Jeff,

A few points to consider:

• It's not the ideological leanings of the state, but of the primary electorate that we to which we have to pay attention.

• Oregon will get completely swamped by the large and more electorally consequential states on Feb 5th. The claims that Oregon will somehow rise in the national consciousness if we move to Feb 5th is pure fantasy (and voting by mail doesn't change the equation one bit--the results are what counts, not the ballots cast 18 prior). No one is going to pay much attention to Oregon, except perhaps a few very liberal dark horses (e.g. Kucinich) who, with relatively little investment may do relatively well here.

• The implication of your posting is that it would be better if the more liberal wing of the Democratic party had a louder voice in the early stages of the primary, and presumably were more influential in the selection of the candidate. But don't you agree that one of the problems with our current primary system is that candidates have to run to the wings in order to win the primaries, then run back to the middle to win the general election? If you think that is true, isn't it actually a bad thing if we magnify the liberal voice in the early primaries?

Paul, Pew's numbers are Democratic voters, not the state's overall electorate. I'm not sure whether they're likely voters or, if so, what definition they're using.

In terms of getting swamped--you're probably righ, if Feb 5 includes 22 states. If it includes the eight currently on board and Oregon, I'm not so sure. Now that California has officially signed on to Feb 5, what will other states do? Are they more or less likely to join Cal?

You ask "isn't it actually a bad thing if we magnify the liberal voice in the early primaries?" I don't think we have disagreement on this, but we're very far from "magnifying" the liberal voice. I argue that we need Oregon jsut so we have a liberal voice. You don't want to completely preference the voters who are least active in your re-election effort. We want diversity of voice, not a skewed primary.

Furthermore, I resist the characterization that ideological polarity equates with partisan polarity. It's possible to embrace collaboration and also favor more liberal policies. I think Oregon--as evidenced by this legislative session--can be an example about how to accomplish that.

voting by mail doesn't change the equation one bit--the results are what counts, not the ballots cast 18 prior

Paul, what do you think the odds are that some national media operation - or independent subscriber-funded pollster - might take on the intellectually fascinating challenge of doing a VBM exit poll?

I too have heard we would lose delegates if we do this. Apparently if we keep it where it is, we stand to gain additional delegates.

And candidates do care that our ballots go out early. They can concentrate some of their efforts here early before they can really do much in the other states. You can only call a voter so many times to remind them when Election Day is. But with VBM you know who has voted and your efforts can be better targeted.

If we were to move up, I definitely see them paying Oregon some attention. Especially since we have a large Democratic base -- the more Democrats they can turn out here, the more money they can bring in, the more volunteers they have, and the better they look to other states.

Kerry didn't visit in 2004 until around August -- well after our primary. Don't you think he would have given us the time of day had our election mattered?

I can definitely see the pros and cons of moving the primary. I'd just like to actually have a say in who my party's candidate will be. If my choice doesn't get the nomination, at least I get a vote.

I'm wearing three hats here, all of which are relevant to this: 1. I'm one of Oregon's DNC members. 2. I'm chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon's Rules Committee. 3. I'm chair of the DPO's committee that wrote the delegate selection plan, the process we will use to elect delegates to the convention in Denver.

Jeff makes an interesting argument, but that's as far as I'll go. The DPO hasn't made an official position on whether the primary ought to be moved to Feb. 5, and neither will I.

I do want to state this: The DNC wanted to fix the presidential primary process in the worst way, and has. There is no shortage of talk about the national interest being in rotating regional primaries (I've never run into a DNC member who doesn't express support for that), but all we've ended up with is every state for itself. The more we talk about how bad the process is becoming, the more we make it worse.

At this point, Oregon will get 62 delegates and eight alternates. That's up four delegates from 2004, because we're one of the best performing small states. If we stay with our primary on May 20, we will get bonus delegates. It looks like the bonus will be an additional four, to 66 delegates.

As someone who works with the plan, I have to like that. There are never enough delegate slots to go around, and that would be four fewer people yelling at me come June 2008. Like most of you, I have never really been fond of being yelled at. Of course, that doesn't explain why I'm involved in this in the first place -- you'd think I'd learn.

Now for the DNC's issue: In 1999, when the process started a bit later, and Oregon's presidential primary was in March, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) declared that our state was holding it's primary too early, because with an all vote-by-mail system, Oregon started its election when the ballots were mailed out, rather than when they were counted. The DNC RBC believed that with our unique law, candidates would see the election as starting earlier, and campaign accordingly. Oregon Democrats, including Sen. Wyden, gave a vigorous defense of our law, and asked that the timing rule be reinterpreted so that Oregon wouldn't be penalized. The DNC RBC tabled it. The situation was resolved when Oregon moved the presidential primary back to May to save money.

In February, I was told by the DNC RBC staff that the committee would likely have the same view as it did in 1999, and I was sent a letter restating that later in the month.

If Oregon's presidential primary is moved to Feb. 5, Oregon Democrats will make another vigorous defense of our laws to the DNC's rules committee. I'd like to believe that we can change its mind. We believe that four elections under our belt, we can show that voting by mail is something the rest of the country should be doing, and that Oregon shouldn't be penalized for having the best voting system in the country. We can show that our neighboring states have vote-by-mail pretty much in effect already, with more than 90 percent of Washington's votes cast by mail (35 of 39 counties use it exclusively), and California's voting is nearly that high. We can argue that election day is election day, and show a court decision that declares it to be so.

There's quite a few members of the DNC rules committee who where there in 1999, but there are also some new ones, and our friends who were there then are still around. We can make a good case, especially since some states are trying to go earlier than Feb. 5. But the DNC rules committee may not agree with us. If so, we could face the following things: 1. If we continue to use the presidential primary to apportion our delegation, we could be penalized half our delegation. We would lose 24 pledged delegates, four alternates, and all of our DNC members. Our elected Democrats, our unpledged delegate, 24 pledged delegates and four alternates would remain, for a total delegation of 31 delegates and four alternates. 2. We could be forced to go to a caucus, which would mean that the primary would be a "beauty contest," and could not be used to apportion delegates. We'd keep our 62 delegates and eight alternates in that case. The DNC RBC has declared an intention to penalize three states for going too early since the 1980s. All kept their primary, but went to a caucus system to keep their delegation intact.

Those are the rules as I understand them. We'll see what happens, and if the primary changes, we'll be ready to make the case to the DNC's rules committee.

While we're on the subject, the delegate selection plan has been posted on the DPO website. The public comment period runs to April 27.

Wayne--

Thanks for the great explanation on the situation. I'd definitely hate to see us have to go to a caucus or lose half our delegates. In Texas we held a caucus, and only the most dedicated people showed up. It'd be much the same here, since we're not used to having a caucus.

I did get the chance a few days ago to read through the plans. I just wish there was some kind of protection to make sure those age 30 & under (or maybe those 35 & under, but we don't seem to see the inequity at 31-35 like we do 18-30) get a proportionate number of delegate slots. There are several mentions of age and such in the plan, but nothing to ensure their positions.

I guess we're just going to have to keep pushing the DNC to follow their own charter so we can get it taken care of at the national level. Maybe in 2012.

Jenni,

I don't think it will play out that way. The early voters are also known in California and in Florida, both much bigger electoral prizes.

A large Democratic base does not necessarily translate into more attention. Attention is determined by the perceived competitiveness of the contest and the number of delegates.

Kari, I think yes, but they'll also be running these absentee ballot polls in all the other states.

Believe me, candidates also care a lot about potential volunteers and campaign money. And a big base of grassroots Dems definitely is an attention grabber.

I should say that I'm not opposed to systemic change on primaries--far from it. But when the system becomes a free-for-all, states have to chart their own course. As long as some states are perpetually favored, others are going to have to make their own decisions.

Wayne's excellent discussion poses an interesting question. Assuming that we get penalized for going early and a bonus for going too-late-to-matter, that gives us the following question:

What's more important - fewer delegates selected in a process that makes a difference, or more delegates selected long after it means anything?

After all, if the delegates are selected when the outcome is pre-determined, we're just picking who gets to go to the cool-kids' parties in Denver.

But if the delegates are selected when the outcome is still in doubt, then we're choosing the next President of the United States.

I'd rather have fewer delegates and have it mean something.

(And still with the caveat, that I think Oregon's excellent elected officials and party officials could make a strong case that we shouldn't be penalized for going on February 5. Election Day is Election Day.)

UPO, I'm interested in your analysis -- and think it's possible... but not all the way to May.

After the Feb 5 surprise deadlock primary, we'd have to see nearly four months of ongoing deadlock. Not likely. Four weeks maybe, but not four months.

The February cluster-f..k of primaries provides no clear winner in at least one of the two parties. A few key "straggler" states will make the final decision. By moving its primary to February, Oregon will have abdicated its influence.

UPO, here's another variant of your prediction: instead of the race becoming a two-person sprint after Feb 5, as it was in '04, we might see a broader field where four or five candidates have won a state.

If we have something between a dozen and two dozen states on Feb 5, my guess is that you'll see dark-horse candidates avoid the expensive states and camp out where they're strongest. This could well strengthen campaigns like Edwards and Richardson, who could pick up two or three states in a Super Tuesday scenario. Clinton and Obama would battle for the prizes--Cal, NY, NJ--but Edwards could surge in the South and Richardson in the West. And, since the major candidates' money would be diluted, they could concentrate their own smaller warchests and fight on a more even playing field.

That scenario is almost impossible to imagine in previous systems, with only a few states at a time. In those scenarios, Obama and Clinton can focus their appearances and money on each state in succession, swamping the airwaves with ads and dominating the local headlines.

The DNC wants to avoid a Super Tuesday situation and the resulting "free for all," but it's not clear to me that it's a bad thing.

(And I second Kari's point about fewer delegates not being necessarily significant in terms of influence--scorecards are based on states, not delegates; by the time a candidate actually racks up the requisite count, the race has been over for months.)

Regardless of your opinion about whether joining a crowded February primary field will make Oregon more or less relevent in the Presidential election, there is another reason not to move the presidential primary forward: The double majority.

As we saw in 2006, it is hard enough for bond measures to overcome the apathy of voters when there is a Governor's race at the top of the ticket. Imagine what will happen to those same measures when there is nothing at the top of the ticket to turn out voters in the primary.

The result in 2008 will be a great deal of backloading, that will lead to defeat of bond measures that will cost schools, police, sheriffs, fire departments, etc. millions.

The cost of this decision is not just the $2.5 million in expenditures, but the damge it will do to public services in the dozens of communities will have to face a Sophie's choice between putting something on the ballot in the primary where they are likely to fail because of the double majority, and an overcrowding of bond measures in the general, which will likely lead to the defeat of several important funding measures.

This could well strengthen campaigns like Edwards and Richardson, who could pick up two or three states in a Super Tuesday scenario. Clinton and Obama would battle for the prizes--Cal, NY, NJ--but Edwards could surge in the South and Richardson in the West.

I don't think that Richardson has the charisma or ideas to be a serious contender. I've read his promise to implement a system of universal health care in his first year in the White House, and I'm torn between thinking that it's an empty platitude or an ill-informed comment by a well-intentioned governor who is in over his head.

Policy isn't created by wishful thinking, and Richardson lends nothing to the debate by making big promises that he won't be able to keep.

As for the horse race aspects to this discussion, here's my prediction on the early primaries:

Clinton wins NY, NJ, Florida Obama wins Illinois Clinton, & Edwards compete for Missouri Obama & Edwards compete for NC, SC, Tennessee, Georgia Obama & Clinton compete for California, TX, Michigan

The rest of the states won't matter much, and if Clinton wins CA, NY, NJ, FLA the Democratic nomination will effectively be over in February.

If the primary is moved to Feb. 5, and if we use it to apportion our delegates, we could lose half our delegation, so we would be moving it to gain clout, and losing some in the process.

If we went to a caucus instead, we would have moved to primary just to make a statement, because we wouldn't be able to use it to apportion our delegates. We would keep our full delegation that way. The makeup of the delegation would depend entirely on who showed up for the caucuses. Showing up is 88 percent of life, but 100 percent of a caucus.

On the other hand, we might just convince the DNC rules committee that our new primary is just and proper, and be able to keep our primary linked to the delegates and a full delegation.