Iowa - first caucus state again?

[Lord Halifax]

The 2020 primary mess was not explicitly our fault, plenty of states have had similar problems, especially because the app was made by the national DNC and was set to be used in Nevada and other states. Also, take note that the trouble was actually the fault of the Democrats and their app, not of the state of Iowa, as the GOP caucuses ran smoothly. Sure, we could definitely reform our caucus a little bit, but I see no reason why any other state should go before us. Either keep the status quo with minor reform, or hold one same-day national primary.

Really?

Yep.

What about the non-representative demographics?
What about about Iowa having turned into a deep-red state?

> What about the non-representative demographics?

So? Good luck finding a state that is both demographically AND politically in sync with the nation at large 100% of the time.

> What about about Iowa having turned into a deep-red state?

Uhh...what? We had a competitive Senate race, and elected a 75% Democratic House delegation in 2018. That, and these trends aren't permanent.

However, let's pretend that Iowa is among the likes of Oklahoma and Idaho like you say it is: isn't that a good thing? The Democrats need to tune into how swing voters and whatnot think in order to...I don't know...win? A first-in-the-nation in California or Massachusetts would be a massive echo chamber that only proves how demographics that were gonna vote D anyways think.

The alternative wouldn't be CA or MA, but an actual swing state like Wisconsin.

[Lord Halifax]

The 2020 primary mess was not explicitly our fault, plenty of states have had similar problems, especially because the app was made by the national DNC and was set to be used in Nevada and other states. Also, take note that the trouble was actually the fault of the Democrats and their app, not of the state of Iowa, as the GOP caucuses ran smoothly. Sure, we could definitely reform our caucus a little bit, but I see no reason why any other state should go before us. Either keep the status quo with minor reform, or hold one same-day national primary.

Really?

Yep.

What about the non-representative demographics?
What about about Iowa having turned into a deep-red state?

> What about the non-representative demographics?

So? Good luck finding a state that is both demographically AND politically in sync with the nation at large 100% of the time.

> What about about Iowa having turned into a deep-red state?

Uhh...what? We had a competitive Senate race, and elected a 75% Democratic House delegation in 2018. That, and these trends aren't permanent.

However, let's pretend that Iowa is among the likes of Oklahoma and Idaho like you say it is: isn't that a good thing? The Democrats need to tune into how swing voters and whatnot think in order to...I don't know...win? A first-in-the-nation in California or Massachusetts would be a massive echo chamber that only proves how demographics that were gonna vote D anyways think.

The alternative wouldn't be CA or MA, but an actual swing state like Wisconsin.

Iowa is a swing state.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Lord Halifax]

I don't think the argument should be over whether Iowa is a swing state (South Carolina clearly isn't but it gets no.3)

The argument is frankly what order of states best suits the parties ability to win 270 electoral votes & how it best stress tests those running.

Those two things are inseparable - and the purpose of the two first states is different from the purpose of the third and fourth.

The purpose of the two first states is to find a candidate that can connect with voters in "Middle America" and win in swing states. SC is a corrective to make sure that you don't get a nominee with little appeal to black voters (NV serves the same purpose wrt Hispanics), since that could depress turnout.

If you keep lily-white NH as one of the first two, the second one needs to be a swing state that's at least a bit more diverse and includes a large metro area. On paper WI, MI, NC and GA are the obvious choices, but MI/NC/GA are too big for retail politics (all with roughly twice the population of SC). AZ is a large state with a 7 mio.+ population, which is a also a bit too big, and you already have NV on the calendar. WI is only slightly bigger than SC and in the same region as IA, so that's the obvious replacement even if it's slightly too white, but if you keep NV/SC as correctives that's less of a problem. NH/WI followed by NV/SC is the least radical change that'll still "do the job".