Nothing to do with Obama or Clinton. Can we all agree that Iowa and NH

[RB TexLa]

Should no longer have the power they have in selecting presidential nominees? I understand people opposing big states going first due to the cost, I don't agree but understand the argument. So not California and New York, but really maybe mid size or small states with minority populations, one with at least one true urban area. Gasp, maybe even a Southern, Southwestern or Western state. I realize Iowa is a tradition dating back to the '70's, the 1970s, so was disco and bell bottoms.

[rpannier]

1. I think NH as the first primary is over a century old

[RB TexLa]

2. good for them. I didn't know how old that was so I didn't mention a time frame for it.

[MadBadger]

3. Its not cost. It just allows more retail style politics. I think the small states should go first

But just switch them up and the order. I like what we did this year with having four completely different states go first.

[Radical Activist]

6. Yep. People get to know the candidates better in person in the small states.

It makes a big difference. They learn things that the rest of us don't pick up from TV news and ads.

[Firespirit]

15. Agree 100%

The personal politics of the early primary/caucus states is far better than the ad-driven campaigns. Even a huge rally just isn't the same. I would hate for the party to give that up. Campaigns are "packaged" enough as it is; let's not destroy the one time that we have to break away from mass marketing politics.

[jaysunb]

12. I liked it too, as did

most of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

I hope the DLC dies a natural death so that the true Democrats can redefine ourselves. They are largely responsible for the intra party squabble that's going on about the primary and much more. We must remove this cancer from midst. :evilfrown:

[MadBadger]

13. We should change it up though

Let other states into the rotation. New MExico, Mississippi, Alabama, Vermont, Delaware, North/South Dakota. All those are good states to lead off.

[Radical Activist]

4. I don't think that's a magic bullet.

The Super Tuesday with so many states voting at once is a bigger problem.

[anonymous171]

5. A revolving primary system would probably be a good idea.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Oregon or Washington should be up there IMO

A lot of smart folks in those states ;-)

[Muttocracy]

8. Regional primaries. I'm OK starting in New England or Midwest, but I want regional primaries. nt

[TexasObserver]

9. Agreed. The DNC needs to set up FIVE states on the same day.

The first day of the primaries or caucuses should be set by the DNC, and if Iowa or New Hampshire don't like it, THEIR delegations can be stricken from participating in the nominating process.

I am also sick of those two little, unrepresentative states, having so much sway over the process. We need to have first states on the first day of competition, so that we have five parts of the country covered. If we want to let NH and Iowa be two of those, fine, but it's the party's choice, not theirs. We need to end the process which allows individual states to go first because THEY say so.

All the primaries should be mandated to end by the end of April, so that our nomination process is in the bag by May first.

And do away with superdelegates, who are a very bad idea.

[Gore1FL]

10. I'd like sevral scenarios

1> National Primary where only votes count

2> National Primary (same Day) with distribued delegates per state

3> Regional Primary -- every two weeks Delegates

4> Size Primary -- Every two weeks (small to large) with delegates

No more caucusses (which are solutions for a bygone era)

[peoli]

11. I say Colorado, Mississippi, Wisconsin and Cuba.

[WA98070]

14. It doesn't matter who goes first if the lemmings follow the MSM.

[AtomicKitten]

16. I think a revolving primary would be great for the party.

[Fresh_Start]

17. I think it would be more democratic to rotate the early

primary states

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Have a fuckin' machine with... what, 54? ping-pong balls, and every one has a state/territory on it.

Have 2 or 3 each week from Jan out. Totally random.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

19. A cross-section -- E, W, S, N would be advantageous in getting the "lay of the land".

My humble suggestion...

Washington

Texas

Georgia or N.C.

Massachusetts

On edit. Add a 5th state -- Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska or Indiana

[aquarius dawning]

20. A lottery system would be superior.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. IMO, national primary day with enforced spending limits

Spending limits won't be codified into law anytime soon but the DNC can make that a criteria necessary to seek the party's nomination.

Delegates are apportioned based on your share of the national popular vote. If nobody gets 51% then there can be a runoff a week or two after the national primary day and the winner of the runoff gets the additional delegates needed to get to 51%.

Once there is a presumptive nominee, the spending caps are lifted and the presumptive nominee is free to raise and spend as much money as needed to fight against the Republicans.

[Radical Activist]

24. That puts the media in control even more.

People won't have the chance to get to know the candidates in person and the campaigns won't be able to reach everyone with their own materials. The results will be largely based on name recognition and who the media likes to give good coverage.

[crankychatter]

22. 100% - It's always been a way for Party Elites to control the process

I'm only afraid the Democratic Party has been too slow to stop the neocon juggernaut to hell...

By the time we figure out that the enemy is within... and that WE are the solution... it may be too late.

[NewHampshireDem]

23. Regional primaries, every two weeks

Can't have one big national primary ... that would just screw things up even worse. But don't let anyone else in my state know I said that.

[VotesForWomen]

25. yep. one-day national primary. nt

[donheld]

26. No no no no no no no

Then many of us would never see a candidate. The way it is now they have to get out and mingle with, at least, some of the people.

[donheld]

27. I think Colorado should be first and formost!

It's high time you all listen to us for a change :D

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Rotate which two small states have the first caucus and primary.

But the small states first approach allows low funded candidates to be competitive, get national recognition, and get into the bigger states.

[AllentownJake]

29. Nope

I like our system. 3.5 million newly registered voters. Other than the super delegates wielding so much power. I think our system is awesome.

[DemVet]

30. Primaries should be held in all states on the same date.

This avoids any one state having too much influence on the Nominee (this is how Howie Dean got his butt kicked to the curb in '04) and avoids "pile on" voting...voting for the perceived leader.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Horrible idea.

That would require 100s of millions to run an effective campaign. Having a few small states go first lets candidates build organizations and funding sources as they go - and lets them start with very little (comparitively) money. It is the only way we get to hear from the actual progressive wing of the party at all.

[Ganja Ninja]

31. I don't see what can be done about it .

I also don't see a role for the party to try and tell a state when they can and can not hold an election. Governments run and pay for elections. If the party doesn't like the way they do it, or when they do it, they should hold their own at their expense.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[ecstatic]

34. I agree. I've been stating that all along. I will always be grateful,

however, to Iowans in this particular cycle.

[Vinca]

35. Considering what happened this year with the Michigan/Florida fiasco,

I don't believe anyone is starting in on Iowa and New Hampshire again. If the schedule had remained the same this year, the states so outraged by the "power" of Iowa and New Hampshire would have been far more important in their original slots.

[MaineDem]

36. Not necessarily

I would like to see a rotating group of small states go first. One from each region like this year. Maybe IA or NH maybe not. Personally, I love the NH early primary but I'm not tied to it remaining.

[On the Road]

37. To Me, the Retail Politics Aspect is Paramount

I don't care as much about where the states are.

In the future, it might be an improvement to rotate a set of small states such as HI, AK, NB, DE, UT, RI, and so forth. The 2012 schedule could be determined by lottery and rotate from then on.

However, I don't think it's out of the question to include large states. There is no law that says all the delegates from a state have to be chosen on the same day. An early primary could be conducted in Rochester NY or Orange County, CA, as long as it's limited to a certain population.