Pushed by Dems
Western Presidential Primary Nearing Reality?
By Howard Rothman, 12-04-05
Whenever I discuss politics with friends on the coasts, they usually blow off the national prospects of rising Western stars — particularly Democrats like Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer — with four simple words: "Too small a state." But the possibility that Schweitzer or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson can be so rapidly dismissed will diminish considerably if a proposed Western presidential primary becomes a reality by 2008. And as a petition to initiate one begins circulating among Democratic party officials, political junkies on influential lefty blogs like My DD are starting to seriously discuss the potential impact. At the very least, supporters on both sides contend the larger voice resulting from such a move would certainly ensure the West can no longer be ignored as Republicans and Democrats vie for their party's top spot in the next presidential election.For the first time, action toward a regional primary appears to be moving beyond just the theoretical stage. A group called Democrats for the West is now actively lobbying for a single primary (or caucus) in eight states — Colorado, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada — that would be held on Feb. 5, 2008. The group's argument, which already has been endorsed by a few national leaders, is that residents of some of the country's most rapidly growing states would have real clout for the first time if 268 total Democratic delegates and 183 total Republican delegates were selected on the same day. "The West has had the least amount of impact historically on the presidential primary process because many of the states have smaller numbers of delegates at stake and that several of them have primary or caucus dates late in the process. As a result, Western issues are rarely mentioned by candidates, and candidates spend little time campaigning in the region," says a post on the Western Governor's Association website. "If the West is successful in forming a regional primary," it continues, "candidates will become more familiar with, and be prepared to take a stand on, issues important to the region." Others have noted that local politicians could also garner big numbers early in the process, hence the increased viability of Democrat dark horses like Schweitzer and Richardson.
The idea, not surprisingly, is drawing mixed reviews so far. To me, the positives far outweigh any negatives (as most of the early criticism seems to be coming from those who simply fear that their own regions would lose power if the West gains any). The prospect is hardly assured, though, even if supporters sincerely believe they will make this happen. We'll have to wait and see, but for now I'm heartened that the wheels have at least begun to turn. And I increasingly think it might indeed be a bit too early to write off any Westerners as serious national political figures in ’08. [End of article]
A western primary would be a good thing to add because Democrats need to appeal to red or at least purple (mix of blue and red) states and need to appear to presenting a new product. I dont think it wil have a major impact on how other regions vote but if it helps even a little to select a clear talking moderate that would be a great contribution to the process.
Richardson has a mixed record/reputation I can't see him getting far but he will run. Who he endorses after dropping out could have a modest impact in remaining SW states but only if he has some top 3 0r 4 showings and I wouldnt be surprised if he fails to do that even in the west. He will probably get some VP consideration but a woman seems more likely, if Hilary doesnt get the nomination.
Schweitzer might be a possibility because he is a fairly good retail politican but he probably needs more of a record than a several years as governor to get the money, media coverage to be a leading candidate against Hilary, Edwards and maybe Warner or Bayh. 2012 would make more sense for him.
I would be hard pressed to call Richardson a dark horse, or diminish he chances so early. On the surface he has a better resume than any other candidate right now. Experience in foreign policy with time at the State Department and as UN Ambassador,a very popular governor and experience in DC as a congressman. There are also countless time he went overseas as a negotiator. His one big disadvantage is that he's surly and that can turn off some DC Dems, but I wouldn't call that a huge fault.
He also wouldn't simply benefit from a Western Primary, he is a main mover in making it happen. Richardson and Gov. Huntsman of Utah already announced that their states would move their primaries together on the same day, giving other Western states a day to plan for.
Senator Joe Biden might run. His 33 years in the Senate is more than any nominee for President in the history of the country, including Henry Clay (I checked). That is a pretty impressive resume with leadership on Foreign Relations and Judiciary.
Evan Bayh will have 10 years in the Senate by 2008 plus 8 years as Governor and time in the business and legal worlds. Richardson had 14 years in the House and will have 6 in the Governorship if re-elected which seems likely plus the other stuff you cite. It is impressive in length and breadth, but Bayh can make a case of rough equivalency.
I am not mixed impressions about some details of Richarson's federal service at Energy and his re-telling of it in his book, and he has also made a major style mistake in my view as a somewhat imperial, perk rich (new plane, fancy chef, gift/incidental fund, etc.), above the law (speeding repeatedly) Governor who also wasnt really on top of the corruption issue troubling the state until the latest case with the Treasurer forced him to focus on it.
But I will agree he is a top 6 candidate on resume. I still have doubts about its ability to translate into wins or strong showings against the rest of the probable field but that is just my opinion, having followed Democratic primaries fairly closely for 30 years. He will probably ranked toward the bottom of the pack in fundraising ability and I dont think the press will cut him special favors.
But we will see how it plays out. Hw might just tease this time and wait til 2012. I think that might make more sense, but thats up to him.
I am not set against Richardson but I am not currently lean his way (there are several easy to find angles the Republicans could take to paint an unacceptable portrait of him).
I think Bayh or Warner have arguments for them, also flaws, but maybe a better, less vulnerable package. Biden probably wont get it and may not even run but I have thought his personality could be a plus for a ticket explaining the platform down to earth but not oversimplified and repetitive like I think was John Edwards mistake.
The platform will probably be pretty similar regardless of candidate except possibly on Iraq, and sadly most of the main candidates are bobbing and weaving and delaying until they know what the right side will be in 2008.
I will remain open to hearing more about each's record and ability as a candidate.
I was actively involved in the primary and it was depressing that Montanans had no say and were basically told who to vote for.
Edwards would have swept Montana if he showed up. His rural credentials with his support of COOL and anti-big Hog Farms, rural broadband access for everyone, rural healthcare...Our three votes would have put Gore over the top in 2000 if he had shown up.
Western issues are huge for all Americans. Lack of water, agricultural issues, immigration, alternative energy etc. should be debated nationally. We should concentrate on that and not make it about getting a Westerner in the ticket. That will come if we can get our issues out there.
If you want to support the Western Primary, go here and sign the Democrats For the West's petition to the DNC. The deadline is Dec. 15.
http://www.democratsforthewest.com/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=Petition
The West deserves better than the be left out of the primary process because of scheduling. And so does the whole county. The Dems should consider a plan recently endorsed by the Young Democrats of America, the "American" plan, similar to what that GOP proposed (but lost) in 2000. It would give every state a fair shot.
More at: http://www.fairvote.org/americanplan