Is the Iowa Always First plan fair to Democrats in other states?

[skipos]

Poll question: Is the Iowa Always First plan fair to Democrats in other states?

Explanations are appreciated.

If you are interested in seeing states that have similar populations to our Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

If you are interested in seeing states that have similar racial demographics, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States#Racial_makeup_of_the_U.S._population

[Journeyman]

1. I believe we need rotating, regional primaries. . .

Divide the nation into six geographic regions. Hold primaries on a rotating basis among the regions. This way, every region in the nation will vote first every 24 years, but vote in the first three primaries at least half the time. And no more would be dependent on the leanings and beliefs of a select group who have an inordinate influence on the process.

Hold a primary every two weeks, beginning in mid-March and going through mid-June. Because the primaries would be regional, travel, advertising, and organizational money would be concentrated in a specific area, keeping costs down. As an entire region would vote as a block, the candidates would need to address local issues, instead of national "platitudes" and useless generalizations. As an example, each candidate would have to address issues of water within the watershed of the primary, would have to focus on the type of jobs and industries prevalent in that land, would have to recognize the problems and concerns of the people in a select area and not hide behind meaningless mumblings.

Yeah, that's the way I'd do it, if I ran the circus.

[sharp_stick]

4. I would rather have a primary day

say the first Tuesday in November the year before the Presidential election. That way people are voting anyway and it would save a fortune.

[skipos]

7. There problem with a national primary is that

it gives a huge advantage to candidates with $ (like Mittens Romney), name recognition (like Hillary and Rudy 9iu11iani) and the blessings of MSM. Little guys and gals will have no shot.

[sharp_stick]

18. They already have no shot

when is the last time somebody with no cash made it past NH?

[fadedrose]

19. Sen. Levin's (MI) bill is similar to your plan (nm)

[ruggerson]

2. It's a caucus, not a primary

but no, it is not fair. The order of the states should be rotated.

[skipos]

3. I know that. I was referring to the national primary process

but I have since edited the title.

[derby378]

5. One of these days, I want Texas Democrats to choose the nominee

Texas has the second largest amount of electoral votes - as of 2004, they had 34 votes in the Electoral College, winner take all. Only California, with 55 votes, commands more of a presence in the College than Texas does. The last time Texas cast its votes for a Democratic candidate was in 1976, when Jimmy Carter garnered 26 electoral votes from Texas.

Since the ascent of Ronald Reagan, Texas has largely been written off as a Republican stronghold - the Governor's mansion has been firmly in Republican hands since 1994, and a highly controversial redistricting ploy in 2003 (masterminded by ex-Congressman Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land) whittled away at the number of Democratic Representatives from Texas on Capitol Hill.

In 2005, however, Cindy Sheehan made the Texas town of Crawford (where George W. Bush maintains a tiny but heavily-guarded ranch) the focal point for reenergizing antiwar activists throughout the nation. Immediately afterwards, Hurricane Katrina drove hundreds of thousands of evacuees from the New Orleans area - a Democratic oasis in a predominantly Republican state - and many of those people put down roots in Texas. As of August 2006, an estimated 220,000 Katrina evacuees were still living in Texas, with 150,000 of them just in the Houston area, further complicating Republican efforts to keep the 22nd Congressional District (DeLay's former district) in Republican hands. Now the seat is held by Democrat Nick Lampson. And Ciro Rodriguez has taken the 23rd Congressional District from Republican incumbent Henry Bonilla.

Then there are the Texas county races in 2006. Dallas County voters filled almost every judge's bench in their jurisdiction with Democratic judges, and then followed it up with a new Democratic district attorney, Craig Watkins, who hit the ground tackling wrongful rape convictions and helping to free inmates with the aid of new DNA tests. And Hays County, which includes San Marcos, handed all of its contested seats on the Commissioners Court to Democrats.

The main difference this time around is that while 2000 and 2004 hinged upon the sanctity and security of the voting process in Florida and Ohio respectively, the Texas race in 2008 may not hinge so much on allegations of election fraud as much as it will on how much the political landscape in Texas has changed due to circumstances far beyond the control of Texas Republicans. This may not sit well with Democrats in California, New York, and Chicago, who may resent having to make more room at the table for their maverick comrades from the Lone Star State.

But there you have it. California and New York are generally considered safe Democratic states for 2008. But Texas as a safe Republican states? 34 electoral votes. Count 'em - especially if you're a Democratic candidate for the White House in 2008.

For Democrats, the stars at night have never been brighter - deep in the heart of Texas.

[MadBadger]

6. People, let Iowa and NH have their early primaries

I mean could you imagine living in Iowa or NH? Throw them a bone here.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. Yes I could

Iowa is a pleasant state with good folks in it. I've visited it many times. I've never been to New Hampshire, but I've heard it is nice, too.

[Beaverhausen]

8. 2 months ahead of the first primary is not the time to change the calendar

No matter if it's fair or not. If Florida and Michigan were so hell-bent on having the first primary, they should have addressed this years ago.

Now is not the time to do it.

[skipos]

9. Agree, but that is not my question.

Is it fair? Why or why not?

[Romulox]

15. Ummm, Carl Levin has been fighting to make this change since 2003

In 2003, the Michigan Democratic Party, led by Senator Carl Levin, attempted to challenge New Hampshire's first-in-the nation status by moving the 2004 Michigan Democratic caucuses to the same January date as New Hampshire's; after a noisy debate, Michigan backed down. But Levin got the national party to promise to convene another commission in 2005 to study the nomination process. New Hampshire Democrats predictably were threatening ostracism to any 2008 candidate who did not promise to campaign first in their state.

http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2006/states/nh/nh_pres.htm

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Iowa is not typical of the rest of the nation

It's a great state, but primarily rural. I'd be interested in knowing how the demographics fall out in regards to race, types of occupation, religion, etc.

To my mind, it would be better to have regional elections spaced out over a series of weeks-close enough together that no one need drop out after the first contest. That way, Democrats from everywhere could voice their opinion.

[Kucinich4America]

11. Scrap the primary season altogether.

Take the corporations and the media out of it. Go back to the conventions.

Let DEMOCRATS pick our candidate. Not interests which don't represent us.

[MadBadger]

14. How would that work exactly?

I dont know about the way it used to be.

[Adelante]

12. It's better since they added SC and Nevada to the early states

Because it gives more diversity. But I say no to having the more expensive media market states up front. The only way there could ever be a less-funded candidate with even a slight chance of moving into play is if small states are first. I also have an appreciation of the Iowa caucus process. It's a rough sort of neighborhood direct democracy I would hate to see get lost in the shuffle.

[skipos]

16. Are there any other states that aren't "expensive media markets"

that might be able to go first occasionally? Or is Iowa the only one?

[Adelante]

17. The first four states fit into that category

As far as very first, maybe in time after states have been forward on the calendar awhile, but there is something to consider about the long history of states like Iowa and New Hampshire where the voting population has had a thorough political grounding in elections that others do not have and will have to develop. Iowa and NH know how to put candidates through their paces. That's not something to just toss off, in my opinion. I've never lived anywhere with an early caucus or primary, so I know the feeling, but I wouldn't want to see the traditionally first states tossed out. Look at Nevada, from what I've read, they are not well prepared for this early caucus and there is a lot of disruption in the state party. This will all have to settle and the population go through a learning curve. So I do think in a way that Iowa and NH offer some stability to the process. Everybody knows there has to be reform of the nominating process, but it needs to be sensible and in good time.

I worry more about the media's deciding than I do about Iowa and NH deciding, in fact. In Iowa 2004, for example, Kerry was given 98% positive press going into Iowa and Edwards 100%. That's not to say it was everything that went into their winning first and second, but it's got to be seen as a bonus not accorded other candidates in the field. And if that happened in any other first state it would be the same bonus.

[rucky]

20. Until total public financing, starting in a small state helps small candidates.

The media expenditures to reach voters in, say, Florida, would be prohibitive to small-budget candidates.

I think the smallest state with the best ethnic mix is New Mexico. I'd start there.