Have you figured out why his proposal to go back to the "choices of wise men rubs you the wrong way? Is it that it seems to be retrogressive to a democratic process?

The old convention system is alike the electoral college in that it assumes that there needs to be a collection of elites who make the important decisions in the process of selecting a President... You're comfortable with that Archduke, in order to provide perceived protections for smaller states. Would you also be comfortable with the convention system returning?

.Maybe this reflection is all a reaction to the Republican nomination process, in which it seems 2/3 of the Republican Party wants anybody other than the guy the establishment wants.... And yet none of the alternatives seems to survive indepth scrutiny. And isn't the primary system a lot more scrutiny than what convention nominated candidates used to receive?
There's a lot of give and take in the final analysis, maybe the most crucial component is that running for President is now approaching a billion dollar business... And the primary system is responsible for much (most?) of that.

rickyp wrote:.Maybe this reflection is all a reaction to the Republican nomination process, in which it seems 2/3 of the Republican Party wants anybody other than the guy the establishment wants.

Well, he says that prettty expicitly in the article. However, he also comments that both John McCain and Barack Obama received less then 50% of the primary vote yet still won their respective nominations. In otherwords, both nominees for Presidential in 2008 were the choice of less then 50% of the members of that party.

rickyp wrote:Have you figured out why his proposal to go back to the "choices of wise men rubs you the wrong way? Is it that it seems to be retrogressive to a democratic process?

I think that is the case but I am not sure it is so. After all there would still be elections. However, the focus would switch to the state party committees.

rickyp wrote: Would you also be comfortable with the convention system returning?

I don't know but it would answer some of the issues we have with the system as it exists. There would be no more 2 year Presidential campaigns. It would lessen the amount of money it cost to run for the office which lessens the influence of money in the process. It also opens up the possiblity of candidates. Someone like Gary Johnson might actually have a chance.

Since the establishment of the modern primary system, the establishment candidate has pretty much won every primary so it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Interesting bit. Do Huntsman, Santorum and Gingrich think that such a move would do anything BUT end their campaigns?

Nevada is interesting. I remember that there was a battle after the last cycle in the GOP. The Paul supporters "took over" the party there, or so it was called.

But mostly I'm wondering who the next selection be by the establishment. Romney can't win. Perry has been demolished. Bachmann is done. Cain will be slumping shortly. So who is left? Russ says Huntsman, but he's barely cracking 2%--even with his media darling preferential treatment. Will the GOP establishment turn to Gary Johnson? Are they so fearful and bitter towards Dr. Paul that they will actually choose a libertarian? I don't expect any of you to agree...

archduke

don't know but it would answer some of the issues we have with the system as it exists. There would be no more 2 year Presidential campaigns. It would lessen the amount of money it cost to run for the office which lessens the influence of money in the process. It also opens up the possiblity of candidates. Someone like Gary Johnson might actually have a chance.

Since the establishment of the modern primary system, the establishment candidate has pretty much won every primary so it wouldn't make much of a difference

I would have thought Hilarly and Mitt would have been best described as the "establishment candidates last election..."

The problem may be more fundamental then primary versus convention. National elections every two years, means a state of perpetual campaigning.
And the difficulty in fundamentally changing the Constitution means that fundamental changes are unlikely.(Although the super majority in the senate isn't in the Constitution and methinks democracy would be improved by eliminating that procedural barrier).
Which leaves tinkering around the edges. Perhaps the primary system could be saved if there was a set unbending schedule for primary dates that went beyond the single state focus of an Iowa, new Hampshire or etc. Say 4 or 5 states at a time, every time?
I realize on its face this seems counter intuitive. But opening up opportunities for Candidates, rather than having them all focus on one little too important state, might make for broader based, less controlled top down, campaigns. The kind of grass roots thing Ron Paul has done well. And Obama.
At the same time, with more opportunities to "click" early perhaps ideas might be more forthcoming in debates then rhetoric? (Everyone playing safe...)

In parliamentary systems, we have conventions choosing leaders. And we've have as many failures come out of conventions as successful leaders... And generally parties are reaching out to try and include more people in the process.... In order to attract participation. Thats an element of the primary system that I think is very healthy. The ability to include everyone who's interested.

rickyp wrote:I would have thought Hilarly and Mitt would have been best described as the "establishment candidates last election..."

Well no on Mitt. John McCain was definitely the establishment candidate in 2008 and Mitt was the upstart. After all, McCain was the next in line and it was his turn.....

As for Hillary and Barack, He won the nomination because the party establishment back him in the form of super delegates. Further, most of the information trolling around was Democratic establishment looking around for an alternative to Hillary because they were tired of the Clintons and their people. Sort of the exact opposite of what is going on in the Republican Primary now.

rickyp wrote:I Perhaps the primary system could be saved if there was a set unbending schedule for primary dates that went beyond the single state focus of an Iowa, new Hampshire or etc. Say 4 or 5 states at a time, every time?
I realize on its face this seems counter intuitive. But opening up opportunities for Candidates, rather than having them all focus on one little too important state, might make for broader based, less controlled top down, campaigns. The kind of grass roots thing Ron Paul has done well. And Obama.

The problem with this is it actually limits the ability of people to get into the race because the cost of entry is higher. Under this suggestion, instead of only needing money for a couple of states to get involved in the race, i.e. Iowa and New Hampshire, then if they do well in those states, it becomes easier to raise money. If they do bad, they drop out.

Under your suggested plan, the cost of entry now is advertising in 4 or 5 states to start. Then assuming you are holding these regional primaries within weeks of one another (which is what this suggestion usuall does), then the cost of entry is actually even higher because you have to do all the states at the same time.

Guapo wrote:[But mostly I'm wondering who the next selection be by the establishment.

This is a total misreading of the current situation Jeff. The establishment is pretty firmly behind Romney. It is the "base" of the party that is looking for an alternative. The problem is no national level politician is going to be able to meet the standards of the "base".

I think Huntsman is a better candidate then Romney is that he appeals to the same type of voter but he doesn't have as much of the same baggage as Romney has. Further, I think given his overall experiences Huntsman might be the better option. However, I think with his current numbers, Obama can be beaten by either.

Russell, thing is, as much as you rate Huntsman, it seems that neither the 'base' nor the 'establishment' agree, and the longer that goes on, the less likely it is he'll get through. And if he can't persuade more than a few percent of Republicans to back him now, I actually doubt that he is a real contender against Obama other than theoretically. If he's that good, more people should know it by now. Maybe he'll surprise in the primaries, but I can't see him doing that well in the early ones, to be honest.

The other side to it is that with Romney being the more popular 'moderate' and with him facing the populist face-of-the-month, if Huntsman does start to make traction, he'll do it at Romney's expense. Meaning that whoever the Tea Party / Social Conservative right are backing at that point will look like they've opened up a big lead. Meaning that they will look (to some) like a much better bet than all others, including Huntsman.

arch

The problem with this is it actually limits the ability of people to get into the race because the cost of entry is higher. Under this suggestion, instead of only needing money for a couple of states to get involved in the race, i.e. Iowa and New Hampshire, then if they do well in those states, it becomes easier to raise money. If they do bad, they drop out.

This presumes that the way the primaries (caucuses) are fought in Iowa and New Hampshire has to be the exact same way things would be done in 4 or 5 states concurrently. I suspect that "retail" politicking might be less important that engaging in local media... and engaging through Internet...

Perhaps there would be more localized "debate events". Perhaps 1 v1 sessions and etc.
The reason things are the way they are is that it evolved this way. If substantial changes are made to the primary schedules and formats .... innovation will occurr in order to allow candidates to compete wider with the same resources. (Unless of course I'm horribly wrong and it goes in the opposite direction and the only people who can afford to run are personal favorites of the Koch brothers or Soros.) Still Iowa and new Hampshire are odd choices for "proving grounds".

Incidentally, Ides of March is a pretty good movie about primary politics...

rickyp wrote:This presumes that the way the primaries (caucuses) are fought in Iowa and New Hampshire has to be the exact same way things would be done in 4 or 5 states concurrently. I suspect that "retail" politicking might be less important that engaging in local media... and engaging through Internet...

But you still need to have boots on the ground. Pay for literature to be handed out and mailed to the voters. You still need to print signs up to be put in peoples yards. They still need to pay for radio and tv advertisement.

rickyp wrote:Perhaps there would be more localized "debate events". Perhaps 1 v1 sessions and etc.
The reason things are the way they are is that it evolved this way. If substantial changes are made to the primary schedules and formats .... innovation will occurr in order to allow candidates to compete wider with the same resources. (Unless of course I'm horribly wrong and it goes in the opposite direction and the only people who can afford to run are personal favorites of the Koch brothers or Soros.) Still Iowa and new Hampshire are odd choices for "proving grounds".

I think you are horrible wrong. Because even with a more debate heavy schedule, candidates are going to need to pay for advertising. That is just the nature of politics in the modern society.

danivon wrote:Russell, thing is, as much as you rate Huntsman, it seems that neither the 'base' nor the 'establishment' agree, and the longer that goes on, the less likely it is he'll get through. And if he can't persuade more than a few percent of Republicans to back him now, I actually doubt that he is a real contender against Obama other than theoretically. If he's that good, more people should know it by now. Maybe he'll surprise in the primaries, but I can't see him doing that well in the early ones, to be honest.

I would agree with you if this was Decemeber. However, right now the only people really paying attention to the race are political junkies like those that post on this message board. The majority of the population just isn't paying attention yet and won't until the end of November beginning of December.

danivon wrote:The other side to it is that with Romney being the more popular 'moderate' and with him facing the populist face-of-the-month, if Huntsman does start to make traction, he'll do it at Romney's expense. Meaning that whoever the Tea Party / Social Conservative right are backing at that point will look like they've opened up a big lead. Meaning that they will look (to some) like a much better bet than all others, including Huntsman.

Perhaps. However, if the Tea Party/SoCon's are still split between their backing if Huntsman starts to get transaction it might not be so bad. Further, Huntsman has some positions that will be attractive to the SoCon.

However, having said that, I agree that Huntsman's path is narrowing quickly. He needs to start to get higher percentages soon if he wants to be seen as viable. Basically, I think he needs to cross the Paul Line (polling higher then Ron Paul) by the end of November to be seem as a serious candidate.

rickyp wrote:And isn't the primary system a lot more scrutiny than what convention nominated candidates used to receive?

Not necessarily. Abraham Lincoln became a serious candidate for president only after he gave the Cooper Union speech. In the Lincoln Douglas debates, neither were candidates for office. The were out stumping for State Legislative candidates so they could be appointed to the U.S. Senate for Illinois.

I would also argue Barack Obama didn't get vetted nearly well enough.

Archduke Russell John wrote:However, having said that, I agree that Huntsman's path is narrowing quickly. He needs to start to get higher percentages soon if he wants to be seen as viable. Basically, I think he needs to cross the Paul Line (polling higher then Ron Paul) by the end of November to be seem as a serious candidate.

I think that's right, time-wise, with one caveat: if he can somehow make a much better than expected showing in NH, he can get things going a bit later. My guess is that would take finishing either second or a real strong third. It would also help if Romney stumbles.

My question for you is this: what about Huntsman in the debates so far convinces you that he can make a move? I ask that because the debates have clearly had an effect on the more conservative side (namely killing Perry and helping Cain and, to a lesser extent, Gingrich). Huntsman has taken debate positions, for the most part, to the left of Romney. How is he going to move past Romney? Do you believe independents will be sufficiently moved to vote as a mass for him?

The most obvious problem for every other candidate: what if Romney wins Iowa? There have been polls showing him in front. If he wins Iowa, I think this thing is over before it starts.

Doctor Fate wrote:My question for you is this: what about Huntsman in the debates so far convinces you that he can make a move? I ask that because the debates have clearly had an effect on the more conservative side (namely killing Perry and helping Cain and, to a lesser extent, Gingrich). Huntsman has taken debate positions, for the most part, to the left of Romney. How is he going to move past Romney?

To be honest, I haven't really watched much of the debates so a lot of what I am basing this on is from reading reaction to the debates. When someone like Eric Erickson says he is becoming less and less concerned about Huntsman's conservative credentials, I have to believe he isn't taking as many left leaning positions as he is accused of.

Doctor Fate wrote: Do you believe independents will be sufficiently moved to vote as a mass for him?

Yes I do. I think this is an election where Republicans, Independants and conservative Democrats are so energized to have somebody other then Obama to vote for in November they will come out and vote in those Republican primaries they are allowed too. Realistically, they only really have two choices in the current line up of candidates. Romney and Huntsman. Now Romney is their first choice but I think it is an unhappy choice. I have read more then one article that has the premise that Romney's support isn't very deep. That leaves Huntsman as the most logical choice. So it is going to be a matter of whether or not those dissatisfied Romney supporters decide to accept their flawed candidate or go looking for another alternative.

Doctor Fate wrote:The most obvious problem for every other candidate: what if Romney wins Iowa? There have been polls showing him in front. If he wins Iowa, I think this thing is over before it starts.

I think I agree with this completely. If the SoCon vote stays so split that Romney wins Iowa, I think it might be game over.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The most obvious problem for every other candidate: what if Romney wins Iowa? There have been polls showing him in front. If he wins Iowa, I think this thing is over before it starts.

I think I agree with this completely. If the SoCon vote stays so split that Romney wins Iowa, I think it might be game over.

I'm not totally convinced, although it would take a lot for Romney to win Iowa and if he does, then he will have a big advantage.

Looking at the latest version of the GOP primary calendar, I think that there are a couple of hoops for Romney to get through after Iowa. First of all there’s S Carolina, one of those states where Mormons are not too popular, not a long way from Cain’s back yard, and amongst Republicans a pretty conservative place. Shortly after comes Florida, which is not easy to call. Both of those are primaries, whereas Iowa is a caucus (meaning that populists may get more traction, and that they can also claim that Iowa and Nevada are less indicative of general support). However, current rules also mean that those states would lose half of their delegations for going early, so their effect could be dulled (or the anti-Romney crowd could add that to the list of gripes)

If Romney wins Iowa, NH and Nevada, and if there is not a major contender in those three who also romps SC, then he should be pretty solid. But if he is not that far ahead by the end of January and there’s someone else picking up wins in southern states, it won’t be straightforward.

The statewide polling isn’t too up to date and infrequent, but at the moment, Cain is ahead in Iowa, S Carolina (just) and Florida. Romney is ahead in New Hampshire. Nevada polling is over a month out of data and has Perry in the lead, so how things go there may be more telling than Iowa - if Cain wins that then there will be a race on.

(of course with 3 months to go, polls are not all that predictive)