Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I'm sick of California and the West Coast going damn near LAST in having a say in the process [View all]Sancho
(9,065 posts)23. You realize that if CA had gone first, instead of Iowa, Bernie would be toast much earlier...
At the beginning he had no money, no recognition, and no rallies. If CA had gone first - Hillary would have trounced Bernie before he got any traction.
If Hillary had won 60-70% in CA in Feb. or March for example, then a caucus in Iowa would be worthless in May or June.
The rural caucus states are "easy" for new candidates to get their name out there. That's exactly what Bernie did. It got him some money, some TV time, and a place on the ballots.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm sick of California and the West Coast going damn near LAST in having a say in the process [View all]
One Black Sheep
Jun 2016
OP
Because liberals and progressives are an important part of the Democratic base
One Black Sheep
Jun 2016
#9
Because putting an enormous state second would help the lesser known candidate?
mythology
Jun 2016
#10
You realize that if CA had gone first, instead of Iowa, Bernie would be toast much earlier...
Sancho
Jun 2016
#23
Maybe California should divide into multiple regional primaries on different dates
HereSince1628
Jun 2016
#29
50 million people on the west coast are ignored, which is why the beltway still thinks
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2016
#33