What's this? An early D.C. primary?
"D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams has signed legislation to move the District's presidential primary to the first Tuesday in January — two weeks ahead of the tentative date for the New Hampshire primary." While this move could be overturned by Congress, there seems to be solid support for this early primary among D.C. residents.
What could this mean for the Democrats? Well first of all, it might benefit Rev. Sharpton, who has a solid block of support within D.C's minority community. Also, it could cause ripples within the party because the DNC has threatened D.C. with losing their delegates if they violate primary rules. In addition, Dr Dean, Gephart, Kerry, and Lieberman have all stated they oppose or will boycott (?!?!) an early D.C. primary.
I think I understand the argument that D.C residents are putting forth. They don't have a congressional representative and are trying to draw attention to this issue by moving their primary forward. What I don't understand is why some of the Democratic candidates would choose to forgo the primary. Can one of our illustrious readers (and perhaps some D.C. residents) please weigh in via the comments section?
What could this mean for the Democrats? Well first of all, it might benefit Rev. Sharpton, who has a solid block of support within D.C's minority community. Also, it could cause ripples within the party because the DNC has threatened D.C. with losing their delegates if they violate primary rules. In addition, Dr Dean, Gephart, Kerry, and Lieberman have all stated they oppose or will boycott (?!?!) an early D.C. primary.
I think I understand the argument that D.C residents are putting forth. They don't have a congressional representative and are trying to draw attention to this issue by moving their primary forward. What I don't understand is why some of the Democratic candidates would choose to forgo the primary. Can one of our illustrious readers (and perhaps some D.C. residents) please weigh in via the comments section?
Comments