Enough already of the Iowa bashing..

[Peacetrain]

Seriously,.. enough.. I am not fond of the blasted caucuses either..because the ultra left has so much power in shaping the Democratic caucuses.. . be that as it may.. we are not some crap load of people .. we are who we are.. we do the best we can do..

[NurseJackie]

1. Nobody is bashing the people of Iowa, are they?

How so? It looks to me that the discussion is about caucuses and how unfair the caucus process is.

[HerbChestnut]

2. Too many people on this board have argued Iowa is "too white" to matter.

So there's that...

[LanternWaste]

9. I think the argument is "too white to be representative of the whole"

And, as the state is in fact 90%+ white, it's arguably an accurate observation.

So there's that. Part II

[HerbChestnut]

14. It comes off as belittling Iowans and white people in general.

Same for New Hampshire. Also, try applying the same logic to the Puerto Rico primary. Imagine how it would sound if someone said Puerto Rico is "too Latino" to matter.

[NurseJackie]

22. No it doesn't. Puerto Rico is another one that doesn't accurately represent the ethnic diversity of

Imagine how it would sound if someone said Puerto Rico is "too Latino" to matter.

Oh good grief. Puerto Rico is another one that doesn't accurately represent the ethnic diversity of the United States.

You're smart enough to understand that nobody is saying that other people "don't matter" and that the objection is that too much emphasis is being given to states that do not ethnically represent the diversity of our nation, and whose residents are less likely to have the same concerns and issues that many others do in comparison.

It comes off as belittling Iowans and white people in general.

Aw. That sounds to me like a weak and p/a accusation that's intended to distract from what the real (and legitimate) criticisms and concerns are. Imagined insults and feigned outrage do little to convince or support one's case or arguments.

[HerbChestnut]

25. Sorry Jackie, parsing words doesn't change the sentiment of saying Iowa is too white.

Here's a map of ethnicity in the United States. Please tell me which state perfectly represents the ethnic/political/cultural diversity of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

[NurseJackie]

27. Oh, Herb...

Sorry Jackie, parsing words doesn't change the sentiment of saying Iowa is too white.

Nobody is "parsing words" but I can tell you that splitting-hairs isn't a good way to win arguments/debates/disagreements. Where some people see "sentiment," what I see instead is just a simple statement of fact. It is what it is. The numbers are the numbers. There's no denying that.

Please tell me which state perfectly represents the ethnic/political/cultural diversity of the country.

Please tell me why so much importance is being given to Iowa. Please tell me what makes Iowa the best choice to occupy the all-important position that can make-or-break candidates. Its demographics? Are there no states better? (Perhaps one with an actual primary rather than caucus.)

Please tell me why "some people" are so offended at the simple, truthful and accurate observations and statement of facts regarding Iowa's ethnic demographics.

[HerbChestnut]

28. Sorry Jackie, not taking your bait. Have a good day.

[NurseJackie]

29. Thank you for helping to illustrate my point.

I realize that these observations and questions are "uncomfortable" for some individuals... but the observations are true and the questions are fair ones that deserve honest answers.

I think it says a lot about those who choose to mischaracterize the questions and issues, or who pretend to not understand, or who would rather change the subject, or who prefer to pretend to be victimized. Unfortunately, it's not at all flattering when people try to run-away and make baseless accusations of "bait" rather than choosing to have an honest discussion.

Have a nice day!

[still_one]

38. +++

[ehrnst]

41. +10000.

[George II]

33. Any concern about belittling and dismissing the importance of 37% of the country? The US...

....is only 62.6% white, about 30% lower than either Iowa or New Hampshire.

[HerbChestnut]

34. Nice whataboutism.

[George II]

35. It's not whataboutism if the initial premise is false.

[Gothmog]

37. Here are some interesting observations from Nate Silvet

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

36. You do know that a candidate cannot get the nomination of the party w/o non white voters?

Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire reflect the Demographics of the party as a whole

[George II]

32. That's the issue. The two first states, which will guide the rest of the primaries....

...are both over 90% white. Certainly not representative of 350 million people or about 150 million voters.

[NurseJackie]

10. It's a stretch for anyone to characterize that as bashing Iowans.

Too many people on this board have argued Iowa is "too white" to matter.

It's a stretch for anyone to characterize that as bashing Iowans.

What it is, however, is an accurate and completely fair observation regarding the fact that Iowa is hardly an accurate representation of our nation... and the caucus process just makes it worse when one considers how many people are disenfranchised and unable to participate in the caucus "process".

So there's that...

If that's that's seen, well...

[TheRealNorth]

20. He meant the "Divide and Own the Dems" strategy meeting

He was briefed on before starting work today.

[MineralMan]

3. I don't think anyone is bashing Iowa.

Some, like myself, are questioning why it holds so much importance in people's minds. Trump won Iowa in 2016, as I remember. It also has few delegates at the Democratic nominating convention. Yet, it has everyone's attention, the media in particular. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me, frankly.

[RhodeIslandOne]

6. Barack Obama won it in 2008 and 2012

You might recall that as well.

[MineralMan]

19. Yes, I do remember that.

I was talking about 2016.

[RhodeIslandOne]

23. And a Democrat hasn't win South Carolina since 1976

Which is why I find it strange there are people here advocating they go first.

[MineralMan]

24. You won't find me advocating that.

I know how SC votes. I also know that it sends more delegates to the convention than Iowa or New Hampshire. In that regard it is a more important primary state than either of those.

However, on March 3, all of that will be swept away on Super Tuesday, which is where some real semblance of getting the public's opinion will occur.

All four early states will be completely forgotten on March 4. Completely.

[HerbChestnut]

7. The same argument could be used against most of the southern states during the Democratic primary.

Especially South Carolina, which is early in the primary schedule even though a Democratic Presidential candidate hasn't won in SC since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

[MineralMan]

26. South Carolina is the only southern state to hold a primary before

Super Tuesday. It does have more delegates to send to the convention than either Iowa or New Hampshire, though, so it does have more influence. It is also the first non-lily-white state to hold a primary.

When I add up the number of delegates from all four early primaries, I can see clearly that they are relatively insignificant when compared to the Super Tuesday states.

Really, they're only important to candidates who are close to washing out of the primaries altogether. If one of them does particularly well, or surprisingly well, that one will have a chance to continue to run. The rest will be washed out altogether. The top three candidates in national polling will not be materially affected by the first four primaries. Their tests begin on March 3.

[question everything]

8. No. Cruz won Iowa

Only two non-incumbent candidates won Iowa on their way to the White House: Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008.

The problem with Iowa is two folds: first, all caucuses disenfranchise voters who cannot be at a certain place at a certain time for a long time and, for Iowa, on a cold winter night.

Second: no secret ballots. In Iowa caucuses one has to stand up and be counted, in front of family and neighbors, perhaps bosses and subordinates. Each group is at a corner of the room and then they start trading. I was there in 1988 and the final winner of our caucus was declared by... a toss of a coin. Did not matter. It was a suburban caucus where Dukakis won, but the neighbor from Missouri and more left leaning Gephardt won the state.

I have been telling this story several times. In 2008 a friend's child was active in the Obama campaign but the parent, not enthusiastic about Obama voted for him. After all, the child was there. But in the general, the vote went to McCain. And it is not to judge the vote, it just to show how open votes can corrupt the final outcome.

[Peacetrain]

13. The Democrats and Republicans do not caucus together..

Only the Democrats do a public show of hands on the night of caucus... the Republicans do a private vote weeks before they caucus.. and you can vote anyway you want to in the general.. Just because you are a registered Democrat or registered Republican does not mean you have to vote for the party person..


We both do a caucus on the same night in different arenas, the Republicans just listen to speeches they have already voted in a primary type of vote.. completely different approaches to it.. and I am not a fan of the Democratic caucus because the uber left has way too much control in shaping our caucus.. but we do the best we can do..

[question everything]

15. I know that these are different, as they should be

as I am hoping for closed primaries.

But the fact that Democrats have to stand up and be counted for the whole neighborhood to see can twist the results.

Funny, in 2016 the Iowa caucuses were on a Monday, instead of Tuesday. (I don't know that it has to be on a Tuesday). And it was on Tuesday that a major blizzard blew in.. But it was already predicted. So ABC's David Muir admonished Iowan to "caucus early.."

[MineralMan]

17. Trump won in Iowa in 2016

I'm not talking about the primary here. I'm talking about the general election. Trump won all off Iowa's electoral votes. Iowa went Republican for President.

Overall 2016 Iowa Presidential Election Results
99.9% Reporting Electoral Votes: 6
Polls Closing: 10:00 PM ETElectoral Votes
R Winner D. Trump
51.8%
798,923 6
D H. Clinton
42.2%
650,790
L G. Johnson
3.7%
57,322

[question everything]

21. Oops. Sorry. Was thinking about the caucuses which Curz won..

[still_one]

40. +++++++++

[AlexSFCA]

30. Ted Cruz won Iowa in 2016

[MineralMan]

31. Uh, no. I'm talking about the General election.

Trump won. Remember?

I don't care about GOP primaries, see...

[33taw]

4. I have an issue with Iowa getting so much attention.

There are many states ignored until they are next in line at the primaries. Trump is in those states with his rallies while they are ignored by dems. I think this is a mistake.

[hlthe2b]

5. Colorado just voted to have primaries over the caucuses we had in 2016.

It is up to Iowa to decide if they want to follow suit and I respect Iowans and their decision.

I am not sure what you've been seeing in terms of derision, but to me the controversy is more with respect to the outsized emphasis on both Iowa and New Hampshire being first to register opinions, given that both states are not representative of the population diversity present elsewhere.

I think maybe the schedule might eventually allow for an early "super Tuesday"-equivalent with Iowa, NH and a few other larger states weighing in together or within a week. That might help.

[question everything]

11. But here you have to blame New Hampshire

Which states in its constitution that it has to be the first primary. We've seen it earlier. Iowa tried to have some kind of a hybrid and NH threatened to move its date earlier.

Only if all the states and the DNC leaders band together and tell both - hey we are changing the games. You can join us or go your own way. What if NH has its primary on New Year eve and all the candidates ignore it?

Yea, keep dreaming.

[hlthe2b]

12. If a major string of states followed within a week of Iowa/NH, the emphasis on the former

would be dramatically diluted. Problem largely solved.

[question everything]

16. Certainly a good idea. But will the movers and shakers adopt it?

[hlthe2b]

18. I would think a consensus between some states and DNC could push it forward, but...?

[SharonClark]

39. Iowa Democrats, who are generally progressive,

Represent the Dems nationally very well from an ideological viewpoint.
The other, larger states, that follow closely after even things out.
It works well for the party to start with Iowa.

[Happy Hoosier]

42. Ummmm....

My problem isn't with the people of Iowa, it's with a primary system that gives them so much power. Why are Iowa and New Hampshire given so much power in our primary system? It's nuts and it should change.