LAT: Democrats May Make January Presidential Primary Month

[DeepModem Mom]

Democrats May Make January Presidential Primary Month
The party is likely to approve a new calendar. New Hampshire is especially put out.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Times Staff Writer
August 18, 2006

CHICAGO — Democrats are laying aside the debate over issues and philosophy and turning to something more prosaic — rejiggering the political calendar — as a way to boost the party's White House prospects in 2008.

Barring a last-minute shift, Democratic leaders meeting here are expected to add Nevada and South Carolina to the states that hold early primaries, alongside perennials Iowa and New Hampshire.

The move is the main business at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting, which opened Thursday in Chicago. It would be the most significant change in the presidential nominating process in years, and hasten the front-loading that has already transformed the contest from a months-long slog into a sprint lasting just a few weeks.

Many political observers in Iowa and New Hampshire bitterly oppose the change; there is even talk of pushing their balloting into late 2007 to leapfrog any interlopers and preserve New Hampshire's historic preeminence. The proposal also has produced more than a few knocks on Nevada and the louche life associated with Las Vegas....

***

Although Iowa and New Hampshire enjoy storied political histories, critics say the two lack the ethnic diversity and metropolitan texture needed to produce well-rounded presidential nominees....Moreover, Democrats are increasingly eyeing the West as a key battleground, following the party's gains across the Rocky Mountain region....Winning just two or three more Western states, with Nevada and New Mexico the most promising, would put a Democrat in the White House in 2008, (Mike Stratton, a Colorado-based Democratic strategist) said....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dems18aug18,0,6352710.story?coll=la-home-nation

[Greeby]

1. Why can't they just do it all on one day?

Then they can pick whoever they want without this lockstep "Get behind the frontrunner" nonsense

[MS Liberal]

2. That makes too much sense!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

6. That makes no sense at all

The primary season should be spread out and very long so we can see who can take it, who can dish it out, and who has the resonant policies. Top-loading is idiotic; it coronates someone--generally the current darling of the party hacks--whether he/she has the oomph or not.

Do you remember 1984? By top-loading the primaries, we gave it to the lackluster, sleepy-eyed Mondale, when we could have had Gary Hart. (Hart's peccadilloes weren't until the '88 primary season, mind you.) If it wasn't for the super delegates, Hart should have had that nomination. He had a fighting chance against Reagan then, too, but by hustling a pre-ordained result, we screwed ourselves.

Nobody knows who can go the distance until some distance has been gone; to force an early resolution just allows the reactionaries plenty of time to concentrate their fire. Holding off a decision is not only good for tactical reasons, it also allows us all to really see the contenders and see who has the right stuff.

I agree completely that letting New Hampshire and Iowa have far too much say-so is wrong (not to mention incredibly unrepresentative), but to scramble to such an early resolution is idiocy.

If one wanted to do it on one day, why not have endless campaigning and straw polls and then have a single day primary in August? Now THAT'D be an idea.

Otherwise, a long primary season is our best friend; it takes time to see who has the touch and the support.

[Alacrat]

7. I agree with you 100%

and if I'm not mistaken Big Bill, was nowhere near the lead when the primaries began in 92, could you imagine what the U.S. would be like if we missed out on those 8 wonderful years? Soup and bread lines, depression at it's worst.

[Demit]

10. I absolutely agree with everything you said.

My first impression on reading the headline was horror. January? WAY too soon! Too soon to decide, too long for a candidate to get shopworn...

I didn't have the heart to read the article, to see what the Democrats rationale for this is. But my second impression is suspicion that the winning candidate is already decided upon by the DLC in advance of the primaries. The momentum the unchosen might gain would jeopardize their main man. Can't have that.

[TheWraith]

3. That would eliminate anyone who doesn't have a huge pocketbook.

One of the benefits of the current system is that it allows everybody to compete in the small, retail politics states, somewhat leveling the playing field. Even somebody who doesn't have a big war chest can pick up momentum if they have the votes.

[Demeter]

4. It's Time To Take New Hampshire Down

off their righteous throne and make a real national primary with instant runoff. Like to see them cheat on that!

[xxqqqzme]

5. great! 2 more red states get to tell

the rest of the democrats who they must support - Why not Utah & Alabama?

Lets have blue states for a change - like California & Illinois.

[sidpleasant]

8. stupid, stupid, stupid

Didn't the DNC learn anything from 2004? Once there's a clear front runner wrapping up the delegates the press loses interest in our primaries. John Kerry more or less disappeared from the news for months after he locked up the nomination, even though there were still a number of pimaries left. It's in the party's interest to have a protracted primary campaign that keeps our issues and message in the public eye for as long as possible.

[Skink]

9. 4 regional primaries evenly spaced.

2 months between each. The four courners of the country each represent unique demographics. Free air time and public financing for anyone recieving more than 5 percent of the vote in the first primary.
Also equal delegate totals given to each quadrant of the country.