Posted on 03/11/2006 1:12:17 PM PST by RWR8189
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats agreed Saturday to a plan that would shake up their presidential selection process by placing racially diverse states early in the voting. They left room for plenty of debate about the details.
One or two state caucuses would be moved ahead of New Hampshire under the plan the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee accepted in principle. That could cause a confrontation with New Hampshire, traditionally the site of the nation's first presidential primary.
"This was the crucial step," said Alexis Herman, a co-chair of the committee. "Now we will have a debate on which states and the size of those states."
Under the plan, accepted on a voice vote, the Iowa caucuses in January would remain the first contest for presidential candidates. Then would come the additional caucus or caucuses, followed by the New Hampshire primary. One or two more primaries would be added before the calendar was opened to all states in early February.
Minorities have been pushing for more of a voice in the early voting, noting that Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white. The new early states could come from the South and West to provide regional diversity as well.
New Hampshire officials were watching closely. Kathleen Sullivan, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, voted against the plan Saturday.
"We will preserve our tradition," New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner said in an interview on Friday. Gardner said he will eventually consider whether he must move up the state's primary to comply with a New Hampshire law that requires it to be scheduled a week or more before any "similar election."
Democrats hope to avoid triggering such a move by specifying that one or two additional "caucuses" be held before New Hampshire. 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 broader voting population casting ballots at many polling places.
States that bid to be in the early voting will be considered based on their racial and ethnic diversity, geographic diversity and economic factors such as the level of union membership.
Several Democrats on the panel suggested that the party should wait and have more discussion before giving preliminary acceptance to the proposal.
However, Donna Brazile, one of the party's most prominent blacks, said: "The word 'wait' brings back bad memories. ... I'm not about waiting any more."
LOL! THEY HAVE TO!
they have NO MONEY!
they need it ALL for the Primaries!
Soros et al.. has all the MOOOOLAH!
LOL! I LOVE THEIR STUPIDITY!
I hope they pick Georgia. I can vote in the dem primary.
I'm no longer worried about the Democrats winning the next Presidency or taking control of the House.
I'm all for ending the stranglehold that Iowa and NH have on the process.
As a step in that process I give a thumbs up to this plan.
Alexis Herman, co-chair of the committee, was Clinton's Labor Secretary.
I wonder if Hillary's worried about not winning Iowa or New Hamshire?
Democrats say, "Not enough dead people vote in New Hampshire."
or New Hampshire for that matter.
Or felons.....
My guess is that the State of Baja California would be The Former Twelfth Lady's first choice.
Amen to that..especially the NH GOP voters..I was done with them when they voted for Pat Buchanan over Dole in 96..I know Dole had an uphill battle, but to vote for Buchanan when he had absolutely no chance of being President showed they are way too reckless with the "first" primary..
How starting things off with a Washington DC caucus? Jesse and Sharpton would love that. Heck, maybe Cynthia McKinney could be the frontrunner.
I live in California and I'm seriously considering switching to Democrat so I can vote in their primaries. I can still vote GOP in the election, if I choose.
I figure I can achieve two things; I might be able to help keep communist Dems off the ballot - AND I can send a signal to the worthless Calif. GOP party that they are losing voters.
Wasn't it McAwful who was all over TV saying that "early primaries" did them in in 2000, 2002, 2004 - and they're still going to do it.
This kind of stupidity is mind-boggling!
No, it isn't. This is about Hillary locking herself in. Only she will have the funds to compete in every early state under this advanced schedule. There'll be no time for anti-Clinton sentiment to coalesce around someone else.
I live in MD, and I was a registered Dem for the same reason. I finally recognized that was a bad idea here. First of all, I wasn't able to help the best GOPers get into the pipeline. And that's important. Secondly, the GOP Nat'l party doesn't provide much help to candidates in "hopeless" states (nor do I think they should), and counting as a Dem made it seem more hopeless.
Also, none of the Dem candidates ever were anyone I preferred to the others. I feel better voting for a losing GOPer than I ever did voting for a winning Dem.
Think twice before you change. Then a third time if you are still considering it. :-)
The primaries were too early in the year already--now they're planning to make a bad schedule even worse.
In practice in recent elections the candidates are usually thinned out in a matter of a few weeks, and the nominee-to-be is clear about April, so there's about seven months before the general election. That's an awfully long time and may be part of the reason for the increasing partisanship and polarization in our country, and for people to get fed up with politics altogether.
But the effect of this new scheme will be to overweight the leftwing crackpots even more than they are now, because that's who the black and hispanic and feminista activists will support.
After 1968 the 'rats jiggered their convention and delegate selection setups to appease angry blacks like Julian Bond, and the result was to nominate radical George McGovern in 1972. This latest re-arranging of the deck chairs should have similarly amusing results in 2008.
Alexis Herman, just another Clinton era crook.
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/08/herman/
And before that, there was this...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v29/ai_19279945/pg_3
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.