General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIowa to be displaced as first in primary nomination calendar
About time that they deal with Iowa. Why should an increasingly red state get to have such a large role in determining our nominee?
The document, labeled draft for discussion, defines three criteria for the partys Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to select early nominating states: the diversity of the electorate including ethnic, geographic, union representation, economic, etc.; the competitiveness of the state in a general election; and the ability of the state to administer a fair, transparent and inclusive process.
Iowa lacks significant racial or ethnic diversity, is no longer viewed as a swing state and is bound by law to hold a nominating caucus, not a statewide primary.
The RBC will evaluate applications and select no more than five states to hold their contests before the first Tuesday in March under party rules, the document says. In past cycles, states that hold contests outside party rules have had their delegates voting privileges stripped at the party convention.
The document is expected to be discussed Monday in a virtual meeting of the Rules and Bylaws committee, where committee members have said they hope to create a process that would allow states to apply for early status. The document lays out a six-week application process that would allow states to apply for a spot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/22/iowa-democrats-nomination-calendar/
msongs
(67,199 posts)non-red states with sane democratic reps and senators. and iowa needs a primary not a caucus where people are bullied
iemanja
(53,003 posts)and favor candidates with the biggest war chest. I don't think it's a good idea.
ZonkerHarris
(24,156 posts)OAITW r.2.0
(23,862 posts)4 primary dates - with a mix between large and small states; bet we develop a great candidate this way...
iemanja
(53,003 posts)It would favor the candidates with the most money. Is that how you want the nominee decided? The first round would knock out most of the candidates because the prices of running ads in a large region would be too much for them. We would be down to few choices very quickly.
OAITW r.2.0
(23,862 posts)But this way, you get 4 differnet opportunities to prove yourself. If 25% of all Democrats vote in the primary, we will get the candidates that we deserve. Sorry small state populations (I live in one). The majority rules, and, if you are a true Democrat.....you relish choosing the smartest and best qualified, to represent us. I always vote for the best qualified candidate....that is why I proudly for Madame Secretary and popularly elected President, Hillary Rodam Clinton.
Question. Are we better off now that Donald Trump won by low pop state tyranny? Why not popular national vote? We have the technology to make the people's voice known immediately....why don't democrats die on this ground? Everybodys vote counts. Republicans lose when this right is protected.
iemanja
(53,003 posts)They'll have one. Only one or two will be able to go on after the first primary. If they don't finish 1st or 2nd, they will be toast.
usonian
(9,429 posts)Regarding:
diversity of the electorate including ethnic, geographic, union representation, economic, etc.; the competitiveness of the state in a general election; and the ability of the state to administer a fair, transparent and inclusive process.
Who can match CA?
Unbiased opinion
iemanja
(53,003 posts)and don't care if the nominee is competitive nationwide, CA first is the way to go.
I don't think they are likely to choose CA to go early because it would make the first primary ungodly expensive and eliminate all but one or two contenders immediately.
Also, CA isn't "competitive," per se. It's solid blue.
I'm thinking it will be places like PA and MI. We'll find out soon enough.
Response to iemanja (Reply #9)
Celerity This message was self-deleted by its author.
usonian
(9,429 posts)Just playing devil's advocate.
HOWEVER! Primaries are proportional, AFAICT, so holding CA "last" just removes the most voters from being represented until their votes are somewhat irrelevant.
How to fix this?
Do all voters impact results equally? Probably not. I wanted to compare with the electoral college, but the DNC can, AFAICT, run things any damn way they want, so WHY NOT A NATIONWIDE PRIMARY DAY?
Each vote has the same impact.
If it's a good idea nationally ( Popular vote winner is elected. THINK HOW MUCH BETTER THINGS WIULD BE IF WE HAD THIS IN PAST ELECTIONS ) then let's get this ball rolling.
And, Bernie out-polled Joe Biden in CA, so you can't say that it costs a fortune to win delegates in CA. In fact, it may be cheaper, and again, it's proportional, so, once dragged out of irrelevance, not a "bet the farm" deal.
IT ONLY LOOKS THAT WAY.
Of course, "looks" make people think "winner take all" but AFAICT, even if CA votes/delegate is the same as elsewhere, impact is reduced, like putting in your ace starting players in the 9th inning. Slightly better than the electoral college, a low bar to hurdle.
As for being "competitive", I probably misread that.
There may be some benefit from the publicity in an early state. Needs numbers to back this up.
Just playing devil's advocate. It won't happen because people don't think things through and run the numbers. It's pretty late, so I reserve the right to revise any or all of this.
iemanja
(53,003 posts)It's the votes that matter. Some candidates seem to have a harder time than others in getting the poll respondents to actually vote. That said, Bernie had WAY more money than Biden. He was by far the wealthiest candidate (in terms of contributions) in the 2020 primary. Biden started with nothing. He only started getting donations after he won South Carolina, and he had been counted out before then.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think the party will see it the way that you do, but we'll find out soon enough. There is a reason CA goes late in the process; they have an overwhelmingly number of electoral votes. You are essentially arguing that one state should choose the nominee by itself. I don't think the DNC wants the party to work that way.
usonian
(9,429 posts)Of course it won't happen.
The process is not commutative.
As per commutative law or commutative property, if a and b are any two integers, then the addition and multiplication of a and b result in the same answer even if we change the position of a and b.
If all primaries were held on the same day, a does not affect b, and all voters count equally.
Won't happen, either.
Peace
JI7
(89,182 posts)The entire campaign will mostly be big media spending.
Political ads all day for months that don't tell anything.
Person to person campaigning will be limited or non existent .
They should do something like Iowa , new Hampshire, Nevada , and south Carolina go first on same day.
SergeStorms
(18,907 posts)Their caucus system sucks, and they really screwed the pooch in 2020. Nowhere is it written in stone that Iowa gets to be the perpetual first state.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)And giving it any weight at all Is about as asinine as it gets. There were a whole whopping 176K STATE WIDE that participated in the 2020 primaries. The town I live in has more people in it than that. Want a fair fight, have CA, TX and NY all go on the same day. Seeing as that is where the majority of the population lives. It's BS to give so much weight to IA.
SergeStorms
(18,907 posts)Why let what amounts to a drop in the bucket have too much influence on filling the bucket. After Iowa and New Hampshire everyone said Biden was finished.
3Hotdogs
(12,210 posts)I'm from N.J. We fit the criteria. We also get to vote after the decision has been made.
iemanja
(53,003 posts)It seems fairer than always having the same states go first.
Jacque_Joseph
(19 posts)The granite state is similarly small but engaged voting base where the candidates can communicate with others, which is a great tradition that will be hard to replicate in larger states. New Hampshire has swung to the left in more recent years but it still has a swing-ish vibe that would be a great campaigning stop for those who are willing to seek the highest office. Living below in Massachusetts is also a sight for a political junkie who can occasional travel to meet and greet the candidates.
70sEraVet
(3,430 posts)Candidates should have to prove themselves by appealing to an electorate THAT LOOKS LIKE THE U.S.!!!
It is POINTLESS for candidates to be evaluated based on their appeal to rural, white voters only