Correct Me If I'm Wrong, But

[remember2000forever]

I always thought that Iowa and New Hampshire went first in the Primaries because they were smaller states. The Democratic Presidential hopefuls would then have a venue to initially present themselves easily to all the people of these 2 states. If Florida went first, primary candidates would be running from Jacksonville to Tampa To Miami at whirlwind pace. It seems that Iowa and New Hampshire are always introductory states for the candidates to the eventual primary voters.

[MichiganVote]

1. With the communication tools available today I think that argument is rather silly

[KharmaTrain]

2. They Also Didn't Start Primaries Until March

I remember as a kid most states didn't have primaries but just caucuses and conventions. IRC, New Hampshire was the first to set up such a open system and thus got the most "pump" and then when others followed, they were given the "first in the nation" status. Iowa didn't really come into importance until 1980 and because it was a caucus not a primary, it also got special status. There's no solid rules, just precedence.

One reason those two states were popular were the size (as you note how big Florida is) and the locations. Iowa, being in the Midwest was easy for Washington pols to fly off to on weekends and vacations...New Hampshire is just a Metroliner ride to Boston. A candidate could cover the entire state and it conserved both money and resources. The term "retail politics" is best applied. I lived in Iowa in 1988 and there wasn't a person in the state I met that year that hadn't met one if not several of the candidates.

Since most states hold primaries many wanted both the media coverage and attention and thus began to move their primaries closer to New Hampshire. Many of these states felt that the front-loading of attention and money in these states were not proportional and that by the time the primaries got to their state (like mine: Illinois), the nomination was a done deal and voter turn-out was lower.

I think the DNC is on the right track in a future solution here...setting up several regional primaries in small states first and then onto larger ones that let the smaller candidates (Kucinich for example) to conserve their money and still get a shot at winning early and then by the time the bigger states (and television markets) roll around, the field is narrowed.

Cheers...

[remember2000forever]

3. Thanks So Much For EXCELLENT Explanation!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I hope the DNC follows through with this plan

I've lived in IL and AR, and have always felt that the nomination was decided before I got to vote--even this year, by Feb. 5, our primary date, my candidate had already dropped out. Regional primaries would be the best, with the order of the regions rotated from election to election to make it even more fair.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Also The End To Endless Campaigns

Here's hoping the tedious length of this year's primary season which began the day after the '04 elections and has been non-stop since right after the '06 elections will be shortened...focus both money and attention on the nomination process.

I have long felt regional primaries with smaller states first then bigger states allows a candidate to focus message and organization and then if they're successful they move on. In some cases an early consensus will develop...but I don't think it would matter if you started big or small in that case...and as we've seen a "little guy" can rise up in a smaller state...good examples were Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Mo Udall, Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton.

In some ways I don't mind being later in the process in my state...as I like to see how others are reacting and then develop my feelings from there. That surely happened this year. I was very undecided a year ago...even at the beginning of the year. I favored Edwards but saw he was just not getting things together in Iowa...and also saw things with Senator Clinton that bothered me (I never got over her defense of her Iraq vote and then she voted to give asshat a blank check for Iran put me over the top there) thus when I finally had to decide on Feb 5, Edwards had dropped out and Obama was showing me he stood for most the values I did...I voted for him then and my support has gotten stronger since.

Cheers...

[mac2]

6. It's been a good distraction from the illegal war, their

bad trade deals, our falling dollar, and the impeachment.

Edwards couldn't win in Iowa a conservative state. No liberal does well there. The small state next to mine has a right to pick and discuss issues with candidates while mine next door does not. Get real this is all wrong.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Iowa Isn't THAT Conservative...

In all due respect. I lived there for a year...in Des Moines and the three major cities...Des Moines, Iowa City/Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities have strong Democratic parties. The west and northwest portions...the real rural ones are more like Kansas and Nebraska...but overall it's a pretty balanced state. When I lived there in '88 Dukakis carried the state and Obama did better than Edwards thanks to an incredible ground game he ran there.

I don't see "little states" having a right...the only option would be either some rotation primary system where someone is gonna feel like they've been shafted or a national one that would be as expensive as a general election and spread a candidate (especially a poorly funded one) too thin. This is gonna be an issue Democrats will have to debate over the next couple years and hopefully a shorter and more equitable (never totally fair) system can be implemented.

BTW...I wholeheartely agree on the distractions. The corporate media loves this horse-race...it's easy to cover as compared to putting their asses on the line in the illegal war or having to do some real investigating...those don't "sizzle".

Cheers...