Skip navigation.
The Texas Blue
Advancing Progressive Ideas

Primary, Secondary, Tertiary

The calendar fight is officially on: last Tuesday, Democratic candidates Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Kucinich withdrew from Michigan's January 15th Democratic primary. Senators Clinton and Dodd have both announced that they will not campaign in Michigan for the primary with Senator Biden referring to it as a "beauty contest." There has been a similar lack of candidate enthusiasm over Florida's early primary date of January 29th and there were two lawsuits filed in the last two weeks over the DNC's refusal to seat Florida's delegates at the national convention next year due to their early primary date. As they say in sports, game on!

I am on record as not being a fan of the stranglehold that Iowa and New Hampshire hold on our nominating process. I have nothing personal against either state; in fact, I love New Hampshire and have never had anything less than a spectacular time there. At the same time, I maintain that it is not healthy for the only major political party in the United States with a dedication to diversity and plurality to rely on two extremely homogeneous filters to nominate its candidate. Take a quick look at these numbers (all numbers from 2005 from www.census.gov ):

Entity - %age Anglo - %age African-American - %age Hispanic - # top 100 fastest growing counties

Iowa - 95.8 - 2.8 - 3.5 - 1
New Hampshire - 96.9 - 1.3 - 2.04 - 0
United States - 74.7 - 12.1 - 14.5 - 100

Simply put, our party's nominating process is in the hands of a group of citizens who are not representative of our nation as a whole. Moving Nevada up in the primary calendar is a good start. The promotion of Nevada's caucus gives the West, a crucial area for Democratic gains in the short term and long term, a much needed highlight and gives our musty nomination process a critical shot of diversity. Here's how Nevada compares to Iowa, New Hampshire and the United States:

Nevada - 84.3 - 8.6 - 22.3 - 3

For more coverage of the much neglected Nevada caucus on January 19th, I encourage you to visit the Nevadan progressive site My Silver State.

I do not dispute that there are practical advantages to keeping Iowa and New Hampshire at the top of our electoral calendars. Compared to the exorbitant costs of campaigning in states with large media markets — early primary states like Michigan and Florida, for example — Iowa and New Hampshire are financial bargains for campaigns who operate on finite budgets and that have to take financial strategy into account. New Hampshire has the added advantage of geographic compactness. There is also a certain "politically professional" aspect to Iowa caucus goers and New Hampshire primary voters; they see more of the candidates and hear more of the rhetoric than any other two states in the United States. Indeed, advocates of maintaining both states' places as first in line at the political hog trough will point to the face-to-face contact and traditions that have made these two states' political situations unique. Finally, candidates are usually some of the most bombastic supporters of Iowa and New Hampshire maintaining their dominance over the nominating process.

Of course all the candidates are going to say Iowa and New Hampshire need to remain where they are in the calendar. Speaking the tough but honest truth to either state's voters would be about as popular as coming to Texas and urinating on the Alamo. Thanks again, Ozzy.

"So, Mr. Fancy Pants, what's your solution?" you might be thinking. I've got two ideas: My first idea is that I'd like to see a new primary or caucus shuffled around close to Iowa and New Hampshire each Presidential cycle. If the DNC allows Iowa and New Hampshire to dictate to the rest of the nation's Democrats, at least continue to mix in another state each Presidential cycle, thus expanding the franchise beyond the Iowa and New Hampshire elites so that this crucial piece of our democracy is, you know, participatory.

My second idea would be to expand the primary and caucus calendars so that Iowa and New Hampshire can hold their first-in-the-nation caucus and primary in mid-December and combine this with the caucus and primary shuffle in January. This way Iowa and New Hampshire get to keep their trophy statuses but the rest of us still get a chance to speak. A little time off over Christmas and New Years would mean that the rest of us get to take a better look at what happened in both states instead of having them make our choices for us the way it works under the contemporary calendar. If you add in a revolving shuffle of caucuses and primaries in January of each Presidential election cycle, you've expanded the franchise beyond Iowa and New Hampshire and empowered and given voice to millions of Democrats who would then go into that Presidential election year energized by their participation counting for something.

Put the democratic back in Democratic, DNC!

Syndicate content