McAuliffe, former DNC chair, says on CNN what others are thinking, Iowa won't be going first anymore

[Dennis Donovan]

Link to tweet

Peter Baker ✔@peterbakernyt

McAuliffe, former DNC chairman, says on CNN what others are thinking, that Iowa won't be going first anymore.

12:09 AM - Feb 4, 2020

Good. This is a clusterfuck.

[HarlanPepper]

1. Someone else made a solid argument they don't deserve it anymore

In another thread. Even if they switched to a primary. I tend to agree.

[question everything]

10. No one deserves to be first

Have rotating order, five or six regional - or other common ties - one each month. Forget this “retail poitics” nonsense.

That NH has it in its Constituion, that’s too bad. They can have it on Christmas and no one will come.

[donkeypoofed]

12. Ya know, I think you sounded just like Amy right there !

I could hear her saying what you said, I really could.

[question everything]

16. Thank you. I will take is a compliment

I suppose both of us are no nonsense practical.

[Mosby]

15. Exactly.

[msongs]

2. it can be on the first day, just add some other states with more representative demographics nt

[sweetloukillbot]

3. If they switch to a primary they won't be first

New Hampshire, by law, is the first primary.

[nilram]

4. By their state law, but, yes.

[Recursion]

18. The national parties aren't bound by state laws

DC in 2004 passed a law saying their primary would be before Iowa, and it was. Most of the candidates refused to appear on the ballot, and the national party did not accredit any delegates based on it (they were selected later in the year by the DC convention).

[nilram]

22. Agreed.

[dem4decades]

27. Why do they decide?

[sweetloukillbot]

28. New Hampshire state law says they go first.

If someone else moves it earlier, New Hampshire will move theirs up accordingly.

[JoeOtterbein]

5. Or, in other words...

...Bernie won tonight!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Nobody won. There will be a cloud of doubt over whoever claims victory,

especially if the results are close. It’s a shame for everyone who put time, effort and money into this mess.

[JoeOtterbein]

11. Of course!

Because Bernie and Pete tonight!!!!

Yippeeeee!!!!!

[CentralMass]

26. Yup.

[dweller]

6. they had this 1 Job !?!

repugs are rolling like pigs in wet dream slop

😞

✌🏼

[lapfog_1]

7. Iowa isn't diverse enough. Not nearly so.

Since so much attention is paid to the first "primary", whichever state holds it should be more representative of the current Democratic party.

It should still be a relatively small state (to give the voters of that state a chance to here all of the candidates) and it should be a swing state.

[MoonlitKnight]

8. If high fructose corn syrup

and Ethanol weren’t reason enough. It’s well past time to make Iowa go to the back of the line. They have exploited politicians for years just because nobody wanted to piss off the first caucus state.

[oasis]

13. Not ready for prime time......Iowa.

[herding cats]

14. Wait, it thought it was in their state constitution?

Am I wrong on that? I'm sure they at the least have a stupid ass state law requiring it.

[Recursion]

17. It's a statute, but that doesn't really matter; the parties aren't bound by it

The Democratic party can say "sure, have your caucus, which we will ignore, and then have a primary whose results we will accept".

DC had a primary in 2004 before even Iowa to highlight our colonial status. None of the campaigns campaigned for it except Sharpton, who came in 2nd after Dean. The party ignored those results and accepted the delegates chosen by the DC convention that summer.

[herding cats]

20. Thank you, that's in line with what I thought.

I'm too tired to research tonight and appreciate the help.

I'm more than fine with letting them go. We've evolved since 1970 era politics. It's time to turn the page and move on.

Tomorrow I'll research the percentage of potential voters who weren't even born yet then. We need to evolve is my feelings, but I need to put together a viable argument to that fact.

[question everything]

19. No, this is NH. And they, too, can just tough it

Rotating order of primaries! Start planning it now!

[SunSeeker]

21. K & R

[EveHammond13]

23. this is a good result

[SergeStorms]

24. Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Iowa has no relationship to the actual demographics of our country. Neither does New Hampshire. For Dog's sake, allow states with a good cross-section of American citizens go first, or rotate them. This Iowa being first crap has outlived any usefulness it may have once had, if any. These states with fewer residents than some states' third largest city just doesn't cut it anymore.

You're a great state, Iowa, but take a seat in the rear of the procession from now on.

[renate]

25. It's genuinely nice that Iowans take their responsibility so seriously

Huge props to them, honestly and sincerely.

But the idea that Iowa (IOWA, for gosh sakes!), a 90% white and fairly rural state, should be more relevant to the choice of the Democratic candidate than Florida or Nevada or Texas, is patently absurd.