Iowa Republicans threaten to move caucuses if Democrats change schedule

[brooklynite]

Source: The Guardian

Few in the US would suggest that the presidential election process should last even longer than it already does, but that is exactly what may happen if Republicans in Iowa follow through with a recent threat.

In an interview this week with NBC News, Iowa’s Republican party chair said he would be prepared to move the state’s caucuses – the process Iowa uses to identify its preferred presidential candidate – “to Halloween” should Democrats shake up their primary schedule.

Iowa has long been the first state in the nation to cast its vote in the Republican and Democratic presidential primary processes, but Democrats are exploring the idea of holding their first ballot elsewhere in 2024.

Clamor has been growing in the party for a different state, with a population more representative of the US as a whole, to be given the first go, with Democratic officials in Michigan, in particular, pushing for the state to be moved up in the primary calendar.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/28/iowa-republicans-caucuses-democrats

---

An important point: If the Iowa (Republican) Government chooses not to hold a Presidential Primary, the result will, by necessity, be a Party sponsored Caucus, even if its not a "stand in the corner and be counted" format.

[RandySF]

1. Be my guest.

Halloween is a perfect time for Republicans.

[Diamond_Dog]

3. Ha!

[AllaN01Bear]

2. are these even binding and leagel?

[33taw]

5. Legal yes - binding no.

[rurallib]

8. The precinct caucuses that get all the attention are quite legal

but not exactly binding. These caucuses are followed by the county convention which is usually held near the end of March. By that time usually the field of candidates has been whittled to only a few. Thus many of the delegates no longer have a candidate.

One year - must have been 2008 - Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina kept jockeying to be #1. They each kept moving their dates up to the point that Iowa was planning to meet on something like Dec. 23.

Iowa did end up meeting on something like January 3rd that year as I recall. It was ridiculous.

[33taw]

4. Why do we care when the Republicans have their caucus?

[randr]

6. Iowa no longer represents the "average" American voter

The whole process needs reform across the country

[Zambero]

7. F*ck 'Em

Iowa seems to have moved over to the dark side in recent years, beginning with the election of Joni Ernst to the U.S. Senate and Trump's two wins in the state. This, despite state Democrats having fielded excellent candidates. Indeed, it is not representative politically or demographically of the country as a whole. It's time to go elsewhere for the first primary. Let Republicans go ahead and move their clown show to Halloween as it suits them to a tee.

[RAB910]

9. This is long overdue. Iowa has zero interest in supporting Democrats, so fuck em

[brooklynite]

10. So, also get rid of the South Carolina Primary?

[Gore1FL]

11. Yes, please. nt

[dsc]

12. Only if it is replaced with Maryland or Virginia

since if you remove that primary the only early state with a large AA population would be no longer early.

[RAB910]

14. I don't know if I would move it as much as I think there should be a second one from a blue state

[JT45242]

13. Live in Iowa..

Move us to last.

If you don't have a primary, you know real democracy. With secret ballots you go last.

In fact. If you decide to have a caucus, then you get only 3 delegates at the convention..sit down and STFU ....

Iowa is a lost cause... don't let it influence who Dems put on ballots.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. California.

We have the largest population and get virtually zero opportunity to say who the Dem nominee will be. It's all been decided by the time we get our say.

The candidates sure like our $millions, though, given how many times they rush out here to scoop up some of that sweet California cash.

[brooklynite]

16. If you start with California...

...you immediately limit the pool to candidates with a huge chest of money or have big name recognition. No Howard Dean, Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar. Why? Because it's too big a state to do retail politicking in. Nobody gets known by meeting voters at the local diner or fire station. Its all TV ads and rallies with existing supporters.

[former9thward]

20. What is stopping the CA legislature from moving its primary to an early date?

Absolutely nothing.

[Blue_true]

25. No.

Putting a big state first presents two risks. The first is that it immediately turns the primary into a contest of who can raise more money over who has the best platform. Second, the risk of an immediate knockout where we essentially give the wrong candidate an overwhelming lead that can’t be overcome is too great when a big state leads off. California, New York and Texas should stay where they are in the Democratic Party primary calendar.

I agree with removing Iowa as our starting state, put a pair of states that better reflect our party’s broad demographics up first and balance that regionally, like Michigan and Arizona leading off, or Pennsylvania and New Mexico leading off. After the first pair our party should move around the country by regions, for example an east pair of primaries featuring New Hampshire and South Carolina on the same Tuesday.

[question everything]

17. Hold your comments. Iowa Democrats are thinking along the same line

Iowa and NH have had it for many years - 50? Time for a change

[33taw]

18. What do you mean - moving their caucus to October of 2023?

Let them, the candidates just need to stop focusing all of their attention on them. I don't care what happens at the Iowa state fair.

[JohnSJ]

19. It is way past time to get rid of the discriminatory caucus.

[IbogaProject]

21. We should do two national primaries

Do a Ranked Choice or Approval primary then have a runoff with the top two from each major party. Say have the first one march or april then have the second one in June, just like most other primaries. The fragmented presidential primary system is a vestige of a much older America when campaigns had to travel of long time periods to get everywhere.

[Dorn]

22. Excellent Idea -- it is time to bring presidential voting up to date

If Alaska can do Ranked Choice, every state can.

[TomSlick]

23. The problem is that States run their elections.

Trump has made it clear that he doesn't like ranked choice elections. No state controlled by MAGAts will move to ranked choice.

Ranked choice makes a lot of sense in primaries. Way-on too much sense for Trump and, therefore, MAGAts.

[IbogaProject]

24. I mixed two ideas.

Ranked choice or approval voting, where you vote for every acceptable cannadate and in my proposal the ones with the 2 highest totals go to the final primary, this would be for each party, you get to vote for your party's candidates, but neither of these is necessary to do my proposed two mega primaries. You can do the first primary round and instead of one winner per party have two who continue campaigning on to a second primary in June, when many states have their congressional primaries.

[zanana1]

26. AHEM!

New Hampshire has the first primary in the nation. Iowa has a caucus instead of a direct voting system.

[peppertree]

27. Where? To Russia?

That's where the real GOP caucuses have been held for the past six years, after all.