Dean's TERRIBLE idea regarding Iowa and N.H.!!

[brentspeak]

Apparently, Howard Dean is proposing -- or elements within the DNC are proposing -- to transfer either or both Iowa and N.H.'s frontrunner roles in the Democratic nomination process to other states.

That is an extremely effective recipe for both Iowa and N.H. to go Red for years to come. Both states take great pride in their traditional roles in the nomination process. Both states have gone Blue or have been swing states in recent presidential elections. But that will certainly change if the Democratic party pi$$es their residents off.

[creeksneakers2]

1. Iowa and New Hampshire are traditions

I hope Dean changes his mind. Changing the order would upset people in both states.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. they are poor traditions

The DNC and other groups use them to chop real candidates off at the knees, force them to waste tons of money in little states, and do nothing for a truly powerful national campaign.

A truly rational look at how badly we - as liberals, moderates, independents and patriots are treated by the current set up shows that Dean's idea has a ton of merit.

[leyton]

39. They are good traditions.

As we saw in 2000 and 2004, Iowa and New Hampshire are right in the center politically. It makes sense to have our candidates get exposure there first.

Besides, candidates must start in small states. If we had a nationwide primary (I am not sure if that is what you are suggesting) then the candidate who raised the most money would easily get the nomination. Is that really fair?

[Bluebear]

48. NH is a lousy tradition and I live here

This state is remarkably non-diverse. If there were another primary the same day that included people of color, more union membership, a more visible gay population, etc I might be more excited to include the state as a decision maker for the candidate.

[Blue_Tires]

102. good points n/t

[ulTRAX]

121. screw tradition...NH / IOWA not qualified to skew the presidential race

I think our entire system of electing presidents is dysfunctional in the extreme. That dysfunctionality starts with the primary system and ends with the EC.

Screw tradition.

[Kahuna]

137. Agreed. Neither state is representative of the party as a whole..

They must go. Kudos to Howard Dean!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

53. if you like little states so much, how about Hawaii and Alaska?

Their populations are no different from Iowa and NH.

Sit back and think what would happen if Illinois, Wisconsin or even Ohio was the first democratic primary - or better yet, all of those at the same time?

Change for change's sake is usually a recipe for disaster.
But refusal to change, in the face of repeated signs of failure and trouble (insert most of the last 5 yrs of this administration here) is even worse.

I don't care what Iowa's politics, or New Hampshire's voting records are. Moving dates around will NOT CHANGE HOW THEY VOTE.

What will change, with a new approach, is the ability of a few moneymen, powerbrokers and DNCers with a strong interest in a weak candidate to prevail time after time. rather than a better or even best candidate, we are stuck.

This is a great idea.

[xxqqqzme]

77. I'm w/ U!

I am sick of having Democratic candidates decided by red states. These are not large population center - cripes Iowa isn't even a primary. As we saw in '04, the whorporate media decided kerry was the candiate (soooo ELECTABLE - remember?) after the Iowa caucus! Fuck that! Put up states that R blue up first. Let real democrats decide who their candidate should B.

[Kahuna]

135. When is the last time that either state picked a winner for us?

nuff said. They do a very poor job of selecting our nominees.

[Eloriel]

113. It's NOT DEAN'S IDEA tho he may support it -- there was a

DNC Commission appointed who studied the matter. If I'm not mistaken, they were organized even before he took office, and the reason I say that is that I saw him when he was in Atlanta campaigning for the office and he mentioned them then.

He IS in support, judging from what he said back then, of some changes, and I concur wholeheartedly because the caucus system is too easy to manipulate. If you want THE PEOPLE to choose our nominee, then it has to be a lot freer of manipulation than caucuses.

Further, it's ridiculous IMO to let just one state pick our nominee, which is basically what we had last time, by design since previous DNC regimes engineered the primaries to be so frontloaded, incl. NH so close that non-frontrunners couldn't make up enough ground, so they could keep control over who was the nominee. AFAIC: either WE get to pick our nominees, or WE don't. Now, happily, we now have someone at the head of the DNC who is very pro-democracy, pro-grassroots, etc.

Trust the process. It likely won't be Dean making this decision, but rather put to the membership to vote on at their various meetings, as resolutions and such.

[Kahuna]

136. Who cares what upsets them. They have been upsetting me for

years. They do not have a God given right to anything.

[Carolab]

2. Iowa did not go blue. It went RED, which is a great reason to pull out.

The Democratic caucus should be in our neighbor state, which is a solid blue, historically blue state (Minnesota).

[brentspeak]

11. It was a swing state

And it went Blue in 2000.

How petty the Democratic party would look for it to "pull out" of Iowa because it didn't go our way in one election.

[Kahuna]

138. How many ECs in those states anyway? Five or six?????

Combined! Let's get real here. We shouldn't be letting those small EC states bordering on red decide our nominee.

[Wabbajack]

130. MN is barley blue not "Solid"

[Dickie Flatt]

3. and they've been giving us such great candidates too

[kenny blankenship]

4. whatever.

[HereSince1628]

5. If NH and Iowa are only Blue because they are the first caucuses

don't you think there are other problems?

If it wasn't for the tremendous cost involved in having primary elections, I'd be happy with the first primary or caucus going to the state with the highest democratic turnout in the last 2 national elections.

[Carolab]

7. Iowa isn't BLUE. It's RED!

That in itself is a reason not to have the first, major, most decisive Democratic caucus there!

It should be in a blue, Progressive state from the midwest. And that state, the most logical choice, is Minnesota.

[Inspired]

27. Red for the 1st time in several elections

blame the Kerry campaign for that one.

[Carolab]

84. STOLEN ELECTION.

Pretty f'ing hard for them to pull that HERE. This state is blue, has been blue forever, and they only THINK they can switch it to red.
HAH!

[leyton]

41. Bull.

Iowa is purple. Gore won it by a mere smidgen in 2000 and Bush had no great victory there in 2004.

[ProudDad]

6. I think it's absurd

that two tiny, lilly-white states are allowed to dominate the initial phases of presidential elections! This is SOoooooooooo anti-democratic, it totally pisses me off every year.

Our "elections" are bullshit anyway but this really skews them even more.

I think there should be a 4 or 5 week election period leading up to the primaries and final election. Any electioneering outside of those periods should be a criminal offense. There should be a pool of public money to allow all candidates to be heard on OUR AIRWAVES (they want to keep their licenses, they let loose of some airtime). Everyone should vote on the SAME DAY!!!

Of course, it won't happen since there might actually be an outbreak of democracy in this country and the ultra-haves might be in danger of losing their power...

[Inspired]

Lily white?

I don't know about NH but Iowa is NOT lily white. Have you ever visited Des Moines? Iowa City? Ames? Waterloo? We have a great mix of rural and urban, of red and blue.

Every 4 years we have the same old debate. It is tiresome actually and usually based on jealousy. Everyone talks about how important grassroots efforts are but the same people slam a true grassroots effort. Long live the Iowa caucus.

Iowa didn't choose the '04 candidates. It was collectively decided by all state primaries....ours just happened to be first.

You want the candidates to be heard on ALL AIRWAVES? Get out your wallet then....it is going to be a very, very costly effort. Who do you think will win then? Only those who are able to raise a hell of a lot of money. Is that what you want?

[brentspeak]

21. Inspired

In your opinion, as an Iowan, would replacing Iowa with some other state in the nomination process tick off the residents of Iowa - even the Democrats?

[Inspired]

26. NO

I could give a rip....but the reasons to do so that I am reading in this thread are ridiculous.

So Iowa chose Kerry as the winner. Kerry lost. So it's Iowa's fault? Crikey.

[seaglass]

100. Are you sure? Never mind the pride, that's a lot of money leaving

the state.

[Inspired]

119. Yeah, I'm sure

but I'm only speaking for myself. What $$$? Well, I guess Tim Russert does have a healthy appetite but the 1st in the nation caucus isn't exactly a tourist attraction.

[gokar]

69. Iowa is 95% white, that is close to lily white with brown streaks

The only non-whites are either in DesMoines, Davenport, and University campusses.

[ProudDad]

80. Some facts

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html

Iowa U.S.
White: 93.9% 75.1%
Black: 2.1% 12.3%
Native: .3% .9%
Asian: 1.3% 3.6%
Hispanic:2.8% 12.5%

But it's not just the pale hue of Iowa and NH that bother me. The campaigns are too long and too expensive.

WE wouldn't have to loosen out wallets. They are out GOD DAMN airwaves and those bastards who are minting money using them should be required to supply enough FREE airtime for political campaigns so that every point of view can be heard by the most people.

Then we ALL VOTE AT THE SAME TIME...

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Think verrrrry carefully before you upset NH

With so many Mass.(mostly liberal voting)folks moving up to NH for tax relief you don't want to irritate anyone that would see NH being upstaged. Best leave NH alone - we need to keep it in the blue column.

[Son of California]

9. Didn't Iowa vote for Bush last year?

I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Though you're dead on to expect that people in both states would be pissed with Dean's plan.....

maybe Dean's thinking of using Ohio instead, which would, in it's own way make a lot of sense, for really obvious reasons, not only is Ohio the ultimate swing state, most demographers would say Ohio would give you the closest insight into the country as a whole.

And what if the other state intended was Florida, the other BIG swing state?

I can agree that Dean's plan is probably a slap in the face to tradition and to Iowa and NH -but, we need to try some different angles if we are gonna win.

[Inspired]

23. Blaming IA and NH for not winning?

That is absurd.

[sendero]

33. Blaming them..

... for picking the obviously-lackluster candidate. Yes I do blame them. And I don't think EITHER STATE is very representative of modern Dems.

[brentspeak]

35. Why don't you blame the candidates?

Dean had more money than anyone else in Iowa. He had more grassroots support than anyone else in Iowa. Does that mean he was the best candidate?

He screwed it up, not the residents of Iowa.

[sendero]

38. You have your opinion...

... and I have mine. Dean was polling very well in many places, excuse me if I don't think Iowa is representative of the party.

[displacedtexan]

116. Excellent point, brentspeak!

Kerry (as do all presidential candidates) need small states like Iowa and NH so they can sharpen and polish their messages, meet 'n greet, and generally figure out if their campaigns are capable of gaining momentum.

If we change to a state like Michigan, the repukes will have a field day poisoning the well, so to speak. MI is too big for a candidate (and a campaign) to meet everyone personally.

Just my opinion.

I worked on the Kerry campaign (DC HQ). Dems will probably never raise enough $ to get the name recog and WOM (word of mouth) that JK got from those 2 small states.

[Inspired]

36. Absurd...eom

[Son of California]

68. I'm not trying to blame anyone

I'm just saying I think Ohio would do a better job of vetting our candidiates because it is such a good microcosm of the rest of the country.

[Eloriel]

115. No, no, you're on the right track, but got side-tracked

"Blaming them for picking the obviously-lackluster candidate. Yes I do blame them."

No need to blame the states or the people in them. The "lackluster" candidate was chosen by the high muckey-mucks who USED to run this party. I say "used to" because starting with Dean's election as DNC Chair, which was a COUP against the high muckey-mucks incl. the Clintons and assorted overly paid no-nothing consultants and various big money who worked furiously to TRY to come up with someone to foil Dean a second time.

THe primary calendar WAS set by the previous "leadership" at the DNC, and they front-loaded it so that Iowa almost by itself would pick the candidate, but certainly by the time NH was done, just 2 short weeks later (not enough time for any serious competition to rise up after the tremendous boost of a win in Iowa), the candidate would be chosen. AND, the Iowa process was/is highly manipulable, add that to all those campaign dirty tricks that went on to foil Dean, and you have the high muckey-mucks choosing our candidate. If THAT's what you or anyone else want, you're pretty much alone in THIS party (aside from the grand poobahs, of course).

[LittleClarkie]

10. Why say Dean is proposing

When you don't know if it's him?

[brentspeak]

14. I qualified that with

"or elements within the DNC are proposing..."

[LittleClarkie]

16. but you know how people will react to "Dean's terrible idea"

So why go that route? Flames will likely ensue.

[brentspeak]

28. I don't want to start a flame war, but that is exactly my opinion

I feel that strongly about it. It doesn't bother me if people want to flame me, I'm not some wimp.

[mattclearing]

95. Would it be such a terrible idea if he changed them to solid red states?

By your logic, that would be better, because two solid red states with more electoral votes would be better to court than Iowa and NH, which carry less electoral clout.

[Pithy Cherub]

12. Including diversity is a VALUE to champion for the DNC.

Homogenized milk is not everyone's first always preference.

[Kurovski]

13. Are people really so shallow and stupid that

they would almost literally cut off their own nose to spite their face?

The system as it is now is horrible from top to bottom and it needs to change. This could be a good start.

I would like for once to have a say as to who my candidate is, the whole nation should get a say.

[brentspeak]

18. If the Democratic party were to spurn Iowa and NH

in favor of say, California and Minnesota, that would just make the people of Iowa and NH believe that the Democrats regard them as "hicks" or worse. This in addition to the hurt feelings the change would certainly cause.

The Republicans would have no difficulty in painting the Democrats as wanting to appeal mainly to the stereotypical latex bicycle-shorts-wearing Democrats of California or Madison, WI who have lattes stuck up their butts.

[Kurovski]

31. So, the answer is yes?

I like the idea of midwestern Minnesota or Ohio.

Republicans are full of shit with their stereotypes, and folks are figuring out that just about all the rebublicans have to offer is bull.

Let's stop hanging on to past failed ways that don't work. How about some movement instead of repeating Republican talking points designed to keep the Democratic Party frozen in fear and neurotic self-doubt?

[brentspeak]

59. As much as we would like to ignore Repub talking points

the ugly truth is that we can't ignore them entirely. Why? For the simple reason that they have worked for the Republicans. Who owns the White House? Congress?

[JAbuchan08]

32. Oh yeah, Wisconson that haven of elitest cheeseheads

I don't give a crap if its AZ and FL that get the first primaries. I just don't see why tradition is the #1 consideration. I promise you Iowa and NH will get over it.

[sendero]

37. That is a piss poor reason..

... to continue with a failed policy.

Nobody wants to hurt anyone's feelings, but I don't think Iowa and NH are representative of modern Dems and I don't want them picking another middle-of-the-road roadkill candidate.

For the life of me, I can't think of a reason why any particular state should have so much say. The initial primary votes should be spread out some, because this bullshit of the nomination process being over when Iowa has spoken has to end.

Of course, only Dean would have the guts to tackle this glaring problem, everyone else wants to act like the gorilla is not there.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

54. bravo

exactly what you say.

[brentspeak]

58. Why is it a "failed policy"?

Because Iowa didn't choose Dean, who I presume was your choice?

And how would Dean have done against Bush? Three states against Bush's 47? Four against Bush's 46?

Kerry probably was the best possible candidate, as a matter of fact. Despite all his faults, and the smear campaign against him, he would have won if the Democrats had campaigned for him effectively. He barely lost.

[iconoclastic cat]

17. Okay, why exactly can't we do them all on the same day?

[Kitsune]

42. Damn right!

I am sick and tired of my primary/caucaus vote being almost entirely meaningless because by the time it comes around, everyone else everywhere has already had their say and the decision is effectively over.

[iconoclastic cat]

43. Is there a real reason,

or is this just another bizarre quirk?

[leyton]

44. Because it's too expensive.

Why force candidates to raise the amount of money it takes to mount a national campaign? Little guys like Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards wouldn't have a chance in hell, while bigshots like Kerry or Hillary Clinton could easily get the nomination.

[iconoclastic cat]

46. Ah, that makes sense.

[ProudDad]

81. The most expensive part of a campaign

is buying TV time.

They are OUR airwaves and we should force those who are minting money from them to support a fair and democratic process.

That means they have to relinquish enough time to allow every candidate to have her/his voice heard by the people. The campaigns should be short (I'd say 3 weeks) and anyone who campaigns outside of the campaign 'season', especially on television, would be guilty of a criminal offense.

C'mon, think outside of this undemocratic box we're suffering under.

[MercutioATC]

103. Exactly! To hell with democracy, we need to save money!

The FACT is that Iowa and New Hampshire pick the candidate. That's completely contrary to what a democracy is supposed to be. There should be simultaneous primaries.

[leyton]

107. If we had simultaenous primaries,

people would be complaining about how money runs it all because primaries are so expensive. The complaint would be that the process was anti-democratic because whoever the money lined up behind would be the only one who could afford to run a national primary campaign. There'd be a bunch of whining about how Hillary Clinton bought the nomination and how little guys like Dennis Kucinich and Wesley Clark and John Edwards (or their 2008 equivalents) never got a chance because they couldn't afford to run in 50 states at once.

Iowa and New Hampshire do not always pick the candidate. They didn't pick Bill Clinton, and they didn't really even pick George W. Bush. If I recall correctly, Dukakis and Mondale and many of the candidates before them weren't picked by Iowa; they had to work a while to get their delegates. As for 2004, Kerry did get a lot of momentum from Iowa, but he also benefitted very heavily from the condensed scheduling. Had there been more time between Iowa and the rest of the primaries, we might have nominated Edwards or Clark or even Dean. So your "FACT" is really a rather wild claim.

[lastknowngood]

19. If we don't get rid of RED states picking the Dem nominee then

we'll just keep getting repug light. They are so red already. How about a novel idea let's have a few Blue states choose our candidate and then maybe we will have a dem running on or ticket.

[brentspeak]

24. Explain how Iowa and NH are "so red"

Iowa went to Gore in 2000, and was a swing state last year. NH went to Kerry in 2004. We're not talking about Nebraska and Alabama, here.

[pinto]

20. Would certainly change the primary landscape. Do you have a link, or

a source for the info? Thanks.

[brentspeak]

25. Here

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050809/ap_on_el_pr/dean_primary

[zulchzulu]

22. Cheap media markets in both states...dedicated electorate...

If Pennsylvania, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois or other larger states are chosen out of the box, many candidates still getting their legs on and raising money will be drowned out by much more funded candidates.

Those states have fairly expensive to very expensive media markets to advertise...and since we're not going to have decent campaign reform and equal free time for candidates to speak by 2008, it may shut out a lot of candidates very quickly...

I say keep New Hampshire and Iowa where they are...if only becuase they are cheap media markets.

[rfkrfk]

50. not cheap, two states, cost more than half of a candidates budget

he has at the time,if not more.
'retail' politics does not belong at the presidential level.

these goofy little states being disproportionately important,
leads to,
hijacks, fads, rumors, cults of personality,

costing 50 million in Iowa, and spending time ring doorbells,
looks really presidential ... not

[zulchzulu]

66. Not to pick scabs, but $40M in Iowa was very ill-spent

I was there. I heard complaints from people getting up to 10 four-color 11x17 trifold brochures sent to their homes daily for weeks on end...

And...bad TV ads... yikes!

Yeah, you can spend money foolishly...or know how to spend it wisely.

[ISUGRADIA]

74. I'd love to hear where you got the $50 million dollar figure from

[rfkrfk]

85. 50 M, just a guess, it would probably be closer to a billion

if 'off the books' side deals could be known.

Reality, such a number is unknowable.

[ISUGRADIA]

105. Well since all spending and fundraising is reported to the FEC

by date a real figure could easily be determined and is knowable. Your just making up figures with no real knowledge. And since most campaigns took matching funds they were limited by law as to how much they could spend.

[rfkrfk]

122. except the part that is not

No one knows the whole story.
Things can be done thru surrogates.

If a candidate can have money spent on his behalf,
I assume they would do so.

If someone is serious about '08,
and they have a rich patron,
ther are working to start their own
private team, in Iowa and NH, today.

If the first primary day were spread out to include
more and larger states, the advantge of ...
four years ahead of time - having your rich patron pick up the tab ...
would be reduced.

[bobbieinok]

92. attended IA caucus from 72-88....what candidates have to do in IA

is personally talk to people ...... they can't just make a few ads and then just talk to the bigwigs

son for 1st time was extremely involved in the 2004 election....he was for Dean at the caucus, his wife for Kucinich

they both said you could see every candidate in person if you wanted; you didn't have to watch ads


this is THE advantage of a caucus state, at least from what I experienced......candidates HAVE TO GET OUT AND MEET THE PEOPLE.....OK, part of super Tuesday: lots of luck getting candidates to come here......Clark did; I went and was very impressed

[Telly Savalas]

101. That's great for the folks in Iowa, but how does it benefit...

voters in the other 49 states?

[Le Taz Hot]

97. I disagree on one point

regarding California. California is the ATM for the rest of the primaries/elections. Politicians come here, collect millions and leave it all off in New Hampshire and Iowa and we end up with milquetoast -- again. If a candidate is popular enough here, they'll raise tons of money so your point is moot. Check out how much California donated to Dean's campaign (even Kucinich's)just to watch it all get flushed down the toilet because a bunch of white people in states with less population that downtown Los Angeles decided OUR candidate. Screw that.

[JAbuchan08]

29. You know a little bit of a shake up couldn't hurt

I have nothing against Iowa or New Hampshire, but maybe we should put some of the smallest states first and let Iowa and New Hampshire wait a little bit. It wouldn't have to extend the primary season, but maybe having those huge mulit-state primary days early in the year would help to increase their importance. I just don't understand why they are more important than all the other states simply because of tradition.

They'll get used to it. Somehow I don't think primary date is THE most pressing concern of most Democratic voters (unless they are a bunch of silly gits)

[sendero]

30. It's about time..

.... these states have too much power and seem to do a poor job of picking a nominee. It's about time someone address this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. I think the whole primary situation is messed up anyway. If there

was a one day primary with ranked voting you could nix the frontloading and pragmatic vs. idealistic issues.

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Gloria]

40. Just is bad is the condensed schedule...from Iowa to NH in one week...

instead of the 2 or 3 that used to let the dust settle. This time out, the "momentum" just screwed up the whole process of giving people time to sort things out and really hear more from the candidates. The media also created a bandwagon effect.

[toddaa]

45. This is the first time since Jimmy Carter that Iowa picked the nominee

So stop blaming us for John Kerry. Yeah, we screwed up, but the nominee isn't decided by either Iowa or NH. All we do is tell the Joe Liebermans of the world to not quit their day job.

[AntiCoup2K4]

47. It's ridiculous that Iowa and NH have so much power

There's 50 states in this country, not 2. Rotate it around a little.

Fact is that the Iowa caucus was about as legitimate as a WWE wrestling match, but that could have happenned in any state with the party machinery in the hands of a certain faction of fake Democrats who shall not be named, but who just, coicidentally of course, :eyes: made the governor of that state their spokesman.

In any event, the entire primary process needs to be overhauled. If only a small handful of states are going to be allowed to vote on it, the very least that could be done is change those states.

[madfloridian]

49. Here is the group that is in charge of it. Herman Price commission.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/commission_on_p.php

I read the media today as well, but I don't think Howard Dean even goes to the meetings. They will report to him later in the year.

I think the meetings have been on C-Span.

[LandOLincoln]

51. How's about we Dems have a primary once a month

with 8 states voting each time--two Eastern, two Midwestern, two Southern, two Western--from early January through early July of the election year?

Hawaii and Alaska could alternately lead off and bring up the rear, and the two states that led off within a particular region one year would vote last the following cycle.

Finally, make each two of the lower 48 states contiguous within their respective regions to save wear and tear on the candidates.

Thoughts?

[election_2004]

57. That's a really good idea

Except I would space out the actual elections closer to one another than a whole month apart (it wouldn't be fair to the states that draw the short end of the stick and have to wait until May or June).

But I definitely agree that picking two states from each region at intervals throughout the primary process is the way to go. The only thing we'd need to be cognizant of is not to stack too many larger states with higher numbers of delegates together on the same day, during such a rotation system. Combine larger states with smaller states for different "rounds" of voting in the rotation.

[TheDonkey]

52. IA and NH are fine states to begin things in

They are purple states and cheap and easy for candidates to campaign around. The diversity of them is lacking but putting the early primaries in huge states like Cali or NY would be expensive and net VERY liberal results.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

56. cheap?

hardly.
The candidates spend tons of dollars on a NH voter, while Ohio or Florida voters get pennies spent on those campaigns.
plus, Never will NH ever cause an election to go one way or the other.
Same with Iowa.

Hey. What the NRA does to cites, the Dems should do to states.
reward the good states with the extra money that is front-ended in every presidential cmapaign.

(some states may want to go blue to keep the pols out, on the other hand)

[Hippo_Tron]

62. If Gore had won NH, he'd be POTUS

[Fovea]

55. I don't see this as a slap on Iowa and New Hampshire.

Though I seriously doubt that it would cause either state to go red.

I think that having two other states with larger populations and polar differences, such as CA and OH go first might show us more important things about the candidate likely of success in the general election.

Perhaps the core of the problem resides with privately funded elections, as has been mentioned elsewhere.

[brentspeak]

60. California is hardly a predictor of a presidential election

The second-most blue state in the nation? Ohio I like - but only in addition to Iowa and NH, not in lieu of.

[Pithy Cherub]

63. California is an electoral, fundraising powerhouse.

Who would you rather piss off Californians by saying (not worthy to go first)or New Hampshire? California is beyond the reach and scope of most candidates right out of the gate - it would shrink the field quickly and leave few options for lesser known candidates.

What does need to happen is a change at who is first for primaries and caucuses or make multiple firsts that reflect the Democratic constituencies. A change is going to come and this is a tradition that should see the sun set on it. Diversity is not going to take a back seat anylonger and Dean has made that VERY clear! Democrats need to talk and WALK the values that make the party successful.

California is powerful and most of the 2008 contenders have already been here recently. California looms large and it would not be the state that a successful political professional would dismiss out of hand. Why do the republicans want it so bad...

[Warren DeMontague]

64. California has more than one tenth of the population of the United States.

It's about well past time people start respecting that.

[brentspeak]

65. Is it a good predictor of an election outcome?

No, it's not. The issue is not who or who doesn't "respect" the state.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. It's a good predictor for how over 10% of the population of the United

States feels about things.

More, actually, because as California goes, so goes both coasts, pretty much. And most of the major urban centers.

It's only because our system gives extra weight to the votes of people in, say, Wyoming than it does to the people living in Los Angeles, that we end up with having a 'center' in this country which vastly over-represents, rural, conservative, "heartland" voters.

And overall, the Democratic party in California, (unlike, say the DNC) knows how to WIN, at least most of the time. I don't think we are a terrible place to start when considering candidates for national office.

[mrdmk]

76. Hey, California had two of the greatest presidents in the world

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, UM, Um, um need to hold on to that thought.

Did I really say that, um, um, checking, checking.

Um, Better go back to the drawing board.

um, see ya in a little bit.:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Your point being?

Actually, I think, there isn't one.

Um, I could respond by saying something like, um, "Who Californians (who constitute, again, over 10% of the United States Population and are also a major fucking BULWARK of the Democratic Party) VOTE for and which politicians were BORN or CAME FROM here are two totally different things.

And Bill Clinton came from Arkansas.. Carter is from Georgia.. Okay, so, let's hold the first primaries there!"

...Yeah, I could, but why bother.

:hi:

[Le Taz Hot]

99. We sure as hell are

handy when these candidates want money, though, aren't we? Pissing off 33 million people PROBABLY isn't the best way to make friends and influence people. Get a clue.

[mrdmk]

123. This is a serious post this time and very progressive idea

If the Democratic Party is very serious about reforming the way they select the candidate (Actually Mr. Dean was not the first person to bring this issue up, it was a DNC Commission), the party will also need to think about the way their candidates for office. Many have proposed to have all of the states vote on the same day, that is a good one. The idea that will be proposed on top of this is Proportional Voting. Many people are stuck with the idea of one person one vote, or caucus selection which is a joke out of the stone age.

Having all of the states vote on the same will take out the argument of who gets to go first, end of story. Candidates will have to visit all fifty states, they will also have present their issues from a level playing field and some other benefits. Hopefully it will take some of the Corporations out of picking the candidate for us by far including the media. The Corporations will not be able to flood one candidate with a lot of money and see him/her lose, and the media will not be able to put on a show with a horse race. This in it self will represent America in total.

Proportional voting will be new to the U.S.A. but not new to the world. Some countries already use this method. How the voter cast their vote is with a numbering system. Their favorite candidate is #1, the next favorite is #2, then #3 on down the line. You can just do #1 and stop there or stop anywhere on the list. There are several ways of counting either by elimination or assigning a number to the level of choices.

The arguments for both of these ideas to be put into place is that there will be a fairer representation of your vote, meaning that maybe your first place choice did not come in, but your second or third did. Yes the count will be will be more difficult to count and may take longer, but with a verified paper trail and a computer that should not be an issue. And you can count on the Corporations and Media bitching to high heaven, I say let them. You want fairness, here it is.

Side-note: This voting procedure on the national level will let in minority parties, the Democrats and Republicans will not let go of their hold on power that easy.

Google link for those who want to look further
http://www.google.com/search?hs=wz0&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%22proportional+voting%22&btnG=Search

This link explains the process in detail
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm

An ABC as to how the voter makes a decision
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/Cambridge/prop-voting/directions.html

This is how it works in Australia
http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/proportional.shtml

This link is about the DNC Commission Questions Presidential Nomination System (Scroll Down)
http://www.fairvote.org/

[leyton]

108. California doesn't get any extra respect.

You're gigantic - so what? As has been pointed out, California gave us Nixon, Reagan, and Schwarzenegger. And it's not exactly a bellwether state these days. If you are going to argue that we should hold the primaries in states that predict the national outcome, go hold them in Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio. Or New Mexico, depending on your opinion of the 2000 election.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. As I've already pointed out, what state politicians CAME FROM

has nothing to do with how representative a state's population is of the leanings of the party's membership as a whole.

Jimmy Carter is a great man, full of integrity. He's from Georgia. Okay, let's let Georgia decide who the nominee should be.

And, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, I think the best way to go would be to have ALL the primaries on the same day, so that us "out of touch" Californians who aren't a bellweather or worth your time (here's an idea.. why don't you march into your local democratic headquarters and tell them "You know what? California's 55 electoral votes, it's status as a democratic powerhouse in terms of not just numbers but also fundraising? I've decided we don't need 'em. Let's tell 'em to go screw themselves") aren't facing a "herd" that has been thinned according to the prejudices of a vastly smaller field of voters in, say, Iowa.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. And if you dont consider us a "predictor of electoral victory"

maybe you'd like to explain some scenarios by which a Democratic (which is why we're here..... right?) candidate for president could win, without California.

...

[Fovea]

83. Absolutely

They are deep blue. Ohio is Red, with some blue spots.

Between them, they reflect the spectrum of Democratic voters, those who live in Blue states and those who live in nominally Red states.

Further, the economic benefits of California are manifest, and the state is diverse in the way America is diverse.

The alternative is to continue beginning the election cycle by polling WASP-NIMBYland, and saying that it reflects the shape and desires of a big tent party.

[madfloridian]

61. 3 articles about the Commission.

Primary Movers
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/04838553.asp

"So skeptics can be excused for doubting that the Democratic National Committee’s Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling — which just had its third meeting, on July 16 in Washington, DC — will do anything radical when it makes its recommendation to DNC chair Howard Dean later this year. Come 2008, Iowa and New Hampshire will go first. And long before most Americans will have begun paying attention, both presidential nominees will be decided."

Lead off States lack diversity
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050717/NEWS09/507170330/1056

July 17, 2005
Washington, D.C. - Iowa and New Hampshire were rapped Saturday for their lack of diversity and dominant leadoff positions in the presidential nominating process as a Democratic commission heard from activists who want change.

"What we have created is the worst of all possible worlds," said Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

But Iowa members and leaders of the commission cautioned that they have not yet begun sorting out what to do about the calendar, and that the complaints do not necessarily mean Iowa will lose its first-in-the-nation status.

Alexis Herman, the co-chairwoman of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling, in an interview praised Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack for his recent decision to restore voting rights to Iowa felons who have completed their sentences. "I think it definitely impacts the thinking of commission members," said Herman, secretary of labor in the Clinton administration."


Primary concern July 2005

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=57704

THE PRIMARY CONCERN. "State Democrats will travel to Washington on Saturday for the third meeting of the Democratic National Committee's Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling.

In considering how to set up primaries and caucuses for 2008, the 40-member panel is expected to hear testimony from congressional constituency groups, the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the moderate New Democratic Network and organized labor.

The panel also will go behind closed doors for what's billed as an open and informal discussion about primary and caucus scheduling. Members are expected to get to the decision-making phase of their work in October and December.

A report is expected early next year."

[BlueStateGirl]

67. Good. Why can't the primaries all be on the same day? Why should

two of the whitest, most rural states always get to select the candidates?

By the time PA's primary came along this year, the nomination was locked up.
I think same day primaries would be benficial.

[high density]

70. Let's have all of the primaries on the same day

I know it will cost more money to organize this, but having everybody vote all at once would make it more difficult for the media to select a candidate for us.

[ProudDad]

82. Hear, hear!!

[Warren DeMontague]

88. I agree 100%.

See below.

[ronnykmarshall]

71. How DARE you!!!

How DARE you question DEAN????????? You must be a freeper!! :silly:

[madfloridian]

72. Here is the commission Terry McAuliffe chose to decide the primaries.

Chosen in December 2004.

Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling
(Appointments by DNC Chairman Terrance R. McAuliffe)

Co-Chairs

Hon. Alexis Herman
Fmr. U.S. Secretary of Labor
Hon David Price
U.S. Representative, North Carolina



Members

Aida Alvarez
Fmr. Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration

Vida Benavides

Donna Brazile
DNC At-Large Memeber & Fmr. DNC Rules & Bylaws Cmte. Co-Chair

Hon. Michael Coleman
Mayor of Columbus, Ohio

Roxanne Conlin
Fmr. President, American Trial Lawyers Association

Jerry Crawford
Fmr. State Chair, Iowa State Party

Hon. Lois DeBerry
DNC At-Large Member & Tennessee House Speaker Pro Tempore

Debbie Dingell
Michigan Democratic National
Committeewoman

Maria Echaveste
DNC At-Large Member

Cuauhtemo "Temo" Figueroa
Administrator, AFSCME Council 18

Hartina Flournoy
DNC At-Large Member & Fmr. DNC Rules & Bylaws Cmte. Co-Chair

Donald Fowler
DNC At-Large Member &
Fmr. DNC Chair



Jehmu Greene
President, Rock the Vote

Linda Honold
Chair, Wisconsin State Party

Harold Ickes
DNC At-Large Member

Carol Khare
Vice Chair, South Carolina State Party &
Co-Chair, DNC Rules & Bylaws Cmte.

Hon. Carl Levin
U.S. Senator, Michigan

Hon. Blanche Lincoln
U.S. Senator, Arkansas

Bill Lynch
Fmr. DNC Vice Chair

Hon. Kendrick Meek
U.S. Representative, Florida

Steve Murphy

Spencer Overton
Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School

Jim Pederson
Chair, Arizona State Party

Hon. Ed Rendell
Governor of Pennsylvania

James Roosevelt, Jr.
DNC At-Large Member & Co-Chair, DNCRules and Bylaws Cmte.

Delores Sibonga
Fmr. Seattle City Council

Hon. Jeanne Shaheen
Fmr. Gov. of New Hampshire

Hon. Terry Shumaker
Fmr. Ambassador to Trinidad & Exec. Dir., New Hampshire Education Association

Hon. Kathleen Sebelius
Governor of Kansas

Mike Stratton

Hon. Hilda Solis
U.S. Representative, California

Susan Swecker
Chair, DNC Southern Caucus

John Sweeney
President, AFL-CIO

Hon. Art Torres
Chair, California State Party

Ed Turlington

Hon. Jennifer Veiga
Colorado State Senate

Josh Wachs
DNC Chief Operating Officer

[nevergiveup]

75. I think the candidate should be chosen

at the convention. All candidates would have a chance to work the delegates for a couple of days and those candidates without a lot of money would be on an equal playing field. It would be exciting and there would be tons of media coverage. Didn't it use to be this way?

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Why not hold them all on the same day?

Then no one would be first, and people would vote for who they really wanted; not the "front runner".

[rfkrfk]

86. IMO, the first states function to, thin out the pack n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Right, but that gives a disproportionate voice to voters in the first

states. So why should California, with 33 million people (a majority of them Democrats) be held hostage to a "pack" that has been "thinned" by the people of Iowa or New Hampshire, particularly if there is arguably a fairly wide chasm philosophically between where a majority of voters in one place sit from another?

[rfkrfk]

90. after two states, most in the pack are getting ready to quit,

not because they want to, but because their campaign's are broke.

{I don't have a direct response to your post other than
I agree to a large extent}

I don't have a good suggestion to offer, that does not need
multiple {over time} votes by the same voter.

[Clarkie1]

89. Excellent idea, chairman Dean!

No state should have a monopoly on "first" or "second" state status in the selection of our candidates.

It's time for a change!

The idea that this risks NH or IW "going red" is truly ridiculous. There are many other "borderline red/blue" states to choose from if that is the criteria.

IMO, we need to be bold and start in a SOUTHERN state!

[bklyncowgirl]

91. Throw in another state with Iowa and New Hampshire in the first round.

As a resident of New Jersey I'm more than willing to volunteer my state--we've already moved our primary to February.

We're small, quirky, diverse and have some really great diners.

[leyton]

110. I think this is the best idea.

South Carolina and New Mexico should be moved to the top with Iowa and New Hampshire. These would add racial and ethnic diversity and also geographic balance. At the same time you have three states that are arguably the most representative of the center ground (NM, NH, Iowa) since they were all close in 2000 and 2004 (as was the popular vote).

[quaoar]

93. Keep NH and Iowa, add two other states

How about a plan that keeps the Iowa caucuses and NH just the way they are but adds two other diverse, yet small states to the mix: one state in the south with a large percentage of black votes, like South Carolina; and a state in the West with a lot of Hispanic voters, perhaps New Mexico.

[JNelson6563]

94. Screw that!

Those two states have had too much say in the primaries for WAY TOO LONG!!

Tough shit if they don't like it. Time to even things out.

Julie

[Totally Committed]

96. I totally agree.

This has been too long a time coming. If it happens, and Dean is the one responsible, he will have my undying gratitude forever.

[Larkspur]

98. Dean has nothing to do with changing the primaries. It's a committee

that is making the decision.

Dean is not manipulating the primary schedule as payback for IA and NH. A DNC Committee is reviewing the schedule in answer to complaints from Democrats around the nation to make the primary season more suited to producing the best Prez candidate possible.

[DrFunkenstein]

104. Iowa And N.H. Are Not So T.V. Dominated

They take their face time with the candidates fairly seriously. If you want to estrange the Democrats even further from their base, let them run tv-driven campaigns in other states.

[trogdor]

106. Yeah, like the status quo has been soooooooo effective.

:rolleyes: Not.

[bearfan454]

109. Howard Dean has a good idea to me

Let's change things up so the pukes can't predict our every move. Throw them off guard. Make it cost more money for them to know what's going on.

[ticapnews]

111. When it comes to New Hampshire, we Mainers take it on the chin...

for advertising, since the Portland TV stations also cover most of New Hampshire and the radio stations carry as far as Vermont.

My own stories from the New Hampshire primary:

I spent the week before the primary last year working on the Clark campaign in Manchester and Dover. In Manchester the only black person I saw was working on our campaign. On election day I stood in front of a polling place for eight solid hours and ONE voter was black; and NONE were Hispanic or any other minority. We need diversity when we're picking our candidate. Right now we are allowing two of the whitest states to choose a candidate that we then have to send to the South and West, where values and issues are a little different than they are in Iowa and NH. No one in Mississippi or New Mexico gives a rat's @ss about ethanol or pancake breakfasts.

I also heard lots and lots of complaining from the people of New Hampshire as the primary crept closer. On the night of the primary one asked, "Can I have my state back now?" The University of New Hampshire did a study and found that the Democrats and President Bush poured over $300 million into the economy of New Hampshire during the primary. If New Hampshire doesn't want that cash, I know lots of states that would be happy to take it.

[LSK]

112. lets move them to Ohio and Florida then

If thats all it takes to make a state red or blue, then lets have the 1st primaries in some big swing states.

[Mairead]

114. What's terrible about it? They're TINY, NON-REPRESENTATIVE states

Why should they be first, rather than California, New York, ...or every state either in rotation or by lot?

The idea that everyone's going to vote GOP out of pique is silly.

[wiley]

120. New Hampshire First. Then Iowa, Missouri, Michigan and Ohio.

Iowa really should be a regular primary, not caucuses,however. Then Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Then California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon and Nevada. Then New Jersey, New York, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, DC, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Then Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virgina and West Virginia. Etc.

How about that?

[mrdmk]

124. Kicking: Mr. Dean wants fair primaries, there are some good ideas here

:kick:

[madfloridian]

125. And the video from the NH fundraiser is still up. Very good.

http://www.thewmurchannel.com/politics/4834985/detail.html?rss=man&psp=news

They discuss it on the video.

[TankLV]

126. Gee - what about forcing all primaries to be on the SAME day?!

That would be the most democratic and fair.

Then we could have a run-off of the two or three most viable candidates.

But that would be too logical.

[RB TexLa]

127. They are worthless traditions

With the media and the "get the candidate in place early" mentality, the race is decided by these two states.

Before any Southern or Western votes are cast. Before any urban votes are cast. Before any real number of black or hispanic votes are cast. There is a small chance that South Carolina gets to play into the nomination but usually not.

[FrenchieCat]

128. I nix the bigger states going first.....or else if you think the media

has something to do with who we end up with, you'll have a heart attack if CA and FL get to go first.

How do you think the Governator got elected? Cause the media helped him...in a state where it would be impossible to do nothing BUT have the media help you to win.

If we had a fair media, large states might be doable....but we don't.

Sorry, I don't want the media so involved (and mind you, it already is deep into it). Pick some smaller states....like Nevada and Georgia...and we could be on to something.

Remember...candidates cannot rely on media buys...cause that would mean only the richest could survive, or those the media favors.

[Wabbajack]

129. GIVE ME A BREAK

If the Dems take away NH and IA's unfair advantage they'll vote puke for YEARS to come? Nonsense.

And what if the pukes do it too? They'll vote Libertarian?

There needs to be a NATIONAL primary. By the time of the Illinois (where I live) primary Kerry had already won. I had NO say in choosing my party's nominee for President. Neither did MILLIONS of other Democrats who didn't live in an early primary state.

[Borgnine]

131. Why should two mere states decide who's our candidate?

It's bull, and I don't care how much pride they have about their roles.

[rfkrfk]

132. the real problem is, everybody is running for president,

If someone supports reform, they make a lot of enemies,
especially in Iowa and NH.
The people agaist the current arangement won't speak up.
...
is there some party rule?, something like,
if you have a primary before NH,
your state's-delegation's credentials are refused
at the national convention.

[ima_sinnic]

133. Dems would vote Repuke just b/c their state wasn't "first" anymore?

Excuse me, but that is ridiculous.

[Kahuna]

134. Iowa and NH must go! Go Dean!

Do it!