Not sure about this:

The other major area the commission will be asked to examine is the operation of caucuses in states that choose that process rather than a primary. The caucuses drew criticism, particularly from the Clinton campaign, which said they restricted participation and that in some states lacked the necessary infrastructure to insure fairness.

"We agree that we ought to make sure they're funded properly, staffed properly and run smoothly, and even see if people ought to be eligible to vote absentee," Plouffe said.

Why not have genuine secret ballot elections? And why have a two tier system where some votes count more than others?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Soon everyone will down here with us.

------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan

I am familiar with the talking point, so I'm not sure of the value add here...

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Some say that secret ballot primaries cost more than caucuses. But if people are allowed to vote absentee anyway, which would be great, that makes it more expensive too.
I think we're worth it.
I'm glad that the more sensible voices in the discussion were able to get this on the table, but wouldn't it have been nice if they were interested in enough funding and staffing before this primary?

that this was publicized before the convention...don't they care that the superdelegates aren't going to like this and that they know about it before the vote?

Or do all the superdelegates think they personally will stay on as one of fewer superdelegates and be more powerful?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a secret ballot primary vote for all states that is honored--although maybe we should do a "second choice" section on the ballot in case we have a John Edwards situation show up.

some discussion of the nominating process taking place. Disappointed to see that they seem intent on keeping caucuses at all.

superdelegate/voted, pledged delegate ratio?

clearly she didn't just declare Unity and go home. She's using her leverage again. This is a good thing to use it for.

I'm with BDBlue, the is clearly the result of some sort of deal.

I'd prefer to have a rotating schedule. The reason is that one big primary day is going to benefit the candidates who start out with a lot of money and/or name recognition. If you think second-tier candidates have no chance now, try making them campaign in all 50 states and all the big media markets. While I dislike the hold Iowa and NH have on the early dates, I do think starting with more manageable sized states helps candidates who might not otherwise be in the running get traction and, even if they don't get the nomination, they can influence the discussion. And I think we learn a lot about the candidates over the course of the race. I know the person I would've voted for last January is not the person I voted for this February.

this isn't intended as genuine reform, this is Obama rolling up the ladder behind him so nobody else can follow.

Sorry to be so cynical, but I've seen zero evidence that this guy even recognizes the concept of fairness never mind would expend a tittle of influence to support it.

Senator Carl Levin here in Michigan has been pushing for regional primaries for some time, now. In fact, he was a big reason why we chose to bring our primary to the front, to force a debate. I'm sure he never envisioned it would have turned out like this.

I also think a single-day national primary isn't the best idea.

What I want:

- A rotating, regional primary schedule.
- The elimination of caucuses, altogether.

As for the issue of cost, yes, caucuses are cheaper, but we should be willing to spend the extra money so that we get the most fair reflection of the electorate as possible. The whole "we can't do primaries because of the cost" excuse always struck me baffling. Democracy shouldn't be put on hold due to costs. When you consider some of the things this country wastes its money on, spending some extra money to get our elections right shouldn't even be an issue of hot debate.

why doesn't the Dem party want all the candidate nominating elections to be primaries?

If the party pays for the caucuses, and not the primaries, wouldn't it be cheaper for the party?