Dems to expand early primaries (to provide more diversity in nat'l elec)

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- Democrats trying to change their presidential primaries for 2008 agreed Saturday to recommend that at least two other states join Iowa and New Hampshire in voting during the opening days of the nominating campaign.

That expansion, debated before a commission considering changes in the primary calendar, is intended to provide more racial and geographic diversity to an opening process now dominated by Iowa and New Hampshire. Those states, representing about 1.5 percent of the country's population, have residents who are mostly white.

The additional states, expected to be named later, were likely to include a smaller state from the South and a smaller state from the Southwest or West.

"We have decided to add at least two and perhaps as many as four contests in addition to Iowa and New Hampshire," said Rep. David Price of North Carolina, a co-chair of the commission. The exact order of the early contests was not specified, "but there's a lot of sentiment on the commission to honor the role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played," Price said.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/NEWS06/510020499/1012/NEWS06

[xultar]

1. YEAHHHH FUCKIN HOO!!!

[journalist3072]

2. And where is D.C. in all of this?

As taxpaying residents of D.C., we don't have adequate representation in Congress.

The least they can do is give us an early voice in the primaries, so we can have a real say in who the Presidential nominee is.

[rodeodance]

3. excellant move.

[journalist3072]

5. During the last Presidential primary here in D.C...

Some of the Democratic candidates wrote to the D.C. Board of elections, and asked to have their names removed from the ballot.

They were mad that our Mayor and City Council moved our primary ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. They did it to call national attention to the issue of representation in Congress for D.C. Residents.

Some of the Democratic candidates had problems with that and asked their names to be removed from the ballot. I was very disappointed in them.

[1932]

4. The more states they have on the first day, even if they are small states,

will make it even more expensive to run competitively, and will decrease the chance that first-day voters will have heard much from the candidates before placing their vote.

I think they should start with a few small states which are more similar, demographically to the nation as a whole. I also think it's great to start with a caucus.

[nvliberal]

7. The last thing we need is front-loading the primaries.

The primary season needs to be the way it used to be, spread out from January to June. Therefore more voters get to hear from candidates, the candidates are not having to be forced to raise large sums of cash in a short period of time, and states with few voters will not be kingmakers early on.

We made that mistake last time; let's not repeat it.

[bleedingheart]

11. actually it may be a good thing....by having all the primaries lumped

together...money may not play as much a difference because they won't have so much time to raise all that cash...the elections might actually produce candidates that people like.

I am here to say that in PA it sucks that with our 22 electoral votes we don't have much of a say in who becomes the presidential candidate...

I hated the fact that the primary was viewed as a "done deal" by the time we got to vote...

[SoCalDem]

16. Regional works best..tests true strength and allows for easy

campaigning/advertising within an area..



1 jan 20
2 feb 20
3 march 20
4 april 20
5 may 20
6 june 20

[mitchtv]

25. regional works for me too

I am so sick of red states naming our candidate, when he won't even carry said states.Why on earth should the largest Dem state have the candidates decided for it. I would like to see the order in which the regions vote rotated, so at least once in a while we get to put the candidates forward. This is not meant to offend red state dems, but let's be real/fair.

[radio4progressives]

20. They won't have it on the same day , it'll be in the same week though..

I watched the commission meeting televised on C-Span, and listened to the discussion - the concern was ethnic, racial and geographic diversity. but there were concerns about too many, too soon. So they kept the number limited to at least two to four additional states (no more than four).

There was discussion about Proportional Representation in these early caucuses and primaries. I was pleased to hear this.

I was very impressed with Senator Levin's input - it was clear he had been pressing for more radical changes (but met with objections from others) or maybe more accurately put, a distinct and clear departure from the status quo mode of operation and thinking.

It was interesting meeting to observe. C-Span, (with all of it's faults)offers a great service for the American public - no hype, clear window into the process of government in Washington.

It's been an important source of Washington "news" for me.

[Don1]

6. Screw that!!

Small state from the south == Alabama.

Small state from the west == Colorado.

What is up with the Democrats? Are they crazy? This is clearly a way to solidify conservative control of the two-party system. Was this a decision by the DLC?

Oh wait...reading further from the quote:
"...Rep. David Price of North Carolina, a co-chair of the commission."

Looking up in my list of DLC'ers, YUP, he's in the list!

[KoKo]

21. It was actually pressure from the Grassroots activists who pushed this.

David Price is DLC but he was just the Co-Chair of the Commission. It's the folks like us here who were mad as hell about 2000 and 2004 who kicked up the dust for this.

There were arguments against changing it at all but the arguments for it outweighed the arguments against by a consensus.

[Don1]

27. huh?

What consensus? I am a grassroots activist and never heard of this until now.

First, you guys decided this crazy strategy all on your own? Second, south and southwest states?? That is completely red territory and insane.

[jwirr]

8. This may not belong here but I have worried

about the cost of the primary season, last general election I was broke by the time the general election came along. Besides only thinking about making it more effective someone in the party needs to think about making it less costly. We would have had a lot more money to fight bushie if it hadn't cost so much to pick and choose.

[bee]

9. kicking for primary reform.

why the lack of interest? :shrug:

I for one, say :woohoo:
This NH resident sincerely thanks the Dems for this.

[HoosierClarkie]

10. yeah!!

Maybe my vote will matter. ;)

[IndianaGreen]

12. Who cares about "honor the role that Iowa and New Hampshire have played"?

Those two states have had a disproportionate role in the selection of Presidents, and bear responsibility for the nomination of fatally flawed candidates in the past.

I favor scrapping Iowa and New Hampshire's egocentric "first in the nation" and creating a system of rotating regional primaries.

[dolstein]

14. Wow, that's TWO things we agree on

I forgot the first one.

[mitchtv]

26. got my vote too

et tu dolstein?

[dolstein]

13. "Honor the role that New Hampshire and Iowa played" -- WHY???

When you consider the fact that the last successful Democratic nominee for president lost both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary in 1992, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to "honor" their role in the Democratic selection process.

Besides, the early positioning of Iowa and New Hampshire in the nominating process was a result of happenstance, not the product of serious thinking. Honoring them is simply a way of avoiding the hard work of designing a selection process that products candidates acceptable not only the the party regulars but also to the general electorate.

[KoKo]

22. Because those states would have raised holy hell...and it is a tradition

that goes deep and the Commission felt it would be wrong to cause anger in those states and there were some legal problems that couldn't be over come with the Caucus situation.

I watched the hearing on C-Span on Saturday...so heard most of the arguments. It's not as easy as Dems dumping Iowa and NH. Plus the Repugs have to agree to many changes before the Dems are allowed to tinker with schedules. The Commission is trying to work with what the Dems CAN control since they know the Repugs will stonewall any coordinated changes in Primary Schedules that might favor Dems gaining an advantage.

[sendero]

15. This is definitely...

... a step in the right direction. Nothing against Iowa and NH, but I just don't think they are very representative of average Dems.

[rfkrfk]

17. Iowa and NH still go first

with a bunch of states a week behind NH.

So what?

[Left Turn]

18. This is a good start...

But the whole primary season and calendar needs a massive reform to make it more fair and to make sure the party picks the best candidate each time.

[NashVegas]

19. This Is Good News

I only hope the monetary impact is low.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UrbScotty]

23. You gotta start somewhere. (nt)

[Orsino]

24. It's all meaningless without campaign finance reform.

It's still gonna be the white guy in a suit who most successfully whores himself to big business.

Get some real guts, Dems, and produce legislation to take the money out of the game, so you can start representing people instead of dollars.

Until then, I'm only voting for you because you are marginally less repugnant than the other party.