Iowa sends 49 total delegates to the 2020 Democratic Nominating Convention

[MineralMan]

And has 6 electoral votes in the Electoral College.

New Hampshire sends 33 delegates to the convetion and has a grand total of 4 electoral votes

South Carolina sends 63 delegates to the convention and has 9 electoral votes.

Nevada sends 48 delegates to the convention and has 6 electoral votes

And then:

California, which votes on March 3 in its presidential primary, sends 495 delegates to the convention and has 55 electoral votes.

Texas, which also votes on March 3, sends 262 delegates to the convention and has 38 electoral votes.

California and Texas are just two of 15 states to hold primaries on March 3.

So, can someone tell me again why we're so focused on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina? Together, those four states have only 25 electoral votes. Maybe I'm missing something important here.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. I don't know. But I know why some people suddenly want to downplay those states....

[MineralMan]

4. Every state is important.

However, when it comes to choosing a Democratic nominee, some states weigh in a lot heavier than those early states. Personally, I'd like to see candidates focus on those states instead of spending huge amounts of money on the early states. In the long run, what happens in just one state on Super Tuesday is going to be far more important than all four of the early states combined. Between California and Texas, a helluva lot of delegates are going to be picked. Add up the rest of the March 3 states, and it's an overwhelming difference in their importance.

But, by then, the field will be greatly reduced in size anyhow, I suppose.

[MineralMan]

11. Or if he wins any.

[ritapria]

2. New Quinnipiac Iowa Poll Just released

Last edited Wed Nov 6, 2019, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Warren 20% ... Pete 19% ... Bernie 17%.... Joe 15 % ... Klobuchar 5%.... Kamala 4% .. Voters were asked if they were " extremely excited" about their choice for President ; 52% of Sanders supporters were extremely excited about caucusing for Bernie …… 31% for Pete …...23% for Warren.....19% for Joe ……. Amongst 1st time Caucus Goers : Bernie 30%.... Warren 24%... Buttigieg 10%.... Biden 9%

[Hortensis]

17. Yes, but "excited" doesn't mean what you want it to.

Shiny-new candidates generate more "excitement" in the media, who're bored with dusting off what they've written for years about the old pros, and this is hyper fuel for newbies to "the race." And potential voters used to assuming new means better and old means landfill are not exactly our brightest bulbs.

But, most importantly, those most easily excited are not the same as those who most dependably vote.

Excited people turn out to vote in seriously LOWER numbers. (This is "excited"?)
Excited people, in fact, are more likely not to bother to register. (What IS excitement?)
Excited people are more likely to become disillusioned by negatives. (Ok, easy come, got it.)
Excited people are more fickle and likely to become excited all over again for someone else. (Easy go.)

Did you know that a bunch of Bernie Sanders delegates (!) to state conventions weren't even registered to vote, as Democrats or anything else? And that some didn't even live in the states they were supposed to be delegates in? (Ethics a topic for another thread.)

That kind of thing just doesn't happen with more experienced and dependable voters, i.e., the huge, widely diverse Democratic base. And, btw, our base includes most of the serious, reliable voters from younger generations. Not everyone needs Republican knives in their backs to teach them to vote and to know only votes for people who can win count.

[brooklynite]

3. Because they test out candidates and campaign teams before moving to larger States

The ability of a candidate to resonate with actual voters face to face (as opposed to through TV ads) and the ability of a campaign staff to turn out voters is useful data.

[MineralMan]

6. Frankly, for the leading candidates, the early states are relatively

unimportant. What happens after that, though, is crucially important. If I were a candidate, I'd be spending a lot more time on the March 3 states right now and going for national news in that way. But, tradition has taken over for good sense, in my opinion.

[elleng]

5. Because they're the first.

[MarcA]

7. Their first and it's a MSM tradition.

Liked the time that Iowa and New Hampshire were near New Year's Day. It gave
more time then to focus on Super Tuesday. Wished this was the case again and
more time could be given to the Really Super Tuesday.

[Gothmog]

9. From Larry Sabato

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

10. Excellent points!

Absolutely right.

[Gothmog]

12. Should we change the order of primaries?

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

13. I don't think that's necessary. We should just notice how

those states influence presidential elections and take note of their non-diversity. Frankly, I think the 2020 primaries will bring that sharply into focus on March 3. I've always felt that Iowa and New Hampshire got way too much attention from the media and the candidates.

The conventional wisdom is that those two states matter. The reality, though, is that they really do not. The sooner we recognized that, the sooner candidates will turn their attention to other states earlier in the campaign process. The media will follow.

[NurseJackie]

14. I guess it's just a low-bar hurdle. Something to winnow-out the low tier candidates...

I guess it's just a low-bar hurdle. Something to winnow-out the low tier candidates and send them flying into the breeze. Maybe it's less important to the winners and more important as a yardstick of viability for the long-shot candidates.

I can tell you for certain that caucuses have zero value to me as an indicator of what actual voters think. The caucus process is so antique and obsolete. It's disenfranchising. It makes a mockery of the sanctity of the secret ballot. It invites bullying, harassment and intimidation from the "followers" of certain candidates who try to make up their lack of numbers by manipulating and shaming others... and that really speaks poorly for the candidate, no matter who he or she may be.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, more than that, really. What it does is force candidates who may be struggling,

to invest limited resources to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire. That can quickly eliminate candidates who cannot raise large sums of money due to poor name recognition or other reasons.

Iowa and New Hampshire are about the least representative of the national population of any states you could imagine. They do not reflect the politics of this country, but candidates are forced to expend large sums of money and set up costly campaign networks there, simply because the news media focuses on those two states inordinately just because they are the first to hold a caucus and primary election.

In terms of the number of delegates those two states send to the convention, they really have no bearing on the nomination. Yet, they are erroneously treated as crucial states.

It is time to either replace them with states that reflect the diversity of this country or simply lump them into a Super Tuesday type of primary event where their insignificance will not materially affect the race.

Further, Iowa is a red state, making it an even poorer choice as a bellwether state for Democratic primaries. Here's a map of how Iowa voted in the 2016 presidential election:

[brooklynite]

16. Every major candidate has signed a pledge to keep Iowa first in the nation...

Perhaps you should ask them.