Time to change from Iowa/New Hampshire picking our nominees

[quaoar]

There needs to be a better system, one that involves other parts of the country as well as the Northeast and Midwest. But it needs to retain the small-market media aspect so that candidates without massive war chests can still compete.

What if we had four contests all on the same day to open the primary season:
A caucus in Iowa and primaries in New Hampshire and two other small states.

I'd suggest a western state like Montana, which recently swept Republicans from state government, and a Southern state -- Mississippi, which as the state with the highest percentage of African-American citizens would give black voters input into the process.

[MAlibdem]

1. That actually sounds really good.

mt i like, and maybe New Mexico as well? Hispanic and small?

[aden_nak]

2. Why not base it on the previous election?

Select the states that had the highest voter turnout previously, since those are states that clearly are at least politically active.

But once the first handful of states vote, they need to step up the schedule on the rest. I live in New Jersey, we vote on the last day, along with one other state. My vote in the primary is meaningless, because it's ALWAYS decided long before it gets to me.

[Lone Pawn]

14. But what if that's Massachusetts and Connecticut?

[cally]

23. What's the problem?

How is that worse than Iowa and NH?

[Lone Pawn]

33. you think the 'out of mainstream' perception was bad with kerry?

imagine what it'll be if HRC is nominated on the basis of two northeastern liberal states.

[XemaSab]

3. New Mexico, Oregon, or South Carolina

small swing states, one and all (well we can dream about South Carolina, can't we?)

[quaoar]

4. South Carolina would not be bad

Though Mississippi has a larger percentage of black residents.

A black candidate could win a Mississippi primary or at least pick up some momentum and be taken more seriously.

[XemaSab]

8. I agree with you

that it would be nice to have more African American input into the primaries. It might bring African American issues into the fore. Also rural poverty issues, which have been ignored by both parties.

[Radical Activist]

11. South Carolina already had one of the earliest primaries

John Edwards won it. But I guess that one didn't count because of "perception" which means the corporate media didn't feel like taking it seriuosly. The problem is that we allow the corporate media to determine who is winning. We can make the primary calendar as long or as short as we want. The media will still anoint a front runner after two states. In fact, they will pick a winner for us before a single person votes, like they did with Dean. Breaking up the corporate media monopolies and creating our own alternative press is simply the answer to most of our problems as Democrats. Changing the calendar won't alter how the media behaves, and they are the ones who controled this primary from start to finish.

[XemaSab]

13. The corporate media's

going to be wrong no matter what we do. But having a more stretched out primary allows underground media, such as the folks of DU, to create their own interpretations and do their own research on the candidates.

[Radical Activist]

15. No, it won't

if all but one or two candidates drop out after the first two primaries because the media stopped covering them, and people stopped donating to their campaigns because they were determined by the media to no longer be in the running. The last primary was already decided by the end of February when a small number of states had voted. I fail to see how making the calendar longer is going to change that. It will just make more states irrelevant. We can make the calendar last a full year and it won't make a difference if the media declares a winner and ignores everyone else after mid-February.

[XemaSab]

17. I think last year

New Hampshire followed too closely after Iowa. Instead of actually covering the then-front-runners, Kerry and Edwards, the media was still focused on Dean. Maybe after 2 weeks the media would have shut up about Dean and covered one of the other candidates, for a change.

[flpoljunkie]

5. What about the rotating regional primaries plan we've read about?

[quaoar]

7. That would favor well-heeled candidates

who could afford to get on TV in multiple markets.

[Redneck Socialist]

6. As a NH resident I usually stay out of these discussions

because I'm more than a little biased, but your proposal isn't bad.

The key element that needs to be retained is that of small states going first. I think the early primaries should stand alone, but I'll come back to that. The advantage to having a small state or states go first is this: retail politics. In NH it is quite possible, with a little effort on your part, to personally meet and talk with every candidate for president. Early on they are literally in people's living rooms talking to a handful of people. Large media plays far less of a role here than it does in larger states or during regional primaries. This is a huge advantage for a candidate without a lot of money. It also forces them to respond directly to individual people's questions and concerns. Removing that media filter is essential and impossible to do in a large state.

I would like to see the primaries spread out, the front loading that has occurred rewards only those candidates with a lot of money and a high name recognition. Base the schedule on population, small states first, large states last.

[XemaSab]

9. Small states

Areawise (like Rhode Island) or population wise (like Alaska)?

Either way around, California would be near, if not at, the end.

[cestpaspossible]

19. Obviously, population-wise

[XemaSab]

29. That would make

Wyoming first, followed by DC, Vermont, Alaska, and the Dakotas.

This sounds like a miserable idea.... four of the most consistently republican states, coupled with two of the most far left.

California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois would be at the very very end.

On edit: Note well that Dean won both DC and Vermont by a wide margin. Alaska's republican but Kucinich finished in a strong second place with 25% of the vote.

In the general election, Kerry got 30% of the vote in Wyoming, 35% in Alaska, 35% in North Dakota, 38% in South Dakota, 89% in DC, and 59% in Vermont. The only state that we got more badly beaten in than Wyoming was Utah, and not by a large percent.

[cestpaspossible]

30. I didn't think

the poster meant it that strictly, that they would go in exact order, but rather, that the smaller states would go earlier.

Not my idea anyway. I guess I'm in the minority cuz I don't see anything wrong with the existing calendar.

[XemaSab]

31. I agree

with the poster that smaller states should go first, just not THOSE smaller states. :-)

[cally]

27. Why should California be at the end?

I do think the first few primaries should be small states. I want a more diverse state than Iowa or NH. I don't like who they choose and it frustrates me that states that are not strong Dem states choose our candidate.

But why should Cali be last. We are the largest state and we deserve influence.

[calimary]

32. No kidding! WHY are we last? WHY does our primary occur after

the decision, in effect, has already been made and the choice of candidate is already a done deal?

We ARE the largest state. We have the biggest congressional AND electoral delegations. Our state's economy, all by itself, qualifies us to be one of the top-ten COUNTRIES in the ENTIRE WORLD. Why do we get to bring up the rear?

Granted, I'm not sure we should be first. But we ABSOLUTELY should NOT be last. I'm not arguing that we have the first say, or even AMONG the first. But as it is now, we have NO say AT ALL.

[Deep13]

10. Ohio ...

... usually goes with the winning candidate in November suggesting that if one cannot do well here, he will not do well in the autumn. Iowa would be alright if it was not for their weird caucus system and NH is one of the least representative states in the country. Plus, New Englanders have a built in advantage there since it is only an hour or two from home. In 2004, Kerry, Lieberman and Dean's volunteers could spend the day campaigning in NH and then sleep in their own beds. Clark, Edwards and Graham had to fly them in and put them up in hotels. As you may have noticed, no D from the North East has been elected since 1960 and the only Rs have pretended to be from TX. Had Ohio and other generic middle-America states played a larger role in the primary, Kerry would not have been the nominee. As much as I personally like him, he was a handicap to our ticket. Having lost by one state twice in a row, we cannot afford those kinds of mistakes again.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. How about taking the money out of it completely.

Each candidate would present his case. Each would be questioned, not by the media, but by scholars that are knowledgable on the issues. Then one big universal primary. All to be televised, paid for by a fund raised by members of the party in donations not to exeed $50.

They could call it "Democracy".

[Deep13]

20. As long as we are wishing ...

... the televising should be free since the public owns the airways.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Fine by me.

As long as the repugs did the same.

I guess we can put the idea in the "fat chance" bin, seeing as all the politicians feed from the same trough.

[leyton]

35. Fundraising prowess is important.

It's unfortunate, but we cannot afford (yuk yuk) to be stuck with a nominee with no fundraising base.

[JaneQPublic]

16. Rule Suggestion: States that go red in the General cannot go first

Sorry, Iowans, but it irked me that after the huge role Iowa played in picking our Democratic nominee, the state ended up in Bush's column in November.

[leyton]

36. Why? So we can appeal to the same minority we appealed to last time?

Honestly, Iowa and NH are great picks because they are swing states. (Though an earlier poster made a good point about the advantage northeasterners have in NH.)

[Lone Pawn]

52. OH and FL would be nice.

[JaneQPublic]

55. "last time"??? ...Iowa DID go first last time!

I'm not sure what you mean by "the same minority we appealed to last time." But as it turns out, since Iowa ended up as a Bush win, the only MINORITY we were appealing to by starting there, apparently, was Kerry voters.

[Lone Pawn]

51. What? You don't want a candidate who appeals

to the people who aren't already voting for us?

[cestpaspossible]

18. Montana law mandates a June primary

"On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June"

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/13/1/13-1-107.htm
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/13/10/13-10-401.htm

So you'd have to change the law to have Montana go first.

[JNelson6563]

21. Time to stop letting MSM pick our nominees

is actually more accurate. ;-)

Julie

[cestpaspossible]

22. Could you explain what you mean?

As we all know, the nominee is picked by the primary voters, who do indeed consume media.


Could you spell out your idea, proposal or comment in more detail?

Thanks in advance.

[JNelson6563]

38. If you need an explanation

then I probably can't help you.

Julie

[cestpaspossible]

43. I like a discussion.

It's hard to tell because you are unwilling to expand on your comments, but I'm guessing that you think that some change in the primary schedule (you haven't said what change) would lessen the influence of the media on the process (you haven't said in what way).

So if you'd like to discuss your idea, I'd like to hear about it. If you prefer to just make snide insulting remarks you might as well skip it.

[JNelson6563]

45. Apparently you missed primary season

and that is unfortunate. To openly state the reality of what happened last primary season here on DU is equal to declaring open warfare.

As to addressing the primary process, I say have all states vote on the same day. Voila. Hard to form a cabal and run ads where the non-congressional candidate morphs into OBL or where a backwards state with a corrupt, fucked up caucus sytem that can be hugely manipulated calling the shots.

Julie

[cestpaspossible]

48. Leaving aside your insulting comment, and just answering the substance

of your post, in what way would having a one day primary make it hard to run ads of the sort you describe or any other ad?

I must point out, also, that you originally were talking about the media --- you used the term MSM -- now you've switched to talking about political advertisements.

But it doesn't really matter whether we are talking about sleazy campaign ads or deceptive news coverage, I don't see how changing to a one day primary would stop either.... but that apparently is what you believe... why?



Hard to form a cabal and run ads where the non-congressional candidate morphs into OBL

Why would that be harder if there were a one day primary?

[JNelson6563]

50. What insulting comment?

Are you referring to the missing the primaries thing? If so, I suppose I could've been more clear and added "at DU" becasue it wasn't my intention to insult you.

As to the substance of it all, seems to me the reich-wing MSM and the cabal's ad campaigns went hand in hand, no?

A one day thing for all fifty states, how would that be different? Well first of all a candidate would have to make themselves known to 50 states instead of a handful of bigwigs in Iowa who would dictate the caucuses. That would mean candidates would be busy promoting their views and ideas with no time left over to plot the downfall of each other or team up to eat their own.

That is just one aspect of such an idea but I would be open to others as well. Some how the process needs to be more fair to all states and less incestuous among politicians tag-teaming others to maintain the status quo.

Julie

[cestpaspossible]

54. I'm not convinced.

As to the substance of it all, seems to me the reich-wing MSM and the cabal's ad campaigns went hand in hand, no?

I don't really know how that has to do with the question of in what way the changing the primary calendar would make either more difficult.

A one day thing for all fifty states, how would that be different? Well first of all a candidate would have to make themselves known to 50 states instead of a handful of bigwigs in Iowa who would dictate the caucuses. That would mean candidates would be busy promoting their views and ideas with no time left over to plot the downfall of each other or team up to eat their own.

That assertion just doesn't seem correct. The general election takes place in all 50 states on the same day and that doesn't stop anyone from running sleazy ads or deceptive news coverage during the GE campaign. WHY would the media not run misleading news coverage? WHY would a 50-state campaign mean that candidates or their supporters or opponents wouldn't run sleazy ads? They wouldn't have the time? They'll choose how to spend the time they do have for themselves, who's to say it will be for postive messages instead of negative campaigning?

[JNelson6563]

56. They do so at their own risk

In a small window of time like the primary season a well shaped message would be crucial. Anyone who knows more than a basic neophyte knows that when you get a very limited time to make a pitch, you don't spend it talking about the competition.

As to what the media would do, they would do what is they do now, try to make sure Dems get the weakest candidate possible.

Cheers--

Julie

[blm]

47. The MSM tried to defeat Kerry for months by understating his support on

the ground in Iowa and overstating the support of others.

The media declared Kerry's candidacy dead for months to dry up his national fundraising.

They lied. There were reports back in Nov.2003 from Iowa that Kerry's support on the ground there was much stronger than what was being reported in the mainstream media.

Sorry that so many were manipulated into believing otherwise. It really was done to hurt the Dem party as a whole.

[AngryAmish]

24. Hawaii

Small, liberal and a great place to spend a lot of time campaigning.

[leyton]

37. That's what it will be -

- provided we let the candidates decide where the first primary is!

[XemaSab]

40. Hear, hear

Doing visibility when it's -8 and windy is just not okay.

[ZootSuitGringo]

25. I agree that we need to have more diversity in our initial primary states,

but more than which state are going to go first, I think the real culprit in the whole primary exercise in futility is the media. If we don't change power they have in manipulating OUR results, we are doomed.

1. They decide who gets coverage
2. They decide what kind of coverage each candidate gets (good/Bad?)
3. They decide what polls to highlight and advertise
4. They decide if they want to "Project" winners
5. They decide if "exit" polls are to be used or not
6. They decide what issues are important
7. They decide for the masses. Only activists know better, and there ain't enough of us to make a real difference.
8. They even decide what the debate questions will be, who will answer which, and who ended up winning!
9. They decide, they decide, they decide, they decide, they decide.
10. Note how early they are starting. Chris Matthews can't stop talking about Hillary.
11. In essense, our democracy is in the hand of the fourth estate to manipulate at will.

These facts bug the hell out of me!

[Blue_Tires]

26. i've been asking for this since '92 n/t

[leyton]

34. Why not? The past two elections show exactly why they should.

Three states switched between the 2000 and 2004 elections: Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. So they're full of the swing voters we want to appeal to - why not let them go first? I do think we need more western states, so perhaps we could move up Utah or Arizona, but the West is pretty well represented on mini-Tuesday.

[XemaSab]

39. Here's how it should be:

(IMHO)

Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Carolina, and New Mexico all go on the same day. Each candidate can realistically heavily campaign in two or three of these states, and all of these states are small. A candidate can develop a regional and demographic strategy here. Candidates who don't do well in any states can drop out here.

Three weeks later, 5 other smallish to medium states go, such as Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Delaware, and Montana, or some similar combination of southeastern, western, midwestern, southwestern, and northeastern. These states can rotate from election to election. The candidates can continue their regional strategy, and the rest of the country can see what people in different areas think about the candidates. Many "super tuesday" states would be well placed here.

Three weeks after that, everyone else in the country goes. End of story.

Under this system, 1/5 of the states are right up front, but hopefully the small-town campaign feel of the very first states wouldn't be lost. The larger states could exert a strong, late influence if we felt that the early states had chosen... poorly.

There may not be as much consensus under this proposed system, but sometimes too much consensus can be a bad thing.

Regionalism is also something that is missed in having two Yankee states go first. Clark did very strongly in the southwest, Edwards did well in the southeast, Dean consistently came in around 20% in many places well after Kerry was the clear nominee, and Kucinich did well in Alaska and Hawaii.

[Vinca]

41. As a NH resident, I like it the way it is. The benefits are:

1) a population that is intelligent, interested and motivated;
2) a state geographically small enough so a real campaign can happen;
and, of course, 3) New Hampshire can go either way and our small number of electoral votes can make or break a candidate.

[bigwillq]

42. A one-day primary in June

That's what I think we should do.

[cestpaspossible]

44. That's an interesting idea

It does mirror the GE.

[Lone Pawn]

53. Money would become even more important.

[Lexingtonian]

46. No

Not yet. So far you're just handing conservatives and uninformed people even more say in the nomination process. The net effect of that is to put up candidates that are too compromising and 'moderate' and prone to losing the Democratic base too easily- too much marketing and too little substance.

Moderate white voters have been the swing vote. The ones in the states settled by people from the culturally Northern and Midland states- this is the states of the Union, and the coastal West Coast- are the ones most prone to vote for Democrats in the present cultural/political landscape. Florida is competitive because of Northern influx. That is a historical pattern.

It's not disrespect for anyone else that swing states, and thus primaries, are placed in the Northern/Midland cultural boundary these days. Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oregon are all such places, and Florida is a messier version of it that nonetheless fits the logic. New Hampshire is a bit of a wierdo, now essentially assimilated- but also explained by history as founded to be a place for retrogressive libertarianish people who didn't want to be part of Massachusetts, which at the time consisted also of what is now the state of Maine. (Rhode Island was founded as a liberalish revolt against Massachusetts, btw.)

Yes, the U.S. is losing a lot of the cultural and social patterns imposed by the particulars of the Settlement. But, in broad outline, the Southern/Midland/Northern divisions are still there- the Midland sorts were always the swing vote, in the Civil War as in the present recapitulation of it- as the Red/Blue State map shows. It's not an easy argument to make, but I think a careful look at the situation says that Latino voters aren't unified enough and black voters in the South are outnumbered sufficiently that that's not where the key effort has to be. Sure, that's where the real payoff shows up- in the Southwest and in Florida and on the state level in the South and Midwest.

But the key Democratic problem in the present is getting the white Midland/Southern cultural-political alliance to wear down or break down. That's my assessment, after long looking at the problem. The arguments and facts that work to sway Midland people are roughly the same ones that Latinos appear to respond to- a message of opportunity, fairness, renewal, a comprehensive willingness to stymy and force back to propriety the presently oppressive powers of Church and Corporation. A bargain in return for which liberals can get social equality measures conceded. But renewal is the key idea.

Long story short, New Hampshire sets where social policy is and Iowa sets where economic policy is for Democrats that satisfies Democrats and is reasonable/relevant to the crucial swing voters, and it's hard to see how other states actually improve on that.

[Padraig18]

49. delete

Trust me, folks, it won't make a damned bit of difference.