I'd like to see a change as to which states lead off the primary.

[Garrett78]

It's good to see states doing away with caucuses. I'd also like the Democratic Primary to start with states that more closely reflect the Democratic electorate, such as Illinois and Virginia, or Maryland and Georgia, or California and North Carolina. The states that go first carry a lot of weight in terms of momentum, and I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should be those states.

Thoughts?

[The River]

1. ALL States Should

have their primary on the same day (or entire weekend) so
the early small states don't carry as much weight.

[Garrett78]

2. Many will argue that those with less funding would be greatly disadvantaged.

An answer to that might be campaign finance reform, such as dividing up a pool of money evenly between every candidate (and stipulating that no other money may be used).

[JI7]

3. i don't see it happening anytime soon unless both parties agree to do it

and that's because the early primary elections are one of the biggest events for those states. and if one of the parties takes away their early status it will help the other party in the general election.

so it can be done but both parties would have to do it.

someone once suggested rotating states and i thought that was a good idea. they can still keep the early ones small so it helps all candidates to get around. i'm in california and a california first primary would SUCK BADLY . it would be all tv ads.

[Garrett78]

12. Quite a few of us Californians in this thread apparently. I once...

...suggested rotating groups of states. Each group would consist of states from a variety of regions.

Fair point about both parties needing to make the same changes.

[stuffmatters]

4. Ca's moved up its primary to June after coming so late in 2016 that we were pretty much irrelevant

[Silver Gaia]

7. Our presidential primary in California has moved to March starting in 2020.

Our primaries have always been in June, which is just too close to the convention in July. We can help create more positive momentum in March.

[Raine]

10. Seems like every time it's been tried here some other state

moves theirs even earlier to get ahead of ours.

[Garrett78]

14. With CA's primary being moved up to early March, it'll be tough for many states to get ahead of us.

This is from an NPR article:

California moved its primary to February in the 2008 election, which resulted "in the highest voter turnout for a primary election since 1980," according to Padilla. The state also moved its primaries to March for 2004, 2000 and 1996 after decades of holding a June primary. Gov. Brown moved the timeline back to June in 2011, in what the Los Angeles Times reported was an effort to save money.

Given that 1 out of every 8 Americans lives in California, I do think our primary should be fairly early.

[BluegrassDem]

5. I wouldn't mind seeing big regional primaries to get it over with

We could have the New England states, Mid-Atlantic states, southern states, the Midwest, Rocky Mountain, plain states, and the west coast all have their primaries together staggered on the calendar.

[aikoaiko]

13. I've heard regional primaries before and I like it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. I agree. n/t

[pnwmom]

8. It's important to have the south early on. Why?

Because since Kennedy was elected in 1960, we haven't elected a Democratic President without strong support from the south.

Either a Southerner -- Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter -- or a northerner with huge minority support, including in the South -- Obama.

[Garrett78]

11. We have a better shot at winning VA and NC than IA, and GA is in play.

[dembotoz]

9. Iowa and new Hampshire likes the attention and money

Lots of meals bought, hotels booked.free advertising for quaint rural towns
They won't give that up easily