Posted on 07/23/2006 5:52:40 AM PDT by Puppage
(Washington-AP, July 23, 2006 7:30 AM)_ In an attempt to satisfy complaints from minorities, Democrats moved toward adding Nevada and South Carolina in the early presidential voting lineup along with Iowa and New Hampshire to diversify the voters who select the party's nominee.
They added Nevada caucuses the Saturday after Iowa's leadoff caucuses, set for Jan. 14, but before the New Hampshire primary, set Jan. 22. A South Carolina primary was added a week after New Hampshire.
The Democrats did their utmost to satisfy everyone -- to little avail.
New Hampshire officials are miffed about the intrusion on decades of tradition as the first primary. Michigan officials think more states should have been added. And veteran Democratic strategists grumbled about unintended consequences.
"In our attempt to make everybody happy, we make nobody happy, "said Democratic activist Janice Griffin. "And we lose elections."
Members of the Democrats' rules and bylaws committee are betting that giving minorities more of a voice will help win elections. The changes definitely jammed up the early voting.
"I have real reservations about the whole system," said veteran party activist Harold Ickes, an ally of potential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. "It is just nuts. We are going to have an eight-month, general election campaign."
Former President Clinton, a half-dozen White House hopefuls and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch also have complained about the changes.
The full Democratic National Committee will have to approve during its August meeting in Chicago before the changes take effect.
The moves were praised by Alexis Herman, a co-chair of the rules panel, who said it was appropriate to make such changes "soon after the renewal of the Voting Rights Act" which protects the rights of minority voters. Almost a quarter of Nevada's population is Hispanic and more than a quarter of South Carolina's population is black. Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly white.
Along with choosing the two states allowed to go early before voting is open to all states, the rules panel considered whether to allow the voting to start Jan. 7 -- which critics said was too close to the holidays and wouldn't allow enough time for campaigning.
New Hampshire Democratic chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said starting Jan. 7 would have been more fair to early states and to candidates and would likely have made the changes more appealing to angry New Hampshire officials. "That's just one more negative to consider," she said.
New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner will have to determine whether the Democrats' actions comply with a state law requiring that the Granite State's primary be scheduled a week or more before any "similar election." He could decide to move the New Hampshire primary earlier to protect its status.
Jim Roosevelt, a co-chair of the panel, said placing a caucus before New Hampshire does not violate the state's law.
In a true caucus, voters attend lengthy meetings at a certain number of specified locations; such gatherings tend to attract party activists. Primaries are more like general elections, with a much broader voting population casting ballots at many polling places.
Blacks and Hispanics are important constituencies for the Democrats. Blacks made up 21 percent of the vote for Democrat John Kerry in 2004 and chose him over President Bush by a 9-to-1 margin, according to exit polls.
Hispanics made up 9 percent of the Democrats' support and leaned toward Kerry. Republicans won the support of roughly four in 10 Hispanic voters in 2004 -- their best showing yet.
Ten states plus the District of Columbia had applied for the openings: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina and West Virginia.
You Dems could have your primaries now, the day of the election, or never - it doesn't matter. This country will never give you a majority again as Dems have become the party of terrorist supporters, socialists, open borders, and anti-military.
It's actually funny and sad that one can count the number of 'trustworthy' democratic senators on 1 hand. Maybe one finger - Leibermann is the only one I can think of.
I have always thought that politicians rushing to New Hampshire( A litle piss ant state full of liberals) for their early primary was kind of nuts. Like New Hampshire is the Nielson State and whatever it does the nation is going to do. Its a joke , it has been for a long time and now other democrats want in on the joke.
Actually, you're thinking of Vermont.
NH is fighting a battle for its conservative life, lots of conservatives there (mostly the natives). NH is where Vermont was 20 years ago - an influx of NY and Boston liberals is tilting the balance of their electorate.
Keep using North East to litmus test your candidates. Please.
"It's actually funny and sad that one can count the number of 'trustworthy' democratic senators on 1 hand. Maybe one finger - Leibermann is the only one I can think of."
Is it any coincidence that Lieberman is the one who has lost the most favor with Dems?
Not only that, but dems tend to follow their marching orders--don't think, just vote for who we say to vote for.
The winner of the NH Primary doesn't always go on to win the nomination...
--1992: Paul E. Tsongas defeated William J. Clinton
--1984: Gary W. Hart defeated Walter F. "Fritz" Mondale
--1972: Edmund S. Muskie defeated George S. McGovern
--2000: John McCain defeated George W. Bush
--1996: Pat Buchanan defeated Bob Dole
Candidates from Mass. tend to do well, with those Boston TV station beaming into the state (and lots of ad time bought
on NH stations like WMUR-TV 9). Will this help Willard Mitt
Romney in '08?
Meanwhile on the GOP side, a classic NH Primary moment.
Brittanica.org:
"Reagan bounced back after a notable performance in a debate with other Republican candidates in Nashua, New Hampshire. The debate, initially sponsored by a newspaper, was first extended to only Reagan and Bush, but Reagan decided to pay for the debate and invite the rest of the candidates. When all the candidates took the stage that evening, the Bush team appeared surprised, and, as Reagan began to explain the situation, the moderator from the newspaper instructed that Reagan's microphone be turned off. Reagan responded memorably with an angry line he remembered from a Spencer Tracy movie: “I am paying for this microphone!” Reagan went on to win New Hampshire and most of the other major primaries and entered the convention with a commanding lead; he won the nomination on the first ballot with 1,939 votes to 37 for John Anderson and 13 for Bush, who had withdrawn from the contest before the vote."
I am trying to understand Bill Clinton's angle. He is against this, but wouldn't moving more diverse(particularly African-American) states ahead help his wife?
Unless he thinks there are a lot of ultra liberals in these states that would vote against Hillary and for Feingold.
If Clinton is against it, than I am all for it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.