Why do we place so much weight on the vote of Iowa, a rural state less than 4% African American,

[pnwmom]

a caucus state where less than 30% of registered Democratic voters participated in the 2016 caucuses?

As a resident of another caucus state in 2016, just looking around at the other caucus participants, I could see how unrepresentative the attendance was. Even my husband, who is relatively apolitical, commented on how many young men there were.

NH also skews white, but at least that state holds primaries, which don't make it hard for older people, disabled people, and working people to attend.

[RainCaster]

1. IMO, it's wrong

Every candidate promises stupid shit to Iowa, like corn subsidies. We all have ethanol in our gasoline because of that. The first state in the primaries should rotate, so that this doesn't happen.

[dchill]

3. I like it. Rotating Primaries. No caucuses.

[ritapria]

25. Jimmy Carter got the most votes in Iowa in 1976

That victory helped propel him to a victory in NH and eventually the nomination ….Since then the news media have treated the Iowa Caucus as a very crucial contest ……...In fact the winner of the Iowa Caucus , in contested contests, has often gone to win the nomination : Carter in 80 , Mondale in 84 , Gore in 00 , Kerry in 04 , Obama in 08 and Clinton in 16 ……….. Gephardt won Iowa in 88 and flopped thereafter ….No one contested Harkin in 92 …….

[Demsrule86]

38. Many voters polled have said they don't care what happens in Iowa ... only has meaning if we give it

meaning.

[ritapria]

39. That is true

It's up to the voters to decide whether they will be affected by the results coming from Iowa and NH

[stopdiggin]

51. said this before. the early states are really NOT given the amount of weight

many think they are. Political junkies, pundits and the media are breathless in analyzing every last minutia. Meanwhile the general public is saying, "ho hum .. Oh are they doing that again?"

[Demsrule86]

57. Exactly right...nothing will change my mind about who I support...don't think Biden has to

prove electability as he was elected twice as Pres. Obama's VP...and he was chosen to take the Mid West and Florida I think...but no matter who the candidate is...not sure what losing or winning in Iowa or New Hampshire really means anymore...if anything.

[bitterross]

2. I've been wondering the same thing.

They're not representative of the broader US demographic.

[dchill]

4. Besides, our 1st primary is in a mostly red state.

Makes no sense.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

5. That's the part that gets me

Would we care who Alabama Democrats would vote for, when the chance of that state going blue is just not happening?

[pnwmom]

9. Alabama Democrats are very heavily African American. Should their votes not matter

because they live in a red state?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

11. Hey, I live in Texas

The only reason I didn’t use Texas as an example as because at some point we are supposed to be going blue. Although I don’t believe it will be soon enough for the next election. Hope I’m wrong.

It’s not about anybody’s votes mattering. I’m used to my own vote not mattering in the general election. Even in bright blue states that vote late in the primary, their vote might not matter if the question has already been decided in earlier primary races.

The Iowa caucus is about being an early indicator of who the party wants. Just seems like we should pay attention to some blue states to figure that out. As in people who will likely vote for a Democrat in the general election, in a state where that will actually convert those votes into some electoral college votes.

[Demsrule86]

37. Go after them at your own peril ...we need AA votes in other states for the presidency.

local government and in the House and Senate. Had we taken that tack with Virginia...we would not have a reliably blue state...how about we go out an win those voters in those states rather than write voters and states off.

[crazytown]

6. Iowa can't shift to primaries.

NH has a statute saying they must have the first primary. It is New Hampshire that has skewed the primary process, not Iowa: A lily-white State that insists they must be first in that nation: Dixville Notch democracy.

[pnwmom]

8. Why can't Iowa shift to primaries? How can NH's statute prevent Iowa from holding a primary?

Why do the other states go along with NH's statute?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

12. Those are the essential questions.

If a rule doesn’t make any sense, why keep sticking to it?

[jmowreader]

16. It isn't a matter of "going along" with NH's primary

If another state...and in this case let’s pick a nice blue one like Mass or Connecticut...were tp announce a primary date that preceded New Hampshire’s, NH would simply shift their primary date.

I’ve said this before, but the ideal solution would be to hold ONE nationwide primary date.

[stopdiggin]

52. the single date doesn't get my vote

solve one problem .. while ushering in a whole HOST of others

[jmowreader]

55. The biggest problem I see in it...

...is that only a well-funded candidate would be able to compete in the primary. And you'd have to completely change the way candidates campaign - no more going to (say) Iowa or Florida thirty times before the primaries, they'd have to campaign all over the country.

But let me ask: do we really NEED campaign rallies all over the country anymore? We have television and the Internet now.

[Demsrule86]

58. In 08 we had a long primary...President Obama had primary offices in every state pretty much and it

was our most successful year ever. We won Virginia that year ...first time in decades...campaigning in every state is not a bad thing IMHO. We won Indiana and North Carolina as well. A 50 state strategy is a winning strategy.

[madville]

7. Iowa, NH, SC, and NV should at least be on the same day

IA and NH are heavily skewed white, SC democratic primary voters are 50% black, and NV has a significant Hispanic population. All four together are somewhat representative of the national demographics but they should be on the same day if that was the goal (which it’s not). The media hype is what gives Iowa so much weight or tears candidates apart (Howard Dean).

[Demsrule86]

42. agree completely.

[Tiggeroshii]

10. Because they are 1st.

Literally no other reason.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

13. We should re-order our primaries every four years.

The state withe the most Democratic electoral college votes in the previous general election should go first and the second most goes next, and so on. We would know fairly quickly who our nominee would be so we could use our energy and resources to help that person.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Well, who's going to do that? Each state sets its own primary/caucus dates and the only...

reason we have a Super Tuesday is because a group of states managed to informally agree to set it up.

In fact, it doesn't even have to be the same states every four years.

And New Hampshire, in a stroke of huge stately ego, says it must have the first primary-- what that means in practice is that if any other state schedules an earlier primary, NH will automatically have one at least week earlier. You can see that if this silliness is taken to the extreme, NH could have its primary on the same day as last year's election!

Some other countries have rules that limit the election season. Six months is probably the longest it should be, but a few say it's even less.

I really like the Catholic rule that no cardinal should ever mention he is interested in he job of Pope. Ever.

[Demsrule86]

36. That is not true really...Florida and Michigan were punished in 08 for going out of turn...consider

that Clinton would like have won the nomination has those delegates counted...it was a very close primary.

[squirecam]

48. Nope

Those results were not valid because they didn’t openly campaign there.

[Demsrule86]

56. Yeah ok...if you say so.

The point is that the DNC has some control...but it is still a state matter.

[jmowreader]

17. In other words, California and New York would always be the first two primaries

[stopbush]

19. I'd be fine with that. Both very progressive states with large populations and large D populations.

The primary season would be shortened considerably.

[Demsrule86]

34. And we will likely lose every election...the candidates coming out of such primaries won't

win the states we need. You need more than base to win a presidential election these days.

[Demsrule86]

59. And we would as I said before end up with candidates that might not be electable.

[Happy Hoosier]

62. Why can't we rotate?

I am sick of Iowa and New Hampshire sucking all the air out the room. They are not representative of the national vote. They are not special.

If we MUST have phased primaries, let's at least rotate who gets to be the ones who get to meet candidates.

[Renew Deal]

24. Would the states that didn't vote for Democrats get to vote?

Or would we just drop them?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

28. Of course they would, just as they do now

It wouldnt affect the outcome much if they voted later though

[Renew Deal]

31. Wouldn't that mean that the states with the largest minority populations per capita vote at the end?

Wouldn’t your plan put South Carolina, Texas, Alabama, etc at the back of the line?

[Demsrule86]

33. Well if you disenfranchised AA voters by putting them last (large number in the south), you would

lose massively because there are large AA populations in the Mid West and other areas that we must win in order to win the presidency. And no candidate without AA support which would include Warren should be our nominee without such support...Iowa is different because their demographics represent an old Democratic party of 25 to 30 years ago.

[Demsrule86]

35. I absolutely disagree with that...you are basically planning primaries to elect Warren as

the nominee or candidate like her forever and we would lose forever as you need independents who will not vote for such candidates...the idea is to field a candidate who can win the EC.

[Demsrule86]

43. It is too expensive...primaries are run by the states.

[MichMan]

15. If you believe that Iowa is insignificant and unrepresentative, than just ignore the results

There are few delegates that would make it important in the grand scheme of things.

[NurseJackie]

18. It's more than just delegates. It's appearances too... but I think you knew that already.

[brooklynite]

20. Why do we keep asking the same question over and over?

It’s been established that Iowa isn’t representative. However, it provides candidates with the opportunity ITV and requirement to campaign face to face in a way a lRger State would to, and it has a historic place in the process that nobody’s going to challenge.

[BannonsLiver]

40. I'll wait for the translation.

[Hortensis]

21. This is an informative article on this, pros and cons to change.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/26/463870736/no-way-to-pick-a-president-here-are-6-other-ways-to-do-it

[brooklynite]

22. Fun fact: every competitive Pres. candidate signed a commitment to keep Iowa first...

[Renew Deal]

23. Which state should go first?

[Sucha NastyWoman]

29. That works for me too

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2019, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I just don’t want states that won’t get electoral college votes from having an outsized influence on who are nominees are.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Meanwhile people dismiss "urban" (euphemism for "not white enough") areas as non-representative

Link to tweet

Yes, I know this is David Frum, but this opinion is common across the spectrum, including among many Democrats.

[Kaleva]

30. Are you dissatisfied with the nominees that our current system has produced?

[Demsrule86]

32. The only reason Iowa has meaning is because we give it meaning;I don't think it matters personally.

[MineralMan]

41. Please don't count me into that "we."

I don't think Iowa carries much weight at all. In fact, i think it has become fully irrelevant to presidential primaries.

Super Tuesday realignment will demonstrate that quite clearly, I think. We're just seeing one more dying tradition fail to make a difference. We'll see what happens.

[Demsrule86]

45. I think you are correct...take me. I will support Biden regardless of Iowa or New Hampshire...so I

won't say oh...look Buttigiege or Warren or whoever won so now I must switch to them...I wouldn't...I don't think Iowa speaks for me or most of us these days...Actually,I still think Biden will do fine...come close to winning or maybe even win the state...but again I don't care either way.

[squirecam]

49. Wrong

Obama winning Iowa got AA voters behind him. It was very important in 08.

[MineralMan]

53. This is 2019, not 2008.

Take a look at Super Tuesday. Iowa is obsolete. Besides, it's a red state, with only a few delegates to send to the convention. Irrelevant for 2020.

[Demsrule86]

60. Only because his electability was questioned..The voters already liked him...this is not the case

this year...people are not waiting with bated breath to see if Klobachar, Warren or any candidate is electable. I think Warren is the only candidate in the top four with anything to prove in terms of electability...and Sanders too some extent as well.

[Iggo]

44. Your question contains the answer. (n/t)

[Gothmog]

46. Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire represent the demographics of the party

[Sucha NastyWoman]

47. So what states would you say represent the demographics of our party?

Especially since there is some disagreement of who Democrats really are.

Biden’s voters think it’s not Warren/Sanders, and vice versa.

As close as this election is likely to be I think it can be said that we can’t win without several different demographic groups, not just one of them.

[Demsrule86]

61. States that have racial diversity...you can't possibly be a nominee if you can't win AA voters.

And those deciding the primary should not come from small white states with few AA voters...

[Sucha NastyWoman]

64. I totally agree with you on both points

but there are some other demographic groups we cannot win without as well

[micDROP]

50. Silly lib

That's the way They want it.... its designed to fail.

[treestar]

54. It's the first time the media can say somebody "won" something

and that is supposed to create "momentum" in that there are voters in later states who will back a "winner" - don't know if anyone really studied this to find out if people changed their minds after the IA vote.

And it would be a different dynamic in each primary - in 2016 Hillary only had non-Democrat Bernie as opposition vs. various numbers in others, and a very high number in this one.

[Demsrule86]

63. Not this year...IMHO.

[Gothmog]

65. States that are more diverse will decide the winner of the nomination

Link to tweet