The fact that Iowa and New Hampshire are so unrepresentative of our party

[dsc]

is still a problem even given that Obama won Iowa. We draw voting right districts not to elect black candidates (or Hispanic ones) but to permit those minorities to elect the candidates of their choice who address the issues they care about. The fact is on say guns, New Hampshire and most likely Iowa have considerably different views on guns than Atlanta, Charlotte, Boston, and New York. The first city which gets to vote in our primaries is Las Vegas. I think it is a fair point that having a more representative state go first is something we should consider.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Do you want somewhere that is more representative of the party or more representive of the country

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2019, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

to be first?

[Bradshaw3]

21. Exactly

We want a candidate who can win the electoral college, not one who can just carry already blue states.

[emulatorloo]

2. Well Iowa Dem Caucus goers are left-liberals/progressives. I read polling that said 50% identify

as socialists.

Why would you think Iowa Democratic caucus goers are anti gun control?

Republican Caucus goers are a different story. But they aren’t Democrats. They are conservative and a good share are evangelicals.

[dsc]

3. I would imagine that many are and many others don't rank that issue as important

Many liberals oppose gun control, go to the gun forum if you don't believe me.

[emulatorloo]

5. I don't find DU's gun control forum very representative of real-world Liberals/Progressives

Of course, YMMV

[BeyondGeography]

4. We've never nominated the wrong candidate because of IA and NH

With Obama, there’s a very strong argument that we nominated the right one (because of Iowa). I think Iowa was spot on with Kerry, too.

I like smaller states first, maybe leapfrog SC over NH, but don’t stack the deck in favor of big money, high name-recognition candidates with expensive media markets up front.

[dsc]

7. In 1992, Douglass Wilder wanted to run for President

and he did some polling where he submitted his picture and bio (he was the first black governor since Reconstruction) and polling where he submitted his bio but a picture of a white person. The massive negative differential his picture had in New Hampshire (he didn't try Iowa) made him change his mind. We have no idea what candidates we could have had but for Iowa's place.

[emulatorloo]

10. Jessie Jackson won my county in Iowa in 1992

Not sure why you are wanting to misrepresent Iowa Democrats this way.

As someone noted below, costs are lower for campaigning in a small state. Big States Big Cities mean big money.

[dsc]

13. Statewide in 84 he got 1.5% in 88 he got 8.8%

In 84 he finished in 8th places, in 88 he finished 4th. He finished 3rd nationwide in 84 and finished 2nd in 88 nationwide. So I don't think it misrepresents Iowa to say Jackson was handicapped by Iowa being first. And remember he was from a neighboring state.

[BeyondGeography]

20. Doug Wilder couldn't be our nominee because of IA and NH?

I’m afraid you’ll have to do better.

[still_one]

6. Even worse, Iowa is a caucus state, and the caucus is a discriminatory process, that favors only

those that are physicaly able

[dsc]

8. that is being fixed thankfully

[Blue_true]

22. How for Iowa? nt

[brooklynite]

9. The unrepresentative nature of IA and NH serves a purpose...

...it allows for face to face campaigning which honestly won't be possible in California, New York, Florida and Texas. It tests on the fly questions, and how to deal with hecklers. That in turn gives us a better understanding of a candidate (and his/her campaign team).

[dsc]

11. why not use Washington DC?

It has fewer people than Iowa or New Hampshire, it is way, way, way geographically smaller, and thus would be easier and cheaper to do one on one campaigning in. But let's be honest, that would never happen due to how unrepresentative DC is.

[brooklynite]

12. All that does is replace one unrepresentative State with another...

[dsc]

14. Oh so some unrepresentative places are problems fancy that

but that kind of makes my point. We would never permit a state that was unrepresentative in the direction of having too many minorities go first. BTW I am not sure they are more unrepresentative of our party that 99% white New Hampshire.

[NacLeeFF]

17. You do realize how white voters are still a solid majority of all voters,

and that white working class voters are a majority of that majority, and that many of the key "swing states" in the Electoral College are heavily populated by working class white voters, yes?

[dsc]

18. we haven't won a majority of the white vote since Johnson

and won't no matter who we run. I am not saying they shouldn't get any say but I am saying they shouldn't get pretty much all the say which they currently do. At best, I will have a choice of two or three people when I vote on Super Tuesday.

[Bradshaw3]

23. That's ridiculous

White Democratic primary voters don't have "pretty much all the say". POC are and have been an important voting bloc in the primaries. For example in the 2016 primaries they were key in HRC getting the nomination. She got over 70 percent of the vote in South Carolina, and it was black people who gave her that margin. Same was true in 2008 for Obama.

[Blue_true]

24. Plus, there is no way the democrat wins without carrying a good chunk of Whites.

Honestly, the Whites that routinely vote democrat are a decent piece of the Democratic Party base. In a state like my state of Florida, Whites outnumber African Anericans by around 4:1, in my county it is just over 5:1. 35-45% of the White vote is a massive number of votes for a democrat to pick up and make it possible for African Americans and other POC to push the democrat to victory.

But, I see the point of the OP. Why not let a more diverse state go first, since our party is becoming more diverse.

[George II]

16. Iowa is 91% white, New Hampshire is 94% white, and....

..they rank 31st and 41st in population. They have a total of 4.4 million people out of 320+ million Americans. That would calculate to less than 300,000 non-white residents.

Yet the emphasis is on these two states as "bell weathers" for our nomination. Thankfully California will now be included in the Super Tuesday primaries just a month or so later. That should dilute their so-called importance.

[NacLeeFF]

15. Being more representative of the Democratic Party doesn't really help with the Electoral College.

Especially when so many Democratic voters are clustered in a handful of states that don't add up to 270...

EDIT: And yes, the focus on said states makes it harder for those who aren't made of money or don't have monied friends to compete in elections nowadays.

[David__77]

19. The Democratic Party can make its own schedule.

It certainly doesn’t need to be beholden to state government elections scheduling. The argument for staging things differently makes sense to me. The process of how to determine a different schedule should involve many representatives, should such a process be initiated.

[Garrett78]

25. Here's a ranking of the states from most to least diverse:

https://wallethub.com/edu/most-least-diverse-states-in-america/38262/

The first 2 states inevitably have undue influence. Those states should not be Iowa and New Hampshire. I get not starting with a state as large as California, though I don't think we need to start with a super small state either. And I get why we might want 1 of the first 2 to be a battleground state. But there are much better options than IA and NH.