Hubby and I were talking...why not start primaries in the South?

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

I'm sure this has been brought up before, right?

[Gloria]

1. Hasn't Alabama or Arkansas moved theirs up to around the

time of NH/Iowa? I forget which, but one of them did very recently.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Arkansas - they will be third.

[DesEtoiles]

2. I like it - log your idea at www.democrats.org

[mitchtv]

3. sure why let CA or NY have any say?

No leadership to red states please

[lastknowngood]

4. We already have republicans selecting our candidates that

would only make it worse. If Al Ga and Miss pick our pres canidate then their won't be any reason to have a dem party anymore.

[iwantmycountryback]

6. How about starting in diverse states?

Instead of lily white Iowa and New Hampshire. Maybe not huge states like California and New York, but maybe... New Jersey and Maryland.

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. Why don't we start primaries on the West Coast?

Hell, at least then a Progressive candidate could get a decent head start before the DLC and the mediawhores started attacking.

[Selatius]

8. Why not have a nationwide primary?

What prevents this from happening? Is it due to logistics?

[EST]

9. How much fuss do you suppose it would take to get

a simultaneous primary, say about the first of June, shorten the season by three months, increase the actual participation of the smaller, less well-heeled seeker after public service by reducing the amount of corporate largess required to finance the whole shebang. How can we go about accomplishing this (IMO) essential step?

The electoral process will most likely look totally different in the medium range future, if it is to survive at all. May as well get started now, rather than at some nebulous date, down the road.