The white privilege of Iowa and New Hampshire

[Stuy]

An opinion piece I recommend reading in the Boston Globe:

It’s difficult to overstate the power of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Success in these contests means credibility, which translates into media coverage and a financial windfall. Conversely, a loss — or even a worse-than-expected showing — can be the death knell of a candidacy. In his 2008 book “The Making of the Presidential Candidates,” Northeastern professor William Mayer concluded that a New Hampshire win equates to a 27 percent increase in national primary votes. This advantage is often what anoints winners and forces losers out of the race.

...

In 2017, Iowans were 86.5 percent white, 5.7 percent Hispanic, and 3.3 percent black. New Hampshire is even whiter — it’s 90.9 percent white, 3.4 percent Hispanic, and 2 percent black. How does this compare to the rest of the nation? It’s the demographic equivalent of stepping out of a dark movie theater into the whitest, brightest glare. As a whole, the United States is 61.5 percent white, 17.6 percent Hispanic, and 12.3 percent black. The powerful and early contests dramatically underrepresent American voters of color.

By letting white states go first, the Democratic Party is ignoring its most loyal voters in favor of a demographic group that is abandoning it. This is what institutional racism looks like.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/10/06/the-democratic-primaries-and-white-privilege-iowa-and/nKGGJGSD3q9XHjCNqeViCO/story.html

[dalton99a]

1. Rural whites have appointed themselves gatekeepers of our political system.

Hence the periodic ritualistic pilgrimage to kiss their asses

[BannonsLiver]

29. You got that right

And I'll take it a step further. This country, by and large, is governed by white conservative rural voters, despite their perpetual bleatings about being victims.

[ramen]

59. Rural white checking in:

I assure you that I didn't appoint me anything of anyone. I really wish the early primaries would just move somewhere more representative of the whole country. It would be the right thing to do ethically and politically. Added bonuses: politicians would quit traipsing through pretending they care about this place, and I could cease being accused of gatekeeping and racism every four years just because of where I live. Those are not powers of mine, and they are not goals of mine.

Source: a liberal and rural part of New Hampshire.. we exist, folks

[LeftTurn3623]

65. in some ways I wish I lived there

just so I could meet the different candidates .

[Act_of_Reparation]

96. This isn't about YOU personally.

It's a systemic problem. No one person in Iowa or New Hampshire is to blame.

[Dream Girl]

2. I think both will start to lose their outsized influence as people eyes are opened.

A win in either or both won’t lead to a coronation this time out.

[Demsrule86]

8. I don't think it will have the same impact this year and even less in years to come.

And Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and won it all...dirty little secret many that Iowa 'chooses' go down big time in he general.

[brush]

47. Even on the repug side, didn't that loon Michelle Backman win Iowa?

And she's been out of politics for a while now.

[Demsrule86]

48. She did...she I looked it up Bachman won Iowa...dear God no more Iowa.

[33taw]

3. I wish the candidate would quit going to every cow pie chucking contest in Iowa.

And I say this as a rural Wi voter.

[exboyfil]

4. Amen

And I say it as a suburban IA voter.

The primary schedule should be rotated (and yes it should be a primary and not a caucus). I have a thought about regional blocks of voting of equivalent delegate count over eight weeks that rotate. For example something like Iowa would be
1-8-4-6-2-7-3-5 over the next eight elections. We would be grouped with other midwest states.

[brooklynite]

12. When you "group" Primary States, you shift the race to a TV campaign...

[exboyfil]

16. In a country where you represent 330 million people

I don't know what other option you have. In fact with modern technology you might even be able to get away from the influencers and get a better shot at listening to more of the people. Granted those who have not adapted to the technology might be somewhat locked out.

It might not be so much as a TV campaign as a streaming interactive campaign that gets covered on TV. One example would be town hall/ debate formats where qualified Democratic voters vote on which questions are to be asked of the candidates.

[brooklynite]

19. The option you have is what we do today...

...start with some smaller States that allow an evaluation of campaign organization and one-to-one campaigning to see how the message is received.

In 2004, I was in NH and was able to see how the Dean campaign was falling apart. I'd much rather know that sooner rather than later.

[TidalWave46]

89. Iowa is almost the middle when it comes to population.

I think it is the 28th most populous state, or so.

[MarcA]

64. It's increasingly been a Reality TV Campaign since the beginning

of the Age of TV. Iowa and New Hampshire became made for TV events and
Super Tuesday was a totally made for TV event. Even West Virginia had its
day in 1960. If there is $$$ to be made then there will be an event.

[brush]

52. The party unfortunately can't make Iowa and NH change their dates.

[Demsrule86]

21. Where do you live in Wisconsin?

I lived in Janesville for a while...loved it. It was my kid's favorite place.

[33taw]

26. About 25 miles from Stevens Point.

I lived in Boulder for 35 years. Quite the change.

[Demsrule86]

33. I bet. You are a couple of hours from Janesville as I recall...which is a city in name only.

It is an hour out of Chicago and 40 miles from the University of WI...we had cornfields everywhere and about five miles of city ...the rest rural unless you went towards Chicago.

[33taw]

46. I am familiar with Janesville. I actually grew up just north of Milwaukee.

It is very rural where I live, but beautiful and lots of birds.

[Demsrule86]

51. We loved Janesville...although the winter was a shock...I was told that it rarely snowed...too cold.

Well it snowed from Halloween until May...they had to use big trucks to remove the snow. Lucky me sweet neighbor had a plow...we came there after living in Georgia and almost froze to death...I still have my down coat that went to the ankles...I subbed for those couple of years...and the kids wen out if the Temp was zero or above...the only hill was behind the school so the kids got to use flying saucers at lunch and during recess.

[Kaleva]

5. Obama's win in Iowa in 2008 gave him a boost that Hillary & Edwards couldn't overcome

Opinion piece argues that Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire are inherently racist and minority candidates don't stand a chance. Obama disproved that.

[Renew Deal]

7. Also, Clinton finished 4th in Iowa

Dukakis third.

And the last three republican Iowa winners weren't the nominee

[aggiesal]

57. 2008 Iowa Caucus Results (Dukakis ran in 1988)

Party Candidate Votes Percentage Delegates
Democratic Barack Obama 940 37.6% 16
Democratic John Edwards 744 29.7% 14
Democratic Hillary Clinton 737 29.4% 15

[oldsoftie]

9. Exactly. Obama disproved SO many things like this. But some have to keep pushing it.

Anything to keep making a buck I guess.
"We'll never elect a black president". Well, not only DID we, we did it TWICE.

[Stuy]

13. False. Obama would have gotten even more delegates

In most other states that are diverse compared to Iowa.

[oldsoftie]

24. That has nothing to do with the premise of this OP. Its total bullshit. Iowa has little power.

The media fawns all over them because they're FIRST & it gives them "news" to report
The point of this nonsense is that the supposed "white privilege" is altering the outcomes of the primaries. Thats proven false by many other posters.
If Iowa was 100% black, I'm sure he WOULD have gotten more delegates. If it was 100% female, I bet Hillary would have gotten a lot more delegates.

Only ONE republican president won Iowa; W.
Only TWO Democratic presidents won Iowa; Carter & Obama

[Thekaspervote]

30. Thank you!!

[whathehell]

41. Thank you..

[StarfishSaver]

91. One black person overcoming the odds does NOT disprove the existence of racism

Please don't buy into that argument.

[oldsoftie]

109. Nobody said racism no longer exists. Just that this article is ridiculous.

It attaches much more importance to the first primaries than they deserve. Its a dog & pony show for the media & not much more. Just because there isnt a large black population in Iowa & New Hampshire doesnt mean racism is bending elections. But people make money pushing the narrative, so that insures we'll always have plenty of stories like this

[Stuy]

11. Obama would have won by a larger margin in SC, if SC went first

How about that?

[Kaleva]

34. Without winning Iowa, Obama might not have

You are ignoring the fact that Hillary lead Obama in the polls amongst black voters right up till January. The Iowa win showed black voters that Obama was a contender and support from black voters shifted to him. Setting the stage for his big win in South Carolina.

[stopdiggin]

58. true. but essentially meaningless

the assertion (OP) is that white privilege is skewing the eventual winner. It's not. As numerous posts have pointed out .. doing well in IA has meant very little in the long run.

[Demsrule86]

22. Things have changed since Obama. The voters we need are not in Iowa...and they do not resemble the

Iowa electorate...so they can't have an undue influence on our elections...same is true of New Hampshire.

[Kaleva]

35. Are you unhappy with the results of the last 3 primaries and caucuses held in NH and Iowa?

2016, 2012 and 2008?

[Demsrule86]

38. I don't even remember who won...which shows how insignificant it is ...I am unhappy with the number

of winners who have won a general...it is insulting to AA voters to hold important first primaries in very white states.

[aggiesal]

54. And the media really did a number on us during that campaign ...

After the caucus, the headline throughout the country was
"Obama Wins Iowa, Hillary takes 3rd"

No mention of Edwards taking 2nd place.
Not that it matters, because Edwards turned out to be a horses a$$.

But this is how the media messages what it wants.
A horse race so they can sell their product.

One last note, you stated that

Opinion piece argues that Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire are inherently racist

This is not saying that Democrats in IA or NH are inherently racist, it's saying that the process of electing
a President is a racial process, by allowing white America the first crack at deciding who the front running candidate
should be.

This should be done in a random order every primary season. Imagine if one year Texas and California were the
first states to vote in a primary. The candidate could be a completely different candidate.

[Demsrule86]

55. Do you recall that Florida and Michigan lost their delegates in 2008...would Pres. Obama have won if

this hadn't happened? 2008 was a close primary. I don't know. I love President Obama and thought he did a great job ...but we might have had President Clinton and then President Obama. Who knows? Would we have the ACA or something else or nothing...interesting to consider.

[Renew Deal]

6. Wouldn't the publicity of winning any "first" state boost votes and PR?

[Demsrule86]

23. True that...and it is essential given our party's diversity that we include AA voters in any first

primary which Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't do. It is an insult to a very important part of our party to continue allowing those states to have an undue influence on the choice of our nominee...and it could (and has IMHO) cause us to nominate someone who can't win a general.

[Renew Deal]

39. Someone is always going to have an undue influence

There are benefits of smaller states going first. The big one is that it allows low name recognition candidates like Clinton '92 and Obama '08 to have a shot. The big states are very expensive to campaign in.

[Demsrule86]

45. Pick a smaller state like North Carolina...which has diversity then...but that is no excuse to shut

out AA voters and make a small white state more influential than it should be and it is a caucus too...very undemocratic...shouldn't be first. Times change.

[cwydro]

115. Not sure why you're calling NC a "smaller state."

It’s more populous than Iowa.

[StarfishSaver]

93. True, but it always seems to be the same people - the white ones - who are allowed to have

that kind of undue influence.

If the shoe were on the other foot and states with a large black and urban demographic suddenly got the bulk of the undue influence, you can bet the same people who are playing this off as just one of those "life isn't always fair" things would be throwing multiple fits and demanding that heaven and earth be moved to make the playing field more even.

Because, you see, when white people have the advantage, folks don't worry about life being fair. But when it looks like people of color are about to benefit from some of those advantages, we have to start balancing things out so EVERYONE has an equal chance, otherwise that wouldn't be FAIR!

[Renew Deal]

110. The only way to do it is to have groups of states vote first

So NH, IA, SC, NV to the same day. That eliminates the IA, NH problem, but of course it creates new ones. Like, who goes second? Can Vermont or is it too white and liberal? Can Tennessee? It’s kind of in the middle, but more conservative than the Democratic base. What about NY? It’s more diverse than most of America, so it’s also unrepresentative.

[Demsrule86]

100. There are small states that resemble the Democratic Party more than Iowa...and as another

Poster reminded me...this state (GOP primary) actually voted for Michelle Bachman.

[Renew Deal]

111. Should SC remain in the first 4?

People will always find reasons to complain. Pick any system you want. Someone will have an issue.

The only fair way to do it is by lottery, but it is also the hardest to execute. The lottery has to be conducted 4 years in advance and states have to be able to handle the election. In many states, presidential primaries are party run. There is a decent chance that the process will become undemocratic.

[Demsrule86]

113. No caucus state should be first...they are undemocratic and don't even measure the full vote.

So Iowa needs to go.

[Renew Deal]

116. Are you OK with them going first if they have a primary?

[Demsrule86]

123. I still think we could choose a better state to reflect our diversity...but it would be better. At

least the entire state could participate... I well remember how Nevada...the caucus and then the primary...where Thousands more voted.

[StarfishSaver]

92. I'm quite sure if the first two primaries were in states with a large black and urban population

We'd see a whole LOT of pushback about that.

[Demsrule86]

99. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. States that influence the nomination process the most should

resemble the Democratic Party...or do we expect them to simply vote for who we choose year after year. I say no to that. Also, it would improve our general election chances.

[StarfishSaver]

105. I agree with you

I'm just making the point that some people aren't as concerned with fairness until it looks like they may lose their privilege.

[Renew Deal]

117. Who should go first?

[StarfishSaver]

118. Since people of color have "gone first" for centuries, let's let white folks go first this time

[Renew Deal]

120. The problem with having discussions like this

is that people want to criticize the process, but have no new solutions.

[StarfishSaver]

121. You didn't ask me for a solution for fixing the process. You asked who should go first

I told you.

Sounds like you didn't really want an answer to your question or to even engage in a meaningful discussion. Otherwise, you wouldn't have asked such a question or reacted this way when you got an honest answer.

[brooklynite]

10. I hear this complaint every Election cycle...

...and every election cycle, the non-white people and their representatives who are supposedly "disenfranchised" do nothing about it.

Iowa and New Hampshire play a unique roll in evaluating the ability of candidates to campaign at a retail level and to roll out a ground game to turn out voters. Massachusetts/California/New York/Illinois and other "real" Democratic States aren't in a position to do likewise.

[Stuy]

14. You didn't mention Georgia, Michigan or Nevada

You went with the low-hanging fruit.please tell us why Iowa and new Hampshire are a more awesome choice than the states I mentioned above. Add Arizona to that while you're at it.

[dalton99a]

15. +1

[brooklynite]

20. Nevada is part of the first four...

Georgia (Atlanta) and Michigan (Detroit) have larger populations to reach and more expensive media markets.

[Demsrule86]

25. Iowa and New Hampshire only matter because we let them. Perhaps this will be the year this

ends.

[Thekaspervote]

31. Thank you!!

[Demsrule86]

36. Biden voters are loyal. I doubt either New Hampshire or Iowa will sway them.

[aggiesal]

67. So here's the problem ...

I live in California. We usually hold our primaries in June.
By the time we get to vote, the leading candidate has all but locked up the nomination.
In 2008, it was pretty much just Obama and Hillary left to vote for.
If you wanted to vote for a different candidate, it was a wasted vote.

California's presidential primary was in March until 2005. But it was move back to June
in 2005 because the Primary (March) and the General (November) were too far apart
and it was costing too much to campaign here.

But I do believe that California is in a position for candidates to campaign at a retail level
and to roll out their ground game. We already proved it.

[tishaLA]

78. The 2008 CA primary was early. February

I remember because I saw Oprah, future FLOTUS, Stevie Wonder, and others at Pauley Pavillion at UCLA the Saturday before the primary. Besides Pres Obama and Sec Clinton, we also had John Edwards and a couple other candidates still i the race.

[aggiesal]

79. I thought it was early in 2008 as well ...

but I couldn't find anything that proved that.

I believe everything I found shows June 7th,

[aggiesal]

80. OK so wikipedia actually shows ...

The 2008 California Democratic primary took place on February 5, 2008

And it proves my point. That we can still be relevant, and should be.

[brooklynite]

82. California early voting begins on the day of the Iowa Caucus...

Nothing stopping candidates from major campaigning in California....except for the cost and the expected return.

[aggiesal]

85. But they are not counted until June ...

so why vote that early, when we don't know which candidate
would be left by the time the primary date rolls around.

I would never early vote that far ahead of the actual primary date.

[brooklynite]

88. The Presidential Primary is March 3rd.

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/presidential-primary-election-march-3-2020/

[aggiesal]

95. Cool, I thought it was still in June n/t

[cwydro]

108. Yes.

Indeed.

[IADEMO2004]

17. Iowa Democrats are pretty damn diversified. Piss freely on Iowa GOP but watch your aim.

[Stuy]

18. I'm sorry, but no

The fact that you are from Iowa doesn't erase the statistics.
Refer to the article for race numbers in Iowa.

I'm in New York but if I tell you that the Empire State Building is two stories high, I'm still wrong.

[Demsrule86]

27. Iowa no longer represents our party in terms of diversity. We are ignoring a huge part of our

electorate.

[progressoid]

60. Which state does?

The most diverse states are California and Texas. Do they represent the our party as a whole? I would suspect a lot of other states would say, "no."

Then there is the question of just focusing on racial diversity. What about socioeconomic, cultural, political, and religious diversity?

[Demsrule86]

73. There are other states that are diverse...North Carolina for example and Georgia...you show

your coastal bias there...There are other states that have diversity other than California and New York.

[progressoid]

83. Top 10: California. Texas. Hawaii. New Jersey. New York. New Mexico. Maryland. Florida.

I wasn't showing coastal bias, I just picked the top two most diverse states in the union.

But if you want to go with NC or GA, immediately a lot of non-southern states would complain that they aren't representative of the demographics of the party either. Too religious. Too conservative. Too...oh, wait. Never mind. I forgot. We're only interested in racial diversity. Well, Colorado, Massachusetts and Rhode Island rank right in the middle for racial diversity. Let's use one of them. I'm sure no body will complain about any of those states either.

[Demsrule86]

86. Black women gave us the midterms in places like Virginia...I am talking about including a vital part

of the Democratic coalition. Southern cities are as American as New York by the way...I am not talking demographics but racial diversity. You insult people of color by giving two small white states an undue influence upon who are nominee will be.

[Demsrule86]

87. Perhaps the answer is to run some states together in the beginning...like a mini super Tuesday...

which would give all candidates and chance and not penalize AA voters.

[progressoid]

97. Sure.

Although that might not work out so well for Biden. He currently has just 9 million dollars in his coffers. Spreading that around to 4 or 5 states would make for an anemic campaign and not leave much for the rest of the run.

[Demsrule86]

98. Actually that is not true. I work for the campaign...he received much support after that was

released...but what we need to remember is that the first primaries are not determinate...I won't change my mind no matter how Iowa and particularly New Hampshire turn out...(state made for local Warren and Sanders).

[progressoid]

101. Great.

If the first primaries are not determinate and you won't change your mind, then this discussion about who goes first in the nation is moot.

[Demsrule86]

102. I think the first states are important but shouldn't be the be all end all...consider that Bill

Clinton did not win New Hampshire or Iowa. I hate caucuses too...very undemocratic.

[Bettie]

28. Iowa is also a media market where

an unknown candidate can get a foothold, even without a huge amount of money. Iowans also tend to be politically engaged and it is a small enough population to make an impression, if you are willing to get out and meet people.

But hating Iowa and those of us who live here is a tradition on DU.

[BannonsLiver]

32. I think you're confusing hate for a state with contempt for the system

I can believe Iowa isn't representative of our party and still not hate the state. Ditto for NH.

[IADEMO2004]

40. Iowa Democrats are representative of the Iowa part of our party.

How many DU members switch candidate support based Iowa results?

[BannonsLiver]

43. I have no idea how many and I'm not sure I take your point anyway.

But Iowa is 91 percent white. The majority of caucus participants will be white. I'm sure you believe it's representative, but that is not the case, I'm afraid.

[Peacetrain]

49. Back the horse up BannonsLiver, we can only elect people to represent us from those who live in Iowa

We cannot elect someone from NJ.. etc etc etc.. Now you are right about one thing.. our Democrats who are activists are much further to the left than just a about any state, and so they do not represent Democratic Iowans in general. But the activists can utilize the caucus system, they have tremendous power. We move the party left.. probably too far left ...So it is an out sized representation of the farther left and it is not a true picture of who will vote in the general from the state of Iowa. The upside, it gives candidates who would not have a chance in another state.. a hearing of what they want to do

[progressoid]

44. +1

[Demsrule86]

53. I won't switch...

[Demsrule86]

37. That doesn't matter if we field candidates that can't win a general which happens more often than

not.

[Sloumeau]

114. These are the Demographics of Iowa:

from http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/iowa-population/

White 2,824,197 90.57%
Black or African American 106,762 3.42%
Asian 71,178 2.28%
Two or More Races 62,734 2.01%
Some Other Race 39,527 1.27%
American Indian and Alaska Native 10,791 0.35%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2,913 0.09%

Iowa is one of the least diverse states in the country.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans

States with the highest percentages of White Americans, as of 2007:

Maine 95.5%
New Hampshire 95.0%
West Virginia 94.3%
Iowa 92.9%
Idaho 92.1%
Wyoming 91.6%
Minnesota 90.94%
North Dakota 90.9%

[IADEMO2004]

119. Iowa and Iowa Democratic Party are not the same. I've seen Demographics of Iowa posted 1000X.

[Snake Plissken]

42. Why do the other 48 states put up with it?

Why aren't all the primaries on the same exact day?

[33taw]

50. I actually think that the election days are set in many state laws.

[IADEMO2004]

61. National Dem Party can refuse to seat delegates from calendar jumping states.

Big mess from 2008

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/seating-floridas-and-michigans-delegates/

Update, June 2: On May 31, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee decided that both Florida’s and Michigan’s delegations should be seated at the convention, but each delegate would only get half a vote. The committee approved the plan proposed by Michigan’s Democratic Party, giving 34.5 delegate votes from that state to Clinton and 29.5 to Obama. For updated delegate counts for the candidates, see one of the tallies from media organizations, such as the Associated Press’.

[stopdiggin]

63. and having a single day primary

would be an almost totally media driven process. Certainly NOT an improvement.

[33taw]

69. I am not sure about all states, but many Stateswith primaries pay the costs of elections.

As a result, the elections are determined by the state in accordance with their laws. Caucus states have more flexibility because the state party handles the cost.

[Demsrule86]

74. Florida and Michigan tried to change the primary order and lost their delegates in 2008...the DNC

must give permission for any changes and there are state laws but those could be changed. Who doesn't want to go first?

[progressoid]

56. So which state should we start in?

As an Iowan, I'm not opposed to it starting somewhere else. BUT...you might want to check with candidates first. If the first primary is held in a more racially diverse state like CA TX or NY, the cost to run shoots up dramatically. Candidates like Bill Clinton and Obama wouldn't have had a chance since they didn't have a huge war chest at the start the campaign. Indeed anyone running would have to have millions on hand before even getting to the starting line. Try to fund field offices without a ton of cash in a larger, more expensive states. There's an economic advantage to starting in small states.

[IADEMO2004]

62. Well now you did it. LOL

[progressoid]

84. ...

Our state can be screwed up sometimes but at least we aren't as bad as (...insert state here...).

[stopdiggin]

66. so what we need is a diverse state(s) with very low population

and small media saturation .... Oh, wait .. maybe Alaska?

[progressoid]

70. Now THAT I would like to see.

Other than Mike Gravel, when was the last time a candidate went to Alaska? Or has one ever gone?

[stopdiggin]

71. bush plane and mukluks

let's see who REALLY wants this thing!
--

[progressoid]

72. In January!

[Demsrule86]

75. What about Georgia or North Carolina? And Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and New Hampshire.

[TidalWave46]

94. Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina.

CA, TX and NY aren't the only states out there.

[MarcA]

68. Eventually a wealth backed Independent will win the Presidency

and the whole show will become of secondary importance.

[Demsrule86]

76. I hope not...one has only to look at the UK to see how once you end a two party system...you

tyranny of a small electorate...The majority are not represented anymore.

[IADEMO2004]

103. SCOTUS A gift that keeps on giving. Citizens United

[LeftTurn3623]

77. I have some issues here

and yes I wish they would change it but this has little to do with intentional "institutional racism "

This has more to do with tradition and cheaper media market so Candidates just getting started can get their voice out there. The states are smaller and easier to cover.

With that said I wish they would change and start with PA

[Demsrule86]

104. It is institutional racism whether by intent or by tradition to continue to allow a small white

state to have such a large effect on the nomination process...thus shutting out AA voters.

[StarfishSaver]

124. And that institutional racism is enabled when people say, in response to it being identified, "but

if we change it, that would be unfair to white people and two wrongs don't make a right, so we should just keep it as it is until you come up with a better solution that is perfectly balanced and doesn't disadvantage anyone."

[Demsrule86]

125. Exactly...no system can be perfect but almost any solution I suggested would be better than what we

have now. I mean we have candidates running who basically have very little support from the AA community and expect that they will show up at the polls because they have no other choice...one day after being treated with such disregard, they won't show up and we will have only ourselves to blame.

[TCJ70]

81. Gotta start somewhere. Does it really matter where?

Wouldn’t moving it just give the new state an undue influence on things?

[StarfishSaver]

90. "This is what institutional racism looks like." Thank you

[Indykatie]

106. IA and NH Having the Power to Wean the Democratic Field Is A Sore Spot For Many Dems. n/t

[LonePirate]

107. Dems should replace IA and NH with states that resemble the nation and the party.

It is time to say goodbye to tradition and anoint other states as the first in the country. Swapping IA and NH with NV and SC would be a wise choice for the party and for the future of the country.

[redqueen]

112. Not sure why the last paragraph calls out this party.

It's both parties.

But yeah, it's a serious problem.

[Blue_Tires]

122. I've been saying to get rid of Iowa+New Hampshire on this forum

since goddamned 2003... And yet, we're still here.

[Politicub]

126. Caucuses place the the disabled community at a disadvantage, too.

We're often made invisible because disabilities aren't obvious -- such as mental-health related -- or the nature of a disability makes someone immobile or unable to sit through a long caucus meeting.

In my case, I suffer from generalized anxiety among other things, and I can't imagine how awful it would be to have to go to a caucus. The amount of time one needs to spend waiting among strangers and being peer pressured to stand for one candidate or another is overwhelming for a lot of people. It would cause me to not want to go even though I'm a passionate, committed democrat. The risk of having a panic attack is too great.

We can't do anything about Iowa and New Hampshire this cycle, unfortunately, other than play by the state's antiquated and biased rules.

A combination of voting by mail, early voting and traditional day-of voting is more equitable for the greatest number of people.

[Gothmog]

127. From Larry Sabato

Link to tweet