Now, my understanding is that Michigan is holding their caucus on February 9, same day as we're holding ours in Nebraska. Are they planning on moving up earlier?

That the calendar has always increasingly compressed.  Iowa and NH were both first when Clinton lost the first 13! contests in 1992.  The difference was there was time to look at results and  re-evaluate who was in the race.

My solution has always been a mandatory break of three weeks between multi-state primaries after NH.

My calendar would be
Iowa 8 day break
New Hampshire 3 week break
A combination of 4 states 3 week break
A combination of 8 states a 3 week break
A combination of 8 states a 3 week break
All remaining states.

The combo of states would allow for a majority of delegates to be awarded on the final primary.

With proportional awarding of delegates and no super delegates to be allotted until after the primaries, any candidate with a reasonable financial and popular background would have a shot.  And "Momentum" would be reduced.

Thought they already moved to 1/29? Or maybe its not final yet?

...about how "it's so early." If the Iowa Caucuses are a little over eight months from now, it's not early.

why the hell not?

but let's have this be the very LAST time that those two states have such a powerful voice in this very important thing.

They are unrepresentative, overentitled and whiny.

-C.

We might as well have all the presidential primaries and caucuses the day after a mid-term election.  or perhaps two weeks before.

What a waste of time, money, and energy.

What was so wrong with the drawn-out schedule starting in February and ending in June?

one thing that hasn't been discussed much:

There are no absentee votes in an Iowa Caucus or under most Caucus systems.  On certain dates that effectively disenfranchises most students and many holiday travelers.  

The Backfire Factor

Chris made some good points but ignored the many, many ways the current or worse) front loaded calender could backfire.  One potential backfire is the lack of vetting during the shortened primary season. Frankly, I think this was a problem in 2004.  The nominee may not be tested enough during the process.  The media will do thier "character" stories AFTER the nominee is picked -- that is bad, though this time it could affect both parties.

Another potential backfire is the alienation of independents.  The front loaded system holds the vote before most regular voters will pay attention meaning that motivated partisans will form a greater part of the caucus/primary electorate.  That is mostly bad.  It means that candidates like Kerry, who had solid appeal with "regular" Democrats but who had less appeal to independents, do better.  I like open primaries as in Wisconsin and, with more hoops, New Hampshire.

One other potential backfire, off the top of my head, is the potential for Unity '08 Perot style wild cards.  Deciding the nomination soooooo early leaves PLENTY of time to organize a Perot style campaign.  That really could bite us (though it ended up helping Clinton in 1992).  Deciding the nominee later, say in May, leaves much less time to organize a half-baked alternative.

Anyway, at least in December it's usually before the worst of winter hits in Iowa & NH.

I do subscribe to the conventional wisdom that the front-loaded, pushed ahead system makes it very hard, if not impossible, for a little known challenger to emerge like Carter in 1976.  I think that is bad.  Chris is effectively on the side of the Democratic establishment which is politically allergic to little known challengers.

What are the odds at this point that Iowa and NH might move into December? Or even earlier?

Perhaps we could even have the first primary and caucus results by the Fourth of July.

Your system seems to suppose Michigan and Florida sit by if IA and NH move up.  That doesn't seem likely.  

I get to blame you!

:)

Any one else ready to tell New Hampshire and Iowa to just fuck off?  I'm tired of their whining...

They're all moving in the OPPOSITE direction... Our primaries should be wrapping up in Summer, we have the [meaningless] convention in late August, run a 2 month-long general campaign...

Under this, the primaries are gonna be stretched out between December and June, a July Convention, followed by a 3-4 month general campaign.... it's way too long, and costly.  Leave Iowa and NH in the front so those WATB will shutup, but push them all forward, into say March, or late February.  Move all the primaries closer to the general so there's less dead time in between.

This is just insane.

It's a well thought out idea, but they have calendars in NH and Iowa too. I think the reason this isn't going to happen is the precise reason you say it's a good thing - that the influence of the two early states will be reduced.

And for 2012, the primary system needs to be totally reformed. The national party should set the calendar  every four years, making sure everybody's vote counts in as many years as possible and that the cheaper and more representative states tend to come first, and anybody breaking the calendar should be told that their delegates won't have their credentials accepted at the convention.

This reminds of those logic games I had to take for the LSATs...