So, everyone still think Iowa's status safe? Not me!

[Debi]

Democrats consider Nevada for January presidential vote

ASSOCIATED PRESS

RENO, Nev. (AP) - Nevada could join New Hampshire and Iowa in holding early presidential votes under a Democratic National Committee proposal designed to broaden the pool of voters choosing the presidential nominee.

A DNC commission that seeks to revamp the party's primary schedule is moving toward adding a Western state and a Southern state in January.

Nevada and Colorado are the most likely candidates in the West largely because neither has joined a separate movement to hold a Feb. 5 Western States Primary, commission members said.

<snip>

The candidate emerging from Iowa and New Hampshire - small states with little racial diversity - usually has the nomination locked up by the time Nevada and other Western states vote.

<snip>

The commission meets again Dec. 10.







http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2005/nov/27/112710701.html

[CornField]

1. Not an Iowa native

While I enjoy the "first in the nation" status, I wonder if Iowa is really a true representation of the nation. Actually, I wonder if any state could be considered representative of the nation.

I've not visited all of Iowa yet, but it does seem to me that most of our state is predominantly white and predominantly middle class. I see very few people of ethnic origins here -- especially Asian and Pacific people. I also tend to see more men than women at caucus events. Perhaps this would be the case anywhere?

I sometimes wonder if native Iowans try to hang onto the status based on state pride and/or historical tradition. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have all the states, or a block of states caucus as first in the nation in lieu of any one state.

And, of course, you can all feel free to smack me about...

[Debi]

2. I won't smak you about

But I will ask you to state 'No Comment' if some reporter comes around asking you about Iowa's status!!!! :P

Of course it's pride and tradition that wants me to keep Iowa First in the Nation (and a little bit of greed, I like the 40some Million dollars that comes to this state every four years, I like the access to would be presidents and their staff and the lobbyists and reporters that follow them in). I like being first.

I don't believe that a national primary or even regional primaries would be cost effective for candidates (imagine the money it would cost to have a staff in each state or in 12 states at once. Which would stop any non-millionaires from running. or the tarmac to tarmac rallies that would ensue instead of face to face small conversations) So, if there is only going to be one or two states going first, why not Iowa? We've been doing it for almost thirty years, most participants take it seriously and it's a benefit to the state and the candidates.

You are entitled to your opinion and I won't come down on you too hard, I just recall living in Montana (last state in the nation to vote) and NEVER seeing a presidential candidate, then moving to Iowa and having them come to my husbands office to sit and chat. WOW, what a difference!

:hi:

[Debi]

3. I know, I know responding to my own post...

but I wanted to add a couple of more links re: New Hampshire

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_PRIMARY_SCRAMBLE_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/11/nh_dems_openly.html#comments