Democrats Alter 2008 Nominating Calendar

[motivez]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Democrats juggled their traditional presidential nominating calendar on Saturday in a bid to energize Hispanic and black voters essential to the party's chances for recapturing the White House in 2008.

The Democratic National Committee inserted Nevada party caucuses five days after the Iowa caucuses and three days before the New Hampshire primary, the long-time kickoff events in the presidential campaign season.

The party also scheduled South Carolina's primary for as early as a week after New Hampshire's.

The idea is to give Hispanics and blacks -- critical Democratic constituencies -- a bigger role in the early stages of the nominating process. Advocates say it will force candidates to broaden their campaigns beyond the concerns of voters in predominantly white and rural New Hampshire and Iowa.

The party sought states that would "put on full display in the delegate selection process the Democratic Party's rich ethnic, racial, regional, economic, religious and, yes, philosophical diversity," said U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat.

Critics argue that the process will be so compressed that the party's nominee could be decided by early February before most states, especially the biggest ones, get a chance to vote.

The calendar juggling angered New Hampshire Democrats, who objected that it would produce a weaker nominee by forcing candidates to traverse the nation rather than focusing on the New England state's tradition of one-on-one politicking that tests candidates' mettle.

"If I thought this would give us back the White House, I would support it," state party chairman Kathy Sullivan said during the brief debate that preceded a swift voice vote overseen by Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean.

States have been pushing their primary election dates forward for years, although Iowa and New Hampshire, two relatively small states, have kept their primacy. Iowa has gone first since 1972.

Under the Democrats' new schedule, Iowa will hold its caucuses January 14, followed by Nevada's caucuses on January 19, the New Hampshire primary on January 22 and South Carolina's primary held not before January 29. The window would open for other states after February 5.

Both parties have wide-open presidential races, with Republican President George W. Bush required to leave office after serving the two-term limit.

A dozen states vied to move up in the Democrats' nominating process, and 10 made presentations at a party meeting earlier this year.

Republicans have left their process untouched, essentially leaving it to the states to schedule their primaries or caucuses.

Some New Hampshire Democrats have threatened to advance their primary into 2007, but the party enacted another rule to deter states from jumping ahead on the schedule.

Any candidate who campaigns in a state that violates the schedule would be penalized by having convention delegates withheld.

Nevada and South Carolina are part of a broad swathe of the West and South that gave a majority to Bush, though Democrats believe they have a chance to capture states in the Sun Belt.

Nevada, which gave Bush a narrow 51 to 48 edge in 2004, is the nation's fastest-growing state, with nearly one-quarter of its 2.4 million people of Hispanic origin. Many swell the ranks of Democratic-leaning unions that serve the entertainment industry.

So, this seems like a good idea.

I never liked the idea of the same few states with such a similar population makeup playing such a huge role over and over when there are other states that better represent the population of people who will vote.

Sure, it kinda sucks for them to have their importance lessened, but ultimately I think it'll lead to a candidate that's chosen by a wider swath of voters.

Too bad they didn't pick NC instead of SC, I'd love to see more campaigning here.. but I guess we're not all that important

I hope that it doesn't cause some sort of rift within the party before the election though, but with them saying convention delegates will be withheld for candidates who violate, I don't see that there's much choice.

[Thorgrim]

I wanted VA instead of SC...and also isn't NC a lot less conservative than SC?

I think NH is perfect because its small and used to campaigns, it really tests a candidate...i never thought Iowa was a particularly good choice, they should scrap that...NH already has enough white people

NH should be the first primary, but it should be surronded by a light red southern state (SC is way too red) and light red SW state (I guess Nevada applies but I would prefer Arizona or NM) and a light red rust belt state like Ohio

have primaries where the party is on the cusp of being popular, that way the candidates it chooses will be the ones most likely to win those states in 2008

[motivez]

I don't know if I'd say a 'lot' less conservative than SC, but certainly less conservative.

I guess it's really what you want out of a primary.. what do you consider "testing" a candidate?

I'd prefer to get a candidate that has the best shot of winning in the general election rather than someone who can play nice with the locals in NH and eat their stupid chilli or whatever..

I think the most hotly contested states like Florida, Ohio, should play a big role.. although that makes it a bit more difficult for the candidates because the states are bigger.

[Thorgrim]

problem with putting hot states like Florida up first is that hot states change from year to year...remember Illinois was hotly contested in the 60s, 70s and 80s some southern states, 90s had Montana and Georgia up for grabs

all those states are either DEEP blue or red now

[ballz2wallz]

can someone explain this in a more generic layman's terms? i'm not sure what all this means...

[dpakman91]

saw this one and initially thought it would be a good idea, but in reality i think that it will depend on turnout...as everything always tends to. the registered democrats in those states may not be USED to the important of their state in primaries, so there's no telling how things will play out.

[Diesel66]

Never understood why the primaries are so screwed up. If a candidate does bad in Iowa (but arguably could do great in every other state) his campaign is over.

[motivez]

Who lives in Iowa anyway?