Iowa and New Hampshire have to go

[dsc]

and be replaced by Maryland.

This isn't just sour grapes on my part. But, it is just boneheaded to let to at best swing states, that are lilly white, pick our nominee. Our only winning nominee in close to 30 years wasn't picked by Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton came in 3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire. Everyone of our losers won one or both of those races.

Maryland is diverse, with populations of Jews, blacks, hispanics, and LGBT voters. It has a rural part and an urban part. It also is only one congressional district bigger than the combined total of Iowa and New Hampshire. We are a party of minorities and the demographics of our minorities are improving. We should let those minorities have a say in who our nominee is. Maryland would do that. Imagine in 2016 if Obama could launch his campaign in Baltimore. Or if Hillary Clinton could launch hers from Barbara Milkouski's office.

Iowa and New Hampshire represent our rural past. Maryland our urban future.

[zacho]

1. Maryland is four times bigger than NH

Television adds would make even more of a difference.

[dsc]

2. but only one seat bigger than the combined total of the two states

Plus New Hampshire has the Boston market which is expensive in its own right.

[welshTerrier2]

3. not that i disagree but ...

i'm not sure i fully understand either your argument against iowa and NH or your argument for Maryland ...

is your point that because IA and NH are "lily white", nominees who do well there do not reflect the interests of black voters? is your point when you say that MD is diverse and has jews, blacks, hispanics and LGBT that nominees coming out of IA and NH either were not appealing to those groups or could have appealed to them more?

as for MD itself, could this also set a "Washington insider" flavor to the Party's nominating process? perhaps other, or additional states, should be considered ...

it's not that i disagree with you; i'm just not clear you've made a convincing case yet ... can you add some details?

[dsc]

5. I think that minorities feel less invested in candidates

over whom they have no say. I agree there is a DC danger to Maryland, but I don't know of another similarly sized diverse Democratic state. I think that both Iowa and New Hampshire has a bad effect on our candidates. Urban issues never come up in those states. Issues of civil rights rarely do. I have my doubts that either state would nominate an African American or Hispanic.

[IndianaGreen]

4. I agree that the current system is archaic and needs major reform

I also agree that had it been up to Iowa and New Hampshire, Big Dog would have never become the nominee, and the Democrats would not have won the White House in 1992.

Small states with big egos are not good for our democracy!

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Agreed. IRV in the primaries would help. So would

holding the primaries all on one day.

------------------------------------------------------------
Take this nation back one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[Kahuna]

32. Amen, IG.. Just the fact that these people "expect" candidates to

personally visit each and every potential voter, speaks volume to me. Inthat, some of them would actually hold it against a candidate that didn't personally knock on their door. :eyes:

[rfkrfk]

37. Why should people in the 48 unimportant states have a voice?

two states --> de facto winner
...
dragging things out till March,
could get people needlessly interested in politics,
and would be tiresome, expensive, and unprogressive.

[dolstein]

6. I think at least three states should share the first primary date

I don't think any one state should have the disporportionate influence that Iowa does. So why not have a group of states, with a balance between urban and rural, north and south, and ethnic groups.


And before people start whining about how this arrangement would disadvantage little known "dark horse" candidates, let me point out the obvious -- no dark horse candidate was won the party's nomination since Jimmy Carter in 1976, and he wasn't quite the dark horse everyone thinks he was.

[ClarkUSA]

7. Maryland is rigged with electronic voting machines and GOP-controlled

I agree that something has to change but until MD has verified voting, I don't want Karl Rove picking our next nominee, thanks.

[dsc]

11. Maryland has

two Democratic US Senators, a 6 to 2 division in its Congressional delegation, and Democratic majorities in its House and Senate. It does have a Republican governor but that is it.

[dsc]

13. it would put a huge emphasis on money

which isn't a great thing. The only advantage the current system has is that candidates who don't have instant access to money can still run.

[dolstein]

14. Did you read my entire post?

Sorry, but the idea that a poorly funded challenger can come out of nowhere in Iowa and capture the nomination is a myth. The closest we've come to that was in 1976, but even then Carter wasn't quite the dark horse he seems to be now.

[dsc]

15. Kerry would be an example

of someone who was able to bridge a money gap early on. Barring an outright gift from Teresa he never would have been able to borrow enough to campaign in as many states as you are suggesting.

[dolstein]

18. Puh-leeze

Kerry was hardly a dark horse candidate. The one candidate who might have fit the dark horse mold was Wes Clark, but he actually would have benefited from having multiple primaries. He might have been able to get away with writing off Iowa (where he lacked the organization needed to compete effectively) if there had been a primary or two on the same date.

In any event, let's say you're right. Do you really think Kerry should have been able to essentially "buy" the nomination by mortgaging his house and pouring the money into Iowa? It seems to me that having multiple primaries on a single date would be a GOOD thing PRECISELY because it guards against that.

[dsc]

21. By any reasonable meansure Dean was a darkhorse candidate

though money wasn't his problem. Kerry was in single digits and losing his homestate a week before Iowa. I certainly wasn't a Kerry person in the primary, nor was I his biggest fan in the general, but he ran a decent campaign and won the nomination. I don't want to see people having to raise hundreds of millions to be able to run at all.

[dolstein]

26. How on earth can you say that Dean was a darkhorse candidate?

He had more money to spend than any other candidate. He had as much name recognition as any other candidate. He secured more high profile endorsements than any other candidate. He was the friggin frontrunner for chrissakes. That's the antithesis of a dark horse candidate.

If anything, John Edwards was the dark horse candidate, and he almost certainly benefitted more from the one-on-one nature of the Iowa caucus than anyone else. Of course, he might have been helped even more if South Carolina had held its primary on the same date as the Iowa caucus.

[dsc]

42. Dean was utterly unknown in even mid 2003

With the exception of gays no one outside of Vermont could have picked him out of a police lineup. He did do well with fundraising which brought endorsements but he started off utterly unknown.

[IndianaGreen]

19. I agree with dolstein's proposal

I also think that the date the primaries are held, should be rotated every four years so that no one region of the country has an advantage over the other.

[dansolo]

25. There should be regional diversity in the early primaries

There isn't a need to rotate primaries. What needs to be done is to have multiple primaries on the first day, and they should be geographically diverse. Just think what would have happened if instead of all the focus being on Iowa and New Hampshire for the entire month leading into the primaries, we had the first big day all at once. After Iowa and New Hampshire, there was Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Just imagine if Iowa and New Hampshire had been pushed back to that day. That simple change is all that needs to be done.

[dmkinsey]

8. I agree about Iowa and New Hampshire

Don't really have an opinion about Maryland . I think Michigan would be a fine choice or maybe states could take turns being first.

[leyton]

9. You've just made the case that candidates don't win on just Iowa/NH!

You say Clinton came in 3rd and 2nd in those states, respectively, in 1992. Dukakis came in 3rd and 1st and then still had to work to get nominated. Mondale also lost both of those primaries. So these primaries are hardly the only ones that determine the nominee.

As for 1996 and 2000, they weren't exactly open (with Gore having wrapped up the nomination early on) and 2004 was intentionally scheduled so as to produce a nominee early. It appears that if we schedule the primaries far enough apart, then plenty of states have a say.

[dsc]

10. I lived in Illinois in 88

and when Dukakis got third in Iowa, followed by his New Hampshire win, it was all but over. The only real drama was if Simon would win Illinois when it came to us and we had an early March primary.

I will give you Mondale though. I had thought he won Iowa and New Hampshire.

[dolstein]

16. WRONG -- Mondale won Iowa

Hart finished second in Iowa and won New Hampshire.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1984.html

[ArtVandaley]

17. I think 4 state primaries held on the same day should start the cycle

Missouri, Georgia, Washington and Ohio.
Two diverse states, a red state and a blue state.

It would give the voters a much better idea of who would do well in certain areas of the country, and it would make the candidates craft their message towards the general electorate instead of to two small states.

[dolstein]

20. Ok by me, but the Hispanic caucus would probably be pissed

I suspect they'd prefer to have New Mexico or Arizona included in place of, say, Georgia.

[cali]

22. Bad idea

I disagree with the poster who disregards the dark horse candidate. They may be few and far between, but I want to at least allow for the possibility of the candidate with lots of ideas and limited funds. Your suggestion would make the money race even more obscene. I don't know what the answer is, but it sure ain't big states going first.

[ArtVandaley]

40. My flipflop

Exchange Ohio with Arizona.
Smaller state, higher hispanic population. Washington can stay or go aswell.

[bklyncowgirl]

23. Hey , How 'bout New Jersey

Small, diverse with a nice mix of big cities and rural areas. Pols could show their concern at the rundown areas of Newark and Camden and within two hours be spinning the wheel for votes at the Atlantic City Casinos.

We have great diners too plus our very own resident monster, the New Jersey Devil. (Match that Iowa)

Besides, we've traditionally had our primary in June so I thing they owe us one.

[Kahuna]

33. NJ would be too expensive. Our ad buys are NYC and Philly..

Otherwise, we'd be perfect. :D

[Yupster]

24. My suggestion is a lottery

Pic the dates for the primaries and then hold a big public lottery where the states are drawn out of a hat and slotted into the primary dates.

That way it would be diufferent each four years and it would be random.

Also it would be a big event and maybe would get some extra people interested in the election.

[AP]

27. What's the latino situation in MD?

[dsc]

43. I don't know exact numbers

but on my way driving through there were several Latino radio stations so I am guessing that there are quite a few.

[AP]

28. Will DC-based pols have an advantage? Or it will it help level

playing field between DC-based pols and people who aren't currently in office and are running for the nom?

[dsc]

44. Good question

I honestly doubt that DC based polls have that high a profile in Baltimore. Though the area around DC would be a different matter.

[American Tragedy]

29. I still don't see why a few states should get to decide everything

while all other states are rendered totally irrelevant in the process.

I would actually like to be able to vote in a Democratic primary before the de facto nominee has been selected.

[autorank]

30. So "Charm City" becomes the nation's political arbiter?

Not a bad idea actually. I like Sarbanes and Mikulski a great deal.
We need a west coast state also. How about two regional primaries: MD/VA on the East and CA/OR/WA on the coast. Screw it, how about a national mail in ballot primary for all Democrats across the country!

What a shocker that would be, real democracy. Oregon does it for state-wide elections.

[Kahuna]

31. Here, here!!! Give us some diversity in the process. It's only

fair.

[ErinGoBraghLess]

34. Baltime is brilliant

And think of the steamed crabs and all the Orioles and Ravens merchandise that would be sold!!! Can you tell I'm from Maryland?

I have huge misgivings about Iowa and HH being the dominant primaries. Not because they aren't representative of the country, but because the primary process is so front-loaded. The primary process should be about giving a fair vetting process to all of the candidates, but if you don't do well in those first two, you are automatically shunned by the press, your donations go down, etc. And it makes the other states' primaries meaningless because the decision has already been made. Why not have more primaries on that first day? Or have them closer together? Kerry's performance in those first two all but guaranteed his nomination which was a mistake. I won't rehash Kerry's qualifications in detail, but I've never liked him. Too rich and too Northeastern. Too continental. And he had a 20 year Senate career with little to show for it in terms of creating legislation.

[Vinca]

35. As a New Hampshirite, I have to disagree.

I've never lived in a state where politics is taken more seriously than it is during the primary race here. People pay attention, analyze the candidates, attend speeches and get togethers and ask the questions that need to be asked. It is, for lack of a better way to describe it, a "personal" experience, not the canned campaign crapola you get as soon as candidates go nationwide. I imagine that's because the size of the state is small. I'm looking forward to the next round. There's nothing like sitting cross legged on the floor with a presidential candidate, shooting the breeze, to make the critical decision of who is right for the country. And next time, it's necessary to distinguish a true Democrat from a Republicrat. The primary is fun, but it's grave business as well and we understand that.

[ErinGoBraghLess]

36. Piermont, NH

I have relatives in Piermont, a tiny little town in New Hampshire near the Vermont border. They tell me the same thing about the intiamcy of the primary experience there. But I still say that the front-loaded primary system does a disservice to the candidates and the rest of the country.

[returnable]

39. True, but that doesn't change the fact...

....that New Hampshire is still a diversity-challenged state.

I think most, if not all, would say that citizens of the Granite State take their politics seriously. However, that doesn't mean their opinions are necessarily representative of the Democratic Party as a whole.

And wouldn't it do the party some good to spread that personal attention your state receives around to some other locales? One of the reason politics is so personal in NH is because the current system fosters that one on one contact in your state. I think some candidates would benefit greatly from having to go door-to-door in some urban areas, for example.

[robbedvoter]

38. It is sour grapes from this NY-er. Our votes are worth s*.

All the way.

[DrGonzoLives]

41. The first four primaries

should be the four biggest states: California, Texas, New York, and Illinois (is Illinois the fourth-biggest? If not, we'll include it anyway). Nothing personal against New Hampshire or Iowa, but the way the media sells it anymore, you just HAVE to win both or give up -the media wants it all done early, so they can stop providing free coverage and start digging up crap on the Democratic nominee.