AP: Utah Aims to Alter (presidential) Primary Calendar

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060331/ap_on_el_pr/western_primary

Utah is fed up with presidential candidates who get no closer than 30,000 feet as they fly over the state. The state isn't necessarily blaming the candidates, but rather a primary calendar that puts it months behind Iowa, New Hampshire and states that typically settle the Democratic and Republican nominations long before the Utah even writes its ballot.

Determined to change the status quo, Utah wants to hold a 2008 presidential primary the first week in February, which would put it on par with about a half dozen states that trail Iowa and New Hampshire, but still are in the thick of the contest.

"If Utah goes on February 5th, all these candidates have to come to Utah early in the schedule," said Mike Stratton, a Democratic strategist who also serves on the party's presidential nomination commission.

Separate from Utah's effort, the Democratic Party is weighing a change in its calendar that would put two caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, preferably one from the South and the other from the West.

More at link


When I first saw the headline, I thought they wanted to change the regular calendar and thought "those wacky Mormons!". That's not the case. I've often wondered why Iowa, New Hampshire, etc get to essentially choose the presidential candidates each year.I once read a suggestion that I thought was very well thought out. Have rolling primaries every 4 years by region of the country. For example, break it up into 5 sections, such as the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Northwest, Southwest, with 10 states in each section. Then, every 4 years, the order in which primaries are held moves to a different section of the country so that every region of the country gets to be first in primaries every 5th election cycle. Just a thought.

edited for clarity

changing the date wont matter one fucking bit.

nm

"He's like Orrin, but pretty". In any case, Utah is not a barometer of national politics, it's a hard right automation.

purple states or states where there is even a marginal chance a Dem could win.

Who gives a shit what the repugs in Utah think of our candidates? (Sorry to my Dem compatriots in Utah - the select few non-Neanderthals).

:crazy:

It is absolutely insane to let IOWA decide who our DEM candidates will be.
Not to mention their f'd up horse-trading, arm-twisting, coercion caucuses.
Sorry Iowa, but I'm a Texan and I would no sooner advocate a deciding Dem primary in my own state.

How is New Hampshire's record on presidential elections? I have a mixed memory of them....
Are they always one way or another?

Have you ever ATTENDED a caucus?

Obviously not, based on your little tirade. I would love to explain it to you ALL over again, but how about you just do a flippin search and read up on it.

You say that blue or purple states should start it off...well what the hell do you consider Iowa? Do some research.

It's just not realistic unless we turn the primary into a 1 day event.

That's why I think having a different region of the country be first in the primaries each election cycle is a good idea. There is no good reason why the same handful of states should get to choose who the presidential candidates will be every election cycle simply by virtue of having their primaries scheduled earlier than everyone else.

Just put Hitler on the ballot and we'll know in advance who the winner is.

The result was that both major parties announced that they would ignore the results and instead select delegates to the national convention from party caucuses held in March, making our presidential primaries a huge, meaningless waste of money.

NJ is moving their primary up from June to Feb for 2008.