Dems Recommend Adding Two States to IA and NH in Primaries

[Defarge]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051001/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble;_ylt=AoXJuE2kObmY2AjxAhDhfjqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Two, maybe even four more states in addition to Iowa and New Hampshire.  If this gets adopted, there will be incredible ramifications.  So what will be the two states?  I'd say Mexico and Arkansas would work.  They're battleground states and they're small enough for the type of campaigning that will be fair to all Presidential candidates.  Albeit, it'll be sad not to see Iowa and NH alone in the spotlight .

[TomC]

This makes sense but I hope they don't tick off Iowa and NH voters. Arkansas makes a lot of sense; another should be in the West: NM, Nev, or Az make sense to me, all battleground states.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd favor scrapping the early Iowa caucus. Have NH be first, they're good at picking more geniune candidates with their anti-establishment views.

[Ben.]

I don't see a problem with IA going say a few weeks before NH, what is needed is a longer nomination process, in 04 Kerry won IA and then became pretty much a lock for the nomination thanks to the compressed primary time table.

I think all that is needed really is a more spaced out time table, no real major changes in the order of the contests so to speak, IA then three or four weeks later NH and then two or three weeks later three or four southern states including SC, from there on pretty much follow the same time table... you need to make the contest more condusive to a competative race IMHO.   

[Speed of Sound]

So what will be the two states?  I'd say Mexico would work.

since when was Mexico a state?

[ian]

Thank goodness.  I vote for Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, or Kentucky--one of the most conservative small southern states to get a feel for what Democrats down here would like, and Arizona or New Mexico for the SW.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thank goodness.  I vote for Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, or Kentucky--one of the most conservative small southern states to get a feel for what Democrats down here would like, and Arizona or New Mexico for the SW.

Why should states that won't vote for us anyways get such a big say?

[ian]

Thank goodness.  I vote for Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, or Kentucky--one of the most conservative small southern states to get a feel for what Democrats down here would like, and Arizona or New Mexico for the SW.

Why should states that won't vote for us anyways get such a big say?

They know the kind of politicans that moderate persons are likely to elect.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thank goodness.  I vote for Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, or Kentucky--one of the most conservative small southern states to get a feel for what Democrats down here would like, and Arizona or New Mexico for the SW.

Why should states that won't vote for us anyways get such a big say?

They know the kind of politicans that moderate persons are likely to elect.

If they're not going to elect the guy why bother? Conservative Democrats like Carson of Oklahoma can win Democratic primaries there, but that doesn't mean they can win the general election. On the other hand, turnout for someone like Carson would be terrible in states that went for Kerry, so he'd probably lose some of those too.

[Alcon]

Thank goodness.  I vote for Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, or Kentucky--one of the most conservative small southern states to get a feel for what Democrats down here would like, and Arizona or New Mexico for the SW.

Why should states that won't vote for us anyways get such a big say?

They know the kind of politicans that moderate persons are likely to elect.

If they're not going to elect the guy why bother? Conservative Democrats like Carson of Oklahoma can win Democratic primaries there, but that doesn't mean they can win the general election. On the other hand, turnout for someone like Carson would be terrible in states that went for Kerry, so he'd probably lose some of those too.

It's not the state that's voting, it's the Democrats there, and they generally did vote for Kerry, especially those that voted in the primary.  Why should  we punish Democrats just for living in Bush states?

"Damn you far-lefter.  You get no say, because you live in Utah!"

[MissCatholic]

Oregon and Arkansas should be the two states added onto Iowa and New Hampshire.

Oregon is a solid moderate democratic state. It hasnt voted republican since 1984 in a national election. Arkansas has two democrat senators and contains alot of Conservative and Populist democrats. The democrats can win in Arkansas with the same kind of organisation as they have in Oregon.

[Democratic Hawk]

Oregon and Arkansas should be the two states added onto Iowa and New Hampshire.

Oregon is a solid moderate democratic state. It hasnt voted republican since 1984 in a national election. Arkansas has two democrat senators and contains alot of Conservative and Populist democrats. The democrats can win in Arkansas with the same kind of organisation as they have in Oregon.

As good as anything I could suggest

Dave