In Iowa, black voters are testing the Bernie Sanders waters

[magical thyme]

At an event in Grinnell, a college town that is home to roughly 9,000 people, the two women — both 19-year-olds in their second year of college — said they weren’t sure whether or not they’d ultimately support Sanders, the Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination. But, they added, they wanted to check him out for themselves....

A section of Sanders speech here, to an overwhelmingly white crowd, explicitly spoke to racial injustices in the United States, including a rallying cry to "end all forms of institutional racism."

....Sanders though has been increasing his outreach to black voters and speaking out on issues of race relations, income inequality and police brutality since activists affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement have disrupted several of his campaign events, including seizing control of a Sanders event in Seattle that was celebrating the anniversary of Social Security and Medicare....

...Copeland, a black Democrat who supported then-candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, said it was “rude” for protesters to interrupt a speaker and that they could convey their point “in another way.”

But, she added, it was critical for Sanders and other Democratic candidates, to speak out on issues of race and police brutality.

http://mashable.com/2015/09/10/bernie-sanders-black-vote/

[Warren Stupidity]

1. 3.3% of Iowa's population.

Our primary system is an undemocratic joke. Iowa and New Hampshire are massively unrepresentative of the nation as a whole and play a ridiculously disproportionate role in the election process. I say this as a Sanders supporter. We need more democracy. We have a broken system.

We should have national elections and primaries for president. Toss out the electoral college. Every citizen of voting age gets one equal vote. One single national primary to select candidates. One single national election to select the president. Both primaries and elections should be instant runoff guaranteeing that the winner has a majority of the votes. The entire election "season" from primary to election ought to be no more than six weeks.

[Uncle Joe]

2. I agree with you in large part but one thing in favor of Iowa and New Hampshire is that

money doesn't place as crucial a role as it does in getting your message out to the nation at large.

I have no doubt this is why Schultz has cynically manipulated the Democratic Debates, she's afraid of messages other than that of the status quo establishment being presented to the American People.

The preeminent method for a candidate (s) to get their messages out, other than real time debate exposure are commercials and advertising which are overwhelmingly subject to having big money on your side.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. The money thing is the other part.

Reform is not possible without removing the torrent of money currently being poured into the process.

[magical thyme]

4. debates, commercials, advertising WERE the preeminent methods to get the message out

TPTB don't know what to do. Social media is taking over and they can't control that.

Clamping down on the debates, in the long run, won't help them as much as they are hoping. Neither will clamping down on the msm.

The horse already left the barn and is on a good gallop.

[Uncle Joe]

5. It's definitely headed in that direction and I hope that you're correct in that we're already there,

but Schultz, the Supreme Court and much if not most of the corporate media are testing that hypothesis.

[DanTex]

6. I agree completely.

National elections and primaries. Instant runoff voting. Yes.

I would add, both the senate and the house are undemocratic. The house because of redistricting and the senate because it gives voters in low population states far more influence than people in CA, TX, etc. In fact, I read somewhere that it's the least democratic parliamentary body in the first world (or close, don't quote me).

If it were up to me, I'd move to some kind of state-by-state parliamentary style slate election system for congress. That way there can be third parties without spoilers, there's no gerrymandering, and every voter gets equal representation regardless of what state they live in.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Agree.

[John Poet]

7. In a "national primary", Bernie Sanders would have had NO CHANCE AT ALL.

It is critical for him, and other insurgent candidates like him, to be able to build momentum by winning victories in the smaller early states, to have any chance at winning the nomination.

In a national primary, the best-funded candidate would win. End of story.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. As I responded up thread, the other part

is the money. The tsunami of corruption has to be abolished as well. But regardless a national primary changes the entire dynamics of the campaign. Given the past history of "insurgency" candidates, the last time an insurgent candidate managed to get nominated was McGovern. Claiming that the current system enables insurgents seems a dubious proposition.