Democrats may widen presidential race locales

July 22, 2006, 11:29PM
Democrats may widen presidential race locales
Panel votes to add Nevada and South Carolina to the '08 primaries

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times

WASHINGTON - The Democratic Party moved toward the most significant changes in its presidential selection process in 30 years Saturday, a rewriting of its election-year calendar for 2008.

The party's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted for early contests in two new states — a caucus in Nevada and a primary in South Carolina. Party officials said the change was almost certain to be ratified by the Democratic National Committee next month.

The immediate effect would be to decrease the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states that have started — and some party officials argued, unfairly dominated — the nominating process since 1976.
(snip)

The change was applauded by Democrats who have long argued that the current system gave too much power to two states that were economically, geographically and ethnically not representative of the nation. In turning to Nevada and South Carolina, Democrats said they were looking to give blacks, Hispanics and union members more of a say.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4065540.html

this change is going to pi** off the people in NH and IA?

I'd also be surprised if the Dems got much positive response for Dems!

The more the merrier and all that right.

I'm happy about the change but not if a party leader can control a state's caucus vote. I prefer primaries to caucus'. I do like the SC choice and the Nevada choice will let California activists get more involved by taking long weekends in Nevada.

states choosing our candidate. At least one democratic state should be involved in the selection. How are we going to get back to what Democrats believe if only the DLC/Repug states are allowed to vote. By the time they get around to Democratic states it's over already.

Wow. There is no single state which is representative of the entire nation.

Further, when you add more states into the beginning mix, you do little more than to PREVENT candidates from jumping in. Campaigns cost money and Iowa and New Hampshire were affordable and doable for the vast majority of people who wanted a stab at the White House. Two more states -- larger ones at that -- will serve to more than double expenses. So much for your Al Sharptons, Carol Moseley Brauns and Dennis Kucinichs.

I fully support Iowa moving their caucus ahead to allow the friendly agreement between IA and NH to take affect once again and for NH to jump *any state* placed betweent the two. January is damn cold in Iowa. It might be refreshing to caucus in October.

So I am not sure adding a blue state is going to add the army of progressives you are looking for. Personally, I wish we could have runoffs.

And Iowa deep down?

I think there's a potential for the GOP to mess with Dem primaries. I'd support early primaries in more moderate or less GOP leaning states - especially those that have a tamper-proof process for choosing candidates.

We need to move away from any situation where some people get more control over the nomination process than others because they happen to live in a particular geographic area.

and victory. Iowa and New Hampshire gave us Kerry and capitulation.

Not many people could garner over half of the convention delegates in a wide field running on the same day.

Plus, I think caucuses are far superior to primaries.

:tinfoilhat:

No voting machines.

No independent or cross-over voting.

Public votes.

We need candidates that kick ass and take names, not lying suit-droids that wouldn't know a principle if it walked up and clubbed them up side the head.

I like the locations and the schedule.