N.H. Proposes Alternative Primary Plan

[NVMojo]

WASHINGTON (AP) - New Hampshire Democrats are proposing their own plan for the 2008 presidential calendar that would leave Iowa and New Hampshire first, closely followed by a couple of contests in states with more diverse populations.

The New Hampshire Democrats want to start the voting a week earlier than in 2004 or move the general start of other contests back a week to allow room for the changes.

Some Democrats have said they don't think such a change would be that different from the 2004 primary calendar. In 2004, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary were followed a week later by voting in six states.

"We need to decrease front-loading, increase diversity, recognize Iowa and New Hampshire laws and traditions and have a calendar that will let us elect a Democrat to the White House," said Kathleen Sullivan, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. She said her state's proposal would limit the number of early contests while assuring diversity. The populations of Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly white.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-elect/2005/nov/28/112802456.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. Gawd save us from small states with big egos

We should get rid of NH and IA altogether, and lump them into regional primaries/caucuses. Their eagerness to maintain their preferred status has not served this nation well, and has led to the nomination of weak candidates that failed in the Fall.

Sorry guys, but this is business not personal.

[WI_DEM]

2. I disagree

Iowa and NH allows for retail campaigning and lets a candidate without a huge bankroll (or not as much money) and less name recognition to be competitive. If California or some other megastate went first the liklihood of having somebody with huge name recognition and alot of money to spend (like Hillary Clinton) win would be much more likely.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Retail campaigning is precisely the problem with NH and IA

The Fall campaign is not about retail campaigning! A candidate that does well in the extremely long chicken circuit in NH and Iowa, might not perform well in the mass media environment of the Fall campaign.

We need to know who will do well in the November, and the best gage of that is by judging candidates as they compete across a multi-ethnic group of states.

[Renew Deal]

10. Money

It's not just about tradition. Just think of all the hotel tax they collect from people working on elections there. It's about the $$$.

[One_Life_To_Give]

30. Not more than 2 million in first primaries

However the first primaries are distributed. There should not be more than one million people living in the districts that are involved.
Any person living in a primary area should be able to shake hands with each of the candidates. Hear them answer their questions in person and witness their debates. Also the makeup of the people must be representative of the country in general.

Having a super primary system with 50 million plus voters in each primary area, only guarantees the Golden Rule. She who has the Gold will make all the rules.

[lastliberalintexas]

31. Your post tells me just how entrenched NH and Iowa are

Think about what you wrote:

"Any person living in a primary area should be able to shake hands with each of the candidates."

That's EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY American eligible to vote. We ALL live in primary area/district as you described them, as every state normally holds primary elections. It isn't up to the first 2 or 7 or even 25 states to pick the candidates- they are not the only primary voters. We *all* are darn it.


And I'm sorry, but this fascination with meeting people face to face is getting old. I didn't have to meet Paul Tsongas to support him in 92 or even Clinton once he became our nominee. I didn't have to meet Simon to support him in 88(?). The only thing justified by in person campaigning is Americans' fascination regarding which candidates they'd like to have a beer with.

[One_Life_To_Give]

39. If 92 had a 1 day primary, would you know who Tsongas was?

He didn't have much money compared to the big names in the field.
Look what money did for shrub on Super Tuesday in 2000.

If you want to pick a presidanet solely obn their ability to raise money. A super primary will do it. If you want the best person for the job. SOmeone who is not owned by the wealthy, we need another way.

[Tesha]

43. If you want to win general elections, dump poor primaries.

NH and Iowa are far more representative of "Red Zone" states than
of any true Democratic (with a capital "D") values. NH is especially
corrupt because it's an open primary and about 1/2 of the voters in
the Democratic Primary are not Democrats, they're just Republican
men whose wives wouldn't sleep with them if they registered "R".

Tesha

[Eurobabe]

3. Sorry, let's go regional

No NH first and no Iowa.

[Debi]

4. Who is going to come up with the money to campaign in regional primaries?

Will there be anything other than tarmac to tarmac campaigning and rallies?

Will anyone ever get to ask a candidate questions or will there only be canned speeches?

Only millionaires will be able to run and we'll all be sold a package, we'll never get to know who our candidates are.

[Renew Deal]

11. Regional makes some sense.

It would reduce stress and cost on candidates and campaigns. Travel would be reduced, more commercials would be run in places with races. Candidates would have to focus and learn regional issues.

I'm not convinced that it would cause the packaged effect.

[Debi]

18. If you group three, four, five states together where will the candidates

campaign?

They will most likely set up offices and staff in urban areas close to an airport. Rallies and large events will be advertised with flyers and commercials. Candidates will make one visit to the most populated areas of each state to give vetted stump speeches.

I agree that grouping states is a smarter plan than having states clear across the country having caucuses/primaries on the same day, but I still see it destroying grass-roots organization.

Let's place North and South Dakota with Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin (maybe even Illinois). I see campaigning and HQ's in Rapid City, Bismark, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Des Moines, Chicago and Madison. Lots of miles left with no organization. Yes, there will be cross-savings with media coverage, but there will be no one-on-one with the candidates.

[SoCalDem]

28. My map balances out population centers and

allows for a shared media market..easy travel too..and would show true regional support or rejection

They could be 4 weeks apart, and be all over by June:)

[elsiesummers]

32. The press decided the race based almost entirely on Iowa.

Even NH only went the way it went because of the NH reaction to the surprise failure of the Dean campaign in Iowa, and Wesley Clark, because he didn't participate in Iowa, had no chance in NH.

Really, Kerry won the nomination in Iowa, and the rest was just a chain reaction.

So, regional would be fine if the first primary was multi-regional including one state from each region.

Because, let's face it, after the first primary, or certainly the first two, because of publicity and a fall off in funding of candidates who don't "place", the rest of the regions really won't matter. I'd rather not have one or even two regions decide the nominee.

[Debi]

35. Okay, let's take your Northwest Regional primary

Washington, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

A candidate with not much money or ability to travel from Washington to Wyoming and back would look at the population concentrations and realize that they should work Oregon and Washington and ignore Montana, Wyoming and Idaho (except for a quick fly-thru or attendance at the state's annual fund raising dinner).

Three of the states would be ignored b/c the candidate was attempting to get as many votes as possible for the least amount of campaign dollars and time.

In your Southwest Regional primary....how many candidates could afford to visit Hawaii and Alaska while campaigning in California and Nevada?

Again, although regional is better than say, a New York/California/Texas/Florida primary there are still flaws.

[MaineDem]

5. I agree with Kathy

I don't like the idea of regional primaries and the campaigns in Iowa and NH force the candidates to do one-on-one campaigning which is very informative even to us not in those states.

[IndianaGreen]

7. One-on-one campaigning is a poor test of how the candidate will do

in the Fall. We are losing elections because of the undue influence of NH and IA, because the people in those states are unable to pick a candidate that can win in the Fall, which is seldom the one that does well one-on-one.

[Debi]

9. It seemed to work for Reagan and Bush

Although the republican caucus is more like a straw poll, the campaigning is the same as the Democratic process. Winning Iowa wins the White House for republicans, so that can't be the reason it doesn't work for Democrats.

[IA_Seth]

13. One-on-One

I think it IS the one-on-one candidate that tends to win. A lot of people gave the reason they didn't vote for Kerry was because he was too aloof, with no personality.

Who won that poll about sharing a beer?

[Vinca]

8. Hmmm . . . as a resident of New Hampshire, I seem to recall

Republicans campaigning as well as Democrats. One party or the other comes up a winner. Don't blame it on New Hampshire. We're very serious and thoughtful about the process and manage to weed out large numbers of wannabes who would only muddy up a regional primary. The last go round was atypical. I don't know why Kerry captured everyone so quickly. It doesn't usually happen that way and I don't think it merits doing away with the New Hampshire primary. Quite honestly, it's the best thing about living in New Hampshire.

[karynnj]

14. As to why Kerry captured everyone so quickly, you

are in a better position to know than the rest of us. The winner in Iowa doesn't usually win in NH, Kerry did and you were there. From a distance in a state with a late primary, it seemed NH was important this year because after the Iowa caucus, there were 8 candidates (Graham and then Gephardt dropped out).

Of the 8 candidates, most people acknowledge that Sharpton, Braun and Kuchinich weren't going to win. That left Kerry, Edwards,Dean, and Lieberman (in the order they finished in Iowa) and Clark, who opted out of Iowa. Four of these people had reasons they should have done well in NH. Kerry, Dean and Lieberman were from neighboring or near neighboring states and Clark had devoted the majority of his time their (he spent some time in the next group of states).

Lieberman should have dropped out at this point as he came in 5th - though he declared a 3 way tie for third. I really think that Dean's loss to Kerry and Clark's mediocre performance, gave Kerry the push he needed.

That Kerry outdid Edwards on Super Tuesday, with the concentration of Southern states - sealed it. (The South clearly thought Edwards too weak. One question could be did Clark hurt Edwards.)

This was an anomaly - in that, if you really look at it the primary order is biased towards a southern candidate winning. Look at 92, Clinton won neither Iowa or NH - but then won big on super Tuesday. In 2008, if you had the same order, Vilsack, if he runs, could win Iowa. The winner of NH, on the basis of wimming NH, will not have a lot of momentum.

[Bluerthanblue]

20. word ! n/t

[Tesha]

44. The fix was in.

> The last go round was atypical. I don't know why Kerry captured
> everyone so quickly.

The fix was in -- ask Jeanne and Billy Shaheen.

Tesha

[neverforget]

12. I hate the fact that I had absolutely no say in who the nominee

was in 2004 or in any other year. The nomination is/was wrapped up soon after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. What about the rest of the nation? We need regional primaries that rotate every presidential election.

[karynnj]

15. It usually is not settled after NH and Iowa

Even in 2004, the Super Tuesday states could have killed Kerry's chances. These are mostly southern states. Had Edwards or Clark have won them - or split them between themselves - the nomination would have been wide open. The last open race in 1992 - Clinton lost NH and Iowa. Then won big on Super Tuesday.

NJ with a June primary really gets no say.

[neverforget]

16. It's called momentum (no, not Joementum :-) ) Whoever wins those

states comes out with all the press. I live in Oregon and our primary is in April,May, or June. (I don't remember because it was a pointless vote at that time.) New Hampshire and Iowa get all the press and face time with the candidates while those of us who have late primaries get no say in it. Why should those 2 small states get such a disproportionate amount of time with the candidates than other states? Tradition? That's just dumb. All I'm saying is that I want a small say in the matter with my 1 vote that will actually mean something and not some coronation of the already decided nominee.

How about 4 primaries with states from every region? Maybe 3 states from the NE, South, Midwest and West that rotate going first every 4 years? That way everyone will get a say in election process every year.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. McCain won here in *'s first go-round- and it pissed him off no end-

he thought he had us wrapped up nice and neatly-
not so-

[neverforget]

29. And your point is?? How about spreading the election over

the country to get the rest of us more involved? All I'm asking is to have my voice heard in the primary, or is that too much to ask?

[Bluerthanblue]

33. my point is quite clearly

expressed in my post-
And acknowledged in your original one- that my voice, here in nh has no more impact than yours, as demonstrated by reality- and history.
Blaming NH and Iowa for the lack of success in chosing a candidate who can buy the presidency is not an answer.

Edited to add if you believe any of your 'votes' are 'pointless' then you are indeed lost.- and it wouldn't matter where you live, or where the primary was held. I feel like 'what's the point' all the time- but if i let that dictate apathy, then i may as well quit using up oxygen cause all i am is an empty wind.

[neverforget]

36. i have no apathy towards voting. Your mistaking my frustration with

a lack of voice in the nominee with apathy. And, yes, your vote in NH means more than it does mine because you actually have people on the ballot that haven't dropped out. When it's my turn to vote, the nominee has it wrapped up. Hardly the same impact.

I am not blaming the lack of success in the general election with how the nominee is chosen. Again, you are reading too much into my post. What I am saying is that EVERYONE should have an equal voice in who the nominee will be. The first few states weed them out pretty quickly, and by the time they get to us, it is already decided.

One more thing: I vote in every election and I am not apathetic.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. I'm glad to hear that-

and I vote every time too- what I think you are not taking into real consideration is that while the names may appear on the primary ballot, the decisions between any contenders with a bank roll big enough to make a 'run'- have already been made-
We do get to meet some very VERY interesting candidates- Carol M.B. and Dennis K. in the last go round- as well as Al Sharpton- but the sad reality is that it's all for 'show'- it was Kerry-Dean from the get go-
Up until the last few elections, we in NH could vote for the 'vice president' separate from the president. Something I don't think many states do, but that I feel was entirely appropriate.

Would that each one of our voices be counted in every election, and hold equal weight- regardless of our ability to financially back, or pressure with lobbyists- those we support and oppose.

peace-

[neverforget]

38. Weeding out contenders is going to happen regardless of how the system

is set up. But my point still stands though, I had no opportunity to vote for anyone other than Kerry, unlike you who had all the candidates on the ballot. I just want something more fair to the rest of the nation, that's all.

[One_Life_To_Give]

40. Point is Shrub Bought Super Tuesday.

NH & Iowa aren't just about getting votes in those areas. The people there take the job of Vetting all candidates seriously. It can be done elsewhere. The important part is to set a stage where all candidates can have reasonably equal footing. In spite of the millions of dollars difference in funding.

[elsiesummers]

34. I agree - first primary, at least should be multi-regional.

It was indeed all about how the press reported Iowa. Even NH was affected by this (Dean was crushed by peaking too early/bad press) and Clark by lack of publicity for not participating in Iowas. The process was complete before a Southern or Western state even had a say.

The first primary should include more than two states and from several regions - a minimum of four states and maybe as many as seven.

If the press didn't do a disservice to voters by making Iowa and NH the entire primary, then perhaps the two states being first and second wouldn't matter - but since the press (and the money people funding the candidates) declare game over after the first two states, then the Iowa, NH system simply doesn't work.

[VegasWolf]

17. Anything Please! NH and Iowa don't seem to be able to pick their

own noses, much less a presidential candidate.

:sarcasm:

[Debi]

19. I completely disagree with your post

[Bluerthanblue]

21. ehyah, we're all just a

bunch of brain dead back woods idiots-

NH in large measure is a state where you can find a little bit of everything- from very wealthy to shit-poor. On the southern tier, we have lots of metro-type communities, - and interspersed throughout we have an increasing population of people from away-
We, (most towns here) still actually have "Town Meeting" where we THE PEOPLE actually voice our views, and wield the power to govern our towns as the majority of people agree to be wise.


but hey, what wud i no, i'm too bizy lukin fr mi noz

[sendero]

22. I've got nothing against Iowa or NH..

... but their record is not good IMHO. It's about getting primaries that will be representative of the general election.

The general election will not be won or lost in Iowa or NH. Winning these states is not indicative of having national gravitas, but the press makes it almost inevitable that whoever wins those will win the nom. I seem to remember a man who was winning the national polls with ease but who won neither of these primaries.

We all know what the result of that debacle was. Not again please.

[Bluerthanblue]

24. your right with your

final comments- Maybe folks should have paid better attention to us, eh?
As a native, i have to admit a bias about loving my home state (nh)- i don't always enjoy the fal-de-rall around the primaries, but the tradition gives our little state some 'place' in the sea of 'bigger fish'. Actually Dixville Notch votes at just after midnight, on primary day- a handful of people. There is something .... oddly....untainted about that tradition.
Our voice is drowned out 99% of the time- my vote counted on this election (actual presidential election) for the first time in awhile- It's all media hype anyway- and momentum is pretty much begun long before the candidates begin their journey here - (from my experience)

Thanks for not discounting us as equal citizens though-

[aikoaiko]

25. I loved it when I lived in NH -- met al gore and gave him some "advice".

He was the speaker at our college graduation (May 1999) and the new Ph.D. shook his hand after being hooded. I fgured this was the last and best chance to speak to him so when he shook my hand I held on for a little bit and said that we needed him to be a bold leader for the party and the nation. He looked at me blankly as he was totally unprepared for this and simply replied, "thank you". The SS behind him started to look agitated and went on my way.

In an eariler campaign, Pat Buchanan was at the general store (a store smaller than the size of a 7/11) and I blew him off when his handlers asked if I wanted to meet him. I just said, "no thanks. I need to make dinner".

[rfkrfk]

26. the apartheid primary system should be abolished

people in the 48 bantustans should be integrated
into the political process

sadly, we have no one who will stand up

[Tarc]

42. Grow up, please

As a NH resident and as a liberal-minded voter, I find the comparisons between primary schedules and institutionalised racism to be rather repugnant. So please, knock it off.

Someone has to be first in the primary drive, it can't be every state all at once. So far I haven't heard one good reason to alter things other than "because we wanna!"

[Tesha]

45. Sorry, but the truth hurts. NH and Iowa *HURT* Democrats.

NH and Iowa are both too white and too "Red" to select viable
Democratic candidates. We nee a process that's far more repre-
sentative.

Tesha

[Tarc]

46. since there isn't much truth to be found there,

it doesn't hurt all that much. I'll let the Iowans speak for themselves, but regarding NH...it does lean towards the conservative side a bit, but it is more of a pragamtic, independent type of conservativsm that is more Libertarian than anything. Raging, bible-thumping, pro-war-at-any-cost it most certainly is not.

These are the kinds of people that need to be won over come election time. Increasing our margins in California and crossing our fingers that a single Ohio-sized state will flip is a foolish election strategy.

[Tesha]

47. I'm sorry, but your efforts to win over...

I'm sorry, but your efforts to win over guys who *ALWAYS* vote
Republican but are ashamed to admit this to their wives:

1) Won't succeed, and

2) Causes the incredible dilution of the genuine populist, progressive
message that the Democrats *OUGHT* to be espousing.

It's exactly this sort of DLC-inspired pandering to people who won't
ever actually vote for your candidate that has so screwed-up the
Democratic party, and the NH Primary and Iowa Caucus is where a lot
of this BS starts.

Until we ditch those two contests, our message will remain terminally
muddled (to the Republicans great advantage).

Tesha

[Tarc]

48. "populist, progressive"

...doesn't mean catering to the PETA and the "save the spotted hornytoad" crowds.

And as much as people like you like to slag the DLC, I'm having a hard time seeing what great success you've had apart from them. Other than gutting the Gore run by casting woethless votes for Nader, of course.

[Tesha]

49. I didn't vote for Nader. But thanks for playing. (NT)

[lastliberalintexas]

27. How about North Carolina and California?

Or Florida and Arizona? Or Louisiana and Illinois? How about states in which the reporters covering the race don't constitute the vast majority of non-white folks in the state? (yes, I know that was *somewhat* of an exaggeration)

Yes, I know CA's media market is expensive. So is Boston's, so please don't start with that excuse as a reason to keep NH or even Iowa. The system we have now isn't representative of America and certainly not of Dems. It would be nice if every four years we could give even a small voice to those who are truly voiceless in this country.

[Sgent]

41. Heck

looking for a good cross section -- it could be Georgia and N. Carolina (maybe with Virginia).

Geographically close, ethnically and politically diverse, everyone will have a chance to *see* the candidates even if not shake their hands.