Iowa Democrats applaud plans to retain first-in-nation caucuses

[Thom Little]

Iowa Democrats were applauding a Democratic National Committee group recommendation that the state remain the first to kick off the nation's presidential nominating process.

"Iowa will remain first in the nation. This is a great victory for the Iowa Caucuses," said Jerry Crawford and Roxanne Conlin, Iowa's two members of the DNC's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling.

Their joint statement released Saturday indicates they will recommend that Iowa kick off the presidential nominating season on Jan. 14. They will suggest to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee that a western or southern swing state be allowed to step ahead of New Hampshire and hold a caucus on Jan. 22. New Hampshire would then hold its primary on Jan. 29.

The recommendation also permits a western or southern swing state to then hold a caucus or primary on Feb. 2. The regular primary season for all other states would then being on Feb. 5, according to the recommendation. The proposed schedule would begin in 2008.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IA_PRIMARY_SCRAMBLE_IOWA_IAOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-10-16-36-33

[FreedomAngel82]

1. I do think we should keep tradition but also

include other states. I am glad they're keeping Iowa and New Hampshire for the primaries. I'm just glad the democrats are wanting to branch out instead of just doing the battleground states. Every state should be considered battleground.

[AuntPatsy]

2. Agreed, all states need to be taken into account...

[IowaGuy]

3. This is heresy from a guy from Iowa, but....

I think there is a good case for moving this first in a nation status around some....it does a lot of good for party-building and generating buzz, and it seems to me the DEM party could use some of that. I will always be a participant in the caucuses here, but if first in the nation status ever went somewhere else, that would be cool too; I'd still live and deal with it just fine.

I believe its an experience everybody should have a chance at at least once in their lifetime. I also think of all the volunteers I met from other states that came here to work on campaigns and be a part of it, and that helps build bridges between other parts of the country...I know if Iowa ever lost the first in a nation status, I wouldn't cry about it, but I would schedule some vacation time to get to where it was happening and participate as a volunteer.

Since it doesn't look like it is going to change in the immediate future, I would highly recommend you all in the back end states try to get some time in one of the front loaded states working for the candidate of your choice, for the sake of you, the people you meet and work with and the DEmocratic party....all will be better for it....

Even if its just a weekend or two or just a week....I think you'll always look back on it and with a feeling of "yeah...I made America better." You may not win the battle or have it turn out the way you want (or it may), nevertheless, being on the ground fighting for your beliefs still pushed our flag and agenda in some way in the direction we need it to go. Its democracy...and the more of us that participate the better...(as simplistic and trite as that sounds...it's true)

[formernaderite]

4. I'm tired of seeing these mostly lily white states decide

I would like the schedule rearranged so that the more liberal states and diverse urban cities have more of a say. Sorry, but Iowa and New Hampshire do NOT represent democratic politics. I can't believe this is the 21st century and we're still running pre-civil rights politics.

[IowaGuy]

5. So how do the values of Iowa Democrats differ significantly...

from Dems nationwide, and what is your basis for making this claim?

Just curious....

[formernaderite]

8. you must see that urban populations have very different

needs than suburban and rural. The point is the URBAN centers are who elect democrats and the early primary should represent who earns the win. Iowa and New Hampshire as the front runners represent the old white established traditions. You must see the need to change this.

[CornField]

10. But, at the end of the day, isn't it the urban centers who have the most

representation? So isn't it fair that Iowa and New Hampshire (and IMO other smaller states) should reserve first in the nation status simply so those areas continue to have a voice in the process?

BTW, our urban centers (and yes we do have some here in Iowa) are not so different from the urban centers I've visited in other states.

[IowaGuy]

12. Iowa is a tale of two cultures....

urban and rural....Repugs=rural; Urban=Democrats. The rural repugs hate the urban Dems in the golden triangle around Des Moines and Johnson-Linn counties and the eastern cities along the river. You might wish to examine your implied assumption that Iowa is all rural (ever really been to Iowa?). In a way you are making my point that Iowa Dems are representative of Dems nationwide....

[Critters2]

22. Iowa was the home of Henry Wallace

and other REAL progressives. You may recall that Wallace got screwed by the Democrats from urban centers at the '44 convention, and that was pretty much the end of true progressive populism in the Dem Party.

Don't give me this rural=racist crap. Besides, what difference does it make if Iowa and NH go first? If you don't like the decisions they make, vote your own conscience. Iowa nd NH aren't telling you how to vote. Or are they?

[Hippo_Tron]

6. The problem with letting Boston, Chicago, or New York choose our nominee

Is that thoses media markets are so expensive that the candidate with the most money would almost inevitably win all of the time.

[formernaderite]

7. how about Detroit, Atlanta, or Cleveland?

Add in Memphis, Birmingham etc. There are plenty of urban centers that are NOT that expensive, but do reflect this parties diversity.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Not a bad idea

I'm not so sure about Birmingham or Memphis though. Are those even blue cities?

Also the problem with Tennessee and Georgia is that there are also a lot of Zell Miller Democrats in those states that never bothered to change their party affiliation. Do we really want them choosing our nominee?

[MaineDem]

9. Iowa and NH do not decide the candidate

(Ask John McCain or Tom Harkin.)

I don't mind keeping them first but I realize the need to include other states as long as we don't front-load the whole process.

I'm in favor of allowing states with like numbers of delegates to hold nomination events (caucus or primary) on the same day. If we combine many states with different numbers of delegates - say Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Maine - there will be no interest in any of the candidates coming to Wyoming and Maine but will concentrate their effort on the delegate-rich states.

Not that anyone asked me but I'd like to see smaller states grouped together - not necessarily by geography but by delegate count - and the large states be stand-alone. That way we could get diverse states deciding on the same day and have equal importance.

[IowaGuy]

13. good idea - would make party building regional also n/t

[Debi]

17. I like what your saying except for the financial burden

that it places on campaigns and candidates.

Pretty hard to fly from Vermont to Montana to New Mexico to South Carolina and to staff all those states at once as well.

I do agree with having smaller delegate count states go early, and together, like a Montana, Wyoming, Idaho on the same day. That keeps any one candidate from hitting a delegate jackpot (unless they get all three states) and keeps costs lower travel and staffing-wise.

I think the larger states (CA, NY, FL, TX) should got later in the process as to keep the delegate race going longer and giving smaller states an opportunity to at least meet the candidates and tell them their needs along the way.

:hi:

[MaineDem]

18. Good point

Regional can be okay as long as the delegate counts are fairly even on any given day.

[Debi]

19. Absolutely - and spread out to give campaigns a chance

to get in to the state, spend time w/the people of the state and to hire staff to work with supporters.

The commission should have been looking at how to make the process more even instead of months of Carl Levin spew venom about New Hampshire and Iowa.

Small states grouped together - larger states standing alone - calendar spread out over a period of time allowing campaigns and candidates to spend time w/the people in each state.

To me that equals a more fair process allowing every state to participate and not be left out because the delegate total is shot through the roof the second week in February.

(The only negative - I don't know if you can call it a negative - would be if there were one OUTSTANDING candidate that took every state by storm from the beginning - of course, maybe that would show us as united behind one candidate as well :shrug:)

[formernaderite]

23. Levin didn't spew hatred...he spoke candidly about an outdated

system, that too many wish to keep because it's traditional. Well it was traditional NOT to let minorities and women vote too.
Every four years we see all those townhall meetings full of white folks. I think it turns off voters from being interested if they don't see themselves taking part in the process. I assume Des Moines has more minority voters than NH....but New Hampshire is just about as lily white as Vermont.

[Debi]

24. Difference of opinion - ask Tom Harkin how Levin feels about Iowa/NH

That's why a drawn out process would help, so that every state could get the same attention that Iowa and New Hampshire gets.

[IowaGuy]

26. Wow, don't mean to start a flame war or nothin...

but you might want to really examine if this predicate of yours that civil war type whitey's are making the decisions for the Dem party nationally, or that they even exist in the Dem party anywhere in any significant numbers...just haven't seen it in my personal experience, and although I've lived here in Iowa most of my life, I've also lived in Louisana and done extensive traveling throughout the South...your vision of Iowa Dems just isn't matchin' up with anything I've personally experienced. re: your experience of "Every four years we see all those townhall meetings full of white folks"...do you believe everything you see on TV is the whole truth?

The very first organizational meeting I went to with the JK campaign (before he announced), had 10 people in it....6 were African-American. While rural Iowa is largely white, there is an increasing influx of Mexicans into rural Iowa and the urban areas look like just about like any other urban area in the country outside of DC and Atlanta.

Agreed that Levin didn't spew hatred but was engaging in a dialog about our process...seems to me a meaningful dialog and resolution can only come about if we all come to it with open minds and not judge peoples motives or assume they are racist or whatever just because of the area of the country they come from.

[Rambis]

14. Iowa here

If you don't count the votes it doesn't matter!

[Debi]

16. How do you count votes in a non-voting process? n/t

[Rambis]

20. We cast ballots and rethugs count them

I don't see much point in voting anymore with what has transpired in the last 2 national elections.

[Debi]

21. We're talking about the caucus process here

they are run by the parties so no republicans are in attendance at a Democratic caucus and vice-versa. Plus, in a caucus nobody votes, we voice our presidential preference, not the same thing.

I don't know what part of Iowa you live in, but (other than * and our republican representatives) we're in pretty good shape. one of our Senators is a Democrat - our Governor is a Democrat - 1/2 of the Iowa Senate is Democrat and we are 1 seat away from being 50/50 in the Iowa House.

Nationally things may stink, but w/in the state Democrats are kicking ass and are poised to take over the statehouse.

Nothing to be disappointed in here in Iowa.

[Debi]

15. If the DNC wanted to be smart about it

they would allow Iowa and New Hampshire keep their traditional roles (IA the first caucus and NH the first primary - eight days apart) and then take a loooooong break before opening the window.

The Commission's recommendation did nothing for Iowa, New Hampshire or the Party. The recommendation has added front-loading to the process worse than 2004.

We now have five states going w/in a six week period. Only the very wealth (gee, who could that be?) could afford to staff five states at once.

So, what will a smaller candidate do? skip Iowa (after all Tom Vilsack will be running so why go?) Skip New Hampshire (such a small state and why not spend time in a more diverse area on the map?) and do tarmac-to-tarmac campaigns running back and forth across America hitting the Western and Southern first states.

Then, watch out. After the first five contests EVERYONE will be going at the same time. We'll have our nominee by late Feb. early March 2008 and none of us will have even met the person.

Go back to 1992, if Clinton wouldn't have had the time to re-group after New Hampshire he would not have been President. If Iowa and New Hampshire are set to go three weeks in advance that time in between 1-2 and 3 gives other candidates time to re-asses and campaign in the next states.

The calendar needs to be spread out (I prefer small states that are close to each other going early and leaving the larger states until later to keep the delegate count even and allowing smaller candidates to remain in the race).

This recommendation was a lose/lose situation.

[wiley]

27. Agreed

It basically encourages anyone with the slightest idea that they may want to be President to start collecting money and declare today.

[Leilani]

25. New Hampshire turned blue in '04

Screw them & you'll turn them back to red.