One reason to choose a solidly BLUE state for the first primary

[CTLawGuy]

cross-party voting.

If you hold a primary in a purple or red state, EVEN with a closed primary, it is too easy for Republican forces to switch their party affiliation and vote in the primary, especially when facing a republican incumbent with no opposition.

If you choose a solidly blue state for the first primary, then there will be fewer Republicans to muck up the process, and those Republicans will in general be more moderate/liberal.

[PATRICK]

1. The whole reason

in expansion is to remember the damage that has and could be done in a state run by the GOP. The GOP SOS. The GOP voting mechanisms and apportionment. The GOP press and media. The money centers. The availability of operatives and demonstrations where they are generally too few and cowardly to go into hostile territory.

The second reason should do with the party itself in all its diversity and strengths. However the party itself, if divided or favoring a DLC type(more likely in "Red" territory though, can still do some of the same damage listed above- to itself. By that same token though it is more under a microscope with fewer excuses. It is not a colorless easy test therefore. Moving to more Red general territory should also be a quick second stage.

The main concern is over who is determining the process and for what reasons. This is more critical than sending speculations and suggestions into the ether. Dean and the state party insurgents should have a lot more to say than the overlords in the stricken national political organizations. Judging from the parallel courses the old and new groups are taking it is a bit puzzling to see what course is being set for the primaries.

Of course, the party membership one and all except for some of the miffed relationships at the top want the party to get its act together, all future mistakes or questionable choices aside. Ignoring any part of the reality on the ground, including massive public will and increasing public consciousness, will make this a ballyhooed sideshow for irrelevance rather than the required challenge of crisis leadership.

[CWebster]

3. Unless, of course, the intent is to choose NY

then we would know what that's all about.

[CWebster]

2. Easy. More people with a clue. nt

[WI_DEM]

4. It should be small enough to do retail campaining in

Perhaps Maryland? West Virginia used to be a very important democratic primary (remember 1960? Kennedy vs. Humphrey)but that has become a redder state in the past couple of election cycles.

[msongs]

5. Iowa is full of double dealing/arm twisting , a primary is much better ->

because voters can vote in private without dirty tricks and deceit from other members of the SAME party.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

[Pab Sungenis]

6. National Primary.

Only way to do it. Every state votes for President at the same time. Delegates apportioned accordingly. Then let the conventions sort 'em out.

[theboss]

7. What is a solidly blue state?

New York has recently voted for a lot of Dems at the national level. But it's still the home of Pataki and Guiliani and Bloomberg and D'Amato.

California is very blue at the moment, but it gave us Nixon and Reagan and now gives us Schartzeneger.

Besides, I don't like the idea of those big states giving Hillary! the nomination on day one by giving her a huge lead. The only other choice is Illinois...and if fair elections are what we want...well....is that really a good choice?

[yankeeinlouisiana]

8. I was thinking Illinois too!

It has a major city, rural areas, mainly democrat officials, and I believe even DuPage County (Hyde area) is starting to turn blue.

Or...maybe not national primary, but regional primaries; i.e., East coast, Midwest, South and West coast. This would give a chance for the candidates to campaign in each region and there would be a larger sampling of the populace.

[fujiyama]

9. I like the idea

of selecting one or two states from each region to start off the process (say we started with Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Nevada, Washington state, and Michigan though other states would also work) and then keep going until we hit the biggest represenative states (ending with NY, CA, and several others) of those regions.

This way we don't have one or two small homogeneous states determining the outcome. At the same time, I don't want states with expensive media markets having the final say. I don't want the process simply favoring the candidate with most cash.

[theboss]

10. You cannot scream about election fraud for 8 years....

and then hold your first primary in the land of the Daleys.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Massachusetts

Other than its peculiar penchant for choosing Republican governors, most of the state chooses the Democratic candidate most of the time.

[theboss]

12. I wouldn't trust Mass to pick a candidate

Unless we want another McGovern or Mondale disaster.

[Gormy Cuss]

14. hey, that was mean

just because they were right, and the other states were wrong about McGovern and Mondale(kidding.)

I'm not suggesting they'd choose the right candidate, just that it's on the short list of bluest states, has an enormous Democratic machine, and is manageable in terms of media markets, and thus would be a good candidate for an early and prominent primary.

I dislike the notion that one or two early primaries determine the candidate. It's a silly system. If we only need a handful of primaries, why waste resources on all the other primaries and caucuses? I'm glad the party has put the idea of changing the primary process on the table.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. I'm tired of explaining McGovern and Mondale, who lost under

very differnet circumstances, and I'm equally tired of people bringing up McGovern and Mondale whenever someone suggests nominating a non-wishywashy candidate.

[Julius Civitatus]

13. Blue staters are less scared to pick a REAL Democrat

When primaries are held in traditional red states, they compromise with candidates from the DLC.

That alone should be the reason for Dean to move the primaries to California or Massachusetts.

[chimpymustgo]

15. Maryland. Very blue. Urban and rural. Small enough shakes hands

with a lot of folks.

I think regional primaries could be very interesting also.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

16. Maryland actually sounds like a good choice.

Are there many minorities there?
(sorry, I know next to nothing about the state.)

[chimpymustgo]

18. Gracious yes. Next door to DC, there's Baltimore, Prince George's county

one of the top counties in the country with the most affluent black population.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

17. I think a good choice would be somewhere like New Mexico

Although New Mexico went for shrub this past election (just barely, half of the state is made up of minorities and there are some very liberal areas such as Taos and Santa Fe that would ensure a progressive has a good shot at the nomination.

[Sooner75]

19. my 2 cents

I REALLY like the National Primary idea. It'd be WAY better than any one state or group of states. It's insane that one or two states should get SO MUCH attention while everyone else is watching from the sidelines.

I thought I'd mention that not all states have party registration. Oklahoma does, but Texas doesn't. Here in Texas, you can decide at the door which primary you want to vote in. It's another reason that the National Primary idea would appeal more to me.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I still say a same day primary with ranked voting is the way to go

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm