Dean Predicts Changes for 2008 Primaries

[Placebo]

Democratic National Party Chairman Howard Dean says there may be some changes in the 2008 presidential primary calendar, but nothing radical.

"There will be a little surgery, not major surgery," said Dean, a doctor, former Vermont governor and presidential hopeful in 2004.

For decades, the Iowa caucuses have been the first nominating contest, followed closely by New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary.

A commission was appointed to study the nominating process amid arguments that Iowa and New Hampshire lack the diversity to represent the country's interests and that no two states should have such influence on the presidential nomination. Defenders of their special status argue that candidates must meet their party's supporters and other voters face-to-face for the most personal politicking of the campaign.

More...

[Nightjock]

1. That's a good idea. I like it alot.

Now let's get to election reform or the primaries just will be picking the next person to have the Presidency stolen from them.

[kster]

16. Oh the anticipation!

I can't wait to see who corporate America picks to be our next president.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. I think California should be the first state

we're the fifth largest economy in the world and people actually live here. :D

[stopbush]

5. Yep, CA first and NY second.

Maybe then we'll get a traditional Dem candidate rather than someone who fits the bill for some red state.

[rurallib]

90. I am an Iowan

I think that there should be some changes. Iowans are guarding the status quo because it is a great moneymaker and ego trip. But I must be honest and say that when our state has 1% of the population, is not very diverse and a relative small percentage of voters even bother to show up (10%) we really shouldn't be in the position of being first.
Sure I still want a say, but it probably should be more commesurate with our status in the union. Plus, I'd prefer a prinmary.

[Debi]

112. The idea is to have a smaller state hold the first test

as it makes the race more affordable and personable for the candidates and their campaigns. (not to mention the voters)

Primaries are certainly easier, don't have to participate, just fill out this little form and you've done your part for democracy. A caucus puts a person in the position of being asked to volunteer their time to the party...many don't want that responsibility.

[Placebo]

6. CA, NY, and IL

:D

[kevsand]

17. With Illinois first, of course.

To make up for the decades since we ever got a real voice in the matter...

[Placebo]

19. Agreed.

We get like one visit from the front runner during the WHOLE presidential primary season and general election.

[AndyTiedye]

51. They Only Come to California When They're Looking For Money

since our primary has always been long after the nomination has been decided.

[xxqqqzme]

64. they use California as an ATM;

then never visit or there is one visit in LA. I forget how many millions left this state in '04 and none of it came back 2 help candidates.

[ClintonTyree]

91. Same here in New York............

well, the candidates MIGHT visit NYC, but the rest of the State may as well be invisible. And we're a giant ATM as well. The States that give the candidates the MOST financial support get the LEAST representation when it comes to choosing a candidate.

This system DOES needs major surgery, Dr. Dean! Our candidate is all but chosen for us after Iowa and New Hampshire? :wtf: That isn't really fair to the States that mostly PAY the Democratic Nominees bills. Sure, all States should be represented, but this Iowa N.H. thing has gone on too long. Mix them up, change the order every four years. Do SOMETHING!

[Placebo]

101. Yup Yup...

the joy of being a solid blue state

[One_Life_To_Give]

82. (S)He with the most money wins?

Wherever the first primaries are. We should expect each potential candidate to personaly talk and shake hands with at least 1/20 of the voters. Preferably to actually talk with 1 in 5 actual voters.

Least we conceed control to the Corporate Media and Big Dollar contributors.

[IA_Seth]

10. Booooo.....

I understand your logic, and I don't whole-heartedly disagree...but I do think that Iowa lends itself to a much more personal type of campaigning that is often lost as the primaries progress.

I think it would be a shame to lose this sort of closeness.


By the way....How about a lottery? What harm would it do if they changed the order up after each election cycle?

[Debi]

60. As an Iowan I disagree with anything that moves Iowa from First

I'm greedy, true, and have gotten used to one-on-one interaction with the candidates. I believe a small state is necessary (both for personal interaction and for financial reasons) to go first and I think Iowa does a great job of challenging the candidates and campaigns without bankrupting them in the process.

How much face time would Californians and New yorkers get with the candidates? It would be a tarmac to tarmac primary with no time to get to know or test the nominee.

But, like I said, I'm greedy.

[Lorien]

74. Iowa tends to lean right, no?

with that in mind, we will continually find ourselves with DLC style candidates who appeal to the average Iowa democrat. The same would happen if the primary were held here in Florida; we've had/have Dem governors, senators, and congresspeople in the past decade-but the average Floria Dem is more conservative than the average California Dem.

[Debi]

80. If you consider Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Dick Gephardt

and Tom Harkin as 'right'

Iowa has traditionally selected a liberal leaning candidate through the caucus process - and that's because party activists are the traditional caucus attendees - I'm not complaining that well over 100,000 people participated in the caucuses this past year, but Kerry did a VERY good job of getting supporters to the caucuses (better than the other campaigns).

[ClintonTyree]

94. OK, let Iowan Democrats pony up most of the money then.........

you guys get first shot every time, why shouldn't you pay more for the candidate you help choose every four years? NY, CA, IL, NJ......we're the people who are paying the lions share of the bills for ANY campaign. Yet we get the LEAST say so when it comes to WHICH candidate that may be. It's not really fair, you know?
I know you're greedy and you don't want things to change, but put yourself in OUR places for a minute. Not so nice now, is it? :shrug:
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but your lack of empathy for the other States involved, or in this case NOT involved, is glaring. Walk a mile in our shoes for once.

[Debi]

113. Looks like I'm about to, huh?

If the calendar changes I'm pretty sure Iowa won't be going third or fourth, we'll be in the late running (May? June?) and will become a flyover state and with only seven (soon to be six)electoral votes we will be meaningless.

[Lorien]

107. I do consider Gephardt DLC

Mondale and Carter are from entirely different eras. Hell, at that time OHIO was a liberal oasis!

I don't want to get in another tired debate about Kerry (and no, I don't consider him "liberal"), but his doing a "VERY good job" in Iowa didn't translate into doing a "VERY good job" in November. He should have clobbered Bush*, but that didn't happen.

In a democratic society, EVERY citizen deserves a voice. I'm tired of having none simply because I live in one of the other 48 states.

BTW- I met Kerry four times in my state and spoke with him. I also met every other candidate except Lieberman. I would pass on EVER meeting another candidate if it meant that every democrat could truly participate in the primaries. I'm more interested in their positions on the issues than what kind of handshake they have.

[Debi]

114. But is Iowa the problem?

or is it that so many caucuses/primaries occur so early that the later states don't have a voice? Iowa is only seven electoral votes - if there were a lull between IA/NH and the next cycle candidates that stumbled could build themselves back up (Clinton didn't even run in Iowa and look how he did?!)

It's the calendar that needs to change, not who goes first.

[Iowa]

105. Debi is right on...

Activists attend the caucuses and tend to be left leaning, so if you want progressives to have a voice, Iowa will provide that. I think 2004 was somewhat unusual in the sense that there was an incredible sense of urgency here to defeat the Republican opposition - more than I have ever seen. Specific issues simply were not discussed in my precinct. It was all about beating Bush - whatever it took. And Democratic activists in Iowa will tell you that Kerry was very, very impressive here. The man we saw here, and the man we saw on the campaign trail as the nominee were two different people, IMO. He morphed into something else entirely after Iowa. And therein lies the problem. What we see here often isn't the final product. I don't think the problem is so much a matter of Iowa going first, it's a matter of the pundits blowing Iowa's importance WAY out of proportion.

I'm with Debi - I'd hate to see it end. But if it will help to tip the scales, I'd favor a change.

[Brianboru]

111. But we don't hear much of what comes out of Iowa, except

the results.

Then it's forgotten.

[Debi]

115. Yeah, Howard Dean's scream certainly has been forgotten!

:eyes:

[Brianboru]

124. Exactly my point. Meaningless sound bites remembered, but

the issues don't get air time.

[Debi]

126. And that's Iowa and New Hampshire's fault?

I don't think the campaigns and candidates are the one's keeping that alive - and I don't think changing who goes first is going to change the MSM's behavior.

[Kahuna]

128. You're little state has what, 3 ECs? Why should you decide our

nominee? Let a larger, more ethinically diverse state have the first say. You can have your say on Super Tuesday.

[Rich Hunt]

75. Hey, Iowan -

I used to complain about the Illinois primary being so far back, but you're right.

If the big states were pushed to the front of the calendar, you wouldn't see as many debates and ideas displayed. We Illinoisans wouldn't have to pay so much attention to the process if we were pushed to the front of the pack.

The media would declare the winner of the first primaries the victor and be done with it - you'd hear and see a lot less discussion. I don't think that's good for democracy.

[iconoclastNYC]

89. We should all vote on the same day.

I don't think that we should let two states determine the frontrunner. With the way the media is setup it amounts to giving the media the ability to blackball a candidate.

I have no doubt that Dean would have won if everyone would have voted on the same day. No doubt whatsoever. Elements who feared Dean were able to narrowcast a smear campaign against him in IOWA and NH and after that he was the washed up looser and Kerry was the front runner.

The primary schedule is an impediment to the goal of a true democratic candidate.

[Lorien]

106. I agree; I'm sick of having no voice simply because I live

outside of those two states.

The primary schedule is also an impediment to the goal of a truly democratic society, IMHO.

[jmaier]

14. CA or NY first will pretty much ensure

that the candidate going in to the race with the highest name recognition and cash wins the nomination -- period. That isn't necessarily the best outcome.

[Iowa]

37. I agree...

and I'm an Iowan.

[mitchtv]

45. Iowa should pay for 2004

CA gives all the money, and it quickly leaves the state. Sure, candiates show up, for fundraisers normal people can't attend

[Debi]

61. You must not like the opportunity we, as Iowans, have to meet

the candidates and spend time actually getting to know them. This is something I will not give up without a fight.

[Iowa]

108. Yeah, I'd hate to see it go...

I'm just not convinced that it's best for the party and the country.

[Debi]

116. The front-loaded calendar is what is not good for the party

not who goes first.

If the campaigns had time to breath and re-organize after Iowa and New Hampshire it would be better for all (I keep using Clinton as an example and it's true).

If there had been a lull between IA/NH and the next primaries Kerry may have faultered - Edwards may have taken the lead (Clark may have had more organization) - Dean would have had more stories about the SCREAM spread throughout the MSM....Yeah, I'm still bitter about that!

Anyway, Iowa didn't cause this - having the processes one on top of the other caused it.

[Capn Sunshine]

77. Not only that, but a wide and diverse population

One problem I always had with Iowa and New Hampshire is the whitebread Mr and Mrs Smith thing; no diversity to speak of.

California otoh, is an entire spectrum of cultural, racial and economic diversity.

So is New York.

I liked he old "horse race " system better, and have argued that having no clear leader during the primary season keeps more national media attention focused on the candidates , their message, and the Democratic Party.

[mixedview]

109. more diversity needed, but big state would kill chance for mavericks. /eom

[rabid_nerd]

3. I'm not sure which, if either passed, but there were two resolutions...

...at the YDA National Convention supporting changing the Presidential Primaries, one especially anti-Iowa/New Hampshire.

[Wetzelbill]

4. I say they just have a GE for Dems and independents

It'll never happen though.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

7. get rif of mcaullifee's frontloading mistake

if our contest wraps up too early, then they GOP has that much more time to finetune their smear operation for the general election

[mitchtv]

8. Although I think that Blue states should decide

Like Ca Il NY, I think i prefer 5 regional primaries taking turns for first place

[GoBruins]

9. California as first primary?

I think it would be pretty awesome if California was one of the first states in the primary election. In the 2004 election, we really didn't have a say since it was pretty much decided who the nominee was going to be. It's also going to be the first time I get to vote in a presidential election (I turned 18 this year) so I would like to meet the nominees.

[OrwellwasRight]

13. Welcome GoBruins!!

From a fellow Bruin. :hi:


I also say CA first. While I have participated in many presidential primaries in CA, never once did my vote matter. Never once. The closest my vote came to mattering was when I worked on the Jerry Brown for President Campaign in 1992, and I convinced myself that he could take it from Clinton if I only worked hard enough.

Oh well, we all gotta have pipe dreams I suppose, or else we'll end up dried-up, greedy, selfish bastards just like the Republicans.

I have never understood why the most populous state in the nation, the one that delivers all those electoral votes, gets stuck with whatever candidate the people in the other states pick.

Keep on voting!

[Barkley]

42. The recall tarnished California's image and political reputation

I mean... electing Arnold !?!?!?!

We became the laughing stock of the nation.

And we expect to represent the country?!?!?!

Although I think CA would be far better than Iowa or
New Hampshire.

[OrwellwasRight]

44. Is Arnold more laughing stock-worthy than Jesse Ventura?

Or than the whole country electing Ronald Reagan president (yes, CA is at fault there too, but let's just forget that)?

After so many states going for Bush in 2004 after he proved himself to be a lying, scheming, selfish, disastrous son-of-a-bitch, I think no state has a monopoly on the title of "laughing stock."

That being said, I think part of the Republican euphoria over Arnie's election is that he was going to "deliver" CA.

Well, CA has effectively stopped much of the Diebold train. And what a slap in the face to the Repubs if the Dems showed how important Cali really is by giving it a primary early enough to matter. :-)

One can only dream.

[Barkley]

54. Yes, only because Arnold and the recall fiasco is fresh in peoples minds

Okay, so Minn won't be first in the primaries either.

[mitchtv]

46. Welcome GoBruins

I think CA should get a turn with the Western Region, being first. Break the nation into 4 or 5 regions, then alternate first primary between the regions. Throw some financial crumb to IA and NH. Fight for a paper trail. It is the right of every Californian to demand a paper ballot. I prefer Permanent absentee.

[davidinalameda]

67. I agree

I vote absentee anyway

[One_Life_To_Give]

83. CA has 10x as many Dems as IA

It will be alot harder for a low budget candidate to connect with 6 million CA Dems. At least in the same way as they can connect with 0.6 million IA Dems.

[Debi]

121. Not only is the expense and totally impersonal setting to be considered

But this constant call for absentee voting (and less participation) concerns me.

If people want to vote absentee, fine, but how will we get out central committees? our volunteers for GOTV? Where will we recruit candidates for local and statehouse races?

If we all just shutter up in our homes and don't associate with each other what will become of the Party?

Absentee ballots are good for those who cannot make it to the polls, I don't agree with them to be used to avoid becoming politically active.

[UrbScotty]

11. Good idea - but what about when a Dem president

...is unopposed for renomination?

[UrbScotty]

12. Why can't all primaries and caucuses be held on the same day? (nt)

[WildEyedLiberal]

18. I have to admit I like the Iowa system

If they were all on the same day, it would make it nearly impossible for the candidates to have the up close and personal time with people than the Iowa caucuses does, which is why I like the Iowa system. Perhaps the early primaries should be a mix of solid blue as well as swing states - for example, Iowa, Illinois, California, New Hampshire, Virginia - something that would represent a good cross section of the nation and ensure that the candidate appeals to all varieties of Americans. That said, I really don't think the system is broke as it is, but if they were going to change things, I would not eliminate swing states altogether. Iowa is a great place to garner the populist working class Dem vote, and lets face it, there are a lot more populist working class Dems than there are ultraleft hippies.

[CTLawGuy]

20. wow, a Kerry supporter likes the IA caucus

theres a shock...

[Placebo]

21. And a Deaniac hates them

Even bigger shock...

:nuke:

[CTLawGuy]

23. yup

I prefer fully democratic processes with basic protections, such as the secret ballot, that are woefully missing from the caucus system.

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. Wow, a Dean supporter doesn't

What a shock. Your guy loses, so you whine and want to change the whole system and change all the rules. Sad, really, but not surprising.

[CTLawGuy]

33. Sorry

caucuses are the sorriest excuse for a voting system I have ever seen.

on top of that, isn't it wrong that a bunch of old rural whites get so much power in deciding the candidate?

[Debi]

63. Well, there's a caustic generalization of all Iowans

You don't like the caucus system, we all got that from you during the 2004 elections. Is that a reason to start piping off negatives about an entire state?

If Iowa has so much power deciding the candidate why wasn't Dick Gephart the nominee in 1988? And Tom Harkin in 1992?

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. Rural?

[Debi]

117. That's you LincolnMcGrath

An old Geezer in the middle of farm country!!! :P

[CTLawGuy]

38. you know whats sad

Mr. Electable doesn't regret voting to send 1600 young men and women to die in an illegal war.

[Placebo]

49. You said it.

[Larkspur]

27. The IA Caucus is equivalent to a Middle Eastern Bazaar

It's where people show up to haggle for their preferred candidate and for for undecides to listen to proponents of other candiates.

The design of the IA Caucus makes it very susceptable to party hacks, who if there is enough of them can dictate which candidate's spokespeople get to persuade the undecides.

It is also a platform that favors extroverts over introverts. As an introvert, I'd find this system intimidating and rife for corruption and bullying. This system is designed to be undemocratic and would turn off more people than we have now to participating in our democracy.

I prefer the primary system where voters vote by secret ballot. I would not have a problem if candidates are allowed to have booths set up where voters can peruse and ask questions prior to voting. But I am no supporter of caucuses. Voting should be done by secret ballot.

[Peace Patriot]

29. "The design of the IA Caucus makes it very susceptable to party hacks..."

Yeah, I figured that's what happened in Iowa. The party hacks got in there and convinced the undecideds that a true antiwar candidate couldn't win. Same party hacks who forgot to check who was counting all the votes with secret, proprietary software (or had their own piece of the billion dollar electronic voting boondoggle).

The people who sold our right to vote to private Bushite corporations.

Real gems.

On the antiwar front, here's my favorite stat: 58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion. I'll never forget that number. Feb. '03. Across the board in all polls. Before all the lies were exposed, before the full horror and cost were known. 58%!

The American people were not fooled. We were DISENFRANCHISED. (--look at the issue polls. Iraq war. Torture policy. Social Security. The deficit. Women's rights. There is great disapproval of every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range. Not to mention Bush's dismal personal approval ratings over the last year. Where is "consent of the governed"? Where is Bush's "mandate"?)

We've got some housecleaning to do. And we need a BIG BROOM.

--------------

Primaries shmimaries! I'll worry about it when Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia election theft machines have been dumped into 'Boston Harbor'!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. The real crime in Iowa was the vote swapping.

IIrc,

Kucinich <--> Edwards
Kerry <--> Gephardt


Who got fucked by the Congressional insiders making deals?

[CTLawGuy]

35. I agree

the secret ballot is a central and necessary feature in a real democracy.

Voters need to feel free to make their choice without being forced to tell the whole world essentially (your vote becomes public info).

if not, then you risk reprocussions by people who don't agree with you. You are subject to cajoling IN THE VOTING AREA, by often fierce partisans. Only the most hardy of voters could stand that.

can you imagine if you were an IA firefighter in the 2004 primary and you really wanted to vote for Dean, rather than Kerry, the endorsed candidate? Would you be able to do that in front of your union buddies?

[IA_Seth]

58. Are you guys from Iowa?

I haven't heard many Iowans complain about the caucus system, in fact the majority of the Iowans I know that are involved in any depth enjoy the caucuses and all that they entail.

I would imagine that if they were so bad we would probably vote to change them...don't you think?

[Debi]

69. Seth, darboy hates the caucuses, there is no reasoning

with someone who hates.

He has come up with stories of intimidation and bullying (he likes the firefighter story because of Kerry and the Firefighters and doesn't think about the possibility that maybe no firefighters lived in the same precinct and ward so didn't caucus together - or that, even if they did they would not have lost their standing in the union because of their difference in opinion) (he also likes to use the 'what if your boss was republican and you had to caucus right next to him?' not even thinking that again, does the caucus goer live in the same ward and precinct and their boss? and why, if they're caucusing as a Democrat are they at the republican caucus?)

He doesn't want to be educated on the caucuses, he only wants to spread suspicion and hatred about the process.

Your story, how you became active in the Democratic Party, could help educate people on how the caucuses are actually a great party-building activity.

[ClintonTyree]

96. Fine, Iowans can have all the caucuses they want.........

BUT NOT ALWAYS FIRST! Caucus away, go caucus crazy, caucus 'til you crash, but NOT ALWAYS FIRST! Iowa has done nothing to earn that honor. That's, "just the way it's always been and we don't want to change". Come on, if the shoe was on the other foot you'd be screaming like crazy and you know it.
One of the smallest populations of Democrats in the Nation gets to choose first every four years. Yeah, that's fair. :eyes:

[Debi]

119. I still think that you're placing undue influence on Iowa

and I do think Iowa has earned the honor in the way that we treat the candidates, campaigns, press and others that come to our state during the process.

Iowa is inexpensive, inviting and challenging.

I think the calendar should be changed, not who goes first.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[Rambis]

118. Liberal fancy pants elitist

I am an Iowan and I caucus and there is never any bullying going on where I live. I don't watch TV for my information about candidates. I do what most Iowans do, ask them face to face what they stand for.
Whether we should be first or not I don't know. I am just a white boy who lives in an Iowa town that is 50% Hispanic 2% other and 48%white and I love it. We should quit worrying about who is first and get a message because it you don't have that you can't convince anyone of anything.

[Debi]

122. You're not talking to a person who wants to learn about the caucuses

He only wants to make people afraid of them - unsubstantiated rumors of bullying and intimidation. False stories of people yelling and shouting for their candidates. Scaring people about how their boss is gonna get them if they caucus. It's crap, just ignore it and be happy that you got to be part of a terrific process.

[Debi]

120. Because you don't want to voice your preference in a small

comfortable setting with your Democrat neighbors doesn't make a caucus wrong.

You don't want to discuss caucuses or learn about them, you want to run willy nilly around this board and scream that something you don't understand is wrong.

Go ahead and put me on ignore, then there will be one less reasonable person for you to rail against.

[Debi]

66. Please, tell us where that happened....

Truly, you continue to enlighten all Iowans about the bullying and intimidation that occured at the caucuses. It's time you helped us uncover all the terrible things that happend right under our noses.

:eyes:

[Debi]

65. Who participates in politics?

Who votes in primaries?

I'm tired of non-Iowans telling me how a caucus works (and hearing horror stories about the bullying and intimidation that occurs during the caucuses) and telling me that Iowans are turned off by the caucuses (Don't tell that to the over 130,000 Democrats that participated in the 2004 caucuses).

Stating a preference for the nominee is the smallest part of the caucuses - electing delegates to convention and central committee members is a major part (along with a host of other committees within the party).

The most important part of the caucuses, I believe, is getting to know your neighbors and fellow Democrats living nearby. Even if we caucus for competing candidates, come election night we'll be working together for Democrats. You don't get that kind of networking hiding in a booth secretly writing a name on a sheet of paper or filling in a circle on a page).

[Debi]

62. Can I give you a hug?

:hug:

Also, don't forget how little it costs to run in Iowa and New Hampshire as compared to the cost of running in CA or NY.

[CTLawGuy]

15. Iowa is being moved to June...

I hope....

[davidinalameda]

68. how about August

always heard Iowa is nice in August

[Debi]

70. Hey dwickham

Ya big meany!

[CTLawGuy]

100. on second thought, I might give them february...

february 30th....

[Pithy Cherub]

22. Keep changing it - GO DEAN!

Wish the DNC would go with a regional philosophy or a mix that allows for a fuller spectrum of supporters to have a say and a vote that matters. Iowa and New Hampshire are not urban metropolises with diverse ethnic groups.

A little surgery - I am hoping someone can convince "The Commitee" for a radical Democratic life saving surgery...

[PassingFair]

24. A radical

..Iowaectomy?

[Pithy Cherub]

26. LOL!!!! Yep, and put New Hampshire

on mandatory bed rest until March!:rofl:

[LincolnMcGrath]

85. " not urban metropolises with diverse ethnic groups"

Yep, We all be white bread crackers here in I Oh Way! :eyes:

[Pithy Cherub]

87. Much family for me

in the Des Moines area that is African American, but not enough to increase the percentage of representation. Need more so you have to go somewhere that would be true now, not hoped for...
Iowa will survive!

[Stinky The Clown]

25. I'd suggest Maryland as the first state for a number of reasons

An informed and generally active population with higher than average educational levels.

While generally a Democratic state, it has elected Republicans with some frequency, including the incumbent governor. Maryland is a microcosm of America, with large urban areas that lean Dem, suburban areas that lean Repub, and rural areas that are quite strongly Repub. (The mayor of Baltimore, Martin O'Malley was electedw ith a near 90% plurality, while Roscoe Bartlett, a popular Republican congressman representing the rural western part of the state, has a 100% conservative rating.)

A small enough number of electoral votes that any decision in Maryland will not significantly reduce the impact of races in later scheduled states.

I admit that I am a Maryland resident, but I have given this some thought and am not making this suggestion simply as a homer.

[CTLawGuy]

36. Im not from MD, but I like that idea

if not maryland then CT

CT is close to the national average in racial demographics.

CT has very rich areas and very poor areas
CT has very urban areas, suburbs and very rural areas
CT has a small area, which makes retail politics doable.
CT is solidly Blue and progressive (despite Lieberman)

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Connecticut would also be a good choice

The notion of a small but highly representative state is the real goal.

As you say, the area (or both CT and MD, for that matter) make retail politics doable.

One small issue that tips toward MD ...... the media. Most of Maryland is served by either Baltimore or DC teevee in the state's populous areas and has a very 'local' feel to it. True enough, western MD has media from Pittsburgh and Charleston, WV, and the Eastern Shore has Salisbury (MD) teevee, but even in the aggregate that's a fairly small part of the population.

CT has media from New York, Boston, Hartford, New Haven, New Britain, Providence, etc. For New York and Boston (both expensive, major teevee markets), CT is an afterthought.

Ad buys would be much more financially efficient in MD, thereby allowing a less well funded candidate to get a lot of exposure

[CTLawGuy]

43. the Hartford/New Haven media market

covers 80% of the state (except for Fairfield Co. and maybe the extreme corners)

Boston media pretty much does not reach here, and neither does NYC media (except for Fairfield Co.)

so I think your statement about media is not that accurate.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. NY Media

I grew up in Bridgeport (waaaaaaaaaay before cable and even slightly before actual teevee :) ).

You're right, of course, about Hartford being the state's major market, but Fairfield County is very important and very influential in the state. My wife's from New London and always watched Boston teevee. She considered that local as I considered NY to be local.

That was a while ago, so things may have changed with the advent of cable. After I left, my parents moved to Hamden. They switched to CT teevee, but still watched NY teevee news from time to time.

[Kahuna]

129. Maryland is definately up for consideration in my book.

:yourock:

[depakid]

28. The Iowa caucus is an archaic 19th century system

that is of limited (and probably detrimental) value to democracy in the 21st Century- especially when held so early in the campaign.

[brentspeak]

32. TERRIBLE idea!!!

Both Iowa and N.H. residents take great pride in having their states play such a prominent role in the nomination process. And both are either Blue or swing states every election. Those states WILL go Red if the Democratic party replaces their traditional role.

[PassingFair]

34. Boo Hoo

A version of taking their "balls" and going home?

The caucus was a disgrace. Party politics at its worst.

04 was the first year I REALLY watched it, and I must say, I was disgusted.

[Debi]

71. And having Michigan repalce Iowa as First in the Nation

would be just fine by you?

That is the plan submitted to the Commission by the state of Michigan's representatives.

you'll show us Iowans how to do it correctly.

[JNelson6563]

56. Are you from Iowa or something?

Seems to me if we lose NH and Iowas that leaves us 48 others. And if the folks of these states vote based on when they had their primary then screw them, they're idiots.

Julie

[cubschicago]

95. One of those states DID go red last time

And the other just went barely blue in 2004. It wouldn't be that big of a loss anyway. They are such small states.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[tishaLA]

41. Please enjoy your stay

Buh Bye now

[VADem11]

48. Virginia

would be a good choice. It's already pretty early in the calendar but it's a good microcosm of the country. It has liberal suburban areas in Northern Virginia, urban centers in Richmond and Norfolk, rural conservative areas, military families, a large minority population and is the 12th largest state. But hey, I live in Virginia so I'm hopelessly biased.

[Polemicist]

50. Why not regional primaries...

One state each in the northeast, one in the midwest, one in the south, and one in the west. Make them medium sized to small market states, so more candidates can afford to campaign in all four regions. Then go to the heavyweight states with the 3 or 4 survivors from the first four primaries.

I doubt all four regions will back the same candidate most years, so the ultimate choice will fall to New York, California, Texas, Illinois in the second tier of primaries.

That will give all parts of the nation some impact, but the ultimate decision will come from the major states that are critical to electing the President.

[dansolo]

93. This is exactly the type of system I'd support

I would even accept keeping Iowa and New Hampshire in the mix, but the most important thing is that there should be more than one primary/caucus on the first day, as well as some sort of diversity.

[Raiden]

52. A shake up would be nice

Why should IA and NH decide the candidates every election?

[Debi]

72. Don't tell Bill Clinton or Michael Dukakis that Iowa and NH

decide the candidates every election!

Blame the front loaded calendar, not the first states to go.

When Carter, Mondale, Gephardt and Harkin won the caucuses they had to continue to compete in NH eight days later and then wait for a while before the next primaries/caucuses - for Gephardt and and Harkin the wait was fatal (Dukakis and Clinton we able to reorganize and win the nomination).

When all the primaries/caucuses are held together (or at least so close together) there is no time to recover from mistakes made in the early processes - or to raise more money - or to move staff/organize volunteers in the later states.

the frontloading of the 2000 and 2004 primaries is where the problems are.

[bklyncowgirl]

53. New Jersey's moving up to February--stick us in with Iowa & New Hampshire

Small, diverse, opiniated, lots of local color and wouldn't it be fun to hear them smattering their stump speeches with lines from Bruce Springsteen songs.

Joe Lieberman 2004 "I've got Joementum"
Joe Biden 2008 "I was born to run"

All right the media costs are high, but my feeling is since our primary was in June, they owe it to us.

[Debi]

73. You and Montana!

Don't you two share the last primary date?

[Jersey Devil]

79. No more - NJ primary the 3rd Tues in February starting 2008

Finally it will mean something.

[Debi]

81. Not if the frontloading continues

If NJ ends up going after NY or CA or along with those states you'll still be igonred.

(But I hope that doesn't happen - I hope the calendar is spread out)

I'll be watching!

[9119495]

55. The Iowa system sucks--I am an Iowan

We will likely never have a black/latino/woman president with the Iowa system. Iowans just don't take risks on women and there is too slim a chance rural white will warm to a minority when they know no minorities (our neighbor Obama perhaps being an exception).

Here is my plan, and it still lets Iowa go pretty early to ease the transition:

The closest states in the previous election vote first. If you hope to have a say, you'd better have a serious active party organization. Sorry ID and WY and UT. This would give an incentive for the parties to consider more states in play until you got to the bottom and get some variety in the process. Even at the bottom, candidates may chose to campaign if it was close and who knows, an Idaho republican may actually show up to hear a libertarian Dem speak without wanting to shoot him or her. My system shirks the EXPENSIVE idea of the regional primary which would only favor regional/entrenched/connected/rich candidates and the schedule changes each year. Hell Mississippi would not be too far back in 08 and a Dem might actually reinvigorate the party there.

The caucus system is outmoded. And yes, there was vote swapping. In my precinct Gep did not have the votes so they sold their influence to the Kerry crowd to get a delegate to the next level--Hey it was by the rules...but should those be the rules?

Whudayathink?

[ClintonTyree]

97. Here, here..........

:applause: Finally, the voice of reason from an Iowan. ;)

[CTLawGuy]

104. thats a good post

here's why I am so upset about the lack of a secret ballot in a caucus.

I'm from New England.

New Englanders are very nice, but very private people. We leave our neighbors alone. People mistake that for unfriendliness, but we are really respecting the privacy of our neighbors by not butting into their business.

As a hard campaign worker over the last 3 cycles, I've canvassed many New Hampshire voters. there have been a signficant number who have NOT wanted to tell me (a DEMOCRATIC campaign volunteer) which DEMOCRAT they want to vote for. Many of them say that they believe their choice to be a private matter, and others just shoo me away.

I told them that I respect their privacy, then they often take my literature.

What is sad is that if they lived in Iowa, they'd have to choose between not voting and violating the privacy of their choice.

And many of them would choose not to vote.

[SoCalDem]

57. Regional primaries..my plan

This would test the true strength of a candidate, and would not require the zig-zagging travel. each area has major media..
draw lots to see which region goes first.. have them 2 weeks apart so the candidate emerges with enough time to campaign..

[Debi]

76. That means candidates spend all their time and money in

Washington, California, Minnesota, Texas, Florida and New York.

A tarmac to tarmac campaign allowing no face time with the candidates - only televised pre-scripted debates and commercials. May the candiate with the most money win.

Why would a candidate spend any time in any of the smaller states?

[mitchtv]

88. better that the money is spent

where the Democrats are. I go with Regions, alternating first This business of South Carolina having nore influence than anywhere is grating

[ClintonTyree]

98. Better the money is spent where the money COMES from.....

and where the Democrats are as well. Regional sits well with me, that's a plan I could live with.

[AllyCat]

59. That's a start. And not allowing McAwful or anyone else to

anoint a candidate after one freakin' caucus would help too. Frankly, I think the caucus system doesn't work if there is no dialogue. I heard numerous reportst that people espousing one particular candidate would show up and not participate in the discussion, just vote at the end and leave.

How about several states in addition to IA and NH run their elections the first night? There could be two super-7s and maybe we'll get a real outcome instead of what the media told us we should do. The hype was unbelieveable after just IA!!!

[Debi]

78. I agree that there should be a dialog

and people should be able to discuss why they support a specific candidate.

I also agree that the media and the national chair should keep their rhetoric down to a minimum.

The problem here was the front loading - no time for a candidate that didn't run well to recover (Gephardt anyone?) Or for candidates that couldn't mortgage their mansions to raise more money.

There used to be a lull between NH and the next primary - we should return to that time table (it worked well for Bill Clinton).

The reason to NOT have several states early on is to keep costs to a minimum - imagine a campaign having to have HQ and staff in ten states at one time? And the candidates having to fly from state to state to attend as many events as possible. It would become a tarmac to tarmac campaign and we wouldn't get to know any of the candidates outside of their commercials and brochures.

I do agree with grouping smaller states together (but only three or so) and having the larger states go individually - that way a candidate could do poorly in one state (or group) but rally in say New York or California giving the nation time to get to know the candidates and not ram through the nominee.

[genieroze]

86. LOL, I just read this wrong. I thought it said

Dean Predicts Changes for 2008 Primates. Personally I think mine is more fitting.

[dansolo]

92. The simplest solution is

Take the first four or six primaries/caucases and have them all on the first day. I think that having four to six small to medium size, geographically diverse, states is the best way. I wouldn't want the large states initially, because some candidates will be seriously handicapped by the high media costs. But a few early victories could open up the floodgates to more funds to help when the more populous states ave their primaries.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

99. VA and other southern states should be moved up.

[Debi]

123. Which is exactly what happened with Jimmy Carter

winning in a small state moved him up the ladder of candidates - his message FINALLY was heard by the national media (and Democrats) and he kept winning becoming our President.

I agree with combining smaller states (geographically close together) and then having larger states holding their primaries/caucuses on individual dates.

Having a horse race up until the national convention would be great.

[Endangered Specie]

102. It should be a national instant runoff election.

pure and simple.

Have all the individual states have their little caucuses/votes at the SAME time.

If not, I recommend NC for first state primary :)

[rfkrfk]

110. is anyone living in one of the 48 bantustands, tired of this?

Where is Nelson Mandela, when we need him?
The current arrangement is shameful combination
of, Apatheid, Animal House-1945 novel, and Animal House-1978 movie.
I'm getting tired ot the Iowans telling everyone else
that some voters are more equal than others.

I guess nobody wants to be a Hero.

[Neshanic]

125. I am surely tired of this...Iowans acting like it's their birthright.

Take it out of Iowa. Dean knows, and whatever he does has my backing.

[Kahuna]

127. Amen. NH and IA don't have enough ECs to give them such

an important say in who our nominee is.