I remember a lot of fighting here over the primary system back in '04

[WilliamPitt]

To wit, it is bullshit to have two predominantely white, predominantely rural states (New Hampshire and Iowa) have such a gigantic say over who will be president. There are great arguments for having these two states go first (the retail aspect, the meet-and-greet of actual campaigning that withers once the big states and big media buys come into play) as well as great arguments against it (two states that don't have the social and cultural diversity of a lot of the rest of the country shouldn't be choosing for the rest of us).

So now there's this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/18/nevada.presidency.ap/index.html

Sin City could set Democratic course for '08
POSTED: 5:36 p.m. EST, December 18, 2006

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- Forget Hillary vs. Obama. There's another question in the Democratic presidential race: Does what happens in Vegas really stay there, or can Sin City set the course for the nation?

Nevada has a new prominence in deciding the party's next nominee. It will hold an early caucus January 19, 2008, sandwiched between Iowa and New Hampshire.

The prized position is an attempt to bring more diverse voices into determining the Democratic candidate beyond the two overwhelmingly white, rural states that have traditionally dominated the process.

The hope is that a Western state with a large population of Hispanics and union workers will bring fresh issues to the debate.

"I've always felt that the system we have of choosing our president has been very cockeyed," said incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the state's top Democrat. Nevada "will give the American people a better idea of what a candidate should be for and against."

...more...

Personally, I love the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. The entire politico-media establishment crash-lands every four years in Nashua and Des Moines, and you get to watch them deal with (or more accurately, get dealt by) the locals. I like having the chance to actually meet candidates, something you can really do if you get yourself involved in either or both. I have very fond memories of New Hampshire in primary season, and had a ball in '04 running around Iowa.

That said, the arguments against these two states being first are extremely valid. I'm wondering what DUers think about this new addition of Nevada to the early process.

[VelmaD]

1. My first thought...

is that this is a good thing. It's got to be good to get more diverse voices involved in the process earlier on. I'm sure Iowa and New Hampshire are full of lovely, civic-minded people who do their best to help us pick good candidates, but they aren't really representative of the country as a whole...not by a long shot. That said, I'm not sure if Nevada is either. Anyway, it really doesn't make a difference for me personally...it'll still all be decided before we even get to my primary. *sigh* That's my biggest problem with the system and I haven't a clue how to fix it.

[never cry wolf]

2. I like it

For the reasons stated in the article. Nevada will still offer a chance to meet the candidates, it's population is lower than Iowa but is more concentrated in urban areas. Being in Illinois I am always disappointed that my primary presidential vote is meaningless and the candidates spend very little time here.

I am not so sure the media buys will be that much more expensive than Iowa. Sure, Vegas will cost more than Des Moines but in buying ads in Vegas you reach more than half the states population. In Iowa you have to hit all over the state as it's pop. is evenly spread out.

[David Zephyr]

3. As someone from the West, I welcome it.

I'd like to see Oregon or Washington also moved up earlier. My state, California, would not be an ideal starting ground for the primaries as it would end any "retail" nature the primaries have and would require tens of millions of dollars in advertising alone.

That said, I love the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. The South Carolina primary is an early shot for the South also.

So it's only fair that the West be represented in the early contests. Nevada is a good start, but the primaries in Oregon and/or Washington should also be pushed up.

After all, didn't Jim Morrison say, "the west is the best"?

[Lochloosa]

4. I think it will be ignored by the main stream candidates for now

Maybe in a few election cycles it will become a player.

It could help jump start some campaigns that need the exposure.

[WilliamPitt]

7. I seriously doubt

it will be ignored, for no other reason than the mainstream press hordes will love a chance to spend three days in Vegas. Any early primary gets huge coverage.

[Lochloosa]

8. I'm not saying the press will ignore it.

I believe the mainstream canidates will. They may make token visits, but in the end will spend their time in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[blondeatlast]

17. Good point--I doubt they'd mind spending a week or two in a Phoenix winter, either!

AZ has tossed this idea around some as well. We may need to bag the 2 PM drinking curfew first, though...

[comsymp]

5. It's a start

[pinto]

6. I'd welcome it. I remain stubbornly stuck on a pet proposal, though:

A three tiered primary schedule based on electoral votes, not location -

The smallest states in the first round,
Middle tier states next,
Big electoral guns last.

Seems this would give a broader range of national voter input before a candidate is chosen.

[redqueen]

9. I like it... anything to shake up

the disproportionate share of input those two states seem to have would be welcomed by me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. It would be more democratic to have a national primary.

[LSK]

11. what does this have to do with climbers, smokers or SUVs???

:sarcasm:

[jus_the_facts]

12. Primaries shouldn't be spread out...they should be NATIONAL....

...or else it's not fair at all...but I digress...in hindsight I can accuately observe from history...nothing ever is..was or ever will be...each stride toward perfection takes us back centuries..."..ahh when in Rome..." :nopity:

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I can buy it

And then hold the Washington DC primary on the weekend after NH, and follow that with two weeks off to give everyone time to digest the first round, raise some money, and get ready for the bigger states. Won't happen though.

[David Zephyr]

14. DC definitely, Tom!

That would be my dream.

[David Zephyr]

15. DC definitely, Tom!

That would be my dream.

[blondeatlast]

16. Love it. I'd love to see a huge union turnout in a Right-to-Work state.

Arizona has been thinking of doing an early primary too--the West is growing so incredibly fast that we need to be taken far more seriously than we are.