i hate men's egos...

Why don't we move all the primaries up, to say, next week. Then have the general election the next week and get rid of bush/cheney early. What do you say Dems?

I smell a rat, all this moving around of primaries has to be the making of some candidate in paticular, why can't every state have they're primary on the same day?

What they NEED to do is to move back the IDIOCY to about APRIL 1 (appropriate day)  SOME OF US ARE "POLITICED OUT" NOW

The Brits allow a 90 day campaigning session (not 500)

Why not hold all primaries on April 1st. ?

Have I mentioned that this is just ridiculous?  Forget having primaries at Thanksgiving; we'll be having them by Columbus Day at this rate.  I don't understand why all of these states can't just sit down and make a schedule that is acceptable to everyone, and stick to it.  It seems like we have a bunch of greedy children making these decisions.

I hate politics, I hate politicians. ego, ego, ego...me..me..me.. What has happened to working for the good of the State, the good of the Country?  Get rid of them all!

I hate politics, I hate politicians. ego, ego, ego...me..me..me.. What has happened to working for the good of the State, the good of the Country?  Get rid of them all!

I don't think holding all primaries/caucuses on the same day is a very wise idea.  The nominating process, including the primary contests, serve as a "weeding out" of the candidates who don't have the popular support.  If you make everything on one day, you eliminate the vetting that is done via this process.  

We really need to shorten the campaign length - there should not be any primary elections more than 6 months before the general election - 90 days for primary and 90 days for general campaigning. That would be very sufficent, and would reduce the amount of torture for the American People

MK, the question is, "why all of a sudden does it have to be changed this year."  What is so special about this year that everybody has to move their primaries up."  

Thats an excellent idea Blue state baby .... i have one more suggestion ..lets get rid of the electoral college and the person with the most votes wins :).

Why not pic the names out of a hat

I am sick and tired of New Hampshire having all this power.  Who lives in this state?  Why do they get first shot at the primaries?  All I see are hicks in the sticks when I watch the news about NH.  CALIFORNIA has more people and  more representation.  We deserve the primary title or a type of National Primary.  This will promote nationwide competition for the nominations.  

Think about it:  We have already had almost 8 months of campaigning since Obama officially joined the race, completing the "Top Tier" candidate pool of Clinton, Edwards and Obama.  In 8 months (and countless debates) we have only just now gotten to see the candidates forced to fully explain their positions.  Obama is having to fiercely defend his foreign policy proposals, Edwards is having to explain his legitimacy , and Clinton is being put to the test each week to see if she is really the well-rounded candidate her political machine claims she is.  I, for one (and maybe only one) am grateful for a system that puts candidates through the ringer.  90 days is fine for the British, but they aren't the sole Superpower and do not have the responsibility an American President does.

The problem is that small states, (Iowa, New Hampshire, etc) get ignored unless they're early.  Now the big states are crashing the early primary party.  The only solution; the RNC and DNC must force five to seven regional primary dates two or three weeks apart in the spring of each general election cycle.  

What this is doing is making BIG MONEY more important than ever.
Iowa and New Hampshire allowed candidates without big special interest backing to compete.
With a bunched set of primaries candidates need money to compete in multiple media markets.
This is a BAD thing!!
It only benefits the special interests.
No national primary, please.
By paring the field, little by little we get a clearer picture of the remaining contenders.
Leave it to the politicians !!

I Like Blue State Baby's suggestion, although I think the Constitution may throw a wrench in that plan. Yes I know that Bush/Cheney don't feel a need to follow the Constitution but, call me old fashioned, I think we should. Anyway, this has just gotten over-the-top stupid. Not just regular-stupid. By the time we're done with this leap-frogging, Iowa will be voting in October. Hmmm. Think of it this way, they could just hold causus/halloween parties. Probably do wonders for turnout.

If all primaries are on one day then due to resource allocation the candidate with the most money will win.  The battle becomes one of national TV rather than local, retail politics in small manageable states.

Have the party leaders pick the nominees in the back of smoke filled rooms the way it used to be done. Can't do any worse and would cost a lot less money. Not necessarily a serious thought.

Can someone tell me why it matters when Mr. Levin wants the primary election?  If he is up for re-election which I doubt that he is, do you really think that he would loose?  Wish he would.  The primary and election should be as what was once called election year - Not election two years.  This is now one whole Congressional term, what a waist.

Why should NH and IA have this power? How relevant are farm subsidies to the big picture? Michigan, Ohio, and Florida are the big battleground states. The real test should be if you can carry those.

Ideally, we would have a rotating system of dates, so that in 2008 IA, NH, SC, NV are first; in 2012 maybe OH, RI, AL, WA are first. Spread it around, and spread it out.

Who cares about the process.  We should instead be worried about this war and why it continues, this President and Vice President (and AG) and why they just got new powers to spy on Americans, why neither party is putting an end to the Alternative Minimum Tax, why we are spending nearly a trillion dollars on Iraq while our own superstructure erodes, why corporate America is selling our wage earners, endangering our children, pets and mine-workers, why we have no guarantee of adequate healthcare in America...we need Clinton, Obama and Edwards to GUARANTEE that these things will be fixed in their first two years in office or they will step down from the job or at least guarantee they won't run for re-election.  They should partner with us - the American people. If they do, I don't care when we annoint them the candidate.

New Hampshire has the first primary since it is one of the best places to live in the country.  It has the Atlantic Ocean, the White Mountains, Lake Winnipesaukee within it and Boston is less than an hour drive.  There is no income tax or sales tax.  The state runs the liquor stores so you can get all of your hard alcohol for a good price whenever you want it.  Grocery stores can still sell beer and wine though, even on Sunday.  You're allowed to own a gun without having to worry about someone turning it on you.  The people here are well educated, friendly and open minded.  The summers are nice for the beach or kayaking.  The fall foliage brings awesome colors.  The winter is great for skiing and snowboarding and the spring time is just great.  NH doesn’t have much traffic or collapsing bridges and tunnels like other states and our neighbors (Mass, Maine, Vermont and Canada) help us out when we need it.  If you were a candidate why wouldn’t you want to come here first?

I agree, the primaries definitely need to be moved back (not forward).  On the other hand, we need some early states due to the financial aspect.  It would be more difficult for less wealthy candidates to run a completely national election as opposed to running for a few early representative states.  For example,
Gov. Huckabee nor Edwards would not have the chance they do now.  Only the rich candidates could win.  Practicality will win the day won't it?

I agree with Steve Clark.  A rotating regional primary is the only waty.  Each presidential cycle a different region goes first.  Then no states will feel that they are being left out.  I think that the delegate system works well for the nominating process.  And while I respect what Iowa and New Hampshire does, I do not beleive that they are representative enough to hold this kind of power.  However, I would support allowing these two states to hold there primaries along with the first region each year to carry on tradition and teach the other early states how it is done.

They ought to have three primaries for each party all held on the same day. Hear me out on this. 2nd Tuesday in January all candidates are present nationwide, top 5 in each party advance (there's more than enough time for their general messages to get out). Then 2nd Tuesday in April you choose your three favorites from the top 5 in ranked order, top 3 advance. Then 2nd Tuesday in July you choose the winner of your party's primary of those top 3. So, in August or September you can have your conventions and it will give the winner who we know by now, time to select a running mate of his or her choosing to announce at the convention. Then you have until November to debate the other party's candidate. It is fair for the whole country to make their choices without some other state weeding them out and at the same time gives everyone a chance to eventually nominate who they think can beat the other party's winner which is really why the media appoints top tier people rather than US appointing them. We should have that responsibility, not the TV talking heads.

At least both political parties are taking the nomination process seriously this year and trying to make their own states important in the nominating process, I think that is wonderful. But please don't have any primaries/caucuses in 2007, that's just ridiculous

Regional primaries would be better with two caveats: we need fair, public financing of all candidates, and debates that are truly debates -- not Q & A sessions that lead to sound bites.  Lets get into the meat of what is going on that affects us all.  Maybe the result will be surprising!

This can be solved real easily, but the big states (like my own Texas) will hate it.  You have four primary dates, each with two weeks between them.  You take the bottom 12 states in population, and have primary 1, the the next 13 for primary 2, the next 13 for primary 3, then the top 12 for the last week.

Four primary dates, with increasing population each time.   That way the small states get some attention, and the big states all get a big day for "influence" all at once.

Daniel from Palmdale,
New Hampshire has some of the lowest barriers to getting on the ballot and the most liberal voting laws in the US.  You can't be turned away for having a criminal record and you don't have to wait 15 days to register as you do in your state.  As for New Hampshire voters being hicks: our Republican voters saw through Bush and did not vote for him in the 2000 primary like the California party.  California has the largest voting population but has not figured out a way to be especially pertinent in the primary process.  Don't blame NH for that.  

Daniel - California gets the most say in the general election.  Smaller states, which are not composed only of "hicks in the sticks", get completely ignored in the process if they are not allowed to hold primaries and caucuses earlier in the process.  In addition, whether you "big staters" want to admit it or not, states like Iowa and NH and SC and even NV tend to be more representative of the country as a whole than just California or NY.  

But hey, if the country really wants everything decided based on what California wants, by all means - move your primary up.  

Steve Clark - I am starting to think that the regional primaries are the way to go. Something's gotta give, because this is becoming completely insane.  

It must be nice that our state is going to use money it doesn't even have to pay for this. We have arguably the worst economy of any state, the highest unemployment of any state and yet we continue to spend money on worthless things. Granholm is turning into the worst Governor this state has ever seen. "Just wait 5 years and you'll be blown away", I'm still waiting.

I think Halloween would be good. We will be getting either a trick or a treat.

Jack: Dream on - we no longer a Superpower. Bush baby destroyed that along with the middle class.

Lewis Black has the solution to this nonsense Here is how he thinks we should pick a President. This is paraphrased from his "Red, White, and Screwed" HBO special. Buy it.

"First we throw a dart at a map. Then we fly a monkey with a parachute over whatever city was hit. When he’s over the city, we push the monkey out of the plane. The monkey hits the ground and walks around. The first person he holds hands with is our new president."

Primary early, primary later, I don't care. 'Cause whoever the new prez is they'll be too far to the right or left and I've got no use for either.

Steve Clark:

If you had five to seven regional primaries you would get a packaged candidate, and only those with the ability to raise huge sums of money, which usually come from special interest groups could compete. The way the system works right now non-incumbents are forced to do retail politics. Often up close unattractive personality traits come out that wouldn't come out in the type of packaged campaign that would be required with large regional primaries.

With respect to some small states would get ignored if there were regional primaries, actually most states would get ignored. The campaign would be large rallies, like they have during the general election.     Right now the candidate with the most money going into Iowa has an advantage, but not an unsurmountable advantage. Sen. Kerry's campaign was in financial trouble in December of 03, because donors believed the polls and weren't giving to him. He moved almost all his "human assets" into Iowa. And he took a mortgage on his house to fund ads, he still had fewer (but more effective) ads than Gephardt, Dean, and Edwards, and he won Iowa. Whether you think Kerry was the most electable of the 04 candidates or not, the point is a candidate has a chance to compete if the first two states are smaller states with less costly media (small population doesn't necessarily mean affordable)  than if there were five or seven regional primaries, especially as close together as you propose. Also the election does not have to be over after Iowa and NH. Iowa and NH do not always go with the same candidate, there is the incorrect perception that Iowa and NH decide the nomination. In 88 Iowa went for Gephardt, NH went with Dukakis (Gephardt would have had a better chance at beating Bush Sr. )In 92 no candidate came to Iowa because Senator Harkin was running, he came in first with 76.4%, uncommitted 2nd with 11% and Paul Tsongas (who won NH) came in 3rd at 4.1%  In 2000 Gore  won both IA and NH, I think he won IA by a larger margin. In 04 while Kerry won both IA and the neighboring state of NH, many candidates continued to challenge him (Edwards won So. Carolina)until Super Tuesday when he had enough votes for the nomination.  

SteveClark has a similar idea to the one I'd suggest.  Have three primary dates (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Tuesday in April?).  The 20 least populous states vite on the 1st date, the next 20 states by population vote on the 2nd date,and the 10 largest states vote on the 3rd date.  Any state not adhering will not have their primary sanctioned nir their delegates recognized.  This gives the smaller states an earlier primary, and an opportunity to have a greater affect on the outcome.

How about starting on March 4th with Iowa and New Hampshire.  They both want to be first, so they both can be first on the same date.  (If you think this is too late, remember that Robert Kennedy ANNOUNCED his candidacy the first week of March in 1968!)

Each Tuesday for the following 16 weeks there are 3 states having primaries.  Thus, the last primaries are on June 24th.  This gives 2 months for the candidates to get their troops rallied before the conventions at the end of August.  Then onto the debates and election.  

This would make sense as it still protects the vetting period needed and it allows for ample time after the primaries to get ready for the debates, conventions, and elections.

As an Iowan, I demand the Governor hold the Primaries tomorrow, after the Cubs game.

Hold a "primary lottery" in advance to spread them out.  So every election cycle would be different.  Iowa & NH would not control the fate of the nation every four years.  The primaries would be spread over 12 weeks, holding four of them per week, 48 total--leave CA & NY out--not enough people in those state.  

BTW:  Will all you Bush-haters give it a rest.  You'll be rid of him forever in 18 months; unless he pulls a Jimmy Carter and tries to cling to the spotlight forever doing idiotic things for the rest of his life.  There ought to be a rule that once your term as POTUS is over you have to retire to Alaska, Wyoming or South Dakota and keep your mouth shut.  You had your chance to do your damage, now shut up and let someone else take their turn screwing things up.

I echo the frustration with the current system. I would more than likely have voted for McCain in the 2000 Republican primary here in Washington, but by the time our day rolled around he had already been knocked out of the running.

What I'm wondering is, why not just do away with winner-take-all primaries? Let the delegates be awarded in proportion to the percentage of the vote each candidate gets. That would make the race potentially competitive right down to the convention.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa - Saying that California gets the most say in the general election is a bit short sighted.  In fact, nothing we EVER do in California (in regards to Presidential politics) seems to get any representation.  

Did you know, that in every general election the entire country has finished voting before our polls even close?  In fact, the press starts reporting exit polling results and projecting the frontrunner before most people even get off work to go and vote in our state.

The candidates, be they Dem or Repub, never come to this state to campaign for anything other than money - they treat us like a national ATM.  If California is so important, than why to Presidential Candidates NEVER even set up offices here?  They don't ... In '04, people were just dying to do whatever they could to get Bush out of office, and there was nowhere for them to volunteer.  Did you kow they don't even have free bumper stickers or buttons in this state?  We have to buy them from the national campaign offices to even let people know there is an election going on!!

The strategists say our state is only a media / mail state, so most people NEVER get to meet, let alone see A Presidential candidate in person, and this year is the first time in history that all of the Presidential candidates even came to our State Party's convention.

I could go on & on ... Yes, we may have the largest chunck of electoral votes; but if our voting populus doesn't turn out because it's perceived that the decision has already been made before they get to the polls, what kind of Democracy is that?

One of the great features of the national convention used to be the floor fights and deal making with the aim of selecting a candidate - Now, the candidate is anointed before the convention evens begins - What's the point- it just amounts to a rubber stamp of what has happened in the primaries!

Good!! Michigan is a much better cross section of America than Iowa or NH.  We have all economic backgrounds, urban, rual and suburban areas, and a wide variety of ethenic diversity.  It's time a state that represents all Americans gets to have a say in the process as opposed to the small slice of America represented in NH or Iowa.  Whoever wins in MI would probably be able to carry their party in the general election, because they will have to talk about all the issues important to the American people as we are a very diverse state.

This is a huge mistake for the enitre country. The purpose of the Primaries is to have a fair and steady process of elimination contest for chosing nominees for political parties. For States such as Michigan and Florida to push thier date up breaks the traditional process, all for the sake of making thoses states more important in the early nomination process. This means more campain dollars will go to that state.

This is also a way for Republicans who control the state legislatures to screw up the Democratic nomination process now because the DNC will be forced to exclude delegate votes from that state, thus disinfrachise the democratic voters in the nomination process. Why can't we just stick with the fair traditions instead of doing things for greed and politics? This is total travesty and MI and FL legislatures should be ashamed for this undemacratic stunt.

Why not have all the primaries on April 1st? After all, it is "April Fools Day".

Because a group of legislatures and a governor decided to boycott the system when they initially agreed to it, now Michigan voters are being denied their constitutional right to vote.  Not only is this outrageous, but it is crime and a violation of the very foundation on which this country was founded upon- the people's right to choose who they want to govern.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):