Why is North Carolina not in on Primary Fun?

I will not link to any of the millions of articles on other states moving up their primaries, since I assume if you are into politics enough to come to here, you also know about and have an opinion on the early primary calendar (probably negative). In North Carolina a bill was introduced to move our primary to Feb. 5th but was essentially tabled.

The question that I have is what North Carolina gains by staying at the back of the pack and why does it not attempt to get the benefits of moving up. For years North Carolina has been meaningless in the presidential primaries since they were held so late. Candidates lavished attention and money on Iowa and New Hampshire and the primary was essentially decided within a couple weeks. This year the calendar is even more compact, and North Carolina will be three months behind all of the action.

Likely the two party's nominees will be selected and running general election campaigns by the time North Carolina votes in May. So why does North Carolina relegate itself to being meaningless?

Comments

NC: First in Following?

Good question, TG. It's looking more and more like NC is happy to be an also-ran in the middle of the mediocre pack.

better yet, why isn't the primary on the same day for all 50 ?

Why is it that the little tiny state of New Hampshire can dictate who our next president will be?

And don't all these early primaries just help whoever has the most money?

And won't we all be sick of Hillary after this extremely long primary season?

Really?

You think anyone could beat Hillary--with her high name recognition and endless campaign coffers--if we all 50 states voted on the same day?

Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

They'll be seated at the convention

In the end, we won't insult a key battleground state.

1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

Party leadership doesn't want to face the fact that the

process is broken.
A resolution I wrote in 2006 was tabled by the NCDP convention. I modified it slightly, softened the language a bit for 2007, but this year it died a quiet death prior to the Executive COmm. meeting at the hands of the Platform adn Resolutions comm.
My 2006 resolution promoted a system whereby the states with smaller numbers of delegates go first and then at 2 week interval the progressively larger states go. At about 6 states every two weeks the process would be stretched out and all states would have some measure of importance. The small states would be important since they would be first; the larger states, though last, would still be important as they have a buttload of delegates. The miiddlin' states would have a bit of each reason to be important.
For 2007 I postulated that the primary process was broken and then suggested the above system.
It's hard to get things fixed when they don't want admit there's a problem.

I am glad that FL got the axe. The rules might reflect a bad system, but they are the rules. I hope they zap MI as well. It could make for an interesting convention if comeone works out the math and figures a way to work the states that are in play.

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Reply to Persondem - What the P&R Committee's thinking was ...

I personally supported your resolution last year and this year, but the vote by the P&R Committee (which I chair) this year should NOT be inferred as being opposed to the concept you propose. The P&R Committee was charged with the task of what recommendations it could make to the NCDP and DNC for the balance of 2007 and 2008. We also had to keep in mind that if we recommended all resolutions, including those like yours that would have no effect until several years from now, then the State Exec Committee would be considering 300 resolutions in one day, thus making the process unwieldy. ... These circumstances are mostly what caused your resolution to have fewer votes than needed among P&R Committee members than was necessary for it to be presented a "recommended" to the SEC. The conversations among the P&R Committee, privately and online and in meetings, was that your proposal should be advanced in 2009 since we could not do anything about 2008's primary schedule at this point. ...

Do note that a resolution I drafted and persuaded the Young Democrats of NC State Convention and the NCDP to adopt back in the 1990s was to have rotating, regional presidential primaries, with each region's primary separated by a month or a similar period.

Congressman David Price has been an advocate of similar or better changes for Democratic presidential primaries.

One way or the other, folks like you and me and others who understand how broken the system is need to "ramp up" our efforts to get county and district conventions to adopt your or a similarly-themed resolution in 2009. Then the final resolution could be taken by the NCDP's members to its 2009 and 2010 national meetings in time for DNC preparation/decisionmaking affecting the 2012 presidential race.

Thank you Wayne

I still have a lot to learn about timing and how to get resolutions to have an impact without scaring people silly. I suspected that timing might have something to do with it this year, which is why I was bummed about what happened at the 2006 convention. That version was written in more absolute terms which was hard for folks to swallow. The 2007 version was softened but it was a year later.
I do appreciate your words of encouragement and your support. Events in my personal life prevented me from advocating for the resolution at the regional P&R meeting in Durham.
Both in this case, in organizing my county and for the country as a whole progress seems soooooooo ssllllooooowwwww, glacial even.
On the positive side of things, I, and others hopefully, have more time to write an effective and well thought out resolution for 2009!!
Now I wonder what I can come with to shake up the 2008 state convention ... hhmmmm .... [cue Jaws soundtrack]
Thanks again. Cheers

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Can someone explain why

we don't just have one super primary with all the states and instead of being in one day, spread the ability to vote out over two weeks to a month?

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

Progressive Discussions

Because that makes too much sense?

It's a great idea.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

The same reason why we don't have the popular vote

Money. If our presidential elections focused on the entire nation, either for primaries or for the general election, one candidate with a significant monetary advantage could buy the election. The cost to compete would keep away all but the richest. Bloomberg would jump into that kind of race in a heartbeat.

1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks