Seriously, WHO CARES which states go first in the Democratic primary?

[derby378]

Why does it have to be etched in stone that Iowa and New Hampshire go first? Why the need to censore Florida from the selection process? What would be so wrong with Texas or Wisconsin going first instead? I'm beginning to have some serious doubts about this whole consensual hallucination that we call the primary schedule, in which many states with the largest number of electoral votes are effectively disenfranchised.

[NMDemDist2]

1. i think Iowa and NH make the candidates get personal. they have to do

'retail politics' and it's a good vetting tool.

no way they could reach as many people on a 'look em in the eye' basis in the big states....

[derby378]

6. Howard Dean was willing to make a go of it in Texas

He is the only Presidential candidate, Democratic or Republican, who was willing to appear in a public rally in Dallas that I'm aware of. As in outdoors, free to the public, bring the kids and the lawn chairs.

[beberocks]

9. The Problem with IA and NH being first is that you get candidates pandering to those states

And disregarding the bigger states. I'd like to see more of a mix of states in the early primaries, big and small states, coastal and mid-western, etc. The system was much to biased towards small states who did not always represent the rest of the nation. Just tired of CA being an afterthought in the electoral process.

[cali]

19. Are you aware that both S.Carolina and Nevada

follow closely on the heels of NH and Iowa?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Why limit it to IA and NH? There are many other small states

I think we should rotate the first two spots among the small states and then randomly chose which states go 3rd and 4th. If the order is Delaware, Montana, Texas, and Michigan prior to Super Tuesday so be it.

[sabbat hunter]

61. Delaware or California plans

One of those plans MUST be implemented for the primary process. Both have primaries that are staggered starting in Feb, with one primary group per month. starts with the smallest states, the biggest states go last. This way the small states are made part of the process, but most likely a candidate wont be chosen until the big states go.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Iowans gave us "Mister Electable" in 2004. Do you trust their judgment? I don't!

For all I know, the same Iowans that set the stage for our defeat in the 2004 elections, are now saying to themselves that "it is time we had a woman President," thus setting the stage for a defeat at next year's elections.

Having Iowa and New Hampshire always go first is a LOSING strategy, it is bad for democracy, and bad for the American people.

[ProudDad]

48. They're nearly all professional liars

I don't think this "look 'em in the eye" crap holds water.

It just weeds out the bad lairs or those with a bad memory concerning their daily talking points. They don't have to talk issues...

The slick, sly corporate tools make it through just fine...

[saltpoint]

2. It's not unlike kindergarteners in line for lunch. They all want to be

first.

I don't like the way it's done now and would like to see it brought to heel. Not sure if we can get a system that satisfies everyone but we could get one that accommodates most.

I like a 6-week primary schedule in April-May of the year of the election, 3 vote dates across that period, 17 states on April ___, 17 more in late April, and the remaning 16 plus territories in early May. These groups of 17 would be randomly chosen and would thereby not be the same 17 each cycle. No one state, no one region, no one demographic could dominate the primary process. The late calendar schedule affords candidates and organizations maximum time to raise cash and get their grassroots people in gear. The media's concentration of the process would be tethered to the condensed calendar. A Kucinich candidacy would be on equal footing with a Clinton candidacy, in so far as time for organization and fundraising were concerned. Debates would naturally weigh more and theoretically more people would watch them to determine candidate preferences.

[kdmorris]

12. I think that's a pretty good idea!

Rotating states would also be better than what we have now. I would add that each primary vote date would, each election cycle, would be split among "big" and "little" states. Maybe take all the states and categorize them into two groups, greater than X number of delegates and less than x number of delegates, thereby allowing a mix each vote date, by pulling x number of "big" states and x number of "small" states.

Something like that, though. Something to insure that we don't have all of the "big" states going first and the "little" states going last.

That being said, I'm really against the way the Florida handled this (I live in Florida). The Republican government, in cahoots with the Florida Democratic Party, decided to flaunt this and thumb their nose at the rules rather than try to get them changed in some other way. They did it on purpose, with full knowledge and intent that we would be sanctioned.

[saltpoint]

13. Yes. Appreciate very much your take on big vs. little states.

Last election cycle, California went in June as always, and Iowa first as always. California shouldn't be ahead of Iowa because it's bigger, but Iowa shouldn't be ahead of California when California is more ethically and economically diverse.

Some rotation system, condensed and focused, late in the spring of the election year, would give smaller states equal say and ethically/economically diverse states equal say.

[janx]

3. The problem may lie with the media.

Think of what would happen if the media didn't pounce on these early contests and declare a winner right from the beginning. People need to vote for the candidate they feel is the most qualified and competent, not the one glamorized on television.

It's out of control.

[JDPriestly]

4. We here in California have virtually no voice in the primaries

although we are a large, diverse state with enormous resources. Along with New York, we contribute a huge portion of the nation's taxes, but our voice is not really heard at the primary stage. Instead, tiny little states like New Hampshire and Iowa and South Carolina, states that are extremely conservative and have relatively little economic clout decide who will run. As it now stands, the system promotes conservative thinking. No wonder Republicans so often win in the presidential elections. The spotlight during the process in which candidates are selected for each party is on conservative voters in relatively conservative state. Please note that all three of the states who get to go first are west of the rockies. How about including at least one big western state? How about letting California lead the nation?

[jmp]

23. In our system Iowa & NH play the role of the Mullahs in Iran.

You can vote for any candidate that they screen and approve.

Nice and democratic like. ;)

[Greyhound]

38. Uncomfortably close to the truth... n/t

:kick:


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

[rurallib]

5. I am getting ripped in the Iowa forum because I agree with you

BTW I am from Iowa. First in nation status gives us a lot of prestige and of course the campaigns spend big bucks here. But we are 1% of the population and mostly white.
I have long felt that the FIN status should be rotated among several states. A new plan for regional primaries to be held a month apart with the lead-off position rotating seems reasonable.

[yourout]

8. I like your idea.

Break the country into 4 or more regions and rotate which region goes first. Then lottery the states within the region for the final order.

[dysfunctional press]

11. rather than grouping states by region- it should be done by population size.

if states are grouped exclusively by region, candidates would spend the majority of their time in the most populous states of each region.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

36. Great Minds think alike

I've been saying the regional Primaries for a long time, split them up in groups hold one each month over a 5 month period. Then have them rotate order every 4 years.


5 Regions
Alaska/Hawaii/Pacific Coast States
Southwest/Plains States
Midwest/Great Lakes States
South/Dixie states
New England/Northeast States

[youngdem]

7. The reason it matters (my take)

Is that the candidates have crafted strategies and pandered to specific issues (like ethanol for Iowa) to attempt to sway that particular state's demographics, and if you make them change the order, they have to change how they pander.

If they had known Florida was gonna be first, they would have been pushing prescription drug benefit reform, property tax and homeowners' insurance reform and Cuba pandering.

Just my take on why it matters.


edited to add: it doesn't matter to me...I want a super primary.

[kdmorris]

15. Florida still wouldn't be first on January 29th

That seems to be a misconception that a lot of people have.

What Florida did was thumb their nose at the DNC to move our primary up to the same day as South Carolina's. We would have been tied for 4th if the DNC had allowed it to happen. The order would be:

Iowa Caucuses Jan. 14
Nevada Caucuses Jan. 19
NH Primary Jan. 22
SC and FL Jan. 29

Nevada and SC were allowed to move theirs up to allow more diversity in the early nomination process. At the same time, they set rules that said no other states could move theirs up before Feb. 5.

So, our Republican Legislature and Governor, with the support of the Florida Democratic Party, said "Fuck you. We'll do what we want to and you will allow it cause we are big and bad and important". And the DNC said "No you aren't".

And, we, the voters in Florida may have to pay for that by not having our voices heard in the nomination process.

[ProudDad]

50. This is really fucked up

Iowa Caucuses Jan. 14
Nevada Caucuses Jan. 19
NH Primary Jan. 22
SC and FL Jan. 29

Dip-shit, white-bread, "conservative" and right-wing states call the shots, eh?

One National Primary just like One National General is the only fair way to do it...

[kdmorris]

57. The only problem I have with the One National Primary

is that it will favor candidates who have the most money to spend on National TV campaigns. Relative unknowns wouldn't stand much of a chance and I think that would likely get us the most corporatist nominee available.

I do like the idea of rotating primaries and maybe having them closer together. Do them all over a 6 week period, say, and don't have the same states go first each time. In 2004, when the Florida primary came around, everyone had dropped out of the race already and there really wasn't a choice to be had. I got to vote for Kucinich, though, which made me truly happy, but everyone already knew that Kerry was the nominee.

Standard disclaimer: I still don't think what Florida did was the right thing. If you want to change the rules, saying "Fuck you" to the DNC isn't the best way to go about it. Of course, I think that the result was exactly what they wanted.

[dysfunctional press]

10. the order of the primaries should be rotated with each cycle-

with states grouped according to the size of their electorate.

i would say to group the states by region- but you'd risk having the candidates campaign in the state with the most delegates in each region. if all the states in each primary contest had roughly the same number of delegates, candidates would be more likely to even out their campaign times among them as well.

and by rotating the order- each state has the same opportunity to be "first" in the process.

[frogcycle]

14. Personally, I yearn for the good old days

When the convention selected the candidate.

Oh, sure, it was a smoke-filled-room slugfest, with back room deals, and there were "probable nominees" before the convention, but nothing was cast in stone. Just because a candidate had won an early primary, that did not mean they would still have those delegates come convention time. Sometimes delegates "defected"; sometimes candidates "released" their delegates with a recommendation of whom to support. Chaotic, yes, but at least it wasn't over until it was over.

[janx]

16. As for the last part--candidates "released" their delegates

with a recommendation of whom to support...

It's called vote swapping, and it still happens, or at least it did in Iowa during the last primary. ;-)

[kdmorris]

17. LOL

I love you description!!! I just imagine Edwards, Kucinich, Obama and Clinton all with cigars in their mouths, playing a game of poker in some back room somewhere, where winner takes all!

"I'll see you 27 delegates from Iowa and raise you 15 delegates from Florida."

hehehe that amuses me.

[Totally Committed]

18. I do!

:hi: <<<<<<<<< me.

I'm tired of Iowa and NH choosing the candidate. By the time the primaries get around to Mass., my vote means nothing anyway.

TC

[cali]

20. I'm in a teensy minority here.

I support the tradition of Iowa and NH going first. I support the retail politics that are engendered. My main concern has been the lack of diversity, but that's being addressed by moving Nevada and S. Carolina up.

[MaineDem]

21. And all states had an opportunity to present their case for being added up front

I don't know if FL made a presentation but I think the idea was to let smaller states go first.

There also was an opportunity for states to GAIN delegates by going later in the process. I don't think any state went for that.

[cobalt1999]

24. Even if you support a pre-selected set of favored states.

Iowa, NH, SC, and Nev are not the ones.

How about a manufacturing state like Michigan? Maybe we'd have someone protecting the exodus of manufacturing jobs from this country instead of a bunch of Ethanol supporters.

Personally, I think it violates a major democratic tenet to support the idea that not everyone gets the same say in choosing the candidate. That's just me though, I like fairness.

[cali]

25. You can't make it fair.

That's a panglossian dream.

[LWolf]

22. I do.

I want my primary vote to actually mean something.

My primary in '08 is in late May. How many candidates will even be left on my ballot by that time? I don't need voters from other states limiting my choices, thank you very much.

What real effect will my primary vote have?

[AtomicKitten]

26. As a Californian, I do. By the time CA's polls close, it's long over.

:-(

[jmp]

27. Don't worry ... Iowa is looking out for you.

;)

[AtomicKitten]

28. thanks for that !!

The virtual three-way tie in Iowa is a nail-biter.

[jmp]

29. I'm not actually from Iowa

I'm from the state that the DNC banished from the Union. ;)

[AtomicKitten]

30. Well, I have a theory about Texas and Florida.

All the batshit crazy stuff emanates from those states.

If you didn't live there, I'd advocate sawing off Florida and letting it float out to sea.

My master plan for Texas is still in the works but it involves weasels, burlap sacks, and a bat.

[AZBlue]

46. I know what you mean - until 08 Arizona was right there with you.

But our Gov, a great Dem (and a female to boot!), just moved our primary up to Feb. 5. I'm very excited - now we will get a good close-up look at the candidates and feel we have more say (although I don't know if that's the way it happens in reality, but it's nice to pretend it does).

You can use my address and come vote here in AZ if you want! ;)

[AtomicKitten]

52. vote early and often

I am looking forward to Thunderdome or in the words of Jon Stewart Clusterf*ck to the White House.

Woo-hoo!

[AZBlue]

54. That would look good on a bumper sticker

[Midwestern Democrat]

31. I think restoring the old primary schedule would be the best option.

These problems have come to a head because the DNC thought it would be a fabulous idea to frontload the 2004 primaries so the party could decide on a nominee quickly. The goal was to avoid having a nominee weakened by a long and bloody primary. Instead, all it accomplished was giving the GOP about three extra months to destroy our nominee and alienated the later primary states - since the primaries basically fell like dominoes after New Hampshire. If you go back and look at pre-2004 primaries, they may not have made every state happy but they were longer and more competitive - Bill Clinton, for example, didn't clinch the nomination until he won New York in April '92. If we could somehow return the primary calendar to its traditional timeframe - all primaries/caucuses except IA/NH must be held between March and June - I think most, not ALL, states would be happier.

I won't back a "National Primary" - I have no desire for the nomination to automatically go to the candidate with the most money/most celebrity and I say this as someone whose primary has traditionally been held in May.

[jmp]

32. "all primaries/caucuses except IA/NH"

Who knew that Edwards was speaking out the Democratic Party when he spoke of 2 Americas? :eyes:

I'm sorry but that idea is a non-starter. I'm sick of < 10 million people dictating to the rest of us.

[Midwestern Democrat]

33. I could care less which two states go first, but I'd prefer they be small.

I am not remotely convinced that a lesser known/lesser funded candidate would have a prayer in a 50 state "National Primary" - and the last thing I want is to increase the power of money in politics.

[jmp]

34. Or citizens of more populus states ...

Actually having a choice.

We should be content just throwing flowers at the feet of Iowa's choice on their victory lap.

[cali]

35. Hyperbole, it's what's for dinner.

Yes, NH and Iowa have a disproportionate influence on the primary process- as do S.Carolina and Nev, but between those four states, it's a fairly broad representation of the electorate. There's a northeastern state, a midwestern state, a southern state and a western state. No, it's not perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a national primary or rotating regionals that completely preclude all but the best funded, most well known candidates.

[cobalt1999]

37. Correction

IN YOUR OPINION, it's better than a national primary or rotating regionals. Not everyone agrees with you. In MY OPINION, it's not better.

You value small money candidates over equal say. I don't.

[cali]

40. NO CORRECTION NEEDED

It's obviously my opinion: I'm writing it, and no, I don't have to preface everything I write with "IMO".

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. Why not just eliminate all candidates besides Clinton and Obama then?

They're the only two who have money and constant media attention, so they're the only ones who'd have a chance in this "fair" national primary day of yours. Such a system would practically guarantee that he (or she) who has the most money has the most votes.

It's truly sad that you actually call that "democratic."

[jmp]

59. Let the DNC impose primary spending limits on the candidates ...

Instead of robbing most of us of our choice.

Nah, that would be too fair and make too much sense. :eyes:

[jmp]

58. As I pointed out in another thread ...

By the time Florida got to vote in '04, Edwards, Clark, Dean & Gephardt were all out of the race.

It's not hyperbole ... Florida had NO choice.

This "screening process" is UNACCEPTABLE.

[ProudDad]

51. With complete Public Financing

and a limited "election period" with free Airtime for candidates;

it would work...

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. This is the best idea so far.

There's NO reason Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't go first, but spreading the primaries out more evenly will make it less "do-or-die" to win those states. The frontloading for 2008 will insure that only the super-rich media darling candidates will have a chance.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. I live in a big state - Illinois - and I'm tired of big-state people whining about this

"Waaaaaaah, California and New York don't get a voice! Iowa and New Hampshire are just full of white rural hicks and cows, who cares about them! Why can't my wonderfully diverse populous state go first??"

Ignoring the often not-so-subtle bashing of rural people contained in these whines, the idea that big states should go first is fundamentally undemocratic. If you WANT the big money media-sponsored candidate to win, then absolutely, let's give the first primaries to NY and CA and other giant states with huge urban populations, because those primaries sure as shit won't be decided by retail politics or actual interaction with the candidates. They'll be decided by who has the best and most TV ads and who runs the smoothest promotion/smear operation.

The only people I ever see whining about this are a) people who are mad their favorite candidate didn't get nominated in a previous election year and b) people who think their 2008 candidate won't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire. If you want a media-anointed candidate like Clinton to win, then by all means move the first primaries to a state where the only campaigning will be done with millions of dollars over the airwaves. But if you want to give smaller, retail-cetric people's politicians like Kucinich and Dodd a chance, then you just might rethink your "let the huge media market states go first" attitude.

[cleveramerican]

45. Front loading the primaries favors the moneyed establishment candidates

[ProudDad]

47. There should be ONE primary election day

just as there's ONE general election day.

All of the candidates should be PUBLICLY Financed. All of the candidates should have generous access to OUR AIRWAVES in prime time for the 3 weeks leading up to each election along with franking privileges.

The elections would then belong to We the People instead of Them the Corporations...

(To forestall the inevitable)

If anyone wants to self-finance, their publicly financed opponents' funding will be increased to equal any self-financed candidate. The requirement for OUR airwaves to be returned to us GRATIS -- as a payment for our license to mint money that they receive from We the People -- should take care of the major cost factor in today's elections.

[zulchzulu]

49. Whatever the first states deliver will be a HUGE factor on February 5th

The primary schedule this year sucks. It is so front-loaded that candidates aren't really fully vetted as they were in past primaries.

The MSM is going to hype up whoever wins first and the momentum will be a huge factor.

[ProudDad]

53. Not only that

but the FUCKING ELECTION started a YEAR TOO EARLY!!!!!!!

[killbotfactory]

55. Because if a big state goes first, the establishment candidate wins

Because only those with a lot of money would be able to compete.

[IndianaGreen]

56. The establishment candidate won Iowa in 2004

and the establishment candidate is leading in New Hampshire in 2008.

What we got now is welfare for Iowa and New Hampshire every four years. Two states with few minorities that get all that money from campaign coffers, and then they dump their choice on everyone else.

[derby378]

60. Boo-yah

Of course, a little agitation from a couple of DLC-funded 527s didn't help Dean at all...