Democrats circulate plan for changing 2024 nomination calendar, moving against Iowa

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

Democratic Party officials circulated plans Monday for a 2024 presidential nominating calendar that would select up to five states to hold contests before March based upon a new set of criteria that appears designed to exclude a return of the Iowa caucuses to their first-in-the-nation status.

The document, labeled “draft for discussion,” defines three criteria for the party’s 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.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/22/iowa-democrats-nomination-calendar/

---

I've told the DNC that I'm not wedded to IA or NH, but that the Primary schedule should start with a small State that emphasizes retail politics. I want to see how good a candidate actually is with unexpected questions, hecklers, etc. and I want candidates without name recognition and huge war chests to have an opportunity to get known.

[FarPoint]

1. I support this now....

The Iowa Caucus first start has run the distance.....

[Sneederbunk]

2. It's about time.

Not only does Iowa lack significant racial and ethnic diversity, it lacks Democrats.

[Bettie]

4. There are Democrats in Iowa

Not as many as there used to be, but we exist, just like those in other 'red' states.

[Rebl2]

5. How do

you feel about this new plan. I also live in a red state-MO.

[Bettie]

7. I have worked at Caucuses since we moved here over 20 years ago

In fact, next Saturday, I go to the County level off-year caucus*.

It is a huge time and energy suck and a lot of work for people who volunteer to do the work.

The only thing of value is allowing regular people to suggest planks for the party platform (state).

I prefer a primary. I would really enjoy more people being able to cast their votes and not having to deal with the amount of work a caucus entails. It is like herding fish. From horseback.

I would LOVE not to get calls at all hours of the day and night from pollsters and people asking for money or robocalling about candidate A through Z.

I'd miss never seeing a presidential candidate in the state again. Well, never seeing a Democratic candidate again.

What I object to is the assumption by some that there are zero Democrats in the state. We're here and we're doing the best we can with few resources. The hardest thing to overcome is the perception (not always incorrect) that Democrats don't care about small towns and rural areas.

But, whatever. I have zero power over any of it, so I just do what I can. I know Iowa and those who live here are hated by a lot of people on DU. I can't change that either.

*ETA: And I go to the county caucus not because I wanted to, but because someone has to. My DH is going too because we didn't have enough volunteers.

[Rebl2]

15. Well I

think people need to remember there are many democrats living in red states and need to quit making blanket statements about how they hate our states. When we have our statehouse filled with a majority of republicans, it’s difficult to get anything we might want done.

[Demsrule86]

21. I am against caucuses

[Bettie]

24. Did you read what I wrote?

I am against them too. I would greatly prefer a primary, but I am not in charge, so I live with the system we have.

[33taw]

3. I agree with the change.

Spending a year campaigning at every county fair in Iowa is a wasted of time.

[brooklynite]

9. NO, it is not...

The counter to small-scale retail campaigning are large rallies of the already supporting, or more likely big budget ad campaigns.

[33taw]

11. The candidates can go to fairs, festivals and small events throughout the US. But a year's worth of

attending only events in Iowa is absurd. Giving one state so much power to drive the outcome does not make sense to me.

[brooklynite]

16. Candidates DON'T spend "a year" in Iowa.

The media spends a year in Iowa because different candidates come in and out.

[33taw]

18. Candidates put so much focus on Iowa that many candidates simply withdraw

early because they spend too much money trying to win the caucus in Iowa. I would like to see multiple states with primaries be the first states to vote.

[Demsrule86]

22. The problem with Iowa and New Hampshire is that those two states are not diverse and have too

Much say in who our candidate will be.

[JohnSJ]

6. The main problem I have with Iowa being the first state is that they have a caucus. Until that

changes to a primary, I would rather Iowa wasn't the first state

[question everything]

8. Agree. Caucuses, in all states, disenfranchise voters who cannot be at a specific

place during a specific time. And for Iowa, and until 20202 Minnesota, having caucuses taking place in the dead of winter is even worse.

[question everything]

10. Rotating regional primaries is the only fair, acceptable way.

The language above only amplifies the image of the Democratic party as pre occupied with identity politics. And perhaps this is the purpose.

Say goodbye to Independents and to rural and white middle age middle class non coastal voters.

[IronLionZion]

12. DC is always last so my vote never matters for anything

it would be good to rotate states, get some more diversity. Maybe just switch up the order of the first 4 states and do Nevada and South Carolina first, then do Iowa and New Hampshire. That would keep it simple.

There are way too many states on super Tuesday so it would be good to rotate those too.

[calimary]

20. So was California.

I always felt that was intrinsically unfair. Always seemed to me that California should go first, because it has the biggest population in the 50 states, and therefore more people AFFECTED by decisions made in Washington DC than in any other state. California sends more tax money to Washington to help pay for all those decision-makers there. And yet, by the time most working people California can vote, more often than not, the big decisions have already been made. I remember times when the networks called the election before California had even finished voting. I think it was Carter versus Reagan in 1980. Our voice in California was almost literally silenced and thrown away. If I remember correctly, once the projected winner was announced, voting dropped off dramatically in California, as voters just getting off work heard the breaking news of the election being called for Reagan and so they didn't bother to show up at the polls as they'd planned to do after work. Too many potential voters understandably said "what does it matter? Why bother? My vote won't count because the decision's already been made and the election called before I even had the chance to vote."

Because of that huge fuckup, the rules were changed such that NO projected winner announcements were released until the polls closed on the West Coast.

But California voters got SCREWED. And California has the MOST VOTERS. How is THAT fair? And, hey, what about the voters in Alaska and Hawaii whose votes are also short-sheeted because they're farther west?

And mind you, I no longer live in California, but I STILL feel strongly about this - and STILL thoroughly pissed off about it. And I STILL feel strongly that California should go first, because it STILL has the biggest population, and thus, STILL, the most voters who stand to be affected by the decisions made in Washington DC by those who win their way in there.

[question everything]

25. That early announcement was only in 1980 when, I think, Carter conceded

But the last three campaigns lasted until the conventions.

Hillary conceded after all the primaries in 2008. Sanders did the same in 2016 and in 2020, same with Warren.

But it was messy last time. California voted in Super Tuesday in March but final results would not be declared until sometime in April.

[Bettie]

13. By the way, your comment at the end is possibly

the first time I've agreed with you in recent memory.

The point of states with manageable population and low priced media is that a candidate doesn't have to have a huge amount of money to get started or even to become known.

I'd be happy to ditch caucuses. Primaries are better in a lot of ways but we (Iowa Democrats) do what we can with the system we have here, because too many don't want it or anything to change.

[70sEraVet]

14. Candidates should have to appeal 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.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Final Iowa 2020 results weren't announced until Feb 27th

whereas New Hampshire was done by the 12th. So Iowa's exceptional caucus-organizing ability had already done them out of being first state to give a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_presidential_caucuses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Hampshire_Democratic_presidential_primary

[question everything]

19. And all that campaigning added $100 million to the Iowa economy.

[Omaha Steve]

23. Kick