This is the most stupid and empty threat by DNC. They need to back off. I'm so tired of IA and NH.

All states should hold the election on the same day.

I bet that  -- after a lot of shouting -- that the DNC backs off the stupid idea to "punish" states like Florida & Michigan and that the seats in Denver will be very crowded.  In the end, the worst they will do is move the seats to the back of the hall & require the delegates from the bad boy states of the primary process to stay at the EconoLodge instead of the Brown Palace.

We're going to wind up with a 48-state national primary next time.  It just makes too much sense.

What probably makes the most sense is a random selection from among small states, for an early primary/caucus of 2 states in January, followed by a national primary, which in my opinion should happen at least 2 months later(I'd actually prefer May or June).
If a candidate wins, places or shows(or even outperforms expectations) at the 1st two states, then they are positioned to continue to the national primary.  If a candidate under-performs, then they either drop out or try to make a comeback in time for the national primary.

The devil is in the details, of course.

cable news networks are bad for democracy.

a rotating regional primary system where candidates are judged by direct questions from real people are better than

institutionalizing a system with whoever has the most money wins.

That was a politico piece, which has proven in the past to be utterly wrong about stuff.  This just may be a case of saber rattling and at the end they agree anyway.   I can't see the DNC jeopardizing our chances of winning Florida with grandstanding of the highest order.  The legislature (which is Republican) has spoken, something the Florida Democratic Party did not cause.  

I think they will give a one-time excemption, and then we have to go working on a better situation with the calendar.   An overwhelming majority of Americans don't like Iowa and New Hampshire always going first as it is.   It is outdated, outmoded and in need of change.  A rotation calendar of early states, changing from election to election, could be a worthwhile effort.

Jerome I have to disagree with you here.  Florida and Michigan are not states start-up candidates can compete in.  Having smaller media market retail states is better for our party.  We would have never had Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter if we allow these states to move early.  The election will be about name rec. and who has raised the most money.

I believe the the DNC delegates from both Florida and Michigan agreed to the original primary calendar last August. When you say Florida and Michigan should blow off the DNC what you are really saying is they should go blow themselves. What is the DNC? It's COMPOSED of  Democrats from the states.

The time to hash all this stuff out was at the DNC meeting where they made the calendar. Now a bunch of children all want to cut in line. And you're endorsing these states breaking their agreements. There's no higher principle involved than 'ME FIRST!'. How the hell are we supposed to find agreement on how to get out of Iraq if the NH Democratic Party, FL Democratic Party, SC Democratic Party, amd MI Democratic Party, can't even abide by agreements that they ratified? Nice work Florida and Michigan you juvenille assholes. And I'm in Florida. And New Hampshire? You are fucking ridiculous.

Is there any evidence that offending a swing-state has general election consequences?  I've seen this argument used both for and against Iowa/New Hampshire, and I'm wondering if it has any validity.  Without evidence, it just seems silly.

Forget the White House for a minute.  We are looking at some tough Congressional races there, and a possible pick up or two.

I will be seriously disappointed if the DNC makes a mistake with FL.

Jerome, this post is beneath you, not the least of which is you're relying on The Politico to make your case. This is stupidity.

Last April, there were 10 states plus D.C. that applied for the two "pre-window" primaries: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, D.C., Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia.

Florida for some reason did not take advantage of the opportunity to make their case. Therefore, the Florida Democratic Party has absolutely no basis on which to claim that their voters are being disenfranchised.

The decision of the Rules and Bylaws Committee to add Nevada and South Carolina to the pre-window period was approved by the full Democratic National Committee last August. Furthermore, the entire Democratic National Committee adopted the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Bottom line: Everybody knew the rules and voted to accept them. If anyone objected, those objections weren't made publicly.  Florida and Michigan should not be rewarded through a compromise for jumping the queue.

THis primary calendar is INSANE.  SIMPLY INSANE. What happens if on March 1, the Dem candidate is killed?  Or someone comes forth with something very very bad?  YOu can bet that the Repukeliscum are doing Oppo research at a furious rate, since they will have 10 MONTHS to expose it.

We need an EMERGENCY STOP on the madness NOW.  We must get back, for this primary season, to selecting delegates in April, May, June and July.  

We can no longer sit back and watch these FUCKING MORONS who run the state parties FUCK AROUND so FUCKING MUCH. They MUST BE STOPPED.

WHERE ARE THE ADULTS?  In Kindergarten, we all learned THAT ONLY 1 PERSON CAN BE FIRST!! WHY DOES NO ONE REMEMBER THAT?

My problem with this is that it seems to emphasize who is ever the frontrunner. My other problem with your post is that you seem to ignore the reality that campaigns are based on knowing the schedule. This chaos only again helps the front runner. If this had been known even a couple of years ago, fine. But months before primaries are set to begin is just bad for the decision making process. If you can explain why this is so important this election cycle where we are only 4 months away- then fine. But otherwise I don't get it. Frankly I've never gotten the argument but it would be nice to see how the restructuring you advocate will produce a better selection process.

First a hearty bravo to Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, and others for finally forcing a change on a terrible situation for the Democratic Party.  A world where Iowa doesn't have a stranglehold on the nominating process is a better one indeed.

Second, is there a reason people still believe Iowa and NH should be running the show?  It's not 1976 anymore.  The idea is to find the best Democrat to win the Presidency.  I don't know what the best system is, but I DO know that the one we have now is terrible and does a great disservice to Democrats.  Anything that changes it is for the better.

I am glad the issue is being discussed, and somewhat dismayed to think of the impact it will have next year. I agree that having Iowa and NH hold such influence over the process is absurd, but now with Michigan jumping into January this is just hurting the Primary process. I think Florida alone sent a strong enough message to party leaders.

Hopefully the DNC will take the concerns of the other states seriously now, and agree to some sort of randomized primary season that selects random states for various stages in the primary season. For everyone complaining about how this is going to shorten the primary season, one of the major problems with IA/NH system is that last time the primary season was essentially over by the time they chose who will be the nominee. That doesn't make for a very long primary season, and Republicans were already throwing dirt on Kerry around by March.

Winning matters more than delegates.  Even if the DNC strips FL and MI of delegates, the fact that a candidate won those states will mean more for Super Tuesday than the delegate count.

For example, if Hillary wins IA, NH, MI, and FL she is going to be the nominee even if Obama wins SC and gets strong seconds elsewhere to have a delegate count lead.  

The DNC and RNC have not dealt with this problem, which has been growing and growing over the last 20 years.  Now that it is a crisis, the DNC is going to try to stick its finger in the dyke, even though water is pouring over the top.

the people in power have blown off the needs of Americans. Everyone's rushing to election, hoping to get this administration over with sooner.

Living in ME, I can tell you the only thing special about NH over any other place is the landscape.

While I logically believe the argument that smaller media markets make for more opportunity for unknown candidates, the reality isn't that way particularly because of our rush to election day and the end of the Bush regime.

If anything, this is more of an argument for nationally-funded campaigns instead of putting politicians in the seat of being perpetual fund raisers.

Between this primary mess and lackluster fund raising I am less and less impressed with Dean. He lost control of the primary process early and does not have the authority or enough respect among state party officials to clean it up.

From NJ:  But FL's "lone member" on the rules cmte "says he's braced for the worse." DNC rules cmte member Allan Katz: "I'll go in and do whatever I need to do and get run over... With the Michigan announcement they (committee members) really don't have much of a choice. They can't just slap us on the wrist." Katz expects that FL Dems will have to "regroup" and "possibly use a later caucus" to choose its delegates (House, Tampa Bay Online's "March on Politics" blog, 8/21).

I question the political judgement of anyone that actually thinks Iowa isn't going to be the first caucus/primary.

Not.  Gonna.  Happen.

Jerome,

I don't think that you "get it" on this one, I have to disagree for a number of reasons:

1)    The Florida REPUBLICAN legislature passed moving their primary up and it was signed by the REPUBLICAN governor.  Tell me for one second that they didn't know the target was to muck up the Democratic primaries.  Force candidates to spend money in a high cost state and get the Democrat they think they can most likely defeat.

2)    Florida still has to prove to me that they can hold an honest election, (or at least an honest ballot count).  They failed in 2000 and 2006.

3)    Retail politics is really the only way for an `unknown' candidate to create awareness that can translate to the national stage.  Better to be in a lower cost state (more on that later).

4)    Michigan is just getting greedy.

5)    The current insanity of moving targets for the Primaries just depletes the resources of any and all campaigns, making the one with the most money the winner. (gee, guess who...duh)

6)    The DNC would be justified in not seating the "jump ahead" delegates as a way to maintain order in the party.  Florida and Michigan can hold a "beauty contest" on the legislated date and choose the real delegates on the Party's date.

7)    It's just too damm late in the cycle to start to muck up things like this.   It takes the eye off the ball of the other REPUBLICAN initiatives (i.e. California Electoral Voting changes) designed to throw the Dems off balance. Instead of fighting the new threats while they can still be killed without a massive economic effort.

Conclusions:

Iowa and New Hampshire are on their last legs as #1 and #2.  The next rule change has to put the leading primaries in the states that had the closest voting margin in the last cycle.  Enforced by not seating delegates if a legislature jumps ahead (this is why the DNC needs to not seat those delegates if they jump ahead this cycle).   If Iowa and New Hampshire ignore this the next cycle they get the honor of not having their delegates seated either.  (Can you say `tough love'?)

Primaries determined by voting margin also helps reinforce the 50 State Strategy of the DNC, you never know which race will be closest until it happens.

If the margins dictate a high cost state, then so be it.  Just another factor in the run/don't run decision.

This legislative rush to encroach on party activities is just nuts.  There is a way to change the Primary Calendar; this (legislative moves) is not it.  But, it can be used as the opening for the DNC to have rotating first primaries based on voting margin, and enforce the point.

Gee Jerome,

Have you ever thought that the DNC is just trying to keep some level of democracy intact?

That by preserving IOWA and NH and not letting rogue states upset the primary process RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THING just for some national attention....the DNC might actually be achieving something good?

You can't change the game this drastically and still expect some of your second-tier candidates to really make a go at it.