Democrats Set to Shake Up Primary Calendar

[NVMojo]

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Democrats are on track to jumble the states in the presidential primary calendar in response to growing criticism that the same predominantly white states hold many of the cards in early voting.

And not even complaints from a former president and a half-dozen White House hopefuls can stop them.

Iowa would still go first in the new calendar, but a Western state - possibly Nevada or Arizona - would be wedged in before the New Hampshire primary. A Southern state - possibly Alabama or South Carolina - would follow New Hampshire.

The national Democrats' rules and bylaws committee expects to vote on the proposal this weekend.

more....

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-elect/2006/jul/21/072103347.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Compromise: have South Carolina and New Hampshire on the same day

SC always goes early anyway. The Democratic electorate in SC is 50% black. SC is a small state, so it won't overshadow New Hampshire either.

[Syrinx]

2. I'd like Alabama to get an early vote

Just so that I'd feel like my vote counts for something.

EDIT: I think we should have a national primary. Every state voting the same day. That seems the most fair way to me.

[tritsofme]

3. A national primary would hurt candidates with less resources

Since they would have to play to the national media market, having smaller states go early lets less prominent candidates emerge and compete in the primary process.

[Syrinx]

4. yeah, I keep forgetting that point, that has been made to me before

Maybe they should mix the early primaries up. Have different states lead off each cycle. :shrug:

[Mojambo]

5. Yeah, I don't understand why it has to be the same order every time. n/t

[Syrinx]

6. I know. Nothing against New Hampshire and Iowa.

But let some other folks have a say too.

[MaineDem]

9. Not only that

Smaller states would never see or hear from the candidates. All effort would be placed in the high-delegate states.

[mitchtv]

20. So big states get no say till it's over?

enough is enough. maybe big stses should keep their money in big states too

[MaineDem]

21. Of course not

That's not what I said. I believe the discussion was about combined primaries or all-on-one day primaries.

I think large states should be alone on a primary date. Or large states should be combined. But my opinion is that large states should never have their primary/caucus on the same day as smaller states.

In my ideal world states with, say, 4 electoral votes could be combined on one day. States like CA, NY, PA, OH etc should each be on a separate day - alone. And they shouldn't be at the end of the process; they should be interspersed throughout the whole primary season.

[mitchtv]

19. a series of regional primaries

which could be rotated, would be fair. It is truly galling to have red states make the decisions ALL THE TIME

[gorbal]

7. Great idea

I'm all for that. Perhaps African American candidates won't be so maginalized if this idea goes through.

[Demeter]

8. This Is Rearranging Deck Chairs on Titanic Again

The system of selecting a Democratic candidate is broken. There ought to be some national consensus building (platform) then candidates support the platform (or not) and then a national primary day. Anything else is lame and useless as far as winning over the nation goes, let alone the
Democratic Party.

[Biernuts]

10. BOTH major parties have been kissing Iowa's & New Hampshire's

asses far too long. They do not represent a good cross section of the country and shouldn't be on any pedestal. Set up rotations to give other states the early visibility.

Why continue to reward them? Iowa went Bush in 2004 and NH did in 2000. It's a race for the DEMOCRATIC nomination - pick solidly blue states and make it clear that if you want to go 1st, it's tied to performance.

[Skink]

11. Next we need to abolish the Caucus....

give Iowa a primary and the 6 percent of people that actually participate may rise to a level that you would expect in a Democracy.

[Ravy]

13. I think we need to move to all caucuses.

I like the caucus system. It prevents crossover and independent voting.

Maybe this deserves its own thread.

[phiddle]

12. How about regional primary days?

Group the states into 8 regions: New England, mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Rocky Mountains and so forth. Every 2 weeks a different region would have their day, with each state in that region voting on the same day. This would mean that the candidates would concentrate on each region, one at a time, thus saving resources and paying more attention to local issues. Total time, 16 weeks, as now, but allowing the rise of regional candidates and more varied strategies. Moreover, every 4 years the order of the regions could be varied, so as to prevent one region from excessively influencing the results.

[redqueen]

14. It should be done all over the country on one day.

I'm sick of some states having more weight given to their votes and others being unduly influenced. It's just stupid.

[Ravy]

15. Whatever they do, I hope they start off the calandar with multiple

caucuses or primaries on the same day. 3 at least, from different parts of the country representing different demographics.

This will make it harder to knock someone out early because they didnt win Iowa or New Hampshire.

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. Halfway thru the primary?

Late in the game to make a change for the 2008 primaries. For some potentially throwing away all their efforts to date.

The other question will be can low dollar candidates effectively compete in Arizona or Nevada. In Arizona a candidate may only be able to personnaly contact one fifth of the total voters that would be contacted in New Hampshire.

[MaineDem]

17. We haven't even started the primary season for '08 yet

I don't understand your concern.

February of '08 is a long way off still.

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. Not in New Hampshire

Candidates have been laying the ground work and getting free publicity/press since Nov. 04. The Manchester Union Leader maintains on it's website information on all the candidates who may be running in the 2008 primary.

The campaigning may not start in heavy till 16 months before the primary. But don't let people tell you the candidates havn't been running for this primary since 11/04.

[MaineDem]

22. NH will be the first primary in '08

That's a given.

And I agree that candidates have been "running" for a year and half. But the actual primary schedule has not been set. That's all I was saying. So it isn't half way into the primary season yet.

[Pithy Cherub]

23. Low dollar candidates must have effective communications skills.

That means amongst their communication plans an ability to use the netroots/grassroots/blogosphere to its fullest potential. Many of the presidential candidates have predicated their 2008 pre-strategy on 2004 norms; which is a mistake. Those candidates that are ineffectual with new media are going to suffer becuase they have to rely on the old media 9ad dollars and expensive consultants) to magnify their messages. It will play out even more as each state has a "local" blogosphere that can raise money and increase awareness. Those campaigning and relying mainly on past presidential practices like Kennedy, Clinton or even Kerry will fail the new primary standards. The old media focused on process, endorsements and money will play to those more traditional pols, but the emerging new media allows a distribution system to come into play that really is in its infancy. Look at how much time certain people have spent in Iowa and New Hampshire and not in Nevada, Alabama, Arizona or South Carolina. It is going to start to change the way people have to strategize and those running since 11/2004 (and yes, that is most of them) have a new dynamic to play to that they have to incorporate in as well as a new schedule.

We shall certainly see who is adaptable enough and who whines. :popcorn:

[Herman Munster]

24. shifting states helps Hillary

She has 100% name recognition and is extremely popular with african americans. Most african americans are much more socially conservative than the typical poster here and Bill Clinton is very popular with African Americans, so she'll clean house with the black vote in southern states.

Once she wins a few cacuses and primaries, she will become "inevitable" and win. The only hope for a challenger is to win one of the other early primary states and tear into her inevitability argument for the nomination.

[MaineDem]

25. Welcome to DU

I don't think Hillary has the support you suggest.

[jaybeat]

26. What about John Edwards?

I would think he would do well (local boy, and all), especially since he has a track record of advocating for the disenfranchised *and* is not afraid to make issues of class, race and economics a big part of his campaign.