To our Iowans: Do you have a preference as to when the caucus is held? nt

[gateley]

[Debi]

1. Yes, first - with enough time between our contest and New Hampshire's

for the winners to get media attention and campaign time before the NH Primary. (And that our contest is run the same day and time as the republicans - the IRP - hold theirs. I really don't want the MSM only reporting the republican outcome while ignoring the Democrats).

Unlike many who lurk on the Iowa Forum, I am not adverse to going into the end of 2007 (along with New Hampshire) if necessary. The problem is that the earlier we go (and the closer the contests are) pretty much equals a national primary and is good for the campaigns who are already running national campaigns. Smaller campaigns like Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and even to an extent Edwards cannot survive the primary and caucus crush that is going on.


Iowa should go first with New Hampshire eight days later and no other contest until seven days after NH. (Since that isn't going to happen I hope we'll at least see 5 days between contests :shrug:)

[gateley]

2. I like your approach and it just seems fair to give the candidates 8 days

between IA and NH.

Is it because NH doesn't want to wait that you feel that won't happen? What does NH gain by moving it up a few days?

[Debi]

3. My approach is actually Iowa and New Hampshire law

So I can't claim credit (but I can claim being married to the guy who wrote Iowa's law :P).

The reason for the time in between is because back in the '80s the amount of 'bounce' a candidate got out of a strong showing in Iowa and then New Hampshire was measured. The highest level of media saturation was around the 5-8 day period and began tapering off at 10-14 days. (Now things are probably different with 24/7 news but we also have to consider the amount of time for the positive media - or negative media - to influence the voters who are not 100% secure behind a certain candidate).

New Hampshire is run by Bill Gardner (Secretary of State since Jesus Christ was born..or a few years after that). And he has a state law that says NO similar presidential selection process will occur until seven days AFTER New Hampshire. That means he will move up and move up and move up until he has seven open days after New Hampshire (even if he moves up ahead of Iowa).

Iowa Democrats haven't been so staunch in support for our state law that says we must be first in front of ANY other contest by eight days (THAT is such a long story that there is not enough internet for me to go in to it. If you really want to know all about it go over to the Iowa Fourm and look at posts about the Caucuses over the last year or so). It appears there are some in Iowa that are willing to give up our 'window' in order to remain first but even then are unwilling to go in 2007 possibly allowing states to jump over Iowa.

No Democratic decision has been made yet, however the IRP has just set it's caucuses on Jan. 3rd w/out Bill Gardner setting New Hampshire's primary date. Needless to say this whole debacle is not over yet and several campaigns are getting restless (the higher dollar campaigns aren't b/c they already have campaign hq an staff in many Feb. 5th states so really don't care when Iowa or New Hampshire goes).

Am I putting you to sleep yet? I's really crazy. The actual struggle dates back to the 1980's and the current battle dates back to 2003-4.

[gateley]

4. No - this is really interesting. Seriously! I would like to think that the first

three could get TOGETHER and work something out - it does no harm to wait 8 days for heaven's sake. I do think Iowa should remain the first and honor that tradition.


Thanks again, Debi - I learn more each day. :toast:

[Debi]

8. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are not the problem

We were working it out just fine.

Florida (now going 1/29 AGAINST DNC rules) and Michigan (now going 1/15 AGAINST DNC rules) are the states that threw a wrench into the calendar.

[gateley]

10. Okay, then we need to corral that rabble rouser FL & MN into the discussion. Again,

what would they hope to gain by doing that? How does it benefit them?

[Debi]

15. They see the attention from candidates and media and want some of that

however, they don't take into consideration the time and organization it takes from the states that are early (at least by the folks that participate in the process). AND they don't think about the size and the cost to run in their states vs. smaller states. The cost of travel, housing, renting office space and living space or space to hold events, the cost of media (TV Radio and print).

Large states going early virtually eliminate small dollar candidates (you know, like Jimmy Carter in 1976 or Bill Clinton in 1992).

[lyonn]

5. Appreciate the insight, thanks. nt

[Debi]

9. If you really want to know all the goings on

head over to the Iowa Forum. We've had some lively debates about when WE think the caucuses should be held and what we want our party to do about it. (Yes, some swearing was involved! ;))

[gateley]

11. Well as long as swearing was involved, I'll head on over! I love passion! nt

[lyonn]

18. Can't believe I hadn't thought of that, thanks -nt

[youthere]

6. Yes, I'd totally agree with that....

and it's frustrating to have so many states challenging Iowa on their first in the nation status. The ultimate end is that if they continue to change their dates, Iowa will too, and just as you said, it doesn't take long before smaller campaigns are no longer viable, because the "campaign season" is in full swing and they can't compete financially.
I'd like to see a full 10 to 14 days between contests to tell you the truth. And both parties primaries/caucus' should be held the same day.Period.

[Debi]

7. Remember when?

When it was Iowa...New Hampshire...and then 2-3 weeks before anything else and then sometime later Super Tuesday? Those were the days! :hi:

[gateley]

12. I don't because I didn't pay attention, but now I'm nostalgic for those good 'ol days! nt

[Debi]

13. I just saw this blurb on Hotline's Wake-Up Call..

IA GOPers have scheduled the caucuses for 1/3 (Des Moines Register). Meanwhile, NV Dems announced that they will hold their caucuses on 1/19 "after all" (Las Vegas Review-Journal). And SC Dems will ask the DNC for permission to move its primary to 1/26 (release).

http://nationaljournal.com/avantgo/wakeup.htm

Could it get any crazier????

[gateley]

16. They just couldn't leave well enough alone. Sigh. nt

[youthere]

14. It really has become a circus, hasn't it?

[Debi]

17. NH going in December?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6382.html