Tomorrow, the DNC is expected to take up a proposal to add another state to the early presidential primary/caucus calendar.
All indications are that it's going to either Arizona or Nevada (or maybe Colorado). Whichever state wins out, it'll be a caucus - wedged between Iowa and New Hampshire. New Hampshire will be the third state, but will retain its status as the 'First in the Nation' primary.
Of course, NH Governor John Lynch (D) hates the idea.
From the AP:
Democratic Gov. John Lynch told members of a national Democrats panel that his state will "act decisively to uphold our law and defend our primary tradition."
But it's not about tradition. The Democrats should do anything they can to improve their chances of winning the 2008 presidential election. As we learned in 2004, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire may not be perfectly positioned to select the Democrats' standard bearer.
By adding Arizona or Nevada to the mix, the presidential primaries will pick up new issues, new demographics, and a new attitude.
Issues: In the West, we'll see a campaign focused on immigration and border security, water rights and drought, federal lands and ranching, and rapid urban growth and sprawl.
Demographics: In the West, we're dealing with surging population growth, including the rise of Latinos as a political force, the movement of Californians outward, and new populations of educated, tech-savvy young people. Nevada is also the most unionized state in the country.
Attitude: It's different out here in the West. We expect our politicians to speak the truth and do it with swagger. Westerners seem to be uniquely capable of filtering out the DC-oriented "Senator Speak" and rewarding a plain-speaking style.
Ultimately, it's not about tradition, it's about winning the presidential election. By adding an early caucus state in the West - Democrats will alter the outcome of the presidential race. We'll tell Westerners that we're serious about courting them, we'll tell Republicans that we're serious about contesting the Rocky Mountain West, and we'll teach the winning candidate to be a better standard bearer for our party.
As I wrote in an op-ed published across the West shortly after the 2004 elections:
Let us look west. In the mountains and ranchlands of the West, there are Democrats who understand real America. Out here, far from the nation's capital, there are Democrats who understand skepticism of the federal government. Out here, Americans will find Democrats comfortable in jeans and boots. In the West, we can find Democrats able to speak plainly in the language of real America.
Can a Western Democratic Party succeed? Absolutely. If the 29 electoral votes in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada had swung from red to blue, John Kerry would have won 281 to 257.
Next up: the campaign to put the 2008 convention in Denver, and the campaign to create a Western Super Tuesday. If this sounds good to you, c'mon over and join us at WesternDemocrat.com