get an idea of which potential nominee is more favorable to the party at large.  Once that has been determined, the party starts promoting itself, via the candidate, to the general electorate as the best choice for the country.

Since the primary season was so long and so heavily publicized this time, it's easy to forget it's just a party function not an election.

I was calling for an end to the IA/NH duopoly long before this year. I'm glad so many others also seem to now be on board. But I expect that once it's no longer an issue for Hillary to exploit, many of them will stop caring once again.

As for this year, it's too late to change the rules that the nomination process was conducted under and Hillary has made herself look like she'll cheat to win by trying to change them to her advantage.

everyone else seemed to approve of our choices....

There is something to be said for a cross section of the country starting it all out, and for small retail states. Namely, the candidates at the beginning of the campaign have to stand in front of all those non-Internet people  in real town halls and street encounters and answer questions rather than reading from teleprompters and cards. They have to show they can actually talk to real conventional human beings respectfully. They have to get the opportunity to be caught doing truly stupid things and dealing with it. Being the rabbit in the race without the entire world at stake makes the candidates expose themselves so others can see them before they vote. Not a bad thing.

Question of interest. What happens at DRB meeting if the two states are willing to make a compromise  that bows in favor of the Rules sufficient to satisfy the Roolz folks, and that Obama accepts, but Hillary doesn't? That's sort of what I'm hearing might happen there. If the states are willing to live with the compromise, what should happen after that?

The give great advantage to a candidate with deep pockets and huge name-recognition as television and money dominate.  I want a candidate like Chris Dodd, Mike Huckabee, or Joe Biden to have the ability to connect with the voters and topple the front-runner.  That's why we have small states such as IA and NH go first.

Don't worry, they'll probably come up with a way of giving Michigan the compromise that all of the state party leaders want, some form of 69/59 and Florida will get the same 50% haircut that the Republicans gave.  We'll call it a day and MI and FL will be happy.  

I'd like to hear the moral argument that says that Clinton should get 80% of MI's delegates when the leaders of MI don't want that.