Having Iowa and New Hampshire first is bad for democracy and for the American people

[IndianaGreen]

The last thing we need is to have the televised spectacle of a credentials fight at the Denver Convention in which Florida delegates are denied a seat at the Democratic Convention because to do so would offend the sensibilities of two small states that usually vote Republican.

Having the party machinery go to such lengths to protect the compulsion to be first by two small states, neither of which is representative of America, defies logic and is fraught with pitfalls.

Let's be honest! How many of us do really trust the judgment of Iowa caucus voters?

I still haven't gotten over how Iowans in 2004, instead of choosing a candidate which represented their views and interests, decided to vote the one they thought was more "electable."

Iowa's "Mister Electable" led the party to defeat in 2004, and lost an easy to win election against the biggest moron we ever had in the Oval Office. All of our efforts and ABB coalitions amounted to nothing, all because Iowa chose "Mister Electable" instead of one that stood for something other than "I am not Bush." "I voted for it before I voted against it," is still burning my ears! Thanks a lot, Iowa!

I fear that Iowa and New Hampshire will put the screws on the American people again, by voting for "It's time to have a woman President," instead of the candidate which best represents our interests and aspirations.

Having Iowa and New Hampshire first is bad for democracy and for the American people, and if it takes a train wreck to bring that message home, so be it!

[More Than A Feeling]

1. Why do you think that about 2004 caucus voters?

(disclosure: I will be participating in the Iowa Caucus this year, I support John Edwards, and I hate "electability" arguments)

I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that Iowans voted "most electable" in 2004.

[IndianaGreen]

26. I watched the C-SPAN coverage of the 2004 Iowa caucus

Many of those interviewed said they voted for Senator Kerry because they were told, and they had come to believe, that he was "electable," even though they felt that other candidates best spoke to their issues.

Subsequent to the caucus, we had DUers that participated in it that posted complaints that they had been pressured and/or told by Vilsack hacks that they should vote for Kerry because he was electable, while others weren't.

Polls taken after the caucus, showed that "electability" played a key role in Kerry winning the caucus.

[progressoid]

48. You think that attitude is any different outside of Iowa?

Gee, let me think of how many hundreds of threads here on DU have been posted about "electability". It's playing a key role today too and not just in Iowa.

[IndianaGreen]

52. The point was that Iowa was first, and Iowa's choice had a disproportionate impact on the race

and that is the reason why I said in the OP that having Iowa and New Hampshire first is bad for all of us.

Red states should never be first!

[progressoid]

61. HA HA HA! Iowa is not a red state.

You're gonna have to come up with a better reason than "Red states should never be first!"

The Governor is a Democrat.
Both houses of the Iowa General Assembly are controlled by Democrats.
3 of the 5 US Representatives are Democrats.
Only in the US Senate are we purple (Harkin-D Grassley-R).

As to Iowa's choice having a disproportionate impact. Well, gee wouldn't any state that is first have a disproportionate impact? Of course in order to have such an impact one assumes that the rest of the Democrats in the US are easily swayed by a bunch of us hayseeds in the plains. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

67. Iowa voted for Bush in 2004--you are red

You are a red state until such time as you vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate.

[progressoid]

68. OK - that would put Indiana 39th in the nation based on 2004 results.

You say that states should be recognized for their blueness, but desire Indiana's primary to be moved up even though you are far from being a blue state.

Using your reasoning, Massachusetts should go first as the bluest state based on the 04 presidential election results. Followed closely behind by Rhode Island and Vermont. (pssst - I think those states might be part of what you call "Eastern seaboard knuckle heads")

Down thread you say, "we need Florida", yet Florida was redder than IA, So, shouldn't they have their primary pushed back for being red?


Your arguments are self-defeating.

[Hardrada]

2. Iowa has had a Democratic governor since 1998 and went

majority Dem in the State Legislature. Also elected three Dem congressmen. I hope this in some way corrects your grievous and unsympathetic misapprehensions.

[hedgehog]

3. Iowa and New Hampshire are meaningless this year because

Obama, Clinton and Edwards all have enough money to stay in until the convention!

[Hart2008]

4. New Hampshire and Iowa first sure works for Repugs, but not for Dems!

In the past 39 years only 1 Dem who won New Hamshire, won the White House in a contested election, Jimmy Carter. (He finished behind "uncommitted" in Iowa.) New Hampshire doesn't usually vote for the Dem.

Is this system good for the Dems?

New Hampshire tends to vote for other New Englanders, Dukakis, Kerry, Tsongas, etc., who don't fare well nationally in the general election.

If we want to give retail politics a try, I would suggest starting in Delaware. It is ethnically closer to the rest of America.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. I agree on Delaware. Rotate the first 2 spots between small states like DE, Montana, and WV

Included NH and IA but only as of a mix of 10 or 12 rotating small states. Let the 3rd and 4th states being chosen totally randomly. No more SC being guaranteed being the 3rd state, which still gives it considerable influence even though IA and NH go before it.

[madfloridian]

5. Florida's propaganda is also bad for the people

When they KNEW their delegates would be taken away if they moved up...they did it anyway.

Dean and the DNC had talked with and worked with them for months, and they got the "me-firsties" and moved up.

I see you are really upset about this.

I am upset that no one cares that Florida told a lie. They spread around that Dean and the DNC took their vote away.

That is a lie.

And not a one of you here care that they did that.

[Hart2008]

8. Not to defend the FL state dems, but these are really 2 seperate issues.

I agree the Florida state Dems are wrong, but protecting New Hampshire, which will also likely violate party rules now, is a different issue.

Let's agree that in '68 Eugene McCarthy shocked the world, and that was good.

but what has New Hampshire done for the Dems lately?

How did Dukakis, Tsongas, and Kerry winning in New Hampshire help the party select the best nominee?

:dunce:

[JI7]

11. New Hampshire helped Clinton the most

he did much better than expected even though he didn't win the state. his better than expected showing there was where the "come back kid" came from.

[Hart2008]

15. Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.in either election

Lost both houses of Congress and never got them back.

Hardly a great candidate.

(In '92, Jerry Brown was talking about the corruption in Congress that helped cost the Dem's Congress. Clinton was silent.)

I still want to know why New Hampshire first is better than Delaware going first for the Dem's.

[madfloridian]

12. There are a lot of posts here against NH and IA...is this organized?

There have been some in GD and here in GDP. I don't ever remember this sudden outburst against them.

Did you know two more states were added and others could join?

[Hart2008]

17. In 39 years only 1 Dem who won the NH primary won the White House!

He finished second behind "uncommitted" in Iowa.

Do you like losing general elections?

Some of here don't like the present system, which hasn't worked well for the party.

Or do you think it has?

[madfloridian]

18. Yes, I love losing.

That is why I worked so hard for years.

I love it. I absolutely do.

Read this.

"Basically, here’s what happened: last summer, the DNC approved a plan by which Iowa and New Hampshire remained in January, with Nevada and South Carolina also wedged into the early schedule to ensure that states in the South and West, with larger Black and Latino representation, had significance in the early primary process. (States had the ability to apply to the DNC to lobby for their selection as an early state; Florida did not seek such a move at the time.)

All the other states were told — and my understanding is that even Florida voted for this — that no one else got to hold a delegate-selecting primary before February 5. If they did, it would be mandatory and automatic that half their delegates would be eliminated from the Convention, with additional penalties possible including the loss of the entire delegation and — believe me when I tell you this is pretty serious — having the state bumped to the back of the Denver hotel selection pool.

Except Florida’s legislature wasn’t hearing that, and a bipartisan vote led to their attempts to claim a January 29 primary. So now Florida’s Democratic leaders have a choice: convince the legislature to move the date altogether; convert the primary from a meaningful delegate allocation process into a “straw poll” or “beauty contest”; or stay put and accept the consequences. (Oh, or sue the DNC. Great.)"

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/25/dnc-to-florida-democrats-not-so-fast/

Others had a chance and did not apply.

[Hart2008]

20. The DNC is not the highest organ of the party...the convention is.

Any state party can take its beef to the convention if they want. It's not the wisest thing to do, but they have that right. I think a little controversy at the convention would be refreshing.
:)

I wasn't defending the FL state Dems. I don't see what the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses have done for the party to win general elections in recent years. Selecting a nominee like a group of Buddhist monks searching for the reincarnation of the Dali Lama hasn't worked for the party very well.

In fairness, if New Hampshire violates the same DNC rule and moves up their primary, contrary to the DNC's schedule, should they also suffer the same fate as the Florida Dems? Nothing like having the New Hampshire primary on New Year's Eve 2007, right?
:party:

Will there be special treatment for New Hampshire because their Constitution requires them to go weeks ahead of everyone else?

[madfloridian]

25. I think the treatment will be meted out equally.

At the meeting they had other states to consider. Florida was the one who lost delegates. The others apparently cooperated.

If you read the articles posted here, the DNC members know it needs changing. But that will be like reinventing the wheel. All the pigs squealing they had their votes taken away.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. It is simply due to 298 million (almost 99%) of Americans living outside of the royal states

We would like a say in choosing the nominee too instead of being held hostage to NH and IA every 4 years.

[madfloridian]

34. But the rules are set for 08? Why not organize to get change...

without hurting the party?

[cali]

42. Clinton. 1992.

He came in 2nd in NH, after being widely written off. I disagree with the OP. Iowa and NH have long been valuble to the process. They enable a type of retail politics that isn't dependent on big money blanketing the airwaves advertising. The lack of diversity has now been addressed by moving S. Carolina and Nevada up. It's not pefect, and I certainly would have no objection to the suggestion upthread of rotating other small states, but I sure the fuck don't want to see large states moving to the head of the pack.

[Hart2008]

55. Clinton lied in NH promising a middle class tax cut. He is the 1st Pres. to break a campaign promise

before taking the oath of office.

But pandering to New Hampshirites didn't win the primary for him.

[IndianaGreen]

57. LBJ said that American boys should not be doing the fighting that Asian boys should be doing

Shortly after LBJ took the Oath of Office on January 1965, he send US Marines to Vietnam in May.

I never forgave him!

[ashling]

6. Why don't we just have them all on the same day

(or week) like we doo the general election.

[AZBlue]

9. That would really make the most sense.

I wonder why they don't?

[AtomicKitten]

13. that would certainly help

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Candidates without a lot of money wouldn't stand a chance

[PATRICK]

44. Hopefully that would force them

to level the PR, money playing field. You still have the problem of name recognition and the little impediment that the state governors might balk at having another system where the small states shrink to irrelevance in unfair ways. I think the whole American election process needs a top to bottom redefining, electoral college, campaign finance, a nationwide vote verification policy where the states could make local imrpovements but not less and no loopholes. Picking a few choices and then having a runoff might be a good thing.

If wishes had wings the entire Bush gang would be fluttering around the Hague.

[rucky]

47. Publicly funded AND on the same day? nt

I'd have a hellova lot more money left over for the nominee if I wasn't hit up twice in an election cycle.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

49. Assuming we can get public financing, great

But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[cobalt1999]

60. but should we deny most people a chance to vote for their candidate...

so that Iowa and NH can, maybe, choose a small money candidate for us?

Heck, I never even had a chance to vote for Dean last time, he was long gone before our primary came around.

It's like funding the small money candidates with our votes. Given the choice, I'd rather have a more democratic solution.

[madfloridian]

7. And I see we have a lot of new posts starting like nothing has been explained.

I love it.

I get to add my two cents on them without starting new threads.

When my state party spreads rumors about the chairman...that he is stealing votes...it upsets me.

They did not play fair and they were not honest. I will get some stuff together to explain.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. I think there is no problem with Iowa and NH. I don't understand this

Me first baby game. it is silly and it is making a mess of everything.
the states are acting like it the early 90s when the 'all about me' thinking was running wild.

[madfloridian]

14. Something is going on.

I have been checking some other forums to see why there would be so much stuff against Iowa and NH.

[ecstatic]

21. The media has changed over the past 10 years

They are all about sensationalism--they no longer do real news. BELIEVE you me, whoever wins in IA/NH will be thrust upon us as the inevitable nominee.

[madfloridian]

23. That is not what I am hearing.

With the other 3 states in pre-window...we may not know until March.

Or as Dean said the other day....maybe not until the convention. Of course he was joking.

[madfloridian]

16. Did you guys read this from Fire Dog Lake? Other states had a chance.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/25/dnc-to-florida-democrats-not-so-fast/

"Basically, here’s what happened: last summer, the DNC approved a plan by which Iowa and New Hampshire remained in January, with Nevada and South Carolina also wedged into the early schedule to ensure that states in the South and West, with larger Black and Latino representation, had significance in the early primary process. (States had the ability to apply to the DNC to lobby for their selection as an early state; Florida did not seek such a move at the time.)

All the other states were told — and my understanding is that even Florida voted for this — that no one else got to hold a delegate-selecting primary before February 5. If they did, it would be mandatory and automatic that half their delegates would be eliminated from the Convention, with additional penalties possible including the loss of the entire delegation and — believe me when I tell you this is pretty serious — having the state bumped to the back of the Denver hotel selection pool.

Except Florida’s legislature wasn’t hearing that, and a bipartisan vote led to their attempts to claim a January 29 primary. So now Florida’s Democratic leaders have a choice: convince the legislature to move the date altogether; convert the primary from a meaningful delegate allocation process into a “straw poll” or “beauty contest”; or stay put and accept the consequences. (Oh, or sue the DNC. Great.)"

[ecstatic]

19. Sadly, I might have to remove Dean from my avatar

If he doesn't get this right, and I mean ASAP

[madfloridian]

22. Please do.

If you believe the Florida Democrats over him, please do.

He is doing what DNC leaders do.

[madfloridian]

24. SO you are calling for a train wreck? And planning it here?

Interesting.

[IndianaGreen]

27. So you are wanting Iowa and New Hampshire forever first?

Because that's what you are defending!

I am the one telling you that it will be terrible if the Denver Convention is reduced to a credentials battle on national TV, a point that you persistently ignore.

If I had the choice of pissing five people off, or twenty, I rather piss the five.

We need Florida in 2008!

[madfloridian]

28. You are using DU to call for a party train wreck in 08.

Frankly I would not mind a good fight.

I am tired to giving in to Democrats like the ones in the Florida leadership. Bill Nelson is about three things...Bil Bill Bill.

[IndianaGreen]

32. And here you are using a strawman argument, again! Have you no shame?

I am also troubled for your negative opinions of your fellow Florida Democrats. I may have issues with some of my Hoosier Democrats, who are a fine bunch of human beings, but I would never take the side of outsiders against my state. Particularly taking the side of people from the East (a trait I share with my fellow Hoosiers).

[madfloridian]

33. I am troubled that you want to disrupt the election with a train wreck.

I am concerned about our party leadership here.

If they had not threatened a lawsuit on the grounds the DNC was disenfranchising them....I probably would not have said a word.

But they threatened. They did not tell the people of the party here that they could have kept all their delegates by following rules.

I suspect there are a lot of 3rd party advocates hoping the DNC goes down in flames.

[IndianaGreen]

35. It is your infallible Dean and the DNC that erred by stripping Florida of delegates

and putting Florida in jeopardy in 2008 just because they are so stubborn about protecting the idiotic "first in the nation" entitlement of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Your defense of Iowa and New Hampshire's "first forever" is irrational and undemocratic.

[madfloridian]

36. Why don't you just call me a "Good German" again.

You got away with it last time, and I never forgot it.

Sticks and stones, IG. Childish stuff.

[IndianaGreen]

39. What brought that up? Do you support Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table?"

If the shoe fits, wear it!

[madfloridian]

46. You are calling for a train wreck next year.

You don't like the Democratic party anyway on the best of days, and you think I am a Good German?

What brought that up?

Because you are agitating for a loss next year, and you think I am a Good German. You have forgotten you called me that?

I never forgot it.

You got away with it, though.

[madfloridian]

37. That's funny...my "infallible Dean". No, they did the right thing.

You are trying to cause a train wreck.

"Having Iowa and New Hampshire first is bad for democracy and for the American people, and if it takes a train wreck to bring that message home, so be it!"

[IndianaGreen]

38. You want us to lose Florida in 2008? Because of Dean, Iowa, and New Hampshire?

There is some twisted logic to what you are defending, but I fail to see it.

Dean and the DNC are the ones causing the train wreck, and if this shit is still festering next year at the Denver Convention, I will remind you that it was your defense of the DNC that led us to a circus on national TV.

[madfloridian]

45. Call me a "Good German" again as well. Go ahead.

You got away with it last time.

You are really being insulting to the people in Iowa and NH. Are you also that way to SC and NV as well.

[IndianaGreen]

54. It is disturbing that you defend 4 red states while attacking your own Florida Democrats

Like I posted elsewhere, I might attack the Beltway Democrats with gusto when they are wrong (which is much too often), but when it comes to my own local Democrats I close rank with them, particularly if they were to come under attack by a bunch of Eastern seaboard knuckle heads.

Bottomm line, is not criticism of Iowa that has got you so incensed, is the implied criticism of your god Howard Dean. You should not worship false idols, madfloridian.

[madfloridian]

58. Then call me a Good German again, IG. We all know what that implies.

You detest Democrats, you are trying to hurt the party. You are getting huge latitude for it at a Democratic forum.

You are attacking Iowa mercilessly. I am surprised no one from there has called you on it.

I know what is going on here, and it is not about me. It is about damaging certain Democrats.

[killbotfactory]

30. Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't always be first

They should probably have a rotating schedule with other small states, but the time to argue over this should probably be before everyone agrees to a schedule.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Iowa and New Hampshire first is a sytem that helps the underdog and I like that

Candidates without a lot of money can compete in small states like Iowa and New Hampshire. As for why those two particular states get to go first, that is something we should re-consider perhaps. But big states should absolutely not be allowed to go first until we get public financing and a level playing field.

[jmp]

43. Who cares what is good for democracy?

All that matters is that Iowa & NH go first.

[Broke Dad]

50. Wait a stinkin' second

I am not a native Iowan, but I have lived here for 23 years. This year, I have attended events by almost every Democratic candidate. Ordinary people in Iowa take the presidential campaign seriously. Iowa has one of the most educated and literate populations in the country. I am constantly impressed by the tough in depth questions that are asked of the candidates, eyeball to eyeball. A Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart or Howard Dean can gain traction here without $100 million in the bank. Plus we are a "purple" state meaning we swing with the country. I would argue we don't pick the nominee, but we get the nominee ready for the national stage. Instead of reading the media spin of an event, we are in the room to judge for ourselves. Standing five feet from Howard Dean is a lot better than seeing him on a computer monitor. Could Dean run a living room campaign in Florida or California? Iowa is small enough that he could . . . and did. From out of nowhere, he rocketed into first, and then after the Gephardt fragging, slipped to third. Which was still pretty impressive for a no-name physician from a rural New England state.

As far as 2004, I am the caucus chair for my little town. The DLC types all broke for Kerry, the new people all broke for Dean, and rest settled on Edwards. If Kerry had shown the passion and rapid response to W that he showed in the last month or two leading up to the Iowa caucus, he would be president today. Plus Gephardt went so negative on Dean that it killed both of them in Iowa. Gephardt's attitude towards Dean was, "If I can't win Iowa, neither can you." We are seeing Clinton go negative on Obama. It looks like it is hurting Obama, but not Clinton yet. I have to be honest, the old DLC types who supported Kerry in 2004 are supporting Clinton. I have a bad feeling about that.

The bottom line is that having a small intelligent swing state like Iowa go first is very good for the candidates and the process. We don't suffer fools or phoneys lightly in Iowa. And contrary to the other posts, we do not pick the nominee. At most, we get the field down to three or four finalists and get them ready to pitch their message to the rest of the country.

[jmp]

56. "I am the caucus chair for my little town."

The bottom line is that having a small intelligent swing state like Iowa go first is very good for the candidates and the process. We don't suffer fools or phoneys lightly in Iowa. And contrary to the other posts, we do not pick the nominee. At most, we get the field down to three or four finalists and get them ready to pitch their message to the rest of the country.

I don't care how good a job you think you and your fellow Iowans do at winnowing the field. It is undemocratic for you to have that power.

The rest of us thank all Iowans for their years of tireless service on our behalf ... but your services are no longer needed. We want the chance to choose from the entire Democratic field.

[zulchzulu]

51. Having been in Iowa in 2004 and seeing it all happen...

On one hand, I think that doing caucus voting is a pretty interesting way of voting. On the other hand, a small amount of people can make a very large decision. I think only 160,000 people went to the Iowa caucus in 2004.

The general idea is that caucus goers who are very interested in the race at hand go to a venue in their local neighborhood with their neighbors present. A designated person for each candidate makes a statement and others can chime in with questions and concerns. They then form groups within the venue where people for a candidate goes to a corner. The head count is done and then people who have usually 10 people or less have to join another candidate group or not at all. There is dialog to see who and why a candidate should be supported. Then the numbers are counted and a tally is sent to be determined on the amount of votes based on the number of people.

It's all about the ground game. Unlike an Election day where you have from 7am-8pm to vote, you have to be at a location from 6:30pm-9ish with a cut-off time if you are late. There is plenty of time to schedule to go to the caucus as well as an employer has to recognize that you would be caucusing. You can't get fired because you went to caucus.

As for Dean in 2004 in Iowa, his campaign was in disarray with Joe Trippi holed up in Vermont and not even returning Howard's phone calls. The campaign had poorly trained canvassers who would show up at homes and hand people their yard sign for another candidate and say they were going to plant a Dean sign instead. Orange hats were an alarm for Iowans to shut their doors and act like they weren't home. Getting multiple copies of expensive 4-color campaign literature a day didn't help the cause either. I was there and through phone banking and canvassing heard all the horror stories. Dean waned while Kerry peaked...it's that simple.

Bob Graham (D-FL) wrote a really good article in the NYT recently that gave some great reasons why Iowa and New Hampshire were good places to start the primary season. For one, the media market is cheap. People expect the candidates to go to events and answer questions. They demand that the candidates come back a few times before getting their vote. What is bad this time around is the February 5th 20-state primary with expensive media market and the fact that the states are all over the country.

The scrutiny that past Iowa and New Hampshire scenarios brought to presidential candidates can now be fluffed over with slick 30-second TV ads. Graham mentioned how Phil Gramm was a shoo-in in the 1995 polls leading up to the primary season and when he went to Iowa and people saw that he was an asshole, his poll numbers collapsed. That kind of vetting is necessary...and won't happen this year.

Graham's article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/opinion/08graham.html?ex=1188360000&en=8224303f6fbc6f42&ei=5070

[David Zephyr]

53. I have to agree, especially with regards to Iowa.

Iowa's voice, while an important one, is like a mono track playing with the rest of the 16 tracks muted. No urban voice. No voice of color. And it is not even a primary, but a caucus of party faithful who cut deals and get to vote more than once as they move from one room to another.

This is a lousy way to pick the leader of the United States.

Brave post by you, IG, that will probably win you no friends. But I agree.

[rockymountaindem]

59. The American people are giving them that power, and nobody else

Nobody is forcing millions of American primary voters to just vote for the winners of the Iowa Caucus and NH primary. Why people in other states say to themselves, "Well, I was going to vote for candidate X, but Y won in Iowa so I should vote for him" is beyond my grasp. They do it, so it seems, but they don't have to. If you want to get out of this rut, change the mentality that surrounds the primary in later primary states. People don't have to listen to the Iowans if they don't want to, yet they do. Just because they do that is no reason to take out your anger on the Iowans.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out upthread, facing the voters first in a small media market in a small population state(s) helps small-time candidates. If it were a national contest, only massively funded juggernauts could even hope to be heard. People like Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel wouldn't even be mentioned at all. So, even if you don't like those particular candidates, if you value having a broad spectrum of voices, having the first votes in small states with inexpensive media markets helps level the playing field. For that reason, if no other, I'm comfortable with the current primary schedule unless and until we get public funding for campaigns. It's not perfect, but it's more fair to small candidates who may eventually gain traction than a nationwide primary or a major one-day primary would be.

Lastly, anybody who thought that the '04 campaign would be easy, or anything other than a hard uphill slog against very long odds, is pretty out of touch IMHO.

[cobalt1999]

63. That's a little contradictory

On one hand, you say we shouldn't take into account what happens in earlier primaries.

On the other hand, you say we need the Iowa/NH earlier primaries to boost the small-time candidates.


If we don't let Iowa influence us, then the small-time candidates would have to run a national campaign anyway. If we do let them influence us, you say we are in a rut and need to change our mentality.

[rockymountaindem]

65. Well, we do let them influence us so it does help the small time candidates

but there's no reason that should automatically be the case. Since the process is what it is, yes, it helps the small time candidates gain visibility. However, since later primary voters don't *have* to follow the Iowa/NH results, it's not a systemic problem.

[Bluebear]

62. Yes, Indiana is so much more progressive

;)

[IndianaGreen]

64. Blue states should go first. There should be a recognition of their blueness

As to Indiana, I would like for us to move our primary from May to an earlier date, preferably as part of a Midwestern regional where we can join Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan.

I would also like to see Indiana proportionally allocate our Electoral College vote. That way there will always be votes going to the Democratic candidate, instead of having nearly half the voters disenfranchised on a winner-take-all scheme.

[fujiyama]

66. I'm gonna agree

IA and NH are not very representative of the US as a whole.

I say take one small state from each region the first week (maybe on the same day), then increase by population as you go on...something that basically eliminates one or two homogeneous states having such a huge influence on the candidate selection process. I understand the idea of not having say, CA or NY early on, mainly due to the expensive media markets...

IA and NH are a large part of the reason why primary participation is particularly low. Ask random people who they would vote for in the primaries and they'd be like "Huh? We have a primary in our state?".

The system is a mess. I don't know how anyone can defend two states basically choosing the nominee. The press of course, doesn't help. They just hype the winner and make them the presumptive nominee.

Many people feel like they don't have a stake in who they get for the primary. They think whoever it is, is just some hack chosen by party insiders and for the most part they're right. We need to break away from that and encourage more participation during the selection process.

[mrgorth]

69. Well it's not changing

so you really should suck it up.