DNC adopts imaginary primary calendar with Iowa on Feb. 1st

[Mr. Morden]

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=mXrw9Ty5

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is pure fantasy, or course, because, regardless of what the South Carolina Dems do, the SC GOP is never going to agree to hold their primary as late as Feb. 27, with Super Tuesday coming up on March 1.  Which means that every date on this calendar will move up at least one week.  Iowa at least will be in January, when all is said and done.

The DNC is also decreasing the number of delgates for the 2016 convention:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[solarstorm]

Why can't they simply hold all the primaries on one and the same day?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I never thought I'd end up as a fan of the Iowa caucuses, but they may represent our best chance to stop Hillary's inevitableness.

[Cory]

Why can't they simply hold all the primaries on one and the same day?

Because having smaller states first gives "minor" candidates a chance to gain name recognition and momentum.

[solarstorm]

Why can't they simply hold all the primaries on one and the same day?

Because having smaller states first gives "minor" candidates a chance to gain name recognition and momentum.

What about implementing runoff elections? Every candidate that have gotten 5% in the first round is allowed to take part in the final ballot.

[7,052,770]

Why can't they simply hold all the primaries on one and the same day?

Because having smaller states first gives "minor" candidates a chance to gain name recognition and momentum.

I like that, but it's pretty ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire ALWAYS get to go first.

There should be some kind of rotating schedule if we don't do it all on the same day.

[Cory]

I like that, but it's pretty ridiculous that Iowa and New Hampshire ALWAYS get to go first.

There should be some kind of rotating schedule if we don't do it all on the same day.

Yeah, but at the same time we have to make sure the early states are smaller (i.e, not California/Texas/ect.) so minor candidates can't as easily just be spent into the ground.

[Mr. Morden]

Btw, on the subject of the primary calendar, looks like Arizona has moved its primary into March:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/so-it-turns-out-arizona-has-actually.html

So, there are still some "problem" states that are defying the national party rules at the moment, but I think most of them will blink.  Michigan is the one that might stick to its guns by remaining on Feb. 23rd.  So, a possible early primary calendar might go something like this:

Jan. 25th: Iowa caucus
Feb. 2nd: New Hampshire primary
Feb. 13th: Nevada caucus
Feb. 20th: South Carolina primary
Feb. 23rd: Michigan primary (maybe)
Mar. 1st: Super Tuesday

This is an "optimistic" scenario from the perspective of those who want a later start.  If Michigan stays where it is, and South Carolina wants more breathing room, they might go a week earlier, causing the other states to go earlier as well.  And other states might cause mischief as well, so it's possible that we'll see Iowa earlier than Jan. 25th.  Jan. 25th is about the latest I can imagine it going.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think it's fair to always have Iowa and New Hampshire go first.

My suggestion is to have a system where more change is possible. The state that goes first could be based on whatever matched the General Election results most closely in the previous election.

You won't always get the same demographics. In 2000, it was Oregon. In 2004, it was Florida. In 2008 and 2012, it was Virginia.