"Dems may punish candidates." How would you vote??

[Sparkly]

Democrats may punish candidates

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

CHICAGO - The Democrats are moving to enforce discipline in the battle between states over early presidential primary slots, punishing candidates who campaign in states that violate the party's rejuggled 2008 schedule.

A rule change recommended Friday by the party's rules and bylaws committee would deny national convention delegates to any presidential candidates who campaign in states that leapfrog their primaries over others.

The tough stance is part of a proposed overhaul of party rules to change the decades-long tradition of keeping Iowa and New Hampshire at the starting gate of presidential nomination voting. The new party plan would insert Nevada between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and give South Carolina greater influence by scheduling its primary a week after New Hampshire.

On Saturday, the full Democratic National Committee will vote on the rules changes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

How would you vote?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I think Wisconsin, Ohio, and Missouri should be first with Iowa.

Those states seem to be a better test for a candidate's ability to win than anywhere else. Why is South Carolina given any sort of influence?

[Selatius]

2. Somebody probably lobbied to put South Carolina in that spot.

I can't think of any other reason.

[karynnj]

9. Can't think of who it benefits, can you??????

Who could have been born there?

[Sparkly]

3. Seems like a lot of concentration on the midwest...

I'd like to see a southern state among the early ones.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Why? We don't win southern states.

Nor will we.

[Sparkly]

11. I think we could, and I think Dems there should have a say...

Meanwhile, we don't always win New Hampshire, either; and even in 1992, Clinton won Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia... In 1996, he lost Georgia but picked up Florida; maintained the rest.

[karynnj]

8. I like your list better than SC

There is no way (other than a massive landslide) where we would win South Carolina. Picking someone liked by those swing states would be better. (Mo is less a swing state - but not hopeless like SC.)

[cleveramerican]

4. Harry Reid is from Nevada

Do you think this may have something to do with this?
Or am I being cynical?

[Sparkly]

5. I don't know, actually.

Maybe they just wanted a western state? Of course there are several out there, so who knows?!

I would just like to see a regular election state go first instead of Iowa's caucuses.

[karynnj]

10. But wouldn't taking one that is more likely better

say Virgina, North Carolina, KY or TN?

[saracat]

6. Arizona presented the best arguments but had no seat at the table to make

a decision.Arizona should have been the western caucus state.The DNC bowed to Harry Reid. This is really too bad as Arizona is far more representative of the west than Nevada.Influnence counts and in this case it could hurt us in "real" representation.