New Hampshire, Iowa, etc., - time to move over?

[Still a Democrat]

I just saw a story about some GOP infighting (which I love) because Florida has set their primary date for a time apparently reserved for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

My opinion -

It's way past time to open this up and rotate the opening rounds between states. The only arguements I've heard for this are 1)those are the rules and 2)it's always been that way.

There are crucial states out there that could use the infusion of political interest that come with a primary that means something. End rant.

[There Is No Spoon]

I thought my state was constitutionally bound to be the first primary in the nation. Caucuses don't count, but if Florida has moved up, NH is obligated to do so now.

[Still a Democrat]

(03-31-2011 12:40 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I thought my state was constitutionally bound to be the first primary in the nation. Caucuses don't count, but if Florida has moved up, NH is obligated to do so now.

You know I had forgotten that, and I ask this sincerely - what happens if another state puts that in their constitution?

[Bryan]

(03-31-2011 12:35 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  I just saw a story about some GOP infighting (which I love) because Florida has set their primary date for a time apparently reserved for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

It's way past time to open this up and rotate the opening rounds between states. The only arguements I've heard for this are 1)those are the rules and 2)it's always been that way.

There is an argument that starting the campaign in smaller states/media markets allows for lower entry costs, which is theoretically more fair.

That also leads to a related argument, which holds that the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are able to vet candidates very closely for months on end, a dynamic that would be upended if the campaigns had to crisscross denser states like Pennsylvania or Florida.

[Still a Democrat]

(03-31-2011 02:05 PM)Bryan Wrote:  

(03-31-2011 12:35 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  I just saw a story about some GOP infighting (which I love) because Florida has set their primary date for a time apparently reserved for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

It's way past time to open this up and rotate the opening rounds between states. The only arguements I've heard for this are 1)those are the rules and 2)it's always been that way.

There is an argument that starting the campaign in smaller states/media markets allows for lower entry costs, which is theoretically more fair.

That also leads to a related argument, which holds that the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are able to vet candidates very closely for months on end, a dynamic that would be upended if the campaigns had to crisscross denser states like Pennsylvania or Florida.

Yeah, I've heard that too - but would that mean NH and Iowa are willing to cede to similar states?

[Cha]

(03-31-2011 02:05 PM)Bryan Wrote:  

(03-31-2011 12:35 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  I just saw a story about some GOP infighting (which I love) because Florida has set their primary date for a time apparently reserved for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

It's way past time to open this up and rotate the opening rounds between states. The only arguements I've heard for this are 1)those are the rules and 2)it's always been that way.

There is an argument that starting the campaign in smaller states/media markets allows for lower entry costs, which is theoretically more fair.

That also leads to a related argument, which holds that the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are able to vet candidates very closely for months on end, a dynamic that would be upended if the campaigns had to crisscross denser states like Pennsylvania or Florida.

Thanks for additional info on this, Bryan..things I hadn't thought about.

[There Is No Spoon]

(03-31-2011 02:05 PM)Bryan Wrote:  

(03-31-2011 12:35 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  I just saw a story about some GOP infighting (which I love) because Florida has set their primary date for a time apparently reserved for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

It's way past time to open this up and rotate the opening rounds between states. The only arguements I've heard for this are 1)those are the rules and 2)it's always been that way.

There is an argument that starting the campaign in smaller states/media markets allows for lower entry costs, which is theoretically more fair.

That also leads to a related argument, which holds that the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are able to vet candidates very closely for months on end, a dynamic that would be upended if the campaigns had to crisscross denser states like Pennsylvania or Florida.

This argument is easy to forget in these discussions, but it has a lot of merit. Even though NH is not a very diverse state - as more and more of us Mass based liberals move to NH (they call us Massholes here), a certain amount of diversity follows. This new diversity is quite apparent to those of us who live near the MA border. It's a good thing We'll make this state liberal yet.

[Cha]

But, yeah, Florida please do schedule your primary the same time as Iowa, etc, etc.

[Hekate]

Thinking over the logistics of campaigning in someplace like NH versus my own California, it seems that very few early candidates could take on California except in the stone-skipping-across-a-lake fashion. It's just too damn big in every possible way.

I envy the New Hampsherites their ability to just stroll down the street and meet big-name candidates, or candidates that surely will be big names in a few months. Shake their hands, blow a few cookie crumbs on their ties in someone's living room, get a measure of the person in a way that the vast majority of us will never have an opportunity to do.

So in a sense NH -- despite being small and afaik not terribly diverse -- really has to stand in for the rest of us in the first sifting of presidential candidates. Sure they've always done it, but they've also been in a position to do it.

My sis used to live in Massachusetts and one of her UU church friends who lived in NH started sending out a newsletter during the run-up to the post-Bush election. He decided to take his role as citizen-reporter seriously (kind of like a certain other New Englander we used to know, only without the overwhelming ego).

He moved on to a blog, of course, but I'm still on the newsletter list.

Just google for Doug Muder. I'm sure he'll be reporting on presidential wannabes this time around too.

[Still a Democrat]

Matt Santos: "New Hampshire is as diverse as the Mayflower."

As pointed out in the posts above, diversity is a major issue. As progressives, we ought to be concerned about that. If a candidate can concentrate their resources in a single state, it's difficult to believe they couldn't do a decent job of covering it. Not to mention a more key electoral state could get their base energized.