There has been an effort by some to overhaul the Democratic presidential primary schedule. The biggest argument usually is that Iowa and New Hampshire have an inordinate amout of influence on the Democratic nominee in relation to their demographic makeup. Basically these are pretty white states with pretty middle class people having a huge influence over a party whose tent includes a variety of minority groups, the poor, the working poor, and the lower middle class. This isn’t to say that Iowa and New Hampshire don’t have any of the various constituencies but to think that states like California and Arizona in the West, Texas in the South, and Michigan and Illinois in the Midwest have little or no impact on the Dem primary while having a major impact on the general election is, to some, unacceptable.
Apparently the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) felt the same way. But what is called an overwhelming majority the committee voted to put another state caucus in between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. The committee also recommened fitting in another primary within days of the New Hampshire primary.
Personally I think this is a fair proposal. It allows New Hampshire to retain its first in the nation primary status while simultaneously recognizing that we may be handicapping our candidates by forcing them to bet it all on two states that aren’t really big players when the game starts to count (think Dick Gephardt in 1988, or 2004 for that matter). That said, New Hampshire has gently reminded the DNC that state law allows the secretary of state to move the primary ahead of any “similar election.” I don’t have a firm position one way or the other though I tend to lean toward neutralizing the New Hampshire impact. I also wish that New Hampshire wouldn’t be so selfish and think only of itself. I think there is a reasonable compromise here and the people of New Hampshire are just being greedy if they don’t at least attempt to negotiate something.