Stacey Abrams: Our primary process has silenced voters of color

[StarfishSaver]

Link to tweet

[dlk]

1. In her usual eloquent way, Abrams has addressed a serious flaw in the Democratic primary process

[evertonfc]

2. agree.

She would make a fantastic vp

[sheshe2]

3. We need a new starting plan.

Six maybe eight states starting off. Iowa and NH can be part of it, the other 4-6 need to diverse states. Unbelievable that the starters are 91-93% white. That is not Americas voice.

Love Stacey Abrams.

[BlueIdaho]

10. Not my idea but

Someone else’s on the forum. Select states from different regions in the US - very similar to your suggestion. Hold all primaries on the same day. I think getting a larger view that is more regionally and ethnically diverse is a far better idea for our party.

[sheshe2]

11. Thanks, BlueIdaho.

Ridiculous that the first voices are dayum close to being 100% white.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Absolutely!

Maybe if we start a conversation, it can lead to something far more representative of the Party and America.

[denem]

36. Here's a nice start - Dump NH for CT

Make Iowa a primary.

CT


NH

[ramen]

4. Strongly agree.

I live in NH and I really do not agree with the stated rationales of why NH should primary first. Why would we not start primaries with places that are representative of the electorate?? I love it here and will never leave, but it is simply not a representative state of the nation's voting population.

[oasis]

5. The truth.Abrams speaks the truth.

[Blue_true]

6. I don't agree that is the case this year.

Florida, North Carolina and Georgia are going to be pivotal states that set the table this year. I think that things will come to those states unsettled and those states will provide clarity.

[Johnyawl]

9. How many candidates of color have dropped out before those states vote?

Harris is out, Booker is out, Deval is out. We're left with a handful of old white guys, 2 white women and a white gay man. Abrams is right. Iowa and New Hampshire are irrelevant and should be moved back. The first primaries should be more representative of the Democratic party.

[sheshe2]

12. +1

[LeftTurn3623]

16. The problem is even if S.C. went first

You would still have the same thing- none of the candidates of color were polling well in S.C. only difference is maybe Biden wins out the gate and has momentum.

We can talk all we want but Booker Harris Yang we’re polling very very low in SC


With that said I do agree we need to change the state order. But I do not think it has a lot to do with candidates of color.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Biden was polling well in Iowa and New Hampshire ... until people started voting.

So much for allowing public opinion polls to determine who should and shouldn't remain in the race before anyone actually gets to vote.

[Scurrilous]

23. A wide range of voters participate in polling, a narrow range in caucuses.

Let's remember who used a Unity Reform Commission to forestall the elimination of caucuses in Iowa and Nevada.

It was Bernie Sanders. The article is buried somewhere in DU. I posted it. It's late and I don't have time to find it. Same with the Independent poll I'm going to refer to. Try googling Independent or Sanders. But it was Bernie. Lobbied to keep them from being replaced.

The Independent poll came out after Iowa. I posted this too. Biden had 5 number ones. He had the highest level of support among POC, high school, some college, 45-64, and 65+.

POC in Iowa:

Black or African American - 3.51% National Average - 13.4% (US Census Bureau)

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

This obviously hurt Biden.

People with just a high school degree or some college are more likely to be blue collar workers.


Caucuses are undemocratic

'This heavily involved process has many barriers to entry and prevents a great number of citizens from being able to participate in the democratic process. Caucusing takes about three hours from start tor finish and is held in the evening, when many people are still working, taking care of children or busy with other obligations. Those who are sick, elderly or disabled cannot attend a caucus for many reasons. The three-hour commitment may be too much of a strain on their body, they may be home or hospital-bound or the venue for their caucus may just not be accessible. Working people, disabled people, caretakers and others with barriers to entry are basically unable to vote due to the location, timing and nature of a caucus./

http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1016216

Also damaging Biden's lead in older age groups.

Evans: It’s time to either overhaul, or end, the caucuses in Iowa

'With a traditional primary election, if you are unable to go to the polls on Election Day, you can obtain an absentee ballot and vote ahead of time. Casting your ballot requires about the same amount of time as it takes for your cup of coffee to cool enough to drink.

But with the caucuses, there is no opportunity to cast an absentee ballot. If you cannot attend, you cannot participate.'

https://www.nwestiowa.com/opinion/evans-it-s-time-to-either-overhaul-or-end-the/article_6e6d4d82-49fb-11ea-b304-63d780f9be9a.html


'The 2016 Survey of the Performance of American Elections (SPAE) found that “33 percent of voters 70 years and older voted absentee, compared to 20 percent of voters in their thirties.'

https://www.eac.gov/documents/2017/10/17/eavs-deep-dive-early-absentee-and-mail-voting-data-statutory-overview


Biden supporters could participate in polling, but had a hard time participating in that caucus some insisted on keeping.

As for NH:

New Hampshire parochialism, not whiteness, bedevils Democrats

'There’s no question New Hampshire is very white, but demography is not the obstacle to Democratic presidential hopes that they think. Their problem is that New Hampshire always votes for candidates from neighboring states and those states are far out of step with the rest of the country. If the Democrats want to win, they need to ignore New Hampshire’s parochialism.'

'Since 1972, every major party nominee has finished first or second in the New Hampshire primary. The Iowa caucuses have a spottier record. In years where an incumbent president is not on the ballot (just the competitive nominating contests), the eventual Democratic nominee finished first or second six of nine times (and five of seven times for Republicans).

For the Democrats, New Hampshire doesn’t have a good track record of picking new presidents. Since 1968, only twice has the winner of a contested New Hampshire Democratic primary been elected president, while Republican winners have become president four times.

Why are New Hampshire Democrats so bad at picking winners? Because they keep voting for their neighbors. '

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/472935-new-hampshire-parochialism-not-whiteness-bedevils-democrats

[LeftTurn3623]

35. That isn't the point

The OP was having other states go first that are more Diverse so more people of color would be remaining. That had nothing to do with the field of candidates we had. The people of color had no traction in any state. We would still be in the same situation. While I agree we should change the state order last time I checked Obama won the nomination starting in Iowa and NH. Because he was a strong candidate.

[Mike 03]

32. This is true. When I say this, there's no bitterness just some nostalgia and wondering:

There was an expectation that Biden would remain strong, I think, and be our clear front runner.

So the question some of us who preferred someone like Kamala Harris (or Booker or Castro) find ourselves asking is, How much better would she/he have done if expectations had not been so high for Biden? He siphoned off a lot of early support from those candidates on the expectation he would remain strong and could beat Trump. Now things aren't so clear.

As I said, there's nothing that can be done now, unless someone were to re-enter. It seems to have come down to money and faith/belief.

It only took two weeks for things to look so different from what was expected. So I find myself reflecting, even though I admit it is pointless.

[MichMan]

29. They dropped out before any states voted.

How would having a different order have helped Harris and Booker when POC didnt support them either?

[StarfishSaver]

33. How do you know POC "didn't support them either'?

Polls are snapshots in time and don't tell us how people will vote in weeks and months from now - just look at Joe Biden.

They dropped out because too much attention was paid to poll numbers and, that attention affected fundraising and, in a circular fashion, their subsequent poll numbers.

Who knows how they would actually have done if voters had a chance to vote for them when the time came?

[MichMan]

34. The handwriting was on the wall; people weren't buying what they were selling

Doesn't make them any less qualified or passionate; just wasn't their time this cycle.

They were in plenty of debates and apparently did not inspire enough interest to viably keep going until the primaries started. Aren't primaries also snapshots, too?

I guess if unpolled voters had donated enough $$$ to keep their campaigns going, they would have stayed in longer. People generally don't want to spend their hard earned money on campaigns that seemingly aren't performing to expectations.

[StarfishSaver]

37. Whose "handwriting" was on what "wall"?

And how do you know "people weren't buying what they were selling" if no one had voted yet?

Now that people have started voting, it could be said that "people aren't buying" what several candidates - including those whom the polls supposedly told us were the frontrunners - are selling, either.

Polls are one thing. Voting is another.

[MichMan]

43. Maybe we need to require a substantial cash bond

when someone files for president. If the candidate withdraws before the end of all the primaries, they would be required to forfeit the bond.

This would help ensure that they remain on the ballot until voters in all the states dont feel disenfranchised by their candidate being eliminated before they get to choose.

Look, no one forced Booker, Harris or Yang out of the race. They saw that based on polls they had no chance of succeeding and withdrew on their own. I suppose one could argue that the polls were all rigged and the 3 mentioned were all winning, but no one believes that is true.

You could try and make polling illegal, but cant see how that would be constitutional.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Your post is illustrative of a problem in the Democratic Party

Blind spots, dismissiveness and flippant attitudes like this are among the ways that our allies contribute to the problem.

[Vivienne235729]

7. And she makes one helluva point. 2 small very white states should not

Be able to dictate the tone of the primaries to such a degree like this.

[Vivienne235729]

17. Agreed. Maybe NY and CA at the same time? But that might be too lopsided

As they are both such powerhouses.

[jimfields33]

27. I think that the reason they don't start with NY and CA

Is that they are expensive to advertise and even stay in lodging for a small funded candidate.

[Blue_true]

38. Good points.

I think any big state, NY, Cali, Texas, Florida would be brutal for candidates with low name recognition but solid ideas, if they started the primary election off. Better to seed them in somewhere after things get kicked off and spread them out a little.

Someone a couple of days ago had the idea of regional primaries. I think that is a brilliant idea, because then small mostly White states like Iowa can be thrown into a group with more diverse states such as Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan.

[relayerbob]

8. Absolute truth

[Dem2theMax]

15. She is brilliant.

I want to put a checkmark next to her name and be able to call her President. I sincerely hope that is in her future.

[radius777]

18. Also social media is dominated by white leftist culture,

when the vast majority of regular Dems and PoC are pragmatic liberals, ie Clinton/Obama Dems, as shown even this time by the Pete/Amy/Biden/Bloomberg lane polling 60-65%, and Sanders/Warren about 35-40%.

The media tends to hype 'revolutionary' (Nader, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Sanders, etc) candidates who are unpalatable to the wider electorate, but who are 'hip' and can drive ratings/sell ads to the coveted white 18-45 demographic.

[hangaleft]

20. As a white leftist, I feel compelled to respond

I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself.

I don’t consider myself “hip”, “cool” or “in” because I dream of a utopian society in which everyone enjoys a comfortable standard of living. I realize we’ll never have that utopia. That there will always be haves and have nots. But it’s certainly attainable to narrow the gap and live in a society where *everyone* gets a good education, has a job that pays well, has a nice place to live, a nice car to drive, nice clothes to wear, good food to eat, access to good health care and enough leisure time to enjoy it all. And is free from discrimination or intimidation in any form.

Call me a dreamer. Call me whatever you like. But I don’t think we’re gonna get there in baby steps. We need a government that’s aggressively progressive.

And that’s why I support Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy and have since day 1. I have no second choice. I don’t like middle of the road politicians. Never have. Never will.

[radius777]

22. My critique was more about the media

ie social media and cable media that markets whatever they think is hip.

Warren doesn't really fit into this category, as she's a simply a more progressive Democrat (but still a Democrat) with actual ideas ... I'm talking more about the third party types that I listed who the media always likes to hail as the 'next revolutionary', complete with constant pieces about the 'cool' supporters of said revolutionaries, etc.

The media has treated Warren much more unfairly than Sanders, who skates by without explaining anything about his policies or record. Alot of this is sexism, but also the loud 'revolutionary' hip thing sells, whereas rationally explaining policies (like Warren and others do) does not.

[Blue_true]

39. History has shown repeatedly that lasting progress happens in

small steps. For example, although it took place at a very critical time in the country's history, the New Deal was actually much smaller in scale than LBJ's Great Society iniative. LBJ brought forth a lot of progressive stuff, The Job Corps, the first attempt at environmental laws (though Nixon created the EPA), big Civil Rights changes, the origin of powerful women in government, nutrition programs for poor people, dramatic expansion of SS, creation of Medicare. LBJ swamped FDR on the scale of change, yet both took comparative "baby steps" when one considers the level of the problems that exhisted in their times.

[Lexblues]

24. I love the idea of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia going first

Blue states with large minority populations. It could be the Delmarva primary. They are close too so candidates wouldn't have to spend a lot of money traveling around. There's lots of college students, federal workers, and even military. You have a great mix of everything.

[Blue_true]

40. That would be a good regional primary to kick things off.

Iowa has become more conservative in the General, I am not sure letting them go first makes sense anymore, even as they had the first case of direct nomination of presidential candidates. New Hampshire is different, that state has trended more progressive and we need to think before we push them out of their leading spot.

To take someone else's idea, maybe we should have regional primaries that diversify the voting populace. We can have two regions designated to start and rotate them cycle to cycle. Hell, in terms of bunching states, we can do like the NFL does, put a state somewhere that doesn't make sense, for example Dallas being in the NFC East. We can stick New Hampshire in with the group of states that you mentioned and call them Starting Group 1.

[Mike Nelson]

26. Well, it's surely put off black and brown voters...

... they need to do something. Nothing against IA and NH but we need a better representation of America. I think the present race would look very different, with more accurate representation - Joe Biden would be doing much better, for example, probably winning.

[Amimnoch]

28. Ohio and Florida.

There can be no disputing her claim.. it's all right there and 100% valid.

IMO, the best way to kick off the primary season should be with a joint Florida and Ohio Primary.

2x of the largest pool of available Electoral votes from actual swing states.
Very diverse.
2x very different types of cultures and populations.

And make them both semi-closed primaries.. Registered Democrats + first time voters + "independents" that Have voted for a Democratic Party candidate at least 1x in the last 12 year to highly reduce any Republican ratfucking interference/biasing.

[Blue_true]

41. Florida has a closed primary.

People have to register as a democrat or republican a certain number of days before the primary to be eligible to vote for a party candidate. I greatly prefer that method. The state can allow same day registration to vote in a party primary, but only for registered Indies, republicans should not be allowed to register to vote in a democratic primary and vice versa. I think that most Indies, though they tend to vote for one party or the other, can be influenced by a good platform, they are not coming out simply to ratfuck.

I honestly think that Florida is way to big to have go first, it costs a lot to campaign in this state and that would be amplified big if it went first. I would prefer state groups like Ohio/Michigan/Indiana leading off, there is very good diversity across that mix.

[MichMan]

30. Here are the 10 states that most represent the national average for AA

11. Tennessee 929,864 5,689,283 16.34%
12. New York 2,986,242 18,976,457 15.74%
13. Arkansas 417,881 2,673,400 15.63%
14. Illinois 1,864,619 12,419,293 15.01%
15. Florida 2,312,105 15,982,378 14.47%
16. Michigan 1,401,723 9,938,444 14.10%
17. New Jersey 1,127,266 8,414,350 13.40%
18. Texas 2,385,554 20,851,820 11.44%
19. Ohio 1,288,359 11,353,140 11.35%
20. Missouri 622,087 5,595,211 11.12%

[Iliyah]

31. As to Latino ...

New York, Florida and Texas . . .

Asians, Middle Eastern . . .

Native Americans . . .

[loyalsister]

42. She is correct

The primary tradition is an implicit endorsement of white social superiority. What I find perplexing is that we started with a strong field of candidates with a range of foci and solutions. And the field grew whiter and whiter.

[MichMan]

45. I am baffled by the recent decline in Biden's poll numbers

First of all, if indeed Iowa and New Hampshire are small unrepresentative states then don't pay much attention to the results. There are few delegates, so in the grand scheme of things, they have little impact. Hell, Bloomberg decided to skip them all together, and it seemingly didn't hurt his campaign. They are only important because we make them so.

I also don't understand why Biden's poll numbers in SC and other upcoming states dropped so quickly. Popular opinion has been that people were solidly behind Joe because of is record as VP and deep connections to President Obama. So, a large % of voters were all in for Joe and now are suddenly switching to Bernie because of what voters in another state did? Why?

One explanation could be that Biden's candidacy isn't by itself, generating a lot of passion with voters, but his level of support is more based on his perceived electability against Trump. As voters attempt to reconcile who at any given moment is the front runner, will we see the polls shifting erratically or will voters rally behind Joe or someone else?

[StarfishSaver]

46. This

"One explanation could be that Biden's candidacy isn't by itself, generating a lot of passion with voters, but his level of support is more based on his perceived electability against Trump."

In a nutshell.

[Dietz]

47. Couldn't agree more

I supported Kamala Harris, I miss Corey Booker.