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

LonePirate

(13,386 posts)
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 07:44 PM Dec 2016

Do we need to replace Iowa as the first in the nation during primary season?

Although some may disagree, I think Iowa's days as a competitive state are now history. The state is firmly entrenched on the red team. Combining that with its small size and its well above average high white population, the state no longer seems like a good fit at the front of the line during primary season. It's certainly not representative of our party. We need a new state to be the first caucus/primary state.

New Hampshire is also small and mostly white but at least the state is still a competitive one. I suppose pushing it forward would not radically alter the primary season too much. However, a state like Nevada would be a much better choice for the first caucus/primary state given its diversity, growth and competitiveness. I would also support a large state like Florida or Pennsylvania going first.

Am I off base in pushing Iowa off its perch atop primary season or do we need to look for a new state to kick things off in 2020?

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do we need to replace Iowa as the first in the nation during primary season? (Original Post) LonePirate Dec 2016 OP
"We" can't do it. States pick their own schedules. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #1
We can apply the FL/MI punishment from 2008 when they jumped the gun. LonePirate Dec 2016 #3
In a perfect world, yes. Also New Hampshire should take a backseat. Va Lefty Dec 2016 #2
The problem with putting a large state first is that it's harder for a lesser known candidate to win mythology Dec 2016 #4
Before trump that was true, but it's clear they don't need to do that type of campaigning. rogue emissary Dec 2016 #8
But only a celebrity engaging in buffoonery can rely on free media. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #16
We are not a federalist top down fiefdom yet. There is nothing wrong with the CK_John Dec 2016 #5
Obama Won Iowa both times JI7 Dec 2016 #6
he's underwater in his approval ratings there now. it's swung back to its natural status as a solid geek tragedy Dec 2016 #14
It's been won or nearly won by the Dem. nominee quite a few times in recent history. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #15
It was barely considered a swing state from 1988 through 2012 (the Democratic nominee won the Midwestern Democrat Dec 2016 #20
with all the money and publicity Iowa gets from the situation rurallib Dec 2016 #7
I think it should be a different state each primary season. Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #9
I agree. SharonClark Dec 2016 #19
I don't think any single state should have so much influence. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #10
YES YES YES YES beaglelover Dec 2016 #11
I just want it to be a state (or states) that's representative of the US. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #12
I'd be OK with that too. beaglelover Dec 2016 #13
I would like to see two primaries sarisataka Dec 2016 #17
During the primary, I suggested having 2 rounds of primaries. Garrett78 Dec 2016 #18

LonePirate

(13,386 posts)
3. We can apply the FL/MI punishment from 2008 when they jumped the gun.
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 07:49 PM
Dec 2016

We also don't have to campaign there which would effectively neuter the state's caucus.

We need to shake up our primary calendar and we need to start with Iowa.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
4. The problem with putting a large state first is that it's harder for a lesser known candidate to win
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:26 PM
Dec 2016

Smaller states allow for a candidate who isn't well known to get that recognition without having a lot of money. If you can find a way to get money out of the system, or at least greatly reduce it, I'd be more open to moving to a larger state. But then you run into the Trump problem as nobody on the left would benefit from the amount of free media Trump got.

rogue emissary

(3,147 posts)
8. Before trump that was true, but it's clear they don't need to do that type of campaigning.
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:35 PM
Dec 2016

trump in the primaries and general never did much of the hand shaking & listening tour type campaigning. Like you point out he relied on free media and his rallies to get his vote out.

Iowa and New Hampshire have the worst record of picking a Democratic president. They picked Obama and maybe one other Democratic candidate that went on to win the White House in the last forty years.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
16. But only a celebrity engaging in buffoonery can rely on free media.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 06:33 PM
Dec 2016

And I'm really hoping that doesn't become the norm.

CK_John

(10,005 posts)
5. We are not a federalist top down fiefdom yet. There is nothing wrong with the
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:40 PM
Dec 2016

system as is. Just learn how to play the game and put up a good candidate.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
14. he's underwater in his approval ratings there now. it's swung back to its natural status as a solid
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 06:15 PM
Dec 2016

red state (governor, legislature, both Senators all Republicans).

And they're not going to get rid of their obsolete caucus, so time to find a better state to go early.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
15. It's been won or nearly won by the Dem. nominee quite a few times in recent history.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 06:29 PM
Dec 2016

Dukakis of all people won Iowa by double digits in '88.

But I agree that Iowa shouldn't have so much influence. Demographically, it isn't remotely representative of the US.

20. It was barely considered a swing state from 1988 through 2012 (the Democratic nominee won the
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 11:55 PM
Dec 2016

state in 6 out of 7 elections) - it was certainly considered the easiest swing state for the Democrats.

rurallib

(62,343 posts)
7. with all the money and publicity Iowa gets from the situation
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 09:51 PM
Dec 2016

any Iowa leader who says anything against the caucuses gets skewered.

I would love to see it go somewhere else. as an Iowan.

Crunchy Frog

(26,548 posts)
9. I think it should be a different state each primary season.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:00 PM
Dec 2016

I've never thought that keeping the primary states in a fixed order made any sense.

I'm from Colorado, and 2008 was the first time that I was ever able to participate in the primaries/caucuses at the presidential level, in any meaningful way. It's that way for most states.

SharonClark

(10,005 posts)
19. I agree.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 11:26 PM
Dec 2016

It helps build the right-wing network and the right-wing dominates the media. The Dems get scraps.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
10. I don't think any single state should have so much influence.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 05:06 PM
Dec 2016

I think a handful of states from various regions ought to be first. But, if we insist on having *a* state lead things off, then let's at least make it a state that's more or less a microcosm of the US. Iowa and New Hampshire might be fine for Republicans, but Illinois is (demographically speaking) more representative of the US than any other state.

beaglelover

(3,436 posts)
11. YES YES YES YES
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 05:11 PM
Dec 2016

A large state like NY or CA should be first. Why a tiny state like Iowa is given so much importance is beyond me. Time to shake up the system.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
12. I just want it to be a state (or states) that's representative of the US.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 05:23 PM
Dec 2016

I think Illinois would be the best choice.

sarisataka

(18,206 posts)
17. I would like to see two primaries
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 07:01 PM
Dec 2016

One 12 months before the election the other a month before the conventions. All 50 states would vote in each election at the same time.

No one would be eliminated in the first primary however it will signal their electability. The second work the way the system currently does to select a candidate for each party.

By running the primaries all at the same time it places no state above any other. Such a system would also lessen the importance of polls while increasing the influence of those who actually vote.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
18. During the primary, I suggested having 2 rounds of primaries.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 07:23 PM
Dec 2016

With those below a certain threshold eliminated after the first round.

But it might be better to just have one round of 4 primaries with each primary consisting of 12-13 states (representing every region of the US). Each primary would be 4-6 weeks apart.

No single state or region would have undue influence.

And I agree with others that something needs to be done about campaign spending. Public funding would be ideal, with each candidate having the same exact amount to spend. At the very least, there should be a cap on how much can be spent. I don't want to open the door to some fringe lunatic winning the nomination, but I also want the party to provide opportunity for those who aren't already very well-known and well-funded.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Do we need to replace Iow...