General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProposed: Move the 2024 District of Columbia Primary up to the Day after New Hampshire's Primary
This year the Iowa caucus is on Monday February 3, the New Hampshire primary is on Tuesday February 11, the Nevada caucus is on Saturday February 22, and the South Carolina primary is on Saturday February 29. The Super Tuesday onslaught is on March 3.
I agree strongly with everyone who feels that Iowa and New Hampshire, being disproportionately white and rural, have far too much influence in the Democratic Party presidential candidate selection process. That has to change. On the other hand I also appreciate that it is possible for presidential candidates, who previously had little or no real national profile, to elevate their status by investing their blood sweat and tears in retail campaigning at town halls and house meeting in small states where it is possible to physically meet a significant portion of those there who are politically active. Person to person vetting occurs best outside of mega states like Florida, Ohio, Texas, California and New York where expensive media campaigns loom much larger.
The District of Columbia is not a mega state with ten or more million residents. It is compact in size, and its residents are relatively small in numbers. It is racially diversified with a high proportion of African American voters, which can level the early playing field since our candidates currently invest their time in two heavily white states only. It is also highly urban with issues that differ significantly from those seen most pressing in most of Iowa and New Hampshire. It it was up to me D.C. would happen on the same day as the Iowa caucus, or a day later at most. However I know how entrenched Iowa and NH are in defending their first in nation status, so this proposal attempts to bypass that political turf war by scheduling DC for the day after NH.
Right now the District of Columbia holds its primary in June, when it has virtually no influence whatsoever on national politics. That would totally change if DC voted the same week that New Hampshire did. Candidates for President would, in the future, be forced to split their time campaigning for months in Iowa, New Hampshire AND the District of Columbia, if DC is hitting the scoreboard in the first round of results. Our candidates would then have to appeal to a racially diverse Democratic electorate from Day 1 of their campaigns. But it would not be outside the scope of a previously under appreciated candidate to build their campaign through exposure and success in those three smaller contests before they had to scale up for the larger states to follow.
getagrip_already
(14,819 posts)Heck, DC couldn't even vote for president until 1961. They still are unrepresented in the senate.
They should get some love.
elleng
(131,067 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It didn't go well. That was the primary cycle where I voted for Al Sharpton. I'm not the biggest Al Sharpton fan, but he physically knocked on my door and asked for my vote, so I voted for him.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)It's 16 years later so maybe the inequity of kicking everything off with VT and NH has sunk in a little deeper by now.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That is a clause that I love to hear. He also talked about reparations, racial reconciliation, and global peace.
I was not at that time on board with all of that (I have since converted to being for reparations), but he made his case convincingly, and as no other candidate even bothered to talk to me, he got my vote.