2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCalifornia should be among the first primary states
the biggest democratic state should have a more influential say in the nomination process
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But the Democratic Party is not interested in what it's rank-and-file thinks. They are there to rubber-stamp the choices of the Party leaders, not to muddy the waters with their meddlesome wants and needs.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)if California had gone first, and Bernie was still fighting just to be known, the likely large victory Hillary would have had would mean there would be even fewer delegates left to pin minor hopes on.
But more to the point, yes, we have reached the point where it makes no sense to let two of the whitest states in the country drive the entire narrative for the six months leading up to the first votes being cast. More diverse states should go first, so we can quickly eliminate the candidates with extremely limited demographic support.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)The demographics of the early states are stupidly skewed and poorly representative.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)It costs a LOT of money to be a viable statewide candidate in California. A dozen major media markets to buy ads is the major expense.
No one could compete in California without lots of money and lots of media exposure. No possibility of a surprise win by doing a couple hundred town halls, as is possible in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Putting CA at the beginning of the schedule would mean the 'money primary' would be completely decisive. No thanks.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)Hillary would have had to raise money from voters on her ideas rather than from super pacs and corporate lobbyists for her loyalty.
it pretty obvious who has won in this regard..
still_one
(91,950 posts)primary circuit It allows us to get a good look at the candidates
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)money and name recognition would win.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)The results would have been something like Clinton 75% - Sanders 25%. Sanders needed time to build an organization and figure out how to run. He'd have been out after the first primary.
SalviaBlue
(2,910 posts)WhiteTara
(29,676 posts)propose that. Each state chooses their primary dates and things can be proposed at the convention. It takes work, but it can be done.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)All 50 states need to be live.
Voters in all 50 states need to have an equal voice.
When a primary is done before some states get to weigh in, it disenfranchises millions of Democrats.
To avoid that, the larger states should go last.
In my opinion. Of course, I'm more about the small (d) democratic process than I am about the big (D) manipulation of that process.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)is ridiculous
LWolf
(46,179 posts)determines the momentum when everybody's voice is heard?
That makes no sense.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Nobody's vote should be influenced by those previous.
If it weren't a hardship on the candidates and their campaigns, I'd rather see every primary happen on a single day across the nation, so that we get clean results and an equal voice.
That's why I want larger states to go last. They have more delegates. When they go last, "momentum" doesn't dominate.
Do YOU think my state, or any state, should be marginalized and disenfranchised because of that "momentum?"
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)What happened to that momentum?
Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)campaign message.
I blame his surrogates and managers. I don't believe for a second SBS would have taken this tack on his own.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)the reasons are obvious. Hillary won big in many states that will go red in November.. and then the narrative became Bernie doesn't appeal to black voters for the rest of the campaign.
Maru Kitteh
(28,303 posts)Like that?
So do the Blue states matter? Which ones?
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Money well spent. Sanders never said that Black votes do not matter. But keep thinking the lies. Where you alive in Nixon times and believed he was not a crock too? Did you believe Bush about Iraq having Nukes?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)brooklynite
(93,851 posts)California is too big for retail politics; it's dependent on television advertising. Moving California to the front of the pack means you won't have the opportunity for less-well funded candidates to show they have a campaign message that resonates.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in CA while Clinton you claim is not going to run any ads at all. Can you pick on narrative of attack and stick to it?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)You'd have to ask the legislators why they did that.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)How does going earlier give a state more influence?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Caucuses should be abolished.
And the nominee chosen by popular vote.
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)very interesting
JSup
(740 posts)...proposed lottery should probably be based on regions, though, ie. One state from (contiguous) Pacific, one from Mountain, one from Plains, once from South, one from Atlantic, one from New England, one from Rust Belt.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)bad
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)I don't think it would be a good idea to be first...
but it also couldn't be so late
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)more beginning- middle
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Each chunk of primaries that happen on the same day should represent a roughly equal population. So tiny states like Iowa and New Hampshire should be grouped in with other states rather than getting special attention. And large states like California and New York should go on their own to give the candidates more time to reach the voters there.
So California goes alone, to represent 39 million people.
Texas and Illinois go together, representing another 39 million people.
Florida + NY = 39 mil
etc.
and then Puerto Rico, Iowa, Utah, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, DC, Vermont and Wyoming all have to go on the same day.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The problem is this- the order that lends more influence is not really predictable in advance of the contests. Earlier is not always better. Later is not always better.
2banon
(7,321 posts)and all primaries, no caucuses. I also think the voting requirements, rules and regs and procedures need to be nationalized.