Change in Democratic Nominating Election Calendar Riles New Hampshire

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT/Reuters: Change in Election Calendar Riles New Hampshire
By REUTERS
Published: August 22, 2006

....Under Saturday's (Democratic National Committee) vote, Iowa still holds the very first event -- party caucuses -- and New Hampshire has the first primary. But Nevada's caucuses have been squeezed into the eight-day gap between Iowa and New Hampshire. And South Carolina's primaries would be held a week after New Hampshire.

"As far as I'm concerned what the DNC did this weekend is irrelevant to whatever New Hampshire will do,'' said Kathleen Sullivan, the state Democratic Party chair. ``The DNC has never set the date of our primary.''

The tight schedule -- spanning just 15 days in January 2008 -- would make it hard for candidates to invest the usual amount of time in New Hampshire and Iowa, both of which have fewer minorities than the nation as a whole....Traditionally, the power of New Hampshire and Iowa in the campaign has led to a disproportionate amount of time and money spent by candidates in those states. Winning either provides strong momentum through the next rounds of the race.

Candidates who campaign in states that defy the new system face punitive measures, with delegates won in those states not counting toward nomination at the summer convention.

New Hampshire officials reckon candidates will take that risk because the state's small size means it only has a few delegates and the publicity of winning New Hampshire's primary gives a candidate a massive boost....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-newhampshire.html

[beyurslf]

1. I am glad they are making the change. Those two almost-all-white, rural

states shouldn't be given so much power to choose our candidate.

[Historic NY]

2. I'm glad these states have begun to become prima-donas....

frankly I think we should go after the Repugs Convention for a change. I can't take 9-10 months of Dem's beating themselves up and giving the Repugs fodder. Candidates get stuck kowtowing to small states which are given more control than they should have.

[Vinca]

3. Then again . . .

it was our small state that revived the candidacy of William Jefferson Clinton. It was our state that gave King George a loss in the Republican primary. New Hampshire voters are intelligent, thoughtful and participate on a personal level during the primary season because we feel the weight of the country on our shoulders. Kerry was a good choice as well and I'd bet the family fortune (okay, not a great loss) he was the true winner. Don't bash New Hampshire. I don't mind Nevada going between Iowa and New Hampshire, but I do mind being called a "prima dona."

[zanne]

4. I agree, Vinca. Why at this time in history?

I don't understand why the DNC thinks Democrats will benefit from this change. NH isn't as "white" as it used to be. I live in Manchester and over the past 20 years, we've seen quite a change. I don't think diversity can be the real reason for a change. As you said, we gave Clinton and Kerry a big boost by electing them. What strategic reason can they have for changing it now?