Why are Iowa and New Hampshire ALWAYS first?

We now have to deal with the cluster fuck of Michigan and Florida but maybe we can now have a valid discussion about primary season where there might exist a little more equity in timing in the future. Maybe regional primarys (north, south, east and west) and schedule them on a rotating basis every four years so each region would have the opportunity to be first. Michigan and Florida officials fucked up but maybe the folks in New Hampshire and Iowa can let go of being first. Obviously they know how valuable it is.

This message brought to you by Hillary Clinton.



:evilgrin:

Is there a political movement that wants more racist women haters in the country?

:D

first. It is in the Iowa Constitution. Do you have a problem with State self rule?

Their knowledge of the value should move them to share that value. Fuck your other states is a great message to send because you are selfish.

I am sure they will be glad to do it just to make you happy.

have the RNC and DNC make a primary schedule for the state's to abide by, be it regional or whatever but based on some modicum of fairness. Let Iowa secede from the union. Making me happy is irrelevant. There are citizens of 48 other states who might like to see some change of this sort made.

passed it becomes you party's platform. You are not getting much done here.

and fuck Iowa and New Hampshire. What are they gonna do? Secede from the Union?

For the first time ever, Washington State (and many others) had a voice. I think Iowa & NH have had their day, and now they should go to the end of the line.

...and I would gladly give up our "first" status, if we could maintain these state-at-a-time primaries.

Front-loaded "Super Tuesday"-like primaries only benefit the candidates who are well connected and who have the most money.

By starting off with a few smaller states--the voters really get to know the candidates, speak with them and
ask them questions. Being in Iowa, I can tell you that it is pure joy to see these candidates at small venues
and in community centers. You can look at the whites of their eyes and ask them anything you like. This is a
much better vetting process than relying on vacuous television ads and mailers--funded by corporate dollars.

The corporatist politicians want multiple states at the front end--because this process is a barrier to
populist candidates or candidates who aren't part of the elite--such as Kucinich and the late Paul Wellstone.

Again, I would give up our first status in Iowa--to keep the single-state pace going. I think rotating states
would be a good way to preserve one-state-at-a-time---because many states would have the opportunity to benefit
from being early. Plus, it would catalyze across-the-board support for a one-state-at-a-time process.

I know in Iowa, we take our 'first' status very seriously and we challenge those candidates. Candidates who
don't run honest, authentic, open campaigns do not fare well here. If you won't answer questions or if you
play dirty games--we reject the hell out of you. Many Iowans consider it our moral duty to vet these
candidates as best we can, because we know the nation is counting on us to make responsible decisions for
our party.

Thanks for the feedback and great thoughts. Gosh I think we call this brainstorming with a solution as the goal. God Bless Ya!

Rotating schedule of which states go earlier / later. No more kingmaker games in non-representative states. MUCH more democratic that way, I think.

I like the idea. The primary system is set up now to give candidates with less funds an opportunity to compete by offering small states a chance to go first.

I think I'd like to see the nation split into regions with each state within that region taking a turn to go first; they should be configured in such a way that there are small states to vote first in at least one or two of the regions in every election cycle.

Edited to add: Region might be a bit of a misnomer because there is no reason they need to be geographically adjacent; perhaps "group" would have been a better choice.

Retail politics produce better candidates than big mass-media states. Citizens who are accustomed to vetting candidates every four years pay more attention and develop better judgment than those new to the process. To my mind, those are much more important factors than which region of the country is represented.

Howard Dean moved up SC and NV in order to have a more diverse group of early primaries -- that was a good idea. There might be other states which should be considered, but I believe they should all be small. I would not mind HI, WY, DC, AK, AR, or RI being near the beginning of the process. Or, if large states are included, the early primary should be restricted to a geographically limited area, with the larger primary being held later.