Is this good news?
Submitted by mad4clark on April 15, 2006 - 7:41am.
Virgin Islands | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming
I would think, yes!
Especially since Wes has already been approached by the Alabama Dem. Party about running, and I believe is still working with them on an overall Southern Strategy.
But...might this also mean, the candidates will be spread too thin, early on in the game?
Alabamians are going to move their primary to the first Tuesday of February, 2008. This would supposedly follow New Hampshire by a week. The week prior to New Hampshire would be a caucus (or two) still undecided (Nevada is the CW choice), and a week prior to that would be the Iowa caucus. It remains to be seen when Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina, which were the first Tuesday in Feb., after NH, in '04; and Michigan, which is reported to be potentially moving to this same 1st Tuesday of Feb. place their primaries; and there's also the '04 caucuses of New Mexico, North Dakota, and Washington that could be on this date; and there's been reporting of a Mountain West cluster on this early Feb. date that would potentially add Utah and Colorado to the date. Still early, and lots of shaking out to do, but it sorta looks like the first Tuesday in Feb, '08 is going to be the National Super Tuesday of '08. Jerome
(snip)
I'm sympathetic to the argument that extreme front loading of primaries only helps the well-financed and well-known candidates (I don't want to see 20 states vote on February 5th). Then again, strategic grassroots development in key early states that don't have an expensive media market can be more friendly to "outsider" and non-establishment candidates [Hint: Perhaps there's a reason Mr. Feingold has made a couple of trips to Alabama over this last year...].
Read the rest at MyDD
I love the Alabama bit, but the rest scares me.
This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.....Molly Ivins
Colorado is a caucus state. It changed a few years ago to save the state money. The state pays for elections, while the parties foot the bill for caucuses.
There are advantages and disadvantages of the caucus system relative to primaries.
Primaries take money. Caucuses take boots on the ground.
The good thing about caucuses is that a relatively small group of committed people can take over the caucus system.
The bad thing about caucuses is that a relatively small group of committed people can take over the caucus system.
Clark would have done well here. We were well organized.
But everybody who believe that a state such of Colorado had 27% support for Dennis Kucinich, please stand up.
That's what I thought.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Not much of an option is it? well let's hope they get their wits about them...I'm just not very comfortable with only feast or famine options
Alabama would be good, but in addition, so would a state with a real' diversity factor'. yea yea, I know...
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
it looks like "front loading" to me. Thus, it becomes all about money and inside party endorsements. And then there is this: I personally don't like caucuses. I run our town's caucus and understand how easily influenced those meetings are, and how non-representative they can be. The only advantage I can see for caucuses is the elimination of Diebold.
It would seem that anyone who is going to enter the fray best do it yesterday. How many days will it take to cover all of those states that vote within 2 weeks of each other?
Maybe I do know the answer: No.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley