Princeton data scientist: Democratic calendar favors white liberals

[Katalino]

From David Byler at the Washington Post:

But Biden’s path to the nomination would be easier if the first two states weren’t so full of white liberals who may be more inclined to support someone such as Sanders or Warren.

The shape of the calendar doesn’t just help liberals. South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg has positioned himself a comparatively moderate, Midwestern alternative to Warren, has created a base with upscale whites and has maintained a strong position in Iowa. Buttigieg has a route to the nomination partially because Iowa is so early; if he wins there, he could potentially convince other voters that he’s the electable alternative to Sanders or Warren. If the order of the early states were reversed, Buttigieg’s path would be narrower and we might be talking more about Sen. Kamala D. Harris’s (Calif.) long-shot-but-still-possible path to the nomination.

It’s easy to treat the primary order as though it’s a fact of nature, rather than the result of human choices. But Democrats chose to keep white, liberal states ahead of the rest and the downstream effect is an easier path to the nomination for candidates such as Warren, Sanders and Buttigieg. If they want to change their process and try to eliminate this tilt in 2024 or 2028, they can. But this year, they’ve given upscale white liberals an advantage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/06/democrats-wanted-fairer-primaries-their-calendar-still-prioritizes-white-liberals/#click=https://t.co/gdk6Ds2XSJ

[highplainsdem]

1. Yes, it's an unfortunate bias. (And I'm saying that as a white liberal.)

[NYMinute]

2. This is what gave us McGovern, Dukakis and Mondale. nt

[dem4decades]

3. Hardly need a data scientist from Princeton to figure that out.

[stopdiggin]

4. this is ground that has been trod

in earlier threads.
(and I'm sure others have said it better than I, but)

While IA and NH present unrepresentative demographics .. proponents say that is somewhat offset by lower cost ground games and "personal" contact opportunities for lesser known aspirants .. lower cost, and accessible, local media providing extensive (and diverse) coverage and exposure .. and a knowledgeable, and very engaged, voting base.

The argument is .. if the primaries focused first on larger (and admittedly more representative) demographics .. it would be almost impossible for lesser known, and less well funded, candidates to set up ground game operations in the much more expensive markets, and much more extensive local bases. What you would likely see as a result is a almost total concentration on a massive media onslaught, in very concentrated markets, to the almost total exclusion of any semblance of local politics, voter interaction, or inclusion. So .. in essence, the primary becomes political adds, media appearances, brand packaging .. and very little else.

In the long run .. you might be better off going with the smaller pool of engaged and attentive voters (even if they are really, really white) .. than to take your chances with the media conglomerate right off the bat.