What if SC and NV went first?

But SC and NV will be coming up soon enough and we will then have a clearer picture. Iowa was a mess and an anomaly.

Parties don't set primary dates, but at least back in 2008, the Democratic Party punished states that set their primaries before Iowa or New Hampshire. Florida and Michigan disobeyed that rule, and Florida was stripped of half its delegates and most of the candidates took their names off the Michigan ballot, which made things incredibly complicated in terms of apportioning delegates. As far as I know this rule has not been changed since then - correct me if I am wrong.

The party can make any primary meaningless in a state that insists it has to go first.

small, nearly all-white states have such out-sized influence on who polls higher and raises more money to continue on in the race. They favor white candidates and disadvantage candidates with strong African-American and POC support. Changes must be made or we risk losing AA/POC support without which no Democrat can win the GE.

It's almost a form of white privilege for two states which do not reflect the make-up of the party get to shape the race as they do.

divisiveness). And you'll notice the AA candidates ave been winnowed out.

Also, many black leaders endorsed Biden instead of going with Harris or Booker

That of course is all tied together.

In '08 Hillary was preferred by many AAs until Obama's polling stabilized and went up.

He did well either in states with high AA population (due to the AA vote) or very low AA population (except WV), but struggled to win white voters in states that had sizeable AA populations. During the 2008 general election, the media constantly asked if he could get enough votes from the blue collar whites who were voting for Hillary in the primary.

Ironically, 8 years later, they kept asking if Hillary could win the blue collar whites who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I also recall that Obama wasn't polling that well among blacks in South Carolina until after he won Iowa. I remember one of the pundits said he needed to prove he could win white voters before black voters were prepared to go all in.

Not me. My wife and I were determined to be on the right side of history.

I want more diverse states to go first, but I would rather them be small states/areas that less well-funded candidates have a shot in. I've been saying for years that Washington, DC should go first, because it's both small and diverse, and voters in DC get screwed by not having senators and not having full home rule, so this would be a way to give them more of a voice and make sure their needs get met by members of Congress with presidential aspirations.

The media needs to just stop the shameful promotion.

We shouldn't put a state we have no chance of winning in the general out front in the primary. Iowa may be a lost cause at this point but Obama won it twice. We aren't going to win SC any time soon.

If you want a more diverse state in that region then GA or NC would be a better choice. We can win those in the next decade.

nod to the African-American community which feels the Democratic Party often takes it for granted, as witnessed by the AA candidates being winnowed out of the race before voting even began.

I wish more whites would think of such obvious things cocerning such a critical part of the party's base.

And Democrats are actually competititve in North Carolina

the problem with it moving up a little earlier as a noticeable nod to the AA community? And again, it's a Democratic primary not the GE.

And actually, the ihcreased and intense media attention of being first or second would make it more competitive in the GE.

I'd prefer not to have any solid red states choosing our nominee no matter what the racial makeup is. The AA candidates were both polling extremely poor in SC, generally mid-single digits or lower. Harris was polling at 4th or 5th in her home state. That's why they dropped out.

usurped by NC?

The true base of the party would have the chance to weigh in on our nominee.

We need blocks of states each week without ANY caucuses.

And an inkling of what much of America will do in the general.

It’s just a fact. A fact many including in the media and our leadership either don’t get, can’t get, or won’t get. America simply IS NOT an all-white country. In most of our lifetimes that will be numerically correct. The white demographic is not the one that’s expanding. Latino and African/American both are, in that order, from the various figurings I’ve seen.

We are a mixed-race country any way you look at it. Any questions? Just watch a set of commercials on TV sometime. You’ll start noticing a whole lot of ‘em now featuring mixed-race families - dad taking kids for ice cream after school, family at table or outside with neighbors at backyard barbecue, woman noticing the cleaner clothes (better detergent!) on somebody else’s kid at football practice, pals cuddling around a beach bonfire or crowding into an SUV to go to the mountains, etc.

There’s a reason for that. “Madison Avenue” certainly has taken note.

candidates who have not yet raised a lot of money for a level playing field.

It allows a variety of candidates and their surrogates to cris-cross the state and talk to pretty much anyone.

Cameron Kerry sat with a people in our coffee shop in 2004 for about a half-hour, came around to talk one-on-one for a few mins to everyone there about John. It was great.