"Nevada could become the New Hampshire of the West ..."

[Emit]

What do DUers feel about the decision today that the DNC made of adding NV and SC into the first wave of 2008 presidential contests?

I should add a disclaimer: I reside in N. Nevada, for what that's worth. I am uncertain as to the ramifications, pros and cons, etc. of this decision.

Dems Shake Up Nominating Calendar

CHICAGO Aug 19, 2006 (AP)— Democrats shook up tradition on Saturday by vaulting Nevada and South Carolina into the first wave of 2008 presidential contests along with Iowa and New Hampshire a move intended to add racial and geographic diversity to the early voting.

The decision by the Democratic National Committee leaves Iowa as the nation's first presidential caucus and New Hampshire as the first primary, but wedges Nevada's caucuses before New Hampshire and South Carolina's primary soon afterward.

The move also packs all four state contests into a politically saturated two weeks in January. The change means a potentially huge cast of Democratic presidential candidates could winnow quickly by the beginning of February.

Party officials embraced the change, though New Hampshire Democrats joined several likely presidential candidates and former President Clinton in opposing the move. ~snip~

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2333373

[MrModerate]

1. Not sure about this . . .

A downside is that candidates would be stretched thin, putting underfunded candidates (who we might not have had a chance to assess, and who might be real winners) at a disadvantage. This would shift more power to unidentified sponsors -- those rich enough to fund candidates before they emerge on the scene completely, i.e., those who want to own a candidate.

Also, the candidates are going to have to simplify their messages even more to cover additional states, and I'm not sure that dumbing things down is exactly what we want at this point.

I dunno, seems calculated to boost sound bite democracy and candidates being owned by special interests.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. The DLC must be happy. 3 out 4 are red states.

Kind of skews the early primaries in favor of the right wing of the party.

[bbinacan]

3. I don't have an opinion yet but

NH is pissed about this.

"The DNC did not give New Hampshire its primary, and it is not taking it away," New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said.

Secretary of State William Gardner, also a Democrat, emphasized again Saturday that it will be his office, not Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who picks the state's primary date.

"That's going to be based on state law, and it will be a date that honors the tradition," Gardner said after the DNC action. "It appears that he's in the driver's seat taking the Democratic National Committee on a collision course with the New Hampshire tradition."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060819/D8JJON9O0.html

[AntiFascist]

4. I'm curious, what kind of election machinery.....

(and I don't mean that in a sarcastic sense) is predominant in Nevada?

[Emit]

5. Our SOS selected

Sequoia DRE voting machines -- for the entire state:

http://www.sos.state.nv.us/press/121003.htm


BTW, this same SOS, Dean Heller, just won -- barely -- in the Repub primary, for the Congressional race:

"In the closest statewide race of the 2006 Nevada primary, Secretary of State Dean Heller squeaked out a 400-vote victory over Assemblywoman Sharron Angle in the Republican contest for Jim Gibbons' U.S. representative seat..."
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20060816/ELECTIONS/108160071

[Cleita]

6. I don't understand considering that Nevada is probably

a pretty underpopulated state other than Las Vegas and Reno. I don't know why they think this will help. N. Nevada is really nice incidentally. I really liked it the number of times DH and I broke down there and had to stay awhile. :-)

[nealmhughes]

7. NH is a very small state in size and population, also.

I like the concept of a NE state being the first bellwether, followed by the Iowa caucuses and then a group of southern states, then a group of midwestern, etc. The more the primaries are spread out, yet with relatively large groups of states, not necessarily in geography and demographics, the better an audience the rest of the party gets for the debate. I'd like to keep the process ongoing and not having a Super Tuesday locking in one candidate, or a single day for the entire nation -- there simply isn't enough money for everyone to go around for 50 primaries on different days and lumping some with wide distances yet small pops such as WY, ND, SD, MT and MN makes good sense. Minneapolis is the gateway to them all, or Denver. Logically, AL, MS, TN and AR and GA and KY could be together, making Atlanta the center of the campaign and then on thru Nashville and Memphis... It would likewise make perfect sense to have WA, OR, AK and ID together as they are all rooted in the Seattle air routes, and have the same fishing/logging/environmental concerns, such as water once one crosses the Cascades. The extremely large states such as TX, CA and NY and IL, PA, NJ and FL are, of course their own animals.
I would hope that the giantormeous states would be the final rounds, as they can decide the election in the electoral college. That makes us all not in those states mere debating societies until they set the winner...but a lot of debate will help decide who is going onto the final stretch.

[Cleita]

9. I can't agree with what you said. We should have all

primaries on one day. There still would be an edge for the tiny states because they would get to the polls first, however, I hate coming to my primary in California with the candidate already decided. You wouldn't believe the number of people who won't vote for the first candidate of their choice because New Hampshire or Iowa decided otherwise.

[Demeter]

8. Why Any State Would WANT to Emulate NH Is What Bothers Me

talk about dysfunctional!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. If you ask me

They should do it in random order at each election.

[Emit]

11. Thanks, everyone, so far, for your responses and insights

I have to run and can't reply -- it's my anniversary! and we're off for a night out.

I do remain curious about this, especially since I really am a political novice when it comes to these things, so I'll check in sometime ... late ... tomorrow! :hi:

[teamster633]

12. I can't help but think this will be a good thing.

I've lived in NH all but the first 2 years of my life. The state is and has been overwhelmingly republican since time immemorial. It does our party no good to have my sorry little state play so prominent a role in selecting our candidate for president. The powers that be here consider their "first in the nation primary" to be a "God given right", and not a privilege. It is entirely fitting and personally pleasing to think that they will be disabused of their sense of entitlement. I would have liked to have seen all their self-important white faces when they got the news. My only regret is that it had to occur during the tenure of one of our rare Democratic governors. I only remember there being 3 of them since I gained the majority nearly 30 years ago!

[LWolf]

13. I have a better idea.

If the DNC doesn't want a single day for all primaries, how about adding these states to the first wave? You'd get some geographic diversity as well as a large population of voters. If you're going to stick to the first wave being the "deciders," you might as well let more voters participate.

Let's add these three: :D


California
New York
New Mexico

[cally]

14. I support this change

I don't like having Iowa and NH determining our Presidential nominee. I was offended by the campaigning in NH when I was there. Voters act like it is there right to determine the nominee and that it's OK that the rest of the country does not matter. I think we end up with candidates that cater too much to white, rural voters when we need a candidate who appeals to a broader section of America. When I was in NH, it felt like the Presidential primary had become a separate industry there.

On a personal note, picking a state closer to home will make it much easier for Californians like me to head to Nevada for a few long weekends. I'm excited.

[stevedeshazer]

15. I agree

All the west coast states have late primaries and it's all done but the shoutin' by the time we get to vote.

Nevada is slightly red, and is evolving blue.

My state borders Nevada, too. I can't afford to go to NH or Iowa.

Also I agree with adding SC so there's a more regional cross-section.

Better yet, have 'em all on the same day.