Primaries

MB over at DraftGore2008 has an interesting look at the Democratic primary system.

This is a map of the first seventeen states (including DC) which held their Democratic primaries or caucuses before March 1, 2004, the point which most acknowledge Kerry had the nomination sewn up. The states in blue gave their electoral votes to Kerry in November, 2004, those in red, to Bush. If I were to have used the 2000 election data, Iowa and New Mexico would be blue, New Hampshire red.

These states were allocated a total of 1021 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, out of a total 4313. Only 484 of those delegates came from "blue" states, out of a total 2200 "blue state" delegates. Another 750 delegates came from trending-Democratic "purple" states. Yet a majority of the delegates (537) who determined Kerry to be the Democratic nominee by March 1 in 2004 came from states which later went for Bush.

There’s more at the link.

I imagine the reason that centrist Dems favor the current primary system is because they assume that it favors them, which is predicated on the assumption that Dems in red states will themselves be more centrist, or more inclined to cast a primary vote for a candidate they believe will better appeal to their conservative statesmen. I wonder if that’s true. It seems to me that many of the most unyielding progressives I know are from red states in which the state government is extremely conservative, making them less optimistic about any Dem appealing to their fellow state voters. Would someone in that position vote for a moderate in a primary? It’s hard to draw any conclusions from the last election, since I believe Kerry was primary viewed as “electable” because of his military credentials during a campaign season when the nation was at war and that war was the primary issue.

Anyway, just kind of thinking out loud. I’m certainly inclined to think that an unapologetic liberal is more likely to get nominated by blue states, and that such a candidate would have better chances, as swing voters appear more likely to complain about triangulation and the appearance of calculating disingenuousness than a liberal who sticks to her/his guns. Any thoughts on whether it makes more or less sense to nominate Democratic candidates overwhelmingly in red and purple states, as opposed to blue states?