Democratic Primaries

ritapria

(1,812 posts)

39. That is true

Reply to Demsrule86 (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 30, 2019, 01:39 PM

Nov 2019

It's up to the voters to decide whether they will be affected by the results coming from Iowa and NH

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why do we place so much weight on the vote of Iowa, a rural state less than 4% African American, [View all] pnwmom Nov 2019 OP

IMO, it's wrong RainCaster Nov 2019 #1

I like it. Rotating Primaries. No caucuses. dchill Nov 2019 #3

Jimmy Carter got the most votes in Iowa in 1976 ritapria Nov 2019 #25

Many voters polled have said they don't care what happens in Iowa ... only has meaning if we give it Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #38

That is true ritapria Nov 2019 #39

said this before. the early states are really NOT given the amount of weight stopdiggin Dec 2019 #51

Exactly right...nothing will change my mind about who I support...don't think Biden has to Demsrule86 Dec 2019 #57

I've been wondering the same thing. bitterross Nov 2019 #2

Besides, our 1st primary is in a mostly red state. dchill Nov 2019 #4

That's the part that gets me Sucha NastyWoman Nov 2019 #5

Alabama Democrats are very heavily African American. Should their votes not matter pnwmom Nov 2019 #9

Hey, I live in Texas Sucha NastyWoman Nov 2019 #11

Go after them at your own peril ...we need AA votes in other states for the presidency. Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #37

Iowa can't shift to primaries. crazytown Nov 2019 #6

Why can't Iowa shift to primaries? How can NH's statute prevent Iowa from holding a primary? pnwmom Nov 2019 #8

Those are the essential questions. Sucha NastyWoman Nov 2019 #12

It isn't a matter of "going along" with NH's primary jmowreader Nov 2019 #16

the single date doesn't get my vote stopdiggin Dec 2019 #52

The biggest problem I see in it... jmowreader Dec 2019 #55

In 08 we had a long primary...President Obama had primary offices in every state pretty much and it Demsrule86 Dec 2019 #58

Iowa, NH, SC, and NV should at least be on the same day madville Nov 2019 #7

agree completely. Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #42

Because they are 1st. Tiggeroshii Nov 2019 #10

We should re-order our primaries every four years. Sucha NastyWoman Nov 2019 #13

Well, who's going to do that? Each state sets its own primary/caucus dates and the only... TreasonousBastard Nov 2019 #14

That is not true really...Florida and Michigan were punished in 08 for going out of turn...consider Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #36

Nope squirecam Dec 2019 #48

Yeah ok...if you say so. Demsrule86 Dec 2019 #56

In other words, California and New York would always be the first two primaries jmowreader Nov 2019 #17

I'd be fine with that. Both very progressive states with large populations and large D populations. stopbush Nov 2019 #19

And we will likely lose every election...the candidates coming out of such primaries won't Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #34

And we would as I said before end up with candidates that might not be electable. Demsrule86 Dec 2019 #59

Why can't we rotate? Happy Hoosier Dec 2019 #62

Would the states that didn't vote for Democrats get to vote? Renew Deal Nov 2019 #24

Of course they would, just as they do now Sucha NastyWoman Nov 2019 #28

Wouldn't that mean that the states with the largest minority populations per capita vote at the end? Renew Deal Nov 2019 #31

Well if you disenfranchised AA voters by putting them last (large number in the south), you would Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #33

I absolutely disagree with that...you are basically planning primaries to elect Warren as Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #35

It is too expensive...primaries are run by the states. Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #43

If you believe that Iowa is insignificant and unrepresentative, than just ignore the results MichMan Nov 2019 #15

It's more than just delegates. It's appearances too... but I think you knew that already. NurseJackie Nov 2019 #18

Why do we keep asking the same question over and over? brooklynite Nov 2019 #20

I'll wait for the translation. BannonsLiver Nov 2019 #40

This is an informative article on this, pros and cons to change. Hortensis Nov 2019 #21

Fun fact: every competitive Pres. candidate signed a commitment to keep Iowa first... brooklynite Nov 2019 #22

Which state should go first? Renew Deal Nov 2019 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author Desert grandma Nov 2019 #26

That works for me too Sucha NastyWoman Nov 2019 #29

Meanwhile people dismiss "urban" (euphemism for "not white enough") areas as non-representative StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #27

Are you dissatisfied with the nominees that our current system has produced? Kaleva Nov 2019 #30

The only reason Iowa has meaning is because we give it meaning;I don't think it matters personally. Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #32

Please don't count me into that "we." MineralMan Nov 2019 #41

I think you are correct...take me. I will support Biden regardless of Iowa or New Hampshire...so I Demsrule86 Nov 2019 #45

Wrong squirecam Dec 2019 #49

This is 2019, not 2008. MineralMan Dec 2019 #53

Only because his electability was questioned..The voters already liked him...this is not the case Demsrule86 Dec 2019 #60

Your question contains the answer. (n/t) Iggo Nov 2019 #44

Neither Iowa nor New Hampshire represent the demographics of the party Gothmog Nov 2019 #46

So what states would you say represent the demographics of our party? Sucha NastyWoman Dec 2019 #47

States that have racial diversity...you can't possibly be a nominee if you can't win AA voters. Demsrule86 Dec 2019 #61

I totally agree with you on both points Sucha NastyWoman Dec 2019 #64

Silly lib micDROP Dec 2019 #50

It's the first time the media can say somebody "won" something treestar Dec 2019 #54

Not this year...IMHO. Demsrule86 Dec 2019 #63

States that are more diverse will decide the winner of the nomination Gothmog Dec 2019 #65