In 2024, assuming we have free and fair elections, which state should vote first in the Dem Primary?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

I realize it's a big assumption at this point.

12 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Stick with tradition - Iowa and New Hampshire
	1 (8%)
	A very Blue state - Like California
	1 (8%)
	A Swing state - like Florida or North Carolina
	2 (17%)
	A deep-Red state - like Mississippi
	0 (0%)
	A state that is Red that we really want to flip - like Texas
	1 (8%)
	No state should vote first. They should all vote at once.
	7 (58%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[at140]

1. Change voting day to first Saturday or Sunday of November.

[TwilightZone]

2. All at once doesn't really work, either.

That would cause the opposite problem. Only the high-delegate states would get any attention.

Unfortunately, there really isn't a good solution. Iowa and NH should be factors, but only representative to the number of delegates they provide and not cause massive swings in momentum.

Maybe regional? Group states together - mix of low- and high-delegate states on the same days?

[csziggy]

21. Maybe group states by size but try to balance populations

For instance, Iowa (41) and New Hamshire (24) on the same day as Louisiana (54), Tennessee (64), or South Carolina (54). California (415) on the same day as a bunch of rural states, maybe a group of the Western states. Florida with Michigan and Wisconsin, etc. More study would be needed to balance the types of populations, party lines, and other demographics.

Having two very white and very atypical states lead off the primary season warps the perceptions and the results.

[Kurt V.]

27. maybe not all at once but over the course of one or two weeks.

[DURHAM D]

3. Just as important:

Caucus or Primary?

Open or Closed?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

5. For purposes of the question, whatever a state has now is what they have 4 years from now.

I'm not saying I like that (I don't), but that's how I'm framing it. Fair and good question. Thanks!

[PETRUS]

4. How about a rotation?

Or a state that's a fair representation of the whole US (if there is such a state).

[lunasun]

11. + rotation is a good idea

[LiberalFighter]

6. The problem is that the DNC does not control when primaries are conducted.

That is a state government decision.

My preference would be to have regional primaries. 6 to 10 different time periods.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

9. Yes, but everybody wants to go first

The parties have more or less kept the current order by threatening not to seat delegates.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Again, the DNC does not decide when the primaries are conducted.

That also means the order. With the exception of Iowa and NH of course.

States with caucuses have more flexibility because they don't conduct primaries which require legislative action.

[RhodeIslandOne]

7. Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states

[honest.abe]

8. They should be grouped and vote on same day.

Kickoff Tuesday (a Tuesday in Feb): IA, NH, NV, SC
Super Tuesday (a Tuesday in March): same as current ST list
Half-time Tuesday (a Tuesday in April): TBD
Final Tuesday (a Tuesday in May): all the rest

[lunasun]

10. Maybe the last 4 states as of now -choose from those . I saw this last week about one of them

https://www.abqjournal.com/1417103/bill-would-make-new-mexico-presidential-primary-first-in-us.html

[blm]

12. Two. Ohio and North Carolina.

Two swing states of diverse population, and we leave behind strong organizations in place for the general election.

[AleksS]

15. You know, I like that!

I like that idea. If it wasn't all-midwest, a first-primary day of WI, PA, OH (maybe IN) would be a good way to build strong campaign infrastructure in those states, and help them tip blue on election day.

Maybe adding FL, and NC could divert from the all Midwest concentration. Adding AZ and/or NM could western-ize it too.

So that's my proposal:

WI, PA, OH, IN, FL, NC, AZ, NM for the first primaries.

That's a healthy bunch of delegates, but not TOO many to render future contests irrelevant. They're states we need good campaign infrastructure in. Diverse. And there are enough states in that list so maybe the campaigns get spread around enough not to cause election-fatigue in any one state.

[doc03]

20. I second that. No Democrat has ever won without Ohio nt

[LuvLoogie]

13. No individual first state

East coast minus Florida

Midwest

Gulf coast

Remaining Eastern States minus coasts

West coast plus Alaska hawaii

Remaining Western States

Commonwealths and Territories

Edited to add rotating order

[AncientGeezer]

14. All at once is a fools errand....and a horrible idea.

You could have 5-8-10 candidates within 1-4% pts...
When do you do the all for one primary...1 debate, 3.....5...only on debates....no on the ground interactions...town halls....door to door....Union Halls..county fairs...

NO to 50 simultaneous primaries....crap show looking for a place to happen

[lees1975]

16. They should go by region in groups

Let Maine, NH, Vt, Mass, RI and Conn vote in a group, then NY and PA, then OH, IN, IL, then MD, DE, WV so that candidates can still campaign without flying all over the place but no one state has undue influence. Also NO CAUCUSES! It should all be straight up voting with at least two weeks of early voting allowed.

[boston bean]

17. Massachusetts

[whistler162]

18. Sectional primary

East(Puerto Rico etc.)/Central/Mountain/West(including Alaska and Hawaii and the other islands)

then the next time Eastern goes last Central first Mountain second and West third etc. etc. etc. until we are back to Eastern again.

Minor variations where time zones cut through a state.

[gollygee]

19. I voted for "a swing state" and then I kept reading and say "they should all vote at once"

and that sounds awesome too. It would be totally different though. People couldn't build up momentum in the same way.

[blm]

22. It would mainly mean that only the wealthiest could run.

It costs a lot of money to introduce yourself to an entire country at the same time.

[gollygee]

23. Well that's a problem

If there are changes made (and I really think there should be) the whole situation and all potential options need to be thoroughly studied so we can see all the possible consequences.

[Celerity]

25. NH state law mandates it go first, so that is a problem, the DNC would have to say its delegates

do not count, but the media will still act like it is a big deal. Iowa has to go, both as first of anything, and it has to get rid of the caucuses.

Also, to make either of the first ones in a deep Red state like SC is foolish, as that is not representative of the type of candidate we need to win at a national level in the general.

All at once is insane, as it doesn't allow long vetting, and we could end up with a disaster.

Finally, the first couple should not be giant, ultra expensive media market states, as that precludes all but a few deep pocket candidates. That eliminates Ohio, PA as one or two of the first.

I would go with

1 NH <<<< just to avoid the drama, and it still is not a completely Blue state

2 NV <<<< smaller market state and high minority vote, they MUST do away with caucuses though

3 VA <<< high minority %, and yes, expensive market due to DC being near, but still a good compromise

3 WI <<<< Milwaukee has a large A-A population, OR go with MO which also has St Louis and is only around 80% white


those four options give geographical balance as well

Northeast/West/Mid-Atlantic-South/Midwest

and are all swing or near swing states, MO the least, but we need to win this type of state eventually again to gain back the Senate and march towards 60 seats over the coming cycles, which is going to be so, so hard, due to demographics


it is not perfect, but it is a good compromise

I would be open to somehow working OH in there for the Midwest as well

[Poiuyt]

26. I say Illinois

It's not on either coast, it has a nice combination of large city vs rural, heavy industry vs agriculture, and a mixed demographic of black, white, Hispanic, etc. I think it's very representative of America as a whole.

Except for the Bears.

[Dagstead Bumwood]

28. 50 state round robin steel cage

death match. Lookout! It's Montana coming to the ring! (Montana enters the ring to Metallica blaring). It's gold, Jerry!

Failing that, regional primaries on a rotating basis. Great Lakes Primary, then two weeks later the Deep South, Rocky Mountains, yada yada. Any rotation system would be a massive improvement over the current system.

[Mponti]

29. Prairie States Primary

Illinois and Iowa for first primary on the same day. They’re neighboring states, which helps candidates financially.

Illinois is good demographically for the party in a major media market with great fundraising potential.

Iowa is a purple state with a rich tradition for the party (Carter and Obama). Let’s not punish Iowa for the 2020 debacle but require them to run a primary, not caucuses.

Illinois and Iowa — a great urban-rural balance and testing grounds for broadening the party’s appeal.

[marlakay]

30. I think two states one like Ohio or Florida

And second either CA or NY.

That way both moderates and progressives have a chance to win a state and all of them have minority vote in large amounts.

And no extra lobbying or pork to any of the states like they do in Iowa with corn.

All primaries so no caucus stuff and preferably no computer programs without paper backup.

My final thought is if that can’t happen then no almost all white states until at least 3 or 4th place.

[Laelth]

31. This is a REALLY tough question.

It is not my place to advise the DNC, but I am going to do so, regardless, because this thread has asked me to do so.

1. Let Iowa and New Hampshire go first. It's fine. Both states have developed a strong cadre of intelligent voters because they have been going first in our nominating process for so very long. I don't want to deprive the party of their well-developed political instincts. Besides, they contribute so few delegates that they hardly matter, except in regards to momentum, and I would prefer to curb that influence by having them both vote on the same day and then having NV and SC vote the very next week. That would significantly diversify our early-voting electorate and reduce the impact of the two, first-voting (and very white) states (IA and NH).

2. Super Tuesday is a failure. Bust it up. Candidates lack both the money and the time to campaign in all of these states at the same time. It makes no sense to have them all grouped together. Split them up and have them vote two or three at a time, one week apart. That seems fair and it will give our candidates some time to pay attention to the issues that matter to these states.

3. The late-voting states are basically useless to us in selecting our nominee. Again, I prefer 2 or three states per week, every week, all the way through the nominating process. Late-voting states should accelerate their primary and/or caucus dates to start as soon as possible after the current Super Tuesday states vote.

Will this help us choose our nominee sooner? No. In fact, the process I recommend would slow down our selection process a bit. Will this lack of early certainty cause a lot of anxiety? Yes. No doubt, it will. Is it worth it? Yes. I think so. I strongly believe that the votes of a greater and more diverse proportion of the Democratic Party would help us choose a better and stronger candidate for the general election.

Well, that's what I've got to say.



-Laelth