The fighting words from the NH crowd are simply short sighted. It’s almost as if they are taking it personally. They shouldn’t.
After all, NH is mostly white and conservative (even the democrats) so why should they get first shot at picking the democratic presidential candidate? I’ve always felt that the NH primary played into the republican’s hands.
NH picks a relative conservative democrat (as does Iowa) then the republicans stomp all over him by keeping him on the defensive (to see what I mean keep reading).
Instead, let some other states in on the game, perhaps they will pick a more progressive candidate. That candidate can ask questions like “Mr Republican, What’s wrong with universal health care? Don’t you want everyone to have health care? How could you be against everyone having healthcare?”
Whereas a Conservative dem would never ask the questions and never put the rethug on the defensive…
Democrats…conservatives in NH tend to be Republicans. And from what I’ve seen, people in NH ask all kinds of questions. The major problem I would see in NH and Iowa is their overwhelming whiteness; it would be good if there could be an early primary with a more diverse population.
<
p>
However, that person from NH does have a point about the money thing…starting in larger states means it’s going to be much harder for a candidate without big money support. In Iowa and NH, it’s possible to get name recognition by showing up everyplace–in big states, the only way to do it is TV.
Look at the list below, I could argue pretty convincingly that in every primary since ’68, that the more conservative candidate was selected. Who will argue that Kerry is less conservative than Dean or Gore less than Bradly?
<
p>
The Tsongas/Clinton race in 1992 is hard to call but Tsongas had the advantage being from MA.
Dukakis had a similar advantage vs Gephart.
<
p>
2004 Kerry vs. Dean (Though Clark and Liberman were as conservative, they didn’t have the infrastructure)
2000 Gore vs Bradley
1996 Clinton (no serious opposition)
1992: Paul E. Tsongas defeated William J. Clinton
1988: Michael S. Dukakis defeated Richard A. “Dick” Gephardt
1984: Gary W. Hart defeated Walter F. “Fritz” Mondale
1980: James E. Carter Jr. defeated Edward M. Kennedy
1976: James E. Carter Jr. defeated Morris K. Udall
1972: Edmund S. Muskie defeated George S. McGovern
1968: Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Eugene J. “Gene” McCarthy
1964: Lyndon B. Johnson (no serious opposition)
1960: John F. Kennedy (no serious opposition)
<
p>
Will South Carolina pick a more progressive candidate than NH? Seems unlikely but I know that the demographics of SC are much more representative of the US.
<
p>
Re the money… yes the costs will go up – but that means that a traditional Red state like SC will see a lot more of the democrats before the November election…so the extra expenses might actually work in our favor.
<
p>
M.
He was the Vice-Presidential nominee in 2000 and therefore his failure to catch on was clearly due to the fact that he was too conservative. As for Dean and Kerry, I would argue that neither was more liberal or conservative than the other, especially if you look at their positions on issues. Unfortunately Kerry’s campaign ended up being conservative in the sense of acting rather timid. Dean didn’t lose because he was liberal–he lost because he fell on his face in Iowa and screamed. If he had not run in Iowa, he probably could have won New Hampshire. Regarding the other–Tsongas and Clinton, I’d say that was a wash; same for Dukakis and Gephart. Jimmy Carter in 1980 was a sitting president, as was Lyndon Johnson both times (though McCarthy’s strong showing was considered a technical defeat and led to Johnson dropping out).
<
p>
For the most part, “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms here, and in most of these matchups each candidate could be considered more liberal depending on which issues were emphasized.
I think you are sooo right about Dean winning in NH if he had not run in Iowa. The Kerry consultants weren’t “timid” when they attacked Dean in Iowa and NH. I still get upset when I see the “Doubting Dean, Vote Kerry” sign I saved in my garage. We all know what the Kerry campaign gave us — four more years of Bush disasters. There is a problem when the weakest candidate is chosen by the smallest and least representative state.
He was the Vice-Presidential nominee in 2000 and therefore his failure to catch on was clearly due to the fact that he was too conservative.
<
p>
I’m not so sure. I think there were quite a few other things going on, including: * Joe’s a Jew. Yeah, that mattered everywhere, and New Hampshire isn’t nearly as Jewish (.8%) as NY (8.7%), CT (3.2%), RI (1.5%), or MA (4.3%). * Joe lost VP in 2000. In recent history, once you lose a national election, you’re thought to be unelectible by many of the primary voters, and therefore face an uphill battle next time around. Think about the rumbling about Kerry ’08 and Gore ’04. * While Joe’s relationship with GWB wasn’t as pronounced coming into the 2004 primaries, there may have been a hint of that in the minds of some voters, and since we’re talking primary voters here, that might have played out.
<
p>
I’d say there is no “clearly due” in this case.
thinking about the Joementum mobile in NH. I think he lost because they plastered a giant Joementum face on the side. It was so hideous, it scared the little children at the Fourth of July parade!! Seriously, I hope Gab’s consultants decide to put a huge blow up of his face on the ever so environmentally efficient Gabs RV! It’s a winning strategy.
two early primary/caucuses, retail politics, all that. There was only one problem: they were held in NH and IA.
<
p>
I’m not so sure that “retail politics” is a reasonable criterium, since the presidential race has nothing to do with retail politics. While NH and IA are “swing” states, they have little to do with the demographics of the country, nor is it obvious that they are any better at “picking winners” than other states, say NV, MT, NM, HI, etc.
<
p>
NH and IA just love the attention, which comes with lots of money. The state parties make money because they sell lists to the candidates. The local media makes oodles on ad buys, retail be damned. The hotels and related services. Yadda yadda. Tradition is a lousy reason to keep making bad decisions, and having NH and IA kick it off is just plain dumb.
<
p>
Personally, I’d like to see one of these two really simple formulas:
1. Non-weighted random, 5 per week, 10 weeks.
2. Ranked in terms of closeness (closest election of 04 goes first in 08), again 5 pre week, 10 weeks.
The idea of random order is appealing, though, so no state is always last. Consideration should be given to where to place the big states…right now they are all late enough that they rarely matter. If they were earlier, they would probably swing it so many other states wouldn’t matter. Randomizing would help.
means that all states have an equal chance of being drawn. The state names on ping pong balls, pick five.
<
p>
This idea that the big states make the others unimportant seems a bit silly to me. After all, w.r.t. presidential elections, the largest three states (CA, TX, NY) aren’t competitive at all, nor are large states IL, VA, NC, NJ, MA, or GA. What’s that leave for “large” and competitive? MI, OH, PA.
<
p>
My point? I think people make far too much about the potential for “the big states” dominating the primaries. The minimum number of states necessary to win? 12: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, NC, NJ, GA, and VA. Now, do you really think that GA, PA, CA, and TX will all pick the same nominee in either party? I don’t. If that’s the case, the candidate would need to pick up a few more of the getting-smaller states: MA, WA, WI, IN, AZ, MN, MO. Again, notice the diversity in geography, demographics, etc. So I claim that having the large states “in the mix” wouldn’t overshadow the smaller states.
<
p>
But, one possible third possibility is:
1. Break the states into 5 groups by electoral vote size: the 5 fewest EV states, the next five, etc.
2. Keep the “5 per week for 10 weeks” but randomly pick one state from each of the five categories. This helps prevent the off-chance that CA, TX, PA, and FL all happen to show up in the first week. It’s a slight alteration to the above strategy, in the interest of keeping things not-too-random.
No one reason would be enough, but as the New York Times article points to Nevada, I think it’s worthwhile to take a look at the state.
<
p>
First, Nevada is one of the few states where union support is still strong.
<
p>
Latinos and African-Americans make up a large section of this state.
<
p>
There are some major cities in Nevada, reflecting the urban nature of the Democratic consituency. The fact is, most Democratic support comes from cities, so the Democratic nominee ought to at least stop by a couple, no?
<
p>
Nevada also adds geographic diversity to the primary races. All the major contenders for President have been making the rounds in NH and IA, and will now have to shift at least some resources to the new state caucus — it will be telling who moves how much money where.
<
p>
I don’t know what the statistics are, but I imagine that the more “retail” time we have in Nevada, the more it helps to solidify the state in the general election later.
I favor a national primary day, but I know I’m in the minority on that one.
<
p>
Anything that shakes up the dynamic of the Iowa/New Hampshire front-loading is fine in my book. Kudos to Dean, et al, for finally having the guts to begin upsetting that apple cart.
…there is nothing about a PRIMARY in SC or NV, but a CAUCUS. Go ahead, hold one. We GOP’s will respect the ballot box over party organizers, and hold our primaries when we always did. Oh, and if your scheme DOESN’T come off, NH will be happy with us!
Primary in SC, Caucus in NV…
Curse that Flo Jonek! I rely on ‘BZ for my news, and sometimes, she speaks in such a way as to be unclear.
<
p>
Will somebody tell the woman that the Community College in Worcester is called Quinsiga-MUND, not Quinsiga-MOND before the snow flies? Listening to her mispronunciation of place names is like chalk screeching on a blackboard…
<
p>
That said, I still don’t see why the GOP has to fall in line with a Dem suggestion, except in SC, where the Sec. of State would make that call.