What State should be the first Dem primary state?

[The Sushi Bandit]

I am personally sick of this Iowa/NH thing

[left is right]

1. It should be a national day

or if that is logistically impossible 3 days scheduled 6 weeks apart. If more than 1 day is used, the possible electorial votes should be divided equally among the days and no one should be able to be claimed the winner until all states have voted.

[Eugene]

2. Other: If not NH, then another small state.

New York and California are just too big to go first.
Front loading with big states closes the process to candidates
that don't have $20 million dollar war chests and tends to
decide the race before the first week of April.

Living in Mass., I still favor New Hampshire,
but start with a small state. Rotate if you
want to be fair.

[Shrek]

3. Iowa n/t

[cantstandbush]

4. Alaska. It's the toughest nut tocrack. n/t

[snowbear]

12. Actually, though... it's not a tough nut to crack..

But until a pro-drilling Democrat runs.. this state won't vote for them. :shrug:

The current mayor of Anchorage is an EXTREMELY popular (pro-drilling) Democrat... His approval ratings are so high that Republicans can't even find a real contender willing to go up against him.

It's a fact though. The majority of residents won't vote for a presidential candidate who is not pro-drilling.

Alaska is a pro-choice state with more Independents than any other political affiliation.. but boy do they love that oil money... $$$


That's what happens when the state gives every resident a fat oil profit $-check-$ every October just for living here.. :crazy:

[Zynx]

5. Missouri.

It's a state that needs Democratic attention and is an interesting mix of various different types of voters.

[Tesha]

6. Anybody besides NH, Iowa, and the Red States.

It would probably be a good idea to let a set of reliably-Democratic
states chose the Democratic candidate rather than the reliably-
Republican NH, Iowa, and red states.

(And please don't waste your time telling me "But NH voted for
Clinton, CLinton, and Kerry!"; they didn't do it by much and
there were specialized conditions in each case.)

Tesha

[Arkana]

7. I liked the idea of making it Colorado or Nevada.

It might be a good test as to how well Dem candidates are REALLY doing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. It needs to be a small State first

In a big State it is all about name recognition and media coverage because it is impossible for a candidate to actually meet a significant percentage of the possible voters in person. Only machine backed, celebrity and/or heir apparent (sitting VP's for example) and very rich Democrats could win starting out a campaign in a large State. If a lesser known or not machine backed Democrat does well in a small State first, then at least they can get some free media attention and convince some donors to open their wallets for them for the bigger States where the campaigning has to be Wholesale, not Retail.

However I think that the second or third week of the season should be reserved for Washington DC to have their Primary. DC is a small concentrated area where candidates can spend their time actually meeting voters. The media there loves to cover politics so there should be some free media to go around. It is urban, and it has a majority of minority residents. If DC were the only game in town some week at the front end of the process, it would get real attention and force Democratic candidates to connect with urban voters, many of them poor and/or black.

[The Sushi Bandit]

9. I like DC! good call

[TheFarseer]

10. It should be a purple state

with an established democratic party. Minnesota is perfect. Other states like Wisconsin and Missouri are good as well.

[The Sushi Bandit]

11. hOW BOUT A RAINBOW!

hAWAI'I

[OregonBlue]

23. Oregon is also purple, why not us? Good western state right between

Washington and California, bordered by Nevada and IDAHOHOHOHO.

[Jai4WKC08]

13. Demographics are most important

We need to lead off with a state or maybe a couple of states that reflect the party make-up: rural-urban, industrial-agricultural, black-white-hispanic, a representative veteran population, union membership, and other significant minorities and interest groups.

I don't much care if the state is large or small, since I can see advantages and disadvantages to both.

I also don't care if the state is red or blue, at least not for next time. Both parties will be having their own primary battles, so I would expect that most will vote in their own party's primary and leave the other one alone. In fact, it might be better to go with a red to reddish-purple state, since a candidate who can attract Repubs over to vote for him or her might someone we want to have at a minimum a fair chance at the nomination, if not a little bit of an advantage. If nothing else, it might deter or eliminate someone who stands little chance of winning more than what is already solidly blue. (Yeah, I know I'm saying that as a supporter of someone who would stands to benefit; but even if he doesn't run, it's still not a bad idea.)

But that said, I wouldn't want a state with open primaries, where people can jump into the other column on election day. It might not matter in '08, but it certainly will at some point down the road. Nor do I think starting off with a caucus is the best way to go either. A caucus is too easily manipulated.

I have no idea which state I'm describing above, but I'm sure there are folks in the DNC with the statistics to come up with the right answer if they tried. Sadly, I don't think leading off with a primary in a state or states representative of the rank and file is their first priority.

[GreenArrow]

14. Let 'em (the States) draw lots --

every four years, it's somewhere different.

[The Sushi Bandit]

15. Cool idea!

[Clarkansas]

16. I am more interested in some sort of run off situation.

I am worried that even though a majority of us won't want Hillary, she is going to win because we will all divide our votes amongst the others.

[LynneSin]

17. DELAWARE - only for the JOE-MENTUM!!!

Seriously, Joe Lieberman said Delaware was the key to winning the primaries.

:crazy:

[nickshepDEM]

18. Other: New Mexico.

New Mexcio, IMO, would be a great state to place before Iowa or in between New Hampshire.

[Dinger]

19. Next: Mass., New York, Wisconsin, etc. . . .

With Florida, Ohio and Texa$$ saved for a 3-state (# 49, 50) "Super Tuesday" in June.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. How about 4 primaries the first day?

One in each time zone on the continent. The state could rotate every election.

[WI_DEM]

21. A small state like Iowa and NH, why?

because if a mega state like California goes first, many candiates who are not well funded will have a hard time getting their message across. California is perfect for a well known and well financed candidate like Hillary Clinton. Iowa and NH is perfect for a candidate like Russ Feingold who is not as well known or financed and where he could do real retail campaigning and meet voters and get his name known.

[The Sushi Bandit]

22. Hawaii is the perfect place for the 1st primary

and the news will love to cover it there too!

[Blue_Tires]

24. Maryland

it will never happen because of its proximity to DC, but out of all the states, i think it works the best (I used to live there)

Although it is not an overly large state, it does have a good-sized population that represents a very clear cross-section of the U.S. (more than just about any other state)...There are immigrants from latin america/asia/africa, working urban professionals, military, rural farmers, and old-line established black and white communities in every socio-economic class...

Barring that, it needs to be a state like, say, Illinois

[Sparkly]

25. I think Dixville Notch should decide.

Just kidding. :P

[The Sushi Bandit]

26. looks like california wins!