portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements oregon & cascadia

political theory

Has anyone checked the primary schedule for 2004?

Oregon doesn't get to vote first, or second (that would be Iowa and New Hampshire).
Oregon doesn't get to vote third, fourth, etc.

Oregon will be the 44th state out of 50 states to vote
January 13th, 2004 District of Columbia Presidential Primary (Closed)



January 19th, 2004 Iowa Presidential Caucuses



January 27th, 2004 New Hampshire Presidential Primary Election* (Closed)



February 3rd, 2004 Arizona Presidential Preference Primary (Closed)
Delaware Democratic Presidential Primary (Closed)
Missouri Presidential Primary (Open)
New Mexico Democratic Caucus
North Dakota Caucuses
Oklahoma Presidential Primary (Closed)
South Carolina Democratic Presidential Preference Primary
South Carolina Primary Election



February 7th, 2004 Michigan Democratic Presidential Caucus
Washington Democratic Caucus



February 8th, 2004 Maine Democratic Presidential Caucus



February 10th, 2004 District of Columbia Democratic Caucus*
Tennessee Presidential Primary (Open)
Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary (Open)
Virginia Republican Presidential Primary* (Open)



February 17th, 2004 Wisconsin Presidential Primary (Open)



February 24th, 2004 Idaho Democratic Caucus



March 2nd, 2004 California Presidential Primary (Modified Closed)
Connecticut Presidential Primary (Closed)
Georgia Presidential Preference Primary (Open)
Hawaii Democratic Caucus
Maryland Presidential Primary (Closed)
Massachusetts Presidential Primary
Minnesota Democratic Caucus
New York Presidential Primary* (Closed)
Ohio Presidential Primary (Open)
Rhode Island Presidential Primary
Texas Presidential Primary (Open)
Vermont Presidential Primary (Open)
Washington Presidential Primary



March 9th, 2004 Florida Presidential Primary (Closed)
Louisiana Presidential Preference Election (Open)
Mississippi Presidential Primary (Open)



March 16th, 2004 Illinois Presidential Primary (Open)



April 27th, 2004 Pennsylvania Presidential Primary (Closed)



May 4th, 2004 Indiana Presidential Primary (Open)
North Carolina Presidential Primary (Closed)



May 11th, 2004 Nebraska Presidential Primary (Open)
West Virginia Presidential Primary (Closed)



May 18th, 2004 Arkansas Presidential Primary (Open)
Kentucky Presidential Primary (Closed)
Oregon Presidential Primary (Closed)



May 25th, 2004 Idaho Presidential Primary (Open)



June 1st, 2004 Alabama Presidential Primary (Open)
South Dakota Presidential Primary (Closed)



June 8th, 2004 Montana Presidential Primary (Open)
New Jersey Presidential Primary
sorry, I forgot the link to this source 26.Oct.2003 12:13

wb


What if Every State Went First? 28.Oct.2003 11:48

John Molseed john-molseed@uiowa.edu

Following Gen. Wesley Clark and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., announcements that they won't campaign in Iowa, the state's first in the nation status could face a serious challenge if either candidate is able to mount an effective campaign. In the last couple of decades, Iowa has been an effective proving ground of Presidential candidates. Since 1976, no candidate who finished below third place in the Iowa Precinct Caucuses won their party's nomination. Should Iowa lose that status, another state will likely move to the front of the line, but it won't be Oregon.

Iowa tends to represent the vast contingency of rural poll-goers. It also reflects a more than two-thirds population of independent voters. Aside from the states low minority representation, Iowa is a microcosm of U.S. voters. In the last presidential election, the margin of victory for Al Gore in Iowa was just 4,144 votes, about 0.3 percent of participants. Nationally the margin was similar, 543,895 of more than 105 million votes, which equals 0.5 percent margin of victory for Al Gore.

Oregon shouldn't be among the first in the nation primaries for the same reasons Texas wouldn't be a good choice. Neither state would offer the same reflection of moderate swing voters, nor entice both parties to campaign heavily there. An environmentally-minded liberal would be crcified by the oil-reliant contingency in Texas just as Conservatives would not be willing to campaign hard in Oregon's major metropolitan areas for fear of a Public Relations nightmare of low support or highly-publicized protests. Even when a republican wins support from his party in the state, the victory is hollow and carries little weight among his opponents. This is not to argue that Iowa should remain first, but many other states better represent the moderate voters in the country.

Every state craves the prestige and potential income early primaries offer. Heavy-spending camapign machines traverse the state for months. These caravans are followed by a pack of reporters and press from all over the world. Even rural and obscure Iowa becomes the center of attention for about four months every four years. New Hampshire tried to leap-frog the Hawkeye state by moving up their pirmary, but the Democratic National Committee granted Iowa an even earlier caucus. The competition for such prestigous slots is fierce. however, in a country of fifty states, someone has to go fiftieth.

Iowa is a microcosm of U.S. voters?? 28.Oct.2003 22:08

wb

You either have never been to Iowa, or you Live in Iowa and have never been anyplace else.

You can drive back and fourth across the state and not find one black person, and the only Mexicans are the illegals working in isolated communities for major hog slaughter houses, and don't even know an election is going on, much less able to vote in it.

Iowa is a microcosm of U.S. voters? Get real...


I think every state should go first, just like the general election, and let the conventions in the late summer sort out any differences that show up in the primaries.

One microcosm, no chaser 29.Oct.2003 09:31

John Molseed

Neither of those assumptions are true. I live in Iowa now, and have lived in many other places.

How can fifty states all go first simultaneously? Are you talking about the party nominations?
Both parties already hold their own in which each state sends delegates based on the state's population. That's when Iowa and other rural states have almost no say relative to the others.

Early primaries and caucuses aren't official, they are media events. the results don't count for anything except for publicity. Jimmy Carter used the Iowa caucus to go from an under-funded unknown to win his party nomination. That's why Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Gen. Wesley Clark are ignoring Iowa. Neither have much support there, so acting like Iowa doesn't matter is their only recourse, and if either get the Democratic nomination, they will be right and Iowa's role as first in the nation caucus will end.

I acknowledged Iowa's low minority percentage (did you actually read my comment?).
To say you could drive across the state and not see black person and the "only Mexicans are the illegals working in isolated communities for major hog slaughter houses" are insulting broad generalizations boardering on racist.

According to the U.S. census bureau, Oregon's black population percentage is 1.8 percent, ranking 41 in the country; just behind the Iowa's 1.9 percent, ranking 40 in the U.S.

Generalizations and assumptions do not promote good debate.
Do you have rational arguments besides "get real?"

it won't change 29.Oct.2003 12:13

wb

boarding on racist?

please, 1.8 percent of a black population? Wow! The national average is about 13%, do you still want to talk about being a microcasm of the US?

I assume that the hispanic population is that is non-illegal, is so low, it doesn't even register. If that's racist, then its racist..

Yes I'm talking about choosing a candidate in the primary. the individual parties in each state basically decide when the election is going to be held, and it is based so they can steer the public in to choosing the "right" candidate.

Iowa is not representative of the US, I'm sorry.

California would be, Illinois maybe, New York perhaps, Florida I don't know.

Hell why not let Alaska choose first? Its the biggest state, and the one farthest north?

If the states where split up into groups of 10, and based on their alphabetical order, and 5 super primaries where held on a rotating schedule, that would be fare, and a lot more representative of what the people want.

I know all the arguments of how each candidate comes there, and people get to meet them, and talk to them, blah blah, and then those candidates wipe there ass with Iowa after the caucus, and wonder back into the cornfields like Field of Dreams.

they do the same thing with New Hampshire.

Its a crock of shit.