Dems Shake Up Nominating Calendar (wedge NV between IA & NH)

[truthpusher]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/19/D8JJK8G83.html

Dems Shake Up Nominating Calendar
Aug 19 1:02 PM US/Eastern


By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer

Democrats agreed to shake up tradition Saturday by wedging Nevada between Iowa's leadoff caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the 2008 presidential nominating calendar and adding South Carolina soon afterward.
The addition of Nevada's caucuses and the South Carolina primary to a presidential calendar long dominated by Iowa and New Hampshire is intended to give a greater voice to Hispanics and blacks _ minorities critical to Democrats' success.

Nevada has a sizable Hispanic population while South Carolina has a high concentration of black voters. The early contests in those states will give Democrats more prominence in the Southeast and the Southwest, regions that tend to support Republicans.

Advocates of the plan passed on a voice vote by the Democratic National Comittee say it will force Democratic candidates for the White House to develop a broader message that extends beyond the concerns of voters in Iowa or New Hampshire.

But the altered schedule poses risks. New Hampshire, for example, is threatening to ignore the party lineup, despite the possibility that Democrats would punish candidates who campaign in states with schedules that violate party rules.

(snip)

"If there was a big stretch between the caucuses and New Hampshire, you have time to recover from a stumble and, if you do well, you have time to show some real weaknesses further down the road," he said.

more....
link: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/19/D8JJK8G83.html

[BootinUp]

1. Good and bad

Good part is the broader message beyond concerns important to Iowa and New Hampshire. Bad part is it will cost more to get message out.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. It will, but based on what they ALL spent in NH, IA and VT last year

it will broaden the message being heard while allowing a completely different type of populace a voice.

Dean has it right with a 50 state plan.

[BootinUp]

5. I'm all for the 50 state plan

But thats a little different than the primary schedule issue. Or I don't understand the 50 state plan like I thought I did.

[Mass]

2. Terrible decision, not because of the order, but because the primaries are

too compressed. It just throws the election to the one with the most money who can campaign in 4 states at the same time.

Welcome to a pro-corporation nominee and to an increase of the importance of IA. Often, the results of IA have been changed by NH and other states because people had the time to campaign in every states. Here, the DNC just made worse the error that was made in 04.

[Skink]

7. I like having the 8 percent of the Iowa caucus attendees choose our

nominee. The 8 percent of the state that shows up to caucus. Especially because they (Iowa) let any corporation or individual that wants to hang around caucus with them.
The NYT sent in a reporeter to do this. Kerry did this by trucking in Vets.

[One_Life_To_Give]

27. Need to be atleast a week apart

Your right. This gives far too much power to those who wish to buy elections.

[MaineDem]

28. Why not have a schedule that awards the same # of delegates per week?

Group smaller states with regional, economic, and racial diversity one week.

The next week put in two big states.

Go back to a number of smaller states the next week, and CA or TX the next week, etc.

It would force candidates to campaign in smaller and larger states.

[eleny]

4. Looks like they're adding the far west and the south to the festivities

[Skinner]

6. That's how I interpret it, too.

My guess is that this is more about getting Dems to campaign in the West and South -- where we have been doing poorly as of late -- and less about gettinng blacks and hispanics involved in the process. Getting more minorities involved is a positive side effect (and a good selling point) but I doubt that is really the point.

[eleny]

8. I live in Colorado and my first thought was "They're finally out here"

It will be easier for people in nearby western states to go to Nevada and help campaign.

[arendt]

30. Too bad they couldn't add an industrial state...

why does the Democratic Party insist on giving farmers (IA), Libertarians (NH),
gamblers (NV), and die-hard racists (SC) the chance to filter the candidates
first?

Why can't they put in a state with a major industrial/labor presence. NV has
labor, but not industry - the whole Las Vegas economy is as bizarre as Hollywood.
Not representative of the country.

This is just another way to stick it to the unions and progressives in the party.
I don't like it.

arendt

[IndianaGreen]

9. Any change is better than the current system

and while this change may not work out as expected, it is gratifying to see an effort to open the early process to Latinos and other minorities. Iowa and NH are not representative enough of an America that is predominantly cosmopolitan rather than rural.

[Retrograde]

29. I say bring back the smoke-filled room

Metaphorically, that is. I think we had better candidates back in the days when the party as a whole nominated candidates all at once rather than having all these mini-elections throughout the country.

While we're at it, let's change the electoral vote from a winner-take-all to a proportional vote - maybe we'd finally see a presidential candidate who sees California as more than a checkbook.

[journalist3072]

10. And where is the District of Columbia in all of this?

I really wish the Democratic Party would step up to the plate, when it comes to the District of Columbia and our place on the primary calendar.

It's bad enough that we are being taxed without representation, and that we have no representation in Congress.

And I think one of the ways to shed some light on this issue, would be to make us among the first in the Presidential primaries.

During the 2004 primary, our city's leadership took the initiative and we had the first in the nation primary on January 13, 2004.

FIVE of the Democrats running for President protested, and they wrote to the DC Board of Elections asking to have their name taken off our ballots here. I was really disappointed in that.

[MaineDem]

17. DC was in contention along with Nevada for the second slot

I wish they had chosen DC instead of Nevada.

I still don't think this does a thing to correct the frontloading. I fear 46 states will have no say in the nomination in '08.

I think SC was always soon after NH anyhow. I'm not sure how this makes much of a change.

[Ninja Jordan]

11. Which candidates will this help?

Richardson, if he were to run, would be aided by the addition of Nevada because of the prevalence of hispanics in the state. In addition, Edwards may be aided by the injection of Nevada between Iowa and NH first because of his apparent popularity in Iowa. If he were to pull out a victory there, a good finish in NV would mute the importance of NH. Then, Edwards can follow it up with a SC victory heading into the Wisconsin primary (in which he made a strong shoowing in 2004) and Super Tuesday. We shall see.

[wisteria]

12. You base it all on supposed popularity, money available before

Iowa will be a big factor. The candidates will need a lot of money to campaign in all four states almost at the same time.

[Ninja Jordan]

15. True

But didn't Howard Dean have the most money of any Dem candidate in 2004? Iowa has a history of going against the grain. Success there will be key as far as momentum. I'm interested in seeing how it develops.

[MikePorter]

16. Edwards

I agree with your comments about Edwards.

[wisteria]

13. I don't like this new plan. One right on top of another, no room for

errors, no chance to recover, and it front loads it for the candidate with the most money to pay for advertising in all four states at the same time. Other than that, the idea of giving a more diverse electorate a chance to have a say is good. Unfortunately, it won't matter because the candidate with the most money going in will already have an advantage over the others-unless ideas, leadership and vision can outshine the media blitz of one or anther candidates campaign commercials.
Seems to me this all give Hillary the upper hand.

[Sapphocrat]

14. Finally! DNC strategy with which I agree!

It's about time somebody remembered there are primaries west of the Mississippi, too, and started taking advantage of our diverse demographics out here.

Red as Nevada may appear, this Californian feels far more affinity with the Silver State than with either Iowa or NH. Having lived in NV for a couple of years (and made countless extended trips throughout the state, from Minden to Ely, and Jarbidge to Pahrump, and everything in between), I know the state like the back of my hand; I don't need to check the last census to confirm that Nevada is home to far more Hispanics -- and Native Americans, and Asians, and even gay people -- than one might expect, and are people far more reachable (as long as you keep your hands off the gambling, the guns, the prostitution, and the strip mining). It's just that until now, nobody's tried to reach them.

Good move, DNC.

[MaineDem]

18. States going later will gain additional delegates

There are advantages for states moving their contests later in the calendar. I'm not sure how this will help solve the frontloading problem though. I think states will want to have a say and will move to the front of the calendar.

Time will tell.

[robcon]

19. There is no right plan.

But the strategy is right: four smallish states in which the potential nominees will have to show strength. And, by winning in these smallish states with a variety of voters, a chance to generate campaign money for the bigger states later.

[zanne]

20. I live in NH and I'm puzzled about this...

NH just turned blue in 04'. Why are they taking a chance on that?

[Tesha]

21. There is *NO DOUBT* in my mind that Democrats need a new process.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that Democrats need a new process
that does not base the nomination of our presidential candidate
on what the voters of a few overwhelmingly-white, overwhelmingly-
Christian, relatively-conservative, relatively rural states think.

Iowa and New Hampshire clearly reflect the Republican base a lot
better than they reflect the Democratic base and the fact that
New Hampshire allows "undeclared" voters(1) to cross-over to
vote in our primary also made our primary very easily corruptable
by the Republicans.

Adding Nevada and South Carolina is, of course, not much of
an improvement. Wake me when we add California or New York
to the early primaries.

Tesha (from New Hampshire, BTW)

1) The typical "undeclared" voter in NH is a white male
Republican who is too cowardly to register as an actual
Republican because, if they did, they: a) couldn't mess
with our primary and B) their wife would kick them out
of bed for being a Republican.

[underpants]

23. Nah all the operatives just want to get the hell out of Ames & go to Vegas

YEAH BABY!

They get to blow off some steam and then trudge back onto the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

:party::beert::toast:

Hell it might just losen up the media's knickers and they could actually LIKE our candidate for once or at least pretend they do like with W.

[Tesha]

24. Well at least they'd figure out who actually *WAS* fun to have a beer...

Well at least they'd figure out who actually *WAS* fun
to have a beer (or ten) with and who was just a mean
(dry) drunk...

Tesha

[Stuckinthebush]

22. I hear there was a lot of dirty dealing

by Nevada representatives on this.

[Tesha]

25. Hmmm... Harry Reid, minority leader from Nevada, new state in rotation...

Hmmm... Harry Reid, minority leader from Nevada, new state
in the batting rotation: Nevada! What a freakin' coincidence!
Imagine the odds of that! ;)

Tesha

[dbackjon]

26. I like this

All four sections of the country get attention.

Personally, I think they should rotate the primaries - to hell with Iowa and New Hampshire getting so much attention/importance. They've had their turn - now stop being pig-headed and greedy. Back of the line, both of you.