The arguments I hear against Iowa and Michigan going first are all flawed...

[brooklynite]

The claim made is that they shouldn't go first because they're unrepresentative of Democratic voters.

So what? In the fullness of the Primary cycle, all States, representative or not, will have a chance to vote. The aggregate result will be the Party's candidate.

The IMPLICATION seems to be that, by starting with unrepresentative States, we lose a MORE representative candidate who drops out early. Who can you think of who might have been successful but wasn't because of Iowa and New Hampshire?

2020
IA: Pete Buttigieg
NH: Pete Buttigieg/Bernie Sanders

2016
IA: Hillary Clinton
NH Bernie Sanders

2012
uncontested

2008
IA: Barack Obama
NH: Hillary Clinton

2004
IA: John Kerry
NH: John Kerry

2000
IA: Al Gore
NH: Al Gore

1996
uncontested

1992
IA: Tom Harkin
NH: Paul Tsongas

[bucolic_frolic]

1. I'll be glad to see the end of IA and NH going first

NH has boosted most in my opinion because it's been second. But both are representative of rural Democrats who are more white than national average. Not sure that delivers a potential presidential winner for southern states, and states with the 20-30 largest cities in the country.

Absolutely agree with Biden's preference to go with SC. We need to include the south like never before because you never know how NY, NJ, WI, VA are going to go in the Electoral count. Stop playing safe and go with Dean's 50 state strategy. Biden has told us, "The best ideas win." Wow do we have an edge there. Bring it.

[MichMan]

3. Four of the last five in Iowa ended up being the overall nominee

Seems like Iowa got it right.

Unless you believe Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got an unfair early advantage over other more qualified candidates.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Or did IA begin a bandwagon that subsequent states followed?

I dunno.

[MichMan]

5. What candidates would you have preferred over the ones that won Iowa ?

The winner of the Iowa primary does get favorable media attention causing potential momentum in subsequent primaries.

Which candidates below do you think Iowa got wrong, thusly tilting the scales by giving them early frontrunner status, and who should they have chosen instead ?


2000 - Al Gore

2004 - John Kerry

2008- Barack Obama

2016- Hillary Clinton

2020 - Pete Buttigieg

[Demsrule86]

7. We might have won either Gore or Kerry's election with a different candidate.

And in Hillary Clinton's primary. She might have won the General if there had been a different first state. It gave hope to some when there was no chance.

[Demsrule86]

16. That is what I think. They will nominate candidates who won't win...and it will get worse.

[intelpug]

34. Iowa first

Oh, I dunno,it seems like back in the day Jessy Jackson actually won Iowa when he ran but it didn't go much farther than that

[question everything]

32. Only two candidates who won Iowa ended in the White House: Junior in 2000 and Obama in 2008

Oh, and Carter who came second after "undecided."

[MichMan]

35. Who should Iowa have selected in 2016 ?

If Hillary Clinton was a wrong pick, who should it have been instead?

[question everything]

45. She was not the "wrong" pick. She was my choice in both 2008 and 2016

Sadly, I don't think that our country is ready for a woman president. Not now, not in 2024, though Klobuchar was my choice in 2020.

And I don't think that anyone would have predicted the way that Trump swept so many. I think that many Democrats welcomed Trump, thinking that he would be an easy opponent.

[Renew Deal]

41. Kerry should not have been the nominee

We had better options.

[yardwork]

2. I'm glad that other states are being moved up.

The first primaries absolutely do create buzz and momentum.

[Demsrule86]

6. Iowa needs to go away. No more caucuses.

Michigan is a must-win state so I am OK with them going first or early and Michigan has a Black population, unlike lily-white Iowa.

[brooklynite]

8. Whether Iowa goes first of last, there will be a Caucus...

…Iowa’s Government (all Republican) has no incentive to schedule and pay for a Primary.

[Demsrule86]

10. If they have a caucus, then they are out as far as I am concerned. I would rather not count their

delegates than have this nonsense. We came close to losing the General thanks to Iowa and New Hampshire and to a lesser degree Nevada. Joe Biden was the only candidate who could win the rustbelt and he was left for dead after the first three primaries. Those primaries no longer help field good Democratic candidates if they ever did. Maybe it was pure dumb luck that some of the ones they backed won the General.

[Bettie]

37. So, you are saying just excise Iowa from the process altogether?

Don't allow them to participate in it at all?

[Demsrule86]

12. Also, unless they are first, it really doesn't matter. We have no Democrats in Iowa nationally.

The electorate does not include folks that are absolutely needed to win a Presidental General.

[Demsrule86]

9. I would add that it will increasingly lead to unelectable candidates if we continue to allow those

who are not representative of our party to take the lead in the primaries thus building momentum in the primary that shuts out those who can win the General. I get the impression that you don't care for change. But the time are ' a changing'.

We have to find a new path to win the General. All your concerns for the midterm and the doom and gloom on this forum was misplaced-the mid-term was historically good for us. Joe Biden pulled it out. If not for California and New York who need to fix their districting ASAP, we would have the House. I would remind you that Fetterman won and so did Katie Hobbs who refused to debate MAGA Keri Lake.

[Renew Deal]

42. Democrats have won the popular vote every election since 1992 except 2004

So I think we’ve been mostly getting it correct.

[pinkstarburst]

11. South Carolina is not a great choice

It should have been Georgia instead of SC going first. Georgia is actually a swing state that has been purple in recent elections. There is zero chance South Carolina will go blue in the national election so focusing all our attention on SC is a mistake. Nevada and Michigan are good choices. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been better choices than some of the ones they picked. I think Iowa and NH should get pushed back to Super Tuesday, honestly. They've had their turn to get all the attention for way too long. Give some other states a chance to meet candidates. No one ever comes to my state and half the people have dropped out by the time I get to vote which honestly makes me really angry. I don't my candidate chosen by South Carolina.

[jalan48]

13. SC has voted for the Democratic Presidential nominee only twice in the last 60 years,

Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976. Why we would want to start with this state makes no sense to me.

[Demsrule86]

15. We need candidates who can appeal to AA. We can't win without them. If a candidate can't get

their support than they can't be our nominee.

[jalan48]

17. So, is SC the only state with AA?

[Demsrule86]

20. It is a really good state for it...because most of the Democrats here are minority. Thus, it clearly

shows who can get that all-important vote. It showed clearly that several of our candidates could not and thus helped Joe Biden mount a comeback when he was essentially road kill...Joe Biden was the only candidate running who could beat Trump IMHO.

[Wingus Dingus]

21. A point to consider is the structure and strength of the Dem party within the state.

I am leery of party insiders playing favorites within the state. Pennsylvania Dem Party tried to discourage Fetterman's primary win in favor of Conor Lamb, from what I understand--just as an example. I don't like politicians and insiders choosing my candidate.

[jalan48]

23. I think it shows the preferences of one of the most conservative states in the country and

a state that is absolutely certain to vote for the Republican candidate in the general election. It will benefit the more conservative Democrats. Maybe that's the reason some want it to go first.

[Demsrule86]

26. Joe Biden won.

Proof is in the pudding.

[MichMan]

27. Why should Nevada and New Hampshire be 2nd and 3rd then?

Since they both voted for Bernie Sanders over Joe Biden.

(So did California, Colorado, Utah, N. Dakota, and Vermont)

Source: CNN Politics

CNN — The rule-making arm of the Democratic National Committee on Friday voted to approve a proposal to drastically reshape the 2024 presidential nominating calendar and make South Carolina the first state to hold a primary, followed by Nevada and New Hampshire on the same day a few days later, and then Georgia and Michigan before Super Tuesday.

President Joe Biden this week asked DNC leaders to adopt this early state lineup, which strips Iowa of its first-in-the-nation status. The proposal by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee needs to be approved at a full DNC meeting, which will take place early next year, and states will still need to set their own primary dates.

[Demsrule86]

47. I don't see why they should.

[question everything]

33. Thanks to 82 year old Clyburn. How long do you think he will be able to round the troops?

and Jaime Harrison, the head of the DNC who has done an atrocious job in 2020, is from SC.

Some inside manipulations that cannot be well for the future.

[Renew Deal]

43. If that's the standard, we shouldn't change anything.

Democrats have won the popular vote every time since 1992 except 2004 with the existing system.

[Demsrule86]

14. It is not about a swing state in this case. It is about seeing if a candidate can win minority

support. And I think it is the perfect state to do this. Georgia should be an early state though. The rustbelt states should be early too...Michigan, PA and WI...as we can't win without them. Virginia, Arizona and North Carolina should be early also.

[msfiddlestix]

44. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ n/t

[Wingus Dingus]

18. It's about the Dem party taking more control of the process.

No more different/interesting/non-traditional candidates being allowed to "catch fire" and have a chance. That's going to be stomped out early on. SC will be more of a gate-keeping state--candidate must FIRST appeal to primarily black/CHURCH GOING voters. I don't know how this will play out. Will the losers of SC have a chance to reset the narrative later on?

[Demsrule86]

48. That is the wrong question.

The question is should those who do not have support from AA be our candidates? I say no.

[Indykatie]

19. IA and NH Determine the Initial Viability of Candidates

Candidates can be drummed out of the race with a poor showing in IA and NH. I say that's BS. Why should they have such outsized leverage before the base of the party (African Americans) have cast a single vote?

[brooklynite]

25. I'll ask again: name a candidate you like who was "drummed out" due to IA and NH results?

[Sogo]

39. Joe Biden

...Or he would have been, if not for Jim Clyburn and South Carolina. That's why SC is going to go first next time. It was Biden's pick for the simple reason that if he runs again (and he has made it clear he's leaning in that direction), it will be a slam dunk for him in SC, which will establish the momentum for him from the start. It's also a payback for them turning around his run in 2020. Being from Iowa, I'm well aware that the first state gets a huge influx of money into businesses in the state. That's part of the "payback" to SC.

[Demsrule86]

49. Nope. Io a in particular with a caucus

Should but have an outside role in choosing my our candidates

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. SC is not a representative State either, just for different reasons

In the case of SC the black proportion of the electorate is disproportionately very high, even the black proportion of the Democratic party electorate is disproportionately high. Granted a disproportionate racial make up of the electorate never stopped the Democratic Party from letting lily white states vote early in the primary season, which is largely why SC got moved up to to the place it currently occupies in the schedule, to help counter balance Iowa and NH. Michigan actually is a much better fit if we are looking for States that overall come close to matching the demographics of Democratic voters

A problem I have with SC possibly moving into first place is that the South in general is very unrepresentative of Democratic voters as a whole, and because of the way that Super Tuesday has been set up, Southern States already have an out of proportion role in picking the Democratic Party nominee. No one would ever presume that regional differences were irrelevant in regard to White voters. White voters in Alabama do not in any way come close to representing white voters in Connecticut . Black voters in SC may come closer to representing Black voters in NJ, than do the north south examples of white voters that I cite above, but there are still significant regional differences between them. SC African American voters tend to be more conservative than are NY or CA African American voters for example. The latter two are blue states. Michigan is a purple state. SC is a red state.

South Carolina backed the winner for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020, 2016, and 2008. The same can't be said for Iowa, NH, or Nevada which preceded SC in voting. SC already played a key role in picking the Democratic nominee in all of those years. It doesn't need to be moved up to first place in order to play a key role in determining the nominee. Michigan should move up, Iowa should move down.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. Iowa caucuses, built on myth, lose place at head of the line

I think that the OP meant New Hampshire and not Michigan.

I am glad that New Hampshire and Iowa will lose their place as early contests. Neither state represent the demographics of the party.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-iowa-barack-obama-des-moines-13ea69a517de07d1622b331feeb08c4d?taid=638b6fe26d9acb00017f2bae&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

The caucuses and their outsize importance were largely an exercise in myth-making, that candidates could earn a path to the White House by meeting voters in person where they live, and earnest, civic-minded Midwesterners would brave the winter cold to stand sometimes for hours to discuss issues and literally stand for their candidate.

As the caucuses have played out, the flaws have become glaring. First among them: The state’s Democrats botched the count in 2020, leaving an embarrassing muddle. But there were more. Since 2008, the state’s political makeup has changed dramatically, from a reliable swing state to solidly Republican. And with the Democratic Party increasingly becoming a party of diversity, Iowa’s lack of it left the state without much of a rationale for leading the way.

“We’ve been headed this way for a while,” said Joe Trippi, who managed Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt’s winning Iowa campaign in 1988, adding “2020 broke the camel’s back.”

The Democratic National Committee’s rulemaking arm voted Friday to remove Iowa as the leadoff state in the presidential nominating order and replace it with South Carolina starting in 2024, a dramatic shakeup championed by President Joe Biden to better reflect the party’s deeply diverse electorate.

The caucuses were once a novel effort to expand local participation in national party decision-making, but this vestige of 19th century Midwestern civic engagement has simply been been unable to keep pace with the demands of 21st century national politics.

“The times have changed and maybe it’s time for this nominating process to change,” said Emily Parcell, Obama’s 2008 Iowa political director.

[MichMan]

36. How is New Hampshire losing it's early place ?

When they are still going to be going second in the proposal favored by President Biden and the DNC ?

[Poiuyt]

28. I always thought Illinois should be the first state

It's a nice combination of urban, rural, and big city. Traditional midwest values, etc.

[Trenzalore]

30. Be very expensive to run

Also, you win Chicago, you win the state.

[MichMan]

38. I wonder if that's why people are opposed to small states being first

Worried that someone who hasn't already raised a ton of money from rich donors might resonate with voters.

[Trenzalore]

29. The first four primaries should be in small states

1 in the Northeast
1 in the South
1 in the Midwest
1 in the West

They should rotate who goes first. I think that is the fairest way to figure out a candidate's viability.

That is my opinion, but what do I know

[question everything]

31. Flaws in your arguments

I think that it was only in the 2016 and 2020 that last states to have their primaries still had more than one candidate to chose. NJers, please jump in.

I lived in California and by the time our primaries came, in June, all the other candidates already dropped.

No, the problem with Iowa is the caucus system, not the timing.

As has been pointed here again and again: caucuses disenfranchise voters who cannot be at a specific place at a specific time and day.

Just look at all the early votes cast in GA in the past few days. And the assumption is that most are Democrats. Do you really think that all of them, most of them, could make it to a caucus?

[Renew Deal]

40. There aren't any good answers to this problem

People can find issues with any state. I also think it’s weird to say any state is unrepresentative other than maybe some in the Rockies with smaller populations.

What’s the best state to start in? You can argue NY but NY has a big problem and it is the cost of advertising. Maryland could be good. It’s not that big and has a diverse population. But it’s in a big media market with DC influence. Nevada? Not representative. Washington? It could be old but it’s not the most diverse. Ohio? Could be good but it’s big and will cost a lot for marketing.

IA and NH are about as bad as it gets with diversity but they are relatively small and cheap to operate in. It lets candidates connect.

I’m not convinced it should change just to change.

[BannonsLiver]

46. LOL

Cringeworthy. 🤦

And now a single dedication to the OP: