An early Western Regional Primary? Not sure I like that.

[madfloridian]

There is a committee formed at the DNC, pre-Dean, to investigate the primaries and recommend changes. I know Howard Dean does not go to the meetings, which is probably good, and will be presented with recommendations at the end of the year.

I happened upon this paragraph when reading my print editon of The Nation in an article about gun control..."Democrat Killer"

It is very long, so I am just referring to this one paragraph which bothers me. I am not so sure this is a good idea. Granted, maybe better than one state doing it.....but I fear we will do a lot of pandering to appeal to some there. My belief is that we appeal to people with truth, not giving up our values.

This is one thing I hope does not happen. I still believe areas of high population should be considered at the same time as less populated. I don't understand that idea. BTW, I have no opinion on gun control other than the assault weapons ban. It is just not an issue of mine.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050418&s=abramsky

SNIP..."As a part of the woo-the-West strategy, the Democratic Party recently set up a commission that explored the possibility of creating a Western regional primary early in the primary season--a single day on which the West as a bloc would flex its political muscle. If, as is widely expected, the proposal is approved later this year, overnight the West will become a key factor in determining the party's next presidential nominee. Such a move would, not coincidentally, probably give a major boost to Richardson's presidential ambitions.

A Western regional primary, says Richardson, "would mean the presidential candidate would have to be attuned to Western issues--and the gun issue would be important. It would force candidates to confront the gun issue more realistically, instead of just a blanket opposition. The core issues are access to healthcare, jobs and job protection, education. These are Democratic core issues. The gun issue? It should not be a litmus test. Because there are more and more Democrats who support the Second Amendment."

This bothers me. On many levels. On edit: not sure how I feel about regionals at all.

[HawkerHurricane]

1. Would California be part of the west?

I personally dislike the current system; while I'm sure that Iowans and New Hampshirens(?) are great people, they set the tone for the primary season... between them and the 'Super Tuesday' Southern primaries, we poor West (best) Coasters are stuck with the unenviable position of merely confirming the choice made by the earlier primaries.

A system of rotating 'regional' primaries would help solve this... OR we can do something like holding California's primary on the first Tuesday in January and let California decide WHO has the 'Big Mo' instead of Iowa/New Hampshire.

[madfloridian]

2. Maybe, let me check the article. This is first I have seen about it.

That would give it a different face, just not sure. Guess I automatically thought midwest.

[madfloridian]

3. Nothing to clarify.

But they keep talking about gun control being so important. I am not getting the impression that the Bull Moosers are thinking of CA as much as NM. It does sound very good for Richardson.

[madfloridian]

5. I left out a word.

The Bull Moosers who are mentioned in the story seemed only concerned with gun control as relates to NM and that area. I don't see any consideration of CA in the article, though CA is of course Western. Don't know.

[calimary]

4. I hope so. I mean, really! California is the biggest state in many

categories, categories that supposedly matter - like general population, Congressional delegation, population of Hispanics, rate of growth, economy, and electoral vote count. Why should we be at the end of the line? And we keep getting bigger every year.

Yet, the decision's always been a done deal by the time we get to weigh in, so we really don't have much of anything at all to say about it. And for the size and importance of California, I think that's just wrong. If we'd gone first, or early, last time, Howard Dean might have landed in the White House. He was hugely strong out here.

[lyonn]

6. primary system is seriously flawed

when the eastern part of the country basically get to pick the candidate. It must be because the candidates don't have the money and are unable to get all over the country campaigning. Still, something needs to be figured out.

[fujiyama]

7. The west is a region

that will play an increasingly important role in elections and I understand why some Democrats feel we have a better chance in that region than we do in the south (though I'd say both regions offer their own challenges and have some similarities as well as differences). But I dislike the idea of changing te schedule for any one candidate or the either.

I like the idea of creating a system where a small state from each different region has an early primary on the first day.
The reason I wouldn't want larger states going first is because the media markets are so expensive. Smaller candidates will have a more difficult time competing.

But as the primaries go forward, you could inrease the size of each state - eventually ending with the largest states from each region (ie CA, NY, etc).

[madfloridian]

8. Do you get the impression they are including CA in this article...

when they refer to the western states. Yes, I know CA is a western state, but everything they talk about in the article is about standards in the mid west region, so-called standards.

[dogman]

9. The Party has made gains in the West and hold more potential.

Montana and Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico have Dem Governors. There have been gains int the state legislatures also. There is a new dynamic at work and seems to hold more promise than the Southern strategy. A candidate that can carry these states probably has a better chance in Iowa, the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Missouri and Arkansas could come into play also.

[Clarkie1]

10. I like your ideas.

Eventhough I live in California and would like an earlier say, the argument that smaller states are better to give all candidates a chance to compete on an equal footing is compelling.

I also like the idea of spreading the first primaries out so different regions of the country are represented. I would think 3 first day primaries might be a good number. Anything more than that might make it more difficult for candidates with less resources early on to compete (much like starting with a larger state).

I would think it best strategically for the party to start with a relatively small southwestern or western state, a midwestern state, and a "borderline" southern state.

The picking of states to start the primary is a potentially tricky business with the possibility of mischief favoring a particular candidate. I'm not sure how best to prevent that from happening.