Julian Castro's last Iowa campaign ad called for the end of kicking off voting in Iowa...

[brooklynite]

Whatever you think of the merits, I'm not sure this was the burning issue on Iowans' minds...

Link to tweet

[Renew Deal]

1. Is there a single state other than his home state where he is polling above 5%?

[TexasTowelie]

6. I don't believe that Castro ever reached 5% in Texas, fwiw.

Castro has a following around San Antonio, but far less appeal on a statewide basis.

[LonePirate]

2. Iowans (and some traditionalists) may hate it but Castro is right. IA should not be first.

An overwhelmingly white, rural state that backed 45 by a huge margin in 2016, has no business weighing in so profoundly on the Democratic nominating process. Our party looks nothing like the state and has issues/concerns that are not issues/concerns for many in the state (urban vs. rural concerns, for example).

[Cuthbert Allgood]

3. It makes no sense that Iowa and NH are first.

Shouldn't we change it every year to be the swing states that we need to win being first. Those should be the ones that let us know who is most likely to get us the Presidency. Maybe if MI, WI, and PA were first, we would have had a better feel for the general election?

[sacto95834]

4. Whoever...

goes first will bring complaints as being "unfair."

I think MI, WI and PA are too big geographically with expensive media markets to go first. You would need a lot of $$ to be heard if you don't have name recognition.

South Carolina might be a good state to take over New Hampshire's place or at least have both vote on the same day. S Carolina is larger than New Hampshire, but the media market I would think is cheaper than New Hampshire.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

5. Our odds of winning SC are marginal at best.

Being that the first primaries weed out the nominees, we need to make sure that those that go first are states that are going to have an impact. We don't need to know who California or NY wants. We will win that state. We need to know the ones that we barely won or barely lost from the last election. Those are the most important.

[sacto95834]

7. Only one problem...

The "safe" blue states are rather large or have VERY expensive media markets. Maybe Nevada or New Mexico be one of the first primaries. But both are rather large geographically. I mean you don't want to start with Vermont or Rhode Island as they are very small, but the demographics are similar to New Hampshire. But then somebody has to go first. I vote we change it per 4-year cycle.

I'm with you to start with a very diverse state like California or Texas would be way too costly for the lesser known candidates. Those delegate rich states should go more toward the middle. I kind of liked California going last - the delegate rich pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But it would matter only with two or three strong candidates that can go all the way to the convention.

The only good thing about Iowa and New Hampshire - they have a history of going first and their populations take that honor very seriously.