What do you think of this Presidential Selection Schedule?

[9119495]

I live in Iowa and I'm facing the realization that Iowa choosing a nominee first is not a good thing for the nation. I also hate the fact that a pretty solidly republican red state like South Carolina could have so much influence when (at least prior to Gov. Dean being the DNC chair) we'd have so little chance to pick up their EVs.

What if we created a new schedule every four years with Republicans that put the closest states from the previous elections first? We could have a round of close small states and then a round of close big states. Then we move on to the next tier. Idaho and Utah, and yes DC, would go last.

This would be an incentive for state parties to actually get out there and organize on both sides.

I thought this was pretty brilliant so I'm throwing it out there. I need some support for this to become the super movement, then a reality. Or at least a devil's advocate!

[Radical Activist]

1. So the swing states get all the attention in the primary AND general

elections, while the rest of us are ignored even more. No, I don't like it.

[9119495]

3. I guess I'm looking for something to get MS Dems to find some

votes. Would you prefer the current system to this one? Currently no one goes to the states that aren't close anyway. Nobody went to AL, ID, UT, MA, etc. I though my plan might make states at least try to appear closer for both sides.

I know my plan isn't perfect but I also don't support a national run-off as only the rich could afford to campaign. How would you do it? What would be your ideal situation.

[Radical Activist]

7. I would have the first several states

be smaller states with cheap media markets, so that candidates with less corporate money have a chance to win. Iowa is good in that respect. New Hampshire is in the expensive Boston media market. Iowa and New Hampshire are not very diverse so we should move one or both. Personally I would leave Iowa where it is and move back New Hampshire. I think South Carolina is a good early primary state. New Mexico or Arizona are good early primary states and should receive more attention.

I think the bigger problem than the calendar is the degree to which the corporate media controls the primary process. The corporate media made sure Dean had the most media coverage and money in 2003. They declared him the front runner before a single person had voted. When they saw he was a loser after Iowa they tore him apart. They also decided which candidates we were supposed to ignore and consider unviable. It was controlled by the corporate media from start to finish. That's what we should be doing something about.

[JI7]

4. Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states anyways

that's why i think one of the reasons the parties wont change their first status without the other party doing the same is because the people in the state would remember and be less likely to support the party that takes it away. the caucuses and the primary are very important to the people in those states and they wont forget.

[Radical Activist]

8. Very true

I think the likelihood of either New Hampshire or Iowa losing their place is slim to none, just for those reasons.

[JI7]

2. Dean said he supports keeping Iowa first

so i don't think that is going to change. same for new hampshire.

there might be a change in schedule after that though.

[9119495]

5. It's wierd. We screw the guy and he gives us the key to

the show.

You know, it's off topic but he did better here than it appeared. Kerry was a more acceptable 2nd choice so in the caucus system when Gephardt was "not viable," most went to the Kerry groups and inflated his numbers. We were 20 behind Kerry at my caucus, but in the 2nd round of votes, Kerry went to JUST BARELY 3 delegates and Dean had just short of 2. The final count was 3 to 1. It was fun but it is a wierd system.

There was a lot of solidarity in the room as a whole though.

[JI7]

6. not sure about that

Kerry was first place in the final polls before the caucses and Edwards was 2nd. the actual results matched the final polls.

[Debi]

11. Not only when Gephardt was toast

but when Kucinich and Clark didn't finish w/enough to create one delegate they went to either Kerry or Edwards (at least in my precinct they split to ensure they each got a delegate and Dean did not get two - small precinct, only three delegates) There was a very clear message that they go with their candidate and then ABD.

[DrGonzoLives]

9. Put them all on the same day

n/t

[Debi]

12. Having a national primary insures that no small state will see

any of the candidates...it will cost too much $$ and there won't be enough time - only a tarmak campaign could be run - 30 second ads - and no face to face contact.

[DrGonzoLives]

14. And how is that different

from the general election? If you don't live in a state with one of the first seven primaries, your vote doesn't matter whatsoever.

[Debi]

16. Blame the OLD Democratic Party and John Kerry's campaign for that

and look to the future where our DNC Chair has said it's time to run a fifty state organization.

And you are correct about the national election. That is why primaries are important...in state-by-state scenarios. So we can get to know the candidates and decide who will best lead our party.

Imagine if we had to chose our nominee based on a 30-second ad and neat-o flyers handed out at an event that we attended with 5,000 of our closest friends (after we were walked through a metal detector and frisked).

[DrGonzoLives]

17. You're still not addressing my point

Know how many candidates come out for the Indiana primary? None. It's over by then. Ditto for a lot of state primaries. Saying that we need the spread out for the face-to-face time is simply wrong - why would anyone spend money campaigning when they're going to be the nominee?

[Debi]

18. Font-loading the primary IS the problem

and Terry Mc is to blame for that. He felt that if we had an obvious nominee by Super Tuesday (or shortly thereafter) that then we could focus on raising $$ and working on the general election.

I believe that small states should go first at 8 - 16 day intervals - with the larger states going last (say by May/June). That way no one candidate would emerge stronger than the others early on (or maybe all the small states would go for one candidate - but the option of taking just ONE large state could make the race for a candidate that stumbled out of the gate). What if each of six candidates got 25-30 delegates by March? they're all still in the running for the big prize at the end of the race. (I'm pulling numbers and dates out of my rear here...but I hope you get my meaning).

Obviolusly I believe Iowa should continue to go first - what person who has had the opportunity to meet all the Democratic Presidential Candidates face-to-face would consider giving that up? :shrug:

But small states would coserve $$ - are not as difficult to campaign in as large states (distance alone, not to mention population) - and give all the candidates time to hone their messages and hear people's views.

A longer calendar (of smaller states) would give more people the time to meet and consider each candidate. And a blast of the big states at the end of the primaries would be one heck of a kick-off heading into the convention. (And, would a candidate risk losing all the smaller states - and all that momentum - just to hopefully win in NY or CA and take the nomination? What if it backfired? They'd have to be in it at the beginning like everyone else.)

This is all hypothetical, so please don't ask me for facts or links or anything, it's just what I think.

[Debi]

10. Wait a sec...

You're from Iowa and have participated in a caucus and DON'T want to remain First in the Nation?

Why? Too much attention from those pesky presidential candidates that some in this country never had the opportunity to see in person (not to mention meet and talk with face to face)?

Or is it the amount of $$ and political attention our poor state gets? Don't want reporters spending time in our hotels or buying food in our restaurants.

Being first is an honor...how could you NOT want to continue to have that honor?

[9119495]

13. Because I think that it hurts my party and country overall

I don't see us ever bringing a black candidate or woman out of Iowa at the top of either ticket. Dems? More likely than Republicans. I feel states like New Mexico and Michigan are more representative of the country as a whole ethnically and beyond. Don't get me wrong, I love it and I'll miss 'em if they go, I just think we need a better system. I've been active in all the ones I could attend since 18. People in 49 other states lose a precious right we have...okay it's not 49 but the Washington state primary sure didn't matter and I thought some states even canceled theirs this year.

[Debi]

15. You'll miss it?

You'll also miss the $40-$50 million brought into the state each year by all the people coming here and ads and what-not being bought.

I'm going to assume you have a heck of a good job that you'll be able to afford the extra taxes when that revenue is gone.

Iowa does help the rest of the country - for over 30 years Iowans have met with primary candidates - quizzed them and critiqued them. Helped them hone their campaign skills and their policies (and some positions...like Dean with NAFTA).

Iowans take their job seriously (at least those who care) and wouldn't want to see the work they've done thrown to the wind because Washington State feels left out.