Thank You, Iowa - NYT Editorial

[question everything]

(snip)

Among the valuable takeaways:

1. There is not yet a fresh burst of voter participation. At last count, turnout in Iowa was on track to hit 2016 levels — in the neighborhood of 170,000 caucus goers — a far cry from the Obama-inspired groundswell of 2008, for which about 240,000 Iowans showed up. This should give particular pause to anyone betting on Bernie Sanders’ argument that he will win by creating a new movement, fueled by people who normally don’t vote. But it should also be a warning for anyone counting on anti-Trump fervor to mobilize the masses. Clearly, the masses still need some convincing. Iowa deserves credit for revealing that sooner rather than later.

2. Even moderate Democrats have real concerns about Joe Biden’s ability to go the distance. The former vice president has many fine qualities. His resume is gold-plated, particularly in the crucial area of foreign policy. He’s got his regular-Joe patter down, he adores retail politics and arguably nobody feels voters’ pain better than him. Mr. Biden should have the so-called moderate lane of this race locked down. But he doesn’t. And whatever the precise vote tally, his lagging behind not just the field’s hard-charging progressives, Mr. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but also Pete Buttigieg, the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Ind., is a sign that he needs to up his game.

3. The Democrats’ nominating process needs to more accurately reflect its electorate. As is often noted, Iowa is way too white to have so much influence. So is New Hampshire, for that matter. As a party with a diverse electorate, the Democrats should not be spending so much time and money catering to such a monochromatic subset. The current debate over how much weight to give the Iowa weakness of Mr. Biden, who has held a comfortable lead among minority voters for this entire race, should not be happening. It is unproductive.

4. Caucuses should go the way of the eight-track tape. Their convoluted, undemocratic nature has been pointed out again and again. They jettison the principle of the private ballot. They are overly complicated and make participation too onerous for too many. In 2016, less than 16 percent of voting-eligible Iowans took part. This compared with a 52 percent participation rate in the New Hampshire primary.

(snip)

5. There is a strong argument to be made that no single state deserves to hold the rest of the electorate hostage the way Iowa has for decades. Why should the parochial concerns of Iowans be forever more important than those of Arizonans or North Carolinians or Michiganders? Multiple alternative ways to set the calendar have been floated, and it’s past time to give them serious consideration. They could hardly be worse than the current system. If this year’s meltdown doesn’t spur Democrats to take long overdue action, they deserve all their future nightmares.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinion/iowa-caucuses-democrats.html

[HarlanPepper]

1. Point 1 is the biggest takeaway from Iowa IMO.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. Sorry thanks but no thanks Iowa.

IT is more than time to take away the power of Iowa to determine our candidate. I am sick of it. I was born and raised in Illinois, which is much more diverse the lily white Iowa, but I thin our first primary should be multiple states, Iowa, NY, California, Illinois, Indiana, South Carolina and Alabama. Lets see what we get when we do that. My guess is we get a candidate that is nationally relevant.

[KPN]

4. Did you read the entire post? That's exactly what it said. I think the point of thanking Iowa was

that it's primary this year had finally revealed all the warts of both Iowa first and the caucus method.

[KPN]

3. K&R.