I think many in both parties are so disgusted with NH and Iowa. Both states seem to be full of populations that are incredibly pampered, incredibly indecisive despite countless pathetic encounters with candidates, self serving and thus perpetuating their indecisiveness, unwilling to listen to the voices in the rest of the country,, totally non-representative of the general USA population, and prone to take themselves way too seriously. It will be so much better when NH and Iowa are given less influence in the process.
I am glad Clinton and Obama are balking at going to the debate. It is pathetic to watch the constant groveling of candidates to all things NH and Iowa. The pork both states get as a result is wildly unbalanced, unethical and both populations love it but would never admit it. (Just watch in the reactions to this) If Clinton and Obama refuse to go to the debates it will make me more likely to consider one of them for the nomination.

However, the arrogant, smug, blowhard conservatives on the editorial page at the Manchester Union Leader are a bunch of hypocrites (criticizing Obama but not McCain for saying the same thing, for example), and they deserve all the criticism and vitriol you can send their way.

Obviously Clinton and Obama are going to appear at a debate in New Hampshire -- the Union Leader just saw an opening to criticize them in the most ridiculous terms possible.

They're probably still crying over the 2006 election results in NH, where Dems have started carrying all of the important races.

btw, I have to agree that your characterizations of the voters of New Hampshire at least are pretty unfair, and New Hampshire really doesn't reap as much benefit out of their early primary as Iowa does. They certainly aren't getting massive agricultural subsidies for ethanol, for example. Google for a list of federal expenditures by state.

"In fiscal year 2004, New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota received substantially more from the federal government than they paid in taxes, while New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Illinois paid much more in taxes than they received in spending."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html

Here's another chart:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_expend/percapita.html#table

It's just too darned early for these petulent outbursts and temper tantrums. The media talking heads are the ones who are spoiled.

While our Constitution guarantees free speech, it does not follow that one is guaranteed an audience.

I'm a bit weary of the media types making themselves the story too. Geez, turn down the volume on these guys. Don't amplify their silliness by repeating it. They get their ratings from response, whether positive or negative. Quit taking the bait.

Look NH and IA are well meaning but spoiled states that reap the political benefits (with influence for example) of an outdated primary system. I am a strong Dem supporter who has found that these views are shared by many (my guess is the majority) in the party structure and general public in the rest of the country.
Of course many people in both states are kind, considerate, interested, involved people. That's not the point.
But many voters there have also met candidates several times yet still ask banal questions that they could find out on their own and get all-to-often upset and "offended" by the slightest turned back, or perceived "insult" on the part of a candidate or campaign. The rest of the country is lucky to get a glimpse of a candidate. And has to pay a lot to see them at events like the one I just attended.
The pandering by candidates to these two primarily lily white states is not in the interests of the Democratic party. How many minorities are in both states?
I absolutely think it is detrimental to the Democratic party to continue to let these two well-meaning but "politically spoiled" and non-representative states keep thinking they have to control and unfairly influence the primary process.
The argument many there make is that they (unlike many other states) are active, informed, and take it seriously. This might be true but it is not Democratic or a good reason. And in fact it's Autocratic in nature. It is also patronizing and condescending. They want to keep the rest of us from having a more equal say and then turn around and say they are doing our work for them by asking the tough questions for the rest of us in the country. It is condescending and smacks of the Elites knowing better than the rest. Fine maybe they do. But then why have a general election? After all, one can then just let the "informed and concerned" voters choose. Remind anyone of the views many men had towards voting rights for women in the late 19th century?
If they really wanted the rest of us to be as represented, they would not make these ever more pathetic attempts at keeping the primary system in it's current time table. (Kind of reminds many in the party of unrepresentative governments hanging on to outdated power structures).
Let the rest of us have a chance at repeatedly asking dumb questions, deciding how to vote based on a perceived insult, handshake, knowledge of the price of milk (how about the price of cars (MI)or sugarcane (FL), etc., etc.,), and seeing the candidates many times and still get offended when they don't spend 10 minutes talking to us each time we demand it.
Sorry the reader was appalled but you might want to ask people active in the party what they actually think of the current process and the attempts by both states to cling to their positions of unequaled influence and power. You might be surprised how many agree with the views here. As already stated, this is not a critique of the "character" of the people in both states.
NH is a beautiful state with wonderful people. Been there countless times and have strong roots in NE. But, again, that's not the point. the point is one of unequal influence and power in a democratic process.

AG67
"Let the rest of us have a chance at repeatedly asking dumb questions, deciding how to vote based on a perceived insult, handshake, knowledge of the price of milk (how about the price of cars (MI)or sugarcane (FL), etc., etc.,), and seeing the candidates many times and still get offended when they don't spend 10 minutes talking to us each time we demand it."

Apart from the fact that this is no way near reality. I've been to many candidate events and (I can only speak of the Democratic side) I've never heard a question about the price of milk (if you know something about NH you should know that we're more a high-tech than agricultural state) or any other trivial matter of that kind. Most issues brought up are national in scope and taken seriously.

Also, apart from some politicians who feel they have to fight for the primary, I really don't know anyone who would be tearing out their hair if NH no longer had the first primary. Believe me, if NH loses the primary, little here will change.

Whether or not democrats in the rest of the country like the current set up and want to change it--fine with me, but the arguments you give for change based on the attitude of NH folk toward the candidates... Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about.

My guess is that you're seeing the primary through the eyes of the media. And the danger with a massive up front primary is that the media and the wealthy would own it. Talk about unequal influence and power in the democratic process.

Here's my plan to fix the primaries and improve American democracy at the same time:

The state with the highest percentage of voters in the previous presidential election gets to go first, the next highest gets to go second, etc.

If we set it up and announce it ahead of time, Iowa and New Hampshire could retain their first in the nation status simply by convincing their citizens to vote in the election.

If we went by results of 2004, the highest percentage voters were in Minnesota, then Wisconsin, then Maine, then New Hampshire, then Alaska, then South Dakota, then Iowa. They were in the 70-77% range. The U.S. average was 61%. Lowest turnout? Hawaii, under 50%.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2004.htm

I really didn't intend to argue that NH citizens were by character more engaged in politics, but to point out that we were not by virtue of our primary a bunch of spoiled elitists living off the pork and power that being first supposedly brings with it.

Nevertheless being a relatively small state with a 400 member legislature (that's about 1 rep for every 2000 or so adults) and a tradition of town meetings, I would guess that an individual voter is more likely to feel that he or she can actually make a difference and therefore more likely to be engaged and to vote.

Voter turnout statistics simply cannot be trusted. Some states lacked the will and/or the funds to do proper database matchups to purge their lists of mobile voters. Florida is only one example. If you're in a university town with those highly mobile college graduates who are also registered to vote, the number that these stats are based on is always inflated so turnout stats appear much lower than they actually are. Same thing in poor, mostly urban, areas.

It only seems like a good idea on the surface.

OK, well, we'll have to work to improve voter turnout statistics as part of the package. States will actually have an incentive to improve their statistics in order to hold an earlier primary, especially now that pretty much every state politician recognizes the power of having an early primary.

The question also isn't whether this plan is perfect but rather whether it's better than what we currently have, which is massively unrepresentative and now front-loaded in a way that's just silly.

Who is looking forward to a general election campaign that lasts from Feb. 6 until November 4?

Hi boys!
ae81f99fe190f30445c436fa8c86b918