What do you think of this new primary "set-up" for the Democrats ?

[kentuck]

Is it better than the old way? I rather like it. It does tend to create more interest and competition. However, if we had an incumbent with as many challengers, I could see how it could weaken his chances for re-election.

I think it is a good geographical distribution with MO in midwest, SC and OK in the South and AZ and NM in the southwest, with ND and Delaware thrown in for good measure. Anyone think it needs to be changed?

[SadEagle]

1. Seems like an improvement, but, ahem, your forgot the West and North-East

(Well, you can probably count Delaware as N.E., but that sill under-represents one of the most Democratic regions of the country).

Perhaps something like CT for N.E, too (or any other of the 'smaller' New England states; I don't like the choice of NH since it's the least Democratic), and something like WA or OR in the West (-not- CA -- too large!).

The biggg question for this is whether this wouldn't result in deadlocked races when there is no incumbent and plenty of candidates from different regions.

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. WA AND OR wouldn't work

too big and too hard to get around

[bain_sidhe]

2. It's a set up, all right

The stated purpose was to have a nominee as early as possible. They specifically designed it so that momentum would propel one candidate forward, rather than giving other candidates time to regroup and respond.

In short, I think it sucks.

[mlawson]

9. Oh, you beat me to it!

Who needs smoke filled rooms, with this deal?

[bearfartinthewoods]

3. i don't like the compressed schedule.

there used to be two or three weeks between iowa and NH. with more of an interval, you get less of the 'inevitability' effect from winning iowa. the bump comes and then fades and the candidates have a tiny chance to catch their breath and re=evaluate before the start pushing again..

the compressed schedule almost guarantees that the iowa winner well be proclaimed the nominee 'in waiting' by the media and one mistake can kill a campaign because there is no chance to recoup.

[lastknowngood]

4. try a few democratic state i.e. blue states up

front instead of allowing the red states to pick our candidate.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. If an incumbent president had 10 challengers from his own party..

...his chances for re-election probably wouldn't be that good anyway. Shit, Junior's the worst excuse for a "President" ever and there's no major primary candidates against him.

[kentuck]

6. True..but

Democrats do not march in lockstep as do the Repubs.. I remember when Kennedy ran against Carter...

[Jerseycoa]

7. Exciting, but horrifyingly force fed

I don't believe so much artificially induced (on top of legitimate) mo' for the frontrunner out of Iowa/NH safely produces the best nominee. It could happen by accident, but this comes dangerously close to shortchanging the process. Too much opportunity to bandwagon-hop for party regulars, pollsters, media, AND voters. And no time for serious weighing of candidates. We wuz robbed? Terry, I'm ready to kick your ass.

[SW FL Dem]

10. It works if you get to vote

I feel left out of the process. I live in FL and we don't vote until March 9. I think it gives too much weight to Iowa and NH. By the time I get to vote, it may be a non-issue.