MyDD :: IA and NH to stay first, but are rotating regional primaries ahead?

IA and NH to stay first, but are rotating regional primaries ahead?

by Chris Bowers, Sun May 15, 2005 at 12:26:43 AM EST

To no one's real surprise, the Democratic primary commission looks set to keep Iowa and New Hampshire first:

Despite the clamor from some national Democrats to dump Iowa from its leading role in the presidential nominating race, only one alternative to the traditional Iowa-New Hampshire kickoff will be offered when national party leaders meet this weekend.

Of the three proposals to be presented to a Democratic National Committee commission in Chicago on Saturday, only Michigan's delegation is expected to challenge the traditional first-in-the-nation status of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Observers say, as some commission members do privately, that it's unlikely Iowa and New Hampshire will lose their coveted positions as the first major nominating contests in 2008.

Even though that won't change, there still might be some radical changes to the primary season itself. They are considering a few different plans:

The Western group is expected to propose holding an early regional primary several weeks later. The secretaries of state group expects to offer plans for rotating regional primaries that begin after Iowa and New Hampshire.

But as of Thursday, Michigan's Democrats were keeping the details of their proposal quiet.

Levin and Michigan's other commission member, Debbie Dingell, declined to discuss their plans. Speaking for the party, Tina Abbott, the Michigan Democratic Party's first vice chairwoman, said she was unsure what her state's presentation Saturday would include.

In the past, Levin has recommended rotating regional primaries without an exemption for Iowa and New Hampshire.

The commission is scheduled to meet to debate proposals in October and vote on a plan in December before sending a recommended 2008 schedule to the Democratic National Committee to vote on early next year.

The common thread here is that all of these proposals will probably include some form of rotating regional primaries. I'm not actually too high on such a plan, but it certainly seems to have a lot of potential support behind it. Here is a link to the plan by the National Association of Secretaries of State. It has been approved by the group for some time, and has a stated goal "to establish a regional rotating primary system that would be adopted in 2008 and would give voters the opportunity to begin the new process in 2012."

That now seems quite likely to happen. Expect 2008 to be the final death of a frontloaded disaster (Alabama the Saturday after NH, and a huge mini-Tuesday just one week after New Hampshire), with major changes to follow.

I still prefer the California plan.

Tags: Primary Elections (all tags)

Permalink :: 47 Comments :: Post a Comment

The Enemy is Always Television (none / 0)

Iowa and New Hampshire are very solid choices for early primaries. (That Iowa chooses to maintain a caucus is unfortunate, but not helped at the moment.) The reason is because they are isolated and insulated from the big TV markets. As a result, campaigns have to spend fairly little in the way of TV spots to be competitive. Move the first primary to DC and it will be a front-loaded coronation. Only the richest candidates will be able to reach District voters by TV.

That is why the California plan makes absolutely no sense. Not because the outcome is not desirable but because states with fewer CDs may still be served by a giant TV market. Think New Jersey as a prime example. The states need not be completely rural or lily-white. Alabama is a good choice because it's population is divided into a several small cities, there are no shortage of minority voters...but also the cities are far from Atlanta and Memphis. Ditto for South Carolina, though Charlotte's growth endangers this a tad.

Thus in the West, New Mexico and Idaho make the best sense for early primaries. Hawaii would also work. Outside of Iowa in the Midwest, Nebrasksa is a good choice. Wisconsin also is okay...but the presence of Chicago and Minneapolis could lock out some parts of the state. The Nor'east is the toughtest...but Rhode Island and New Hampshire would do well.

Don't forget that New Hampshire has the large legislature of any political entity on earth. It is even larger than the House of Commons if I recall correctly. Citizen government is big there, and I doubt another state would take its role as FITN as seriously.

by risenmessiah on Sun May 15, 2005 at 01:50:14 AM EST

Re: The Enemy is Always Television (none / 0)

I thought much of NH was served by the (very expensive) Boston media market. No?

Anyhow, I don't think any non-radical changes are going to make a difference. I think 2004 set the pattern: Whoever wins Iowa is gonna win it all. The media wants to anoint a winner, and bandwagoneering voters in later states, thirsting for "electability" (as wrong-headed as that desire is), will do exactly what they did in New Hampshire.

by DavidNYC on Sun May 15, 2005 at 02:01:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A DC Primary Will Not Lock Out Grassroots (none / 0)

Your points about the DC primary just don't hold water. We ran the Dean primary campaign in DC without putting one television ad up. We built a precinct by precinct, neighborhood by neighborhood grassroots campaign that focused on person to person voter persuasion. There were some ads placed in local papers and some direct mail components, but no TV.

The result? Dean won the DC primary in January.

DC is a major media market and it would be expensive to put up ads on the national outlets, but there are an abundance of local outlets that DC residents and voters pay attention to - TV, radio, print, etc. You've got to keep in mind that there are two DC's. There is the local DC world where DC voters live, and then national DC world.

by CAat14K on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:17:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A DC Primary Will Not Lock Out Grassroots (none / 0)

I am not swayed by your argument.

The reason is thus. Dean already had all the television exposure possible through other means, namely the novelty factor of an anti-war candidate able to find his spine running in the election. This is not to denigrate your efforts because all campaigns are stressful and exhausting.

But I urge you to call the people who worked on the Edwards and Clark campaigns in Virginia. They would tell you that as soon as Kerry won in New Hampshire, it became very difficult to raise money for TV ads. Not for Richmond or Norfolk...but for the fast-growing NoVa region served by the DC television DMA.

Also notice the states that Kerry lost: Oklahoma and South Carolina. States lacking cities over 1 million people evenly divided in more than one city and not heavily contaminated by out of state television DMAs.

by risenmessiah on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A DC Primary Will Not Lock Out Grassroots (none / 0)

I'm not totally disagreeing with your logic on small media markets and their easier access and cheaper media buys. My point was that Dean did not need to target tv ad buys to win the DC primary. He had exposure from earned media, true, but the campaign here simply outworked the others in the field and grassroots and built the capacity to take advantage of the media created.

I have many friends that worked on both the Edwards and Clark campaigns in NoVA. I think everyone would be in agreement that after New Hampshire, the race was essentially over. Every campaign's fundraising ability began to dissolve after the NH primary. And although I haven't seen any internal figures, I'd be willing to bet that the Edwards and Clark campaigns saw a fairly even distribution of decreasing contributions throughout the state of Virginia after NH. I think your point is better stated that with the decreased funds, the media markets of Richmond and Norfolk became more attractive - rather than spending more for less in NoVA.

However, if those campaigns had had a stronger grassroots and field operation in NoVA, they would have been able to make media investments in outlets other than the expensive DC national TV market.

Looking at your Oklahoma and South Carolina examples, I'd argue that Clark had built a substantial organization in OK, as Edwards did in SC. I'm not dismissing your point about media markets, I'm simply stating that it is much more complicated than that, and a strong investment in local grassroots organization (which candidates large and small can do) can counter (or maybe better said they can "blount") the high cost of a large media market.

by CAat14K on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A DC Primary Will Not Lock Out Grassroots (none / 0)

Didn't Dean win DC because he, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun were the only four major Democratic candidates to be on the ballot?

by craverguy on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A DC Primary Will Not Lock Out Grassroots (none / 0)

True, but polling data before the election that included all the candidates in the presidential field had Dean beating them all by DC voters.

Many believe that the tactic of having Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Clark and Gephardt drop off the ballot was a DNC orchestrated move to take momentum from a Dean victory.

As I said, polls released before they dropped off the ballot had Dean leading them all in the District.

by CAat14K on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A DC Primary Will Not Lock Out Grassroots (none / 0)

That's half the story. The "unofficial" DC primary did have the other majojr white candidates dropping out. How else does Al Sharpton get 20%?

But the official DC Primary in February had John Kerry winning.

by risenmessiah on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:44:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sharpton would have gotten 20%... (none / 0)

...just for being Al Sharpton. Remember, this is a guy who got nearly 30% of the vote in 1994 when he challenged Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an incumbent and a liberal icon, in the senatorial primary.

30%, incidentally, is about the percentage of the New York Democratic electorate which is black.

by craverguy on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:52:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (none / 0)

This was exactly my point down thread. We don't want Sharpton to be our nominee for anything. Not because he isn't a good guy, but because almost no white people will vote for him.

by Geotpf on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Moynihan was an ass that sank Clinton Health Care (none / 0)

Why so many Democrats are so fond of Moynihan is beyond me. Moynihan was an Nixon apointee earlier in his career. He single handedly sank the Clinton Health Care plan through his pro-big pharma and big corporate hospital interference. Moynihan also served on the Social Security commission that gave recommendations that started all this privatization horsecrap.

Moynihan was NO liberal icon, and if given the choice between Moynihan and Sharpton, I'd have voted for Sharpton any day.

by afs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's bunk. (none / 0)

Moynihan did NOT recommend privatizing Social Security. That's just Bush bullshit used to justify his attempts to destroy SS. Moynihan was also one of the big movers and shakers behind dumping the Clinton plan in favor of single-payer healthcare. I don't know where your getting this stuff, but your sources are crap.

by craverguy on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:18:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

craverguy gets an education about Moynihan (none / 0)

"President Bush Establishes New Social Security Commission

On May 2, President Bush announced establishment of a bipartisan, 16-member Commission "to study and report ... specific recommendations to preserve Social Security for seniors while building wealth for younger Americans...."

The 16-member Commission consists of eight Republicans and eight Democrats, with a member from each party serving as a co-chair. The co-chairs are former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Richard Parsons, Chief Operating Officer of AOL/Time Warner...."

http://www.ssa.gov/enews/2001/may/ssacommission.htm

"The Introduction to the report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security bears the unmistakable imprint of its co-chairman, former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. "From the first, Social Security was a work in progress," it begins. "It remains so now." Moynihan and his co-chairman, AOL TimeWarner's next CEO, Richard Parsons (who co-signed the introduction though he surely did not write the prose), go on to point out that "in his original message to Congress, President Roosevelt envisioned pensioners owning annuities." We are reminded that, "as the early administrators of Social Security anticipated-and very much hoped for-the program steadily evolved." Now, the commissioners UNANIMOUSLY (my emphisis addd) agree, it should evolve again. Because current benefits are paid by current taxpayers and the ratio of workers to retirees is diminishing, "the system is not sustainable as currently structured." It should include some form of "personal retirement accounts within Social Security"-the Commission sets forth in detail three models.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_011214.htm

The Bush Social Security Commission offered recommendation that thee be private retirement accounts and the vote to endorse said private retirement accounts was UNANIMOUS. What part of a unanimous vote do you not understand, craverguy?

----

Another opponent of Clinton's plan was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a prominent Democratic congressional supporter of Clinton. Unlike every other Democratic chairman, has refused to advocate universal coverage. So his committee continued to refuse to consider the health reform bill. On January 9, 1994, he even said that there was no crisis on America.

Then why Moynihan, the supporter of the President, became the opponent of President's plan? The contribution of the interest groups that opposed the Clinton plan must have some relation with it. According to the New York Times, interest groups that opposed the Clinton's plan contributed $259,685 to Moynihan from January 1, 1993, to March 31, 1994. Compared with $19,500 during 1982-1992, it was a great deal of increase.

Later when Moynihan's committee began to consider the bill, he changed his attitude, and produced a bill which resembled President Clinton's proposal, though much of the core part was quite different. It was a kind of gesture toward the White House that he is a good soldier for the Democrats, even though many of his colleagues suspect that Moynihan's own views are more moderate than Clinton's. The change of his attitude may have resulted from his realization that he seemed to have everything to lose and nothing to gain by compromising with Republicans at this point when was running for reelection.

http://my.netian.com/~pynchon/doc/healthcare.htm

"Three months ago Clinton said much the same thing when he and Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered their 1,342-page health care bill to Congress. But that was before Republican qualms had hardened into genuine opposition, before public opinion began to wilt in the heat of a flurry of detailed critiques and before Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) declared there is no health care crisis in America."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/stories/sou012694a.htm

"...In addition, he gave insufficient deference to committee chairmen like Sam Nunn and Pat Moynihan and paid dearly for the slights: Nunn has nearly shut down Clinton on gays in the military, and Moynihan last week suggested that Clinton's health- care financing scheme was spun from whole cloth...."

http://www.time.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,979326,00.html

Don't try to tell me what happened with the Clinton Health Care Plan. I was taking a journalism class when the Clinton Health Care Plan was being debated, and I chose that piece of legislation as my term project. I watched very intently as Moynihan submarined that bill.

by afs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blunt the Power of the Media (none / 0)

Well the real answer to that one is hard spending limits for primaries. Or....free airtime allotment for each candidate on the ballot and no more.

The organization matters, don't get me wrong...but Kerry's money helped him almost take every state but South Carolina. Look again at Oklahoma and see that for all the effort Clark put in, JFK almost stole it away with big TV money.

by risenmessiah on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:48:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

At least make Iowa PRIMARY instead of a CAUCUS (3.00 / 1)

First of all:

MILLIONS of dollars were spent in Iowa and barely 60,000 people showed up to caucus.

The real problem with Iowa is that it is a caucus not a primary.

The caucus system disenfranshises people who WORK and have families.

It is easly controlable by a few precint captains.

In short it is one of the most corruptable electorial systems in the US.

Kerry won in Iowa because the GOP got their people to vote for him in large numbers.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Sun May 15, 2005 at 03:11:13 AM EST

Re: At least make Iowa PRIMARY instead of a CAUCUS (none / 0)

"MILLIONS of dollars were spent in Iowa and barely 60,000 people showed up to caucus."

Um, I don't like caucuses, either, but this turnout figure is simply not true. Turnout in the 2004 caucuses was the highest ever, clocking in at ~120,000.

by jkdism on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Prospective map (none / 0)

Check out post #5 of this DU thread for an excellent regional primary proposed map:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1472651

The CA plan has a problem in that random selection of states could force the candidates into crazy travel schedules.

The above proposed map pretty much eliminates that by combining regions of approximate location and electoral votes. It's bascially the NE plus Ohio and WVa, the deep south starting at VA and east of the MS river, The upper midwest from OH to NE, TX and the balance of the great plains, the Pacific NW plus the Rocky Mt states, and CA and the SW.

by phillydem on Sun May 15, 2005 at 04:52:21 AM EST

Got to keep two lily white filters in place, huh? (none / 0)

New Hampshire and Iowa aren't just white, they are lily white. How is the Democratic Party allowing not one but two lily white filters of the Presidential candidate pool before minority votes get any input whatsoever into the nomination in the 21st century? The right-wing extremists are the ones that are supposed to be the jerks that use "tradition" as an excuse to perpetuate racist policies. Democrats are supposed to have evolved past that. Yet here we are in the early-21st century hearing the same language we heard to defend "seperate but equal" in the South continue to allow two states with no significant minority populations to continue to hold a stranglehold on the Presidential candidate selection process.

This is such a transparent manipulation of the election process to allow white people to dominate the Presidential candidate selection process. It reeks, and I'm ashamed of Americans for allowing this rubbish to continue.

Looks like minorities are going to have to embarass the hell out of the Democratic Party before it does anything. If I was a leader in one of the minority political action groups, I'd start scheduling mass action against both the Democratic and Republican Party Presidential Candidate selection process in 2008.

by afs on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:40:46 AM EST

Yeah (none / 0)

However, the fact that the two states are very white is a good reason to keep them as the ones who decide the canidate.

Basically, here is the thing:

Blacks tend to vote for the Democratic canidate (any Democratic canidate) by a 9 to 1 margin. Whites vote for the Republican canidate by something like a 3 to 2 margin.
There are about six times as many white voters as black voters nationwide.

Keeping these statstics in mind, we must nominate the canidate that white folks like the most if we want to win. Since blacks vote for us all the time, and there are very few of them in comparison to whites (remember, in an election majority rules), we should spend little to no effort courting thier votes.

I don't like this any more than you do. But it is the truth, and I live in a reality based world. If you wish to nominate a canidate that will win in a general election, you must nominate the guy that whites like over the guy that blacks like (assuming that there is a signifcant difference between the two groups). If you wish to lose again, do whatever.

I will probably get troll rated for pointing out these truths-bring it on.

by Geotpf on Sun May 15, 2005 at 03:30:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have you ever heard of... Hispanic-Americans? (3.00 / 2)

How about Asian-Americans? Native Americans?

White, non-hispanics are only 69% of the US population.

I'm not going to troll rate you. I'm simply going to completely discount the advice offered by someone who has completely marginalized close to 18% of the population of the USA.

by afs on Sun May 15, 2005 at 04:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True (none / 0)

Finding an hispanic state would be good (New Mexico perhaps)-they go our way, but not by much.

Native Americans are a really tiny percentage of the population.

Asian Americans tend to vote Republican (they are similiar to whites in this respect). The only state with (percentage-wise) a large number of Asians in Hawaii-which is, long term, the only state that is trending against the Democrats (for this reason).

by Geotpf on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah (none / 0)

I won't troll rate for that post, but I think it's a clear example of the type of logic that takes a Democratic base for granted, and one that the Republicans are heavily targeting.

Keep it up and we'll become the permanent minority DeLay really wants.

by CAat14K on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The thing is... (none / 0)

...the Republicans take thier base for granted-because they can.

That's one of the reasons they win. Thier base votes for any Republican over a Democrat; ours goes Green or whatever.

by Geotpf on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:16:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Although I'm mixing bases here (none / 0)

African Americans tend to vote for our guy no matter what.

"Liberals" pick and choose.

by Geotpf on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Although I'm mixing bases here (none / 0)

You're right. Why should us dumb black folk have any say-so in who the democratic candidate will be in 2008? You go ahead and pick the candidate you think is best for us and all the other colored folk. Never mind that more African Americans than ever are distrustful of the voting process because of the voter suppression in Ohio and Florida 2004. Never mind that the democratic leadership had to be almost embarrassed into action before Barbara Boxer stood up with John Conyers to contest the Ohio count. Yeah, stay just the way you are and wait for us to show up in record numbers for 2008. And you know for sure we'll be there because we've got nowhere else to go, right?

by sukeyna on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:20:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, this sucks (none / 0)

I'm not liking this any more than you do, and am now regretting bringing it up.

However, the goal to winning is to win the mushy middle (while have our base stay loyal).

The mushy middle is white.

Now, the DLC types say this means we have to be the mushy middle, too. I personally believe that as long as our guy firmly stands for something (anything, provided it isn't too out there), he has a chance with the middle.

by Geotpf on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, this sucks (none / 0)

I was being sarcastic. Don't be so smug in your belief that the so-called "base" will remain loyal in the numbers that the party absolutely needs to win anything. It's getting harder and harder to overlook attitudes such as yours in favor of the big picture because we can only take so much disrespect. We're human beings, not dogs.

However, the good news is that the key to winning is to stand up for working people - period. Just communicate the democratic principles that support the average working man and woman, of all colors, in a clear and succinct manner and back it up with behavior that is consistent with said principles and we will have a chance to take this country back. It's a shame that something so simple seems so hard for the democratic party to execute, but hopefully the leadership of Boxer, Conyers, Obama, Kennedy, Reid and other committed dems can get things on track.

by sukeyna on Mon May 16, 2005 at 01:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another reason to keep Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

They are two of the swingiest states in the nation. Each state voted for Bush once in the last two elections. We need to win over swing voters to win; therefore, these two states are great to pick a canidate that swing voters like.

by Geotpf on Sun May 15, 2005 at 03:32:34 PM EST

Previous comments disqualify your opinion (none / 0)

Look upthread for reasoning for disqualifying your opinion on this subject.

by afs on Sun May 15, 2005 at 04:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They are seperate issues, although related (none / 0)

That is, we need to win over people who aren't voting our way.

by Geotpf on Sun May 15, 2005 at 07:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Schedule that makes sense (none / 0)

A system that makes sense would start with Iowa (midwest), NH (northeast, and why penalize the one state in the country that flipped red to blue), South Carolina (south) and then the Rocky Mountain States (west), over a five week period. That gives you racial and geographical diversity. Follow that up with another 20 states over the next four weeks, then finish up with the big states over another four weeks. Everyone has attention paid to them, everyone gets a say, and gives candidates a chance to recover.

by nascardem on Sun May 15, 2005 at 03:47:07 PM EST

Re: A Schedule that makes sense (none / 0)

Wrong. A system that would make sense would include the 30% of the population of the US that is not white.

by afs on Sun May 15, 2005 at 04:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Schedule that makes sense (none / 0)

I think you ought to actually look at the demographic data provided by the US Census.

By your criteria, early primaries ought to be held in states where there is a strong non-white population. Irrespective of how big the TV markets are in those states, I must inform you sadly that you are looking either at a Mid Atlantic state, a Deep South state, or a Southwest state.

So by your rights, the schedule has to minimize the states that are lily-white. That disqualifies every state northeast of New York City and every state west of the Appalachians with the exception of the states that line our southern border: Missippi, Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and CA. Illinois is barely below the national average for white population, as is Nevada. And the state with the fewest percentage of whites...Hawaii...

You can't eliminate your lily-white states from the primary season...all we can do is balance the early schedule. Iowa, New Hamsphire, South Carolina, and New Mexico would do that, but they need not be the only choices.

by risenmessiah on Sun May 15, 2005 at 06:50:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I looked at census data. You made BS charges. (none / 0)

I did look at the census data. It really ticks me off when a person charges someone has made up something like numbers when the numbers disagree with their uninformed opinions. Where do you think I got the numbers from? My butt?

"White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 69.1%"

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Iowa and New Hampshire are two of the most lily white states in the US. They need to be moved back to the middle of the primary schedule. Rhode Island is the NE small state with the best demographics, and Providence serves TV to the whole state. Rhode Island is a much better NE kick off state.

South Carolina is Bob Jones country. South Carolina is too small to be able to reduce the impact of a Bob Jones Univesity in it's midst. It's a rat's nest the worst of Karl Rove's BS plays perfectly to. It needs to be moved to the back of the primary schedule.

I choose a Southern State with more military bases. In the Deep South, military bases are a "progressive" influence on the area they are in... at least socially. North Carolina is bigger, but it has no "major" media markets on it's borders to drive up costs, big military bases, and a progressive foothold in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill.

See my Nevada comments below for my reasoning there.

So.. if I'm picking, I pick Nevada, North Carolina, and Rhode Island on day one.

by afs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I looked at census data. You made BS charges. (none / 0)

I don't think you understand what I mean.

In 2000, when the Census was conducted, the nationwide percentage of non-Hispanic whites was 75%. I am not disputing that it has since dropped to as low as 69%.

My point to you is that if you look at states individually you'll find that conveniently, the most populous states tend to be the most diverse and the number of states that are more diverse than the national average is less than (far less) than the number of "lily-white states".

Furthermore, all the higher-than average diverse states are found along the I-95 (north of NYC excepted), or the I-10. And oh yeah...Illinois is 73% white.

So if you pick any Northeast state or Midwest state...ta-da...it's going to end up "lily-white"...because every state in the Northeast and Midwest is Lily-white.

I see no improvement dumping New Hamp-shah for Rhode Island. The only difference between the two is that you give up skiing for yachting and the Italian food is much better in Rhode Island.

North Carolina is more white than South Carolina [72% to 67%] and is actually becoming less diverse. With the reorganization of Bank of America to Charlotte, the city is filled with yuppie dittoheads buying big houses and fueling the growth of the exurbs. Add the tabaccy farmers still nursing at the deceased teat of Jesse Helms, and the Research Triangle has it's hands full trying to elect progressive candidates.

And then there's Nevada. Great thinking there too, since most of the state's non-white population can't vote anyway. Latinos who are citizens would be one thing, blacks escaping California another, and Asians hoping to expand yet something else. However, for all the talk, most of Nevada is chapped-ass Republicans, anti-tax conservatives, and lots of illegal aliens.

Sorry your rope turned out to be made of sand.

by risenmessiah on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:08:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Risen Messiah is talking out of his butt. (none / 0)

New Hampshire census info...

White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 95.1%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.7%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 1.7%

Iowa census info...
White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 92.6%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 2.1%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 2.8%

Rhode Island census info...

White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 81.9%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 4.5%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 8.7%

Rhode Island is light years more diverse than New Hampshire or Iowa.

Union membership in Rhode Island...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 16.3 percent (79,000) of private and public sector workers throughout the state were union members. The Ocean State's union membership rate remained the highest in New England, but slipped to the tenth highest in the nation, trailing New York (25.3%), Hawaii (23.7%), Michigan (21.6%), Alaska (20.1%), New Jersey (19.8%), Washington (19.3%), Minnesota (17.5%), Illinois (16.8%), and California (16.5%). Nationwide, the union membership rate was 12.5 percent.

North Carolina census info...

White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 70.2%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 21.6%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 4.7%

Nevada census info...

White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 65.2%

Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 6.8%

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 19.7%

Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 4.5%

Union membership is getting really hammered in Nevada, though....

"...Union membership has declined from 17.1 percent of Nevada's workforce in 2000 to 12.5 percent in 2004, according to the U.S. Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2003 14.4 percent of the workforce was unionized...."

http://www.inbusinesslasvegas.com/2005/02/18/feature3.html

Nevada Hispanic turnout...

"...McCarthy, whose Ethnic Data Services identifies Hispanic registered voters, Hispanic homeowners and Hispanic business owners for political campaigns, said Hispanics easily could be a powerful voting bloc this year.

"Both parties have failed to realize that," he said.

McCarthy's numbers show that 63,597 of the 547,758 active registered voters in Clark County in 2002 were Hispanic.

McCarthy's service cross-references voter registration records from the Clark County Election Department against lists of Hispanic surnames, business license and county assessor records to estimate the number of Hispanic voters.

Ramirez's consulting firm runs similar analyses of voter information to develop registration drive strategies for People for the American Way, a national liberal activist group. He said about 42 percent of registered Hispanic voters in Clark County turned out for the 2002 general election.

"That's still a little disappointing compared with the turnout of the general population," he said, noting that 57 percent of all registered voters turned out for the election. "But it goes to show there are enough voting Hispanics in any district to decide an election if they band together."

He estimated that, although some 64,000 Latinos are registered statewide, 59,000 who are eligible to vote have yet to register...."

http://havanajournal.com/hispanics_comments/A1408_0_24_0_M/

"Secretary of State Dean Heller announced today that a total of 1,071,101 Nevadans have registered to vote in the November 2, 2004 General Election, far surpassing the close of voter registration previous benchmark of 878,970 in October 2000. The percentage of eligible Nevadans who are now registered to vote is 64%. The State Demographer has previously stated the approximate number of eligible Nevadans is 1,680,000.

Republicans regained the lead in voter registration, opening up a lead of 4,431 over registered Democrats for the 2004 General Election. The final statewide total for registered Republicans is 434,239, while the Democrats total 429,808. The non-partisan total is 161,620."

http://sos.state.nv.us/press/102204.htm

So... how many things was risenmessiah talking out of his butt? Let me count the ways. He claimed basically all Nevada's hispanic population was illegal? (by the way, how bigoted was that comment, huh?) He was basically wrong on every comment made about Nevada, in fact. The out-state extremist anti-tax Nevada Republicans have been almost factored out of consideration in Nevada because of the booms in Vegas and Reno. He seems to think an America's Cup that hasn't seen Newport in decades still drives local concerns. He doesn't know all those old Newport robber baron mansions were turned into museums years ago. He doesn't know about all the farmers that have been wiped out and covered in pig feces (quite literally, from factory pig farms) by hurricane flooding since Helms passed away. He has not considered the moderating influence of the huge military bases in NC.

Evidentally, risenmessiah will say almost anything to defend the exclusive white right to decide the President.

by afs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:41:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Schedule that makes sense (none / 0)

I think my proposal does address diversity by having S. Carolina and the Rocky Mountain states following Iowa and NH, with the rest of the schedule spread out to eliminate the frontloading factor. Iowa and NH had a lot more influence in 2004 because the calendar was so compressed, it is ridiculous.
On the DC primary, there wasn't a "DNC plot" to undermine Dean. DC didn't decide to do a primary until a year after the DNC had approved its rules. As a result, the DC primary did not elect any delegates, because it was not in compliance with DNC rules. The delegates were elected later.

by nascardem on Sun May 15, 2005 at 08:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

South Carolina needs to be minimized (none / 0)

South Carolina is so far out in loopyland that there is a movement among religious extremeist to have South Carolina exit the Union and become a Christian nation. Bob Jones University drives loopy-land. South Carolina is too small to absorb the extremist influences of Bob Jones University. South Carolina needs to be stuck at the end of the primary calendar where it will do as little damage as possible to the primary process.

I have made my statement regarding Iowa and NH earlier on the thread. Both need to be in the middle of the schedule, not the front. See earlier comments for reasoning.

by afs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:47:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: South Carolina needs to be minimized (none / 0)

So have the two Carolinas go on the same day a week after NH.

by nascardem on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: South Carolina needs to be minimized (none / 0)

When I said minimized, I mean South Carolina needs a MAY primary date.

As I said before, let day one be Nevada, Rhode Island and N. Carolina. Shove Iowa and New Hampshire to Super Tuesday or later.

One other problem with Iowa that has been undiscussed. It's one of the 4 credit card company super states. Iowa has become one of the big sites to move banks to take advantage of weak predatory lending practice and credit card laws.

by afs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: South Carolina needs to be minimized (none / 0)

Why do you want to insure that two swing sttes - Iowa and NH - will forever be red? Which is what you are likely to end up with taking out Iowa and NH. You can fix the calendar without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

by nascardem on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton, Mondale and Dukakis (none / 0)

Bill Clinton is the only President elected in the last 50 years who fsiled to win the New Hampshire primary (1992, finished second). He also failed to win in Iowa (Tom Harkin won and was pretty much uncontested).

A look at Iowa over the years shows a definite preference for the bland (Carter over Teddy Kennedy in 80, Mondale over hart in 84, Gephardt (I think) in 88, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 04). They also went for george H.W. Bush over Reagan in 80, Dole over Bush in 88, and W in 2000). I don't think that Iowa Nice consensus works well against the sharp elbows and dirty tricks of Karl Rove and his ilk.

New Hampshire gave us Hart over Mondale, but Dukakis, Paul Tsongas in 92 (and I liked Tsongas), Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 04. Polls showed that the Iowa bounce changed the Dem result in both 2000 and 2004 in New Hampshire. They saved Reagan in 80, Bush in 88 (but forced the no new taxes pledge), and McCain in 2004.

Overall, NH seems to pick more vibrant candidates than Iowa. The recent effect of the IUowa bounce (and ergo the Iowa as king of the world status) seems to me a bad development.

As stated elsewhere, neither Iowa nor New Hamshire is very reflective of the US. New Hampshire at least is partly made up of Boston suburbs (a key swing group). The biggest trend in Iowa, per the Des Moines Register, is the fast growing and decisive impact of the born again/ religious right.

IF we keep NH and Iowa at the top, they should be paired with Delaware and either Nevada or New Mexico in a 4-way opening match up. This would give us 2 small states that are reflective of the national demographics and more of a national tilt. The field would be pared but the primary season would continue, involving more of us from around the country. The weaknesses and strengths would be far more apparent.

by David Kowalski on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:01:25 PM EST

I like Nevada at the top a lot (none / 0)

Delaware has very representative demographics, but I worry about too much corporate influence in Delaware... Credit card company alley. Bad. Bad.

Nevada may have the best match for demographics of any small state in the US. Better than New Mexico. You have everything from strong unions to huge Morman communities. Big environmental concerns. An economy that is a bellweather for the rest of the country because it's so tied to tourism. Also, Nevada has so much cash in the state that it's a state that would be much harder to corrupt with campaign cash than many other states.

by afs on Mon May 16, 2005 at 02:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa and New Hampshire (none / 0)

The real reason Iowa and New Hampshire can split is that in the caucus, anything can happen. Primaries are harder to rig. Edwards got the Kucinich chunk of votes in '04 and put him ahead of Dean. Otherwise, the finish would have been Kerry, Dean, Edwards, not Kerry Edwards Dean. K-D-E if I recall correctly is also the top three order in New Hampshire.

Nevertheless, don't be fooled. The biggest factor affecting Iowa is the exodus of young people there. The "good jobs" that used to exist are gone, and the kids have moved to Chicago or Dallas or Denver. Gov. Vilsack has tried to infuse the state with more biotechnology dollars but these projects of his seem to always involve ethanol. Ergo, the financial hardship has made some "turn to Christ" but others simply think that they aren't getting their fair share out of government.

New Hampshire, on the other hand, is gaining people fleeing the high cost of life in Massachusetts in exchange for a two-hour commute. The old, fiercely independent New Hampshire voter looking for a maverick has been replaced by the docile species of Republicrat trying to figure out which guy is going to offer the better bottom line. The tolerant social atmosphere means that stem cells is a bigger issue in Massachusetts (and southern New Hampshire) than gay marriage ever dreams of being.

Still, the minute you consolidate primaries one day, the more the person with the TV edge extends himself or herself. If you can't be in more than one state at once...the next best thing is...

by risenmessiah on Mon May 16, 2005 at 04:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton, Mondale and Dukakis (none / 0)

There really isn't an Iowa bounce. Even in 2004, after Dean came in third in Iowa, he popped bck up to finish a strong second in NH (and his poll numbers were going up). Had he played the story like Clinton did in 1992, he would have been the comeback kid. In 2000, Bradley nearly beat Gore, which would have been the story (like McCarthy being the story in 1968, and McGovern in 1972; they both lost in NH, but were close seconds over Johnson and Muskie, respecitively) but for McCain's big upset over Bush (another case of there being no Ioiwa bouncy). The problem is that with the compressed schedule after Iowa and NH, no one has a chance to recover, and with the clustering of states too early, other states don't have the influence they did before the establishment of Super Tuesday (that was the first bad idea).

by nascardem on Mon May 16, 2005 at 10:01:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tom Harkin was FROM Iowa (none / 0)

That's why everybody ignored Iowa in 1992.

That's an easy way to get rid of Iowa's influence in 2008-convince Tom Vilsack to run. Everybody will ignore it, just like 92.

by Geotpf on Mon May 16, 2005 at 12:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good idea (none / 0)

Living in New Hampshire like I do, I thinks it's a good things that the first primary is held here. Candidates canvass all over New Hampshire and get a taste to what real politics is all about. Since I moved here from Ct in 1996, I have seen both Bush's, Al Gore, John Mc.Cain, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry. You really don't get that 1 on 1 feeling in any other primary. I hope New Hampshire stays No. 1.

by wise liberal on Mon May 16, 2005 at 06:40:50 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.