Michigan will replace Iowa as the first primary contest for Dems

[S019]

Everyone's talking about how this is good news for Whitmer, bad news for Harris/Newsom, etc. Maybe, but looking more broadly, this is bad news for underdog candidates.

One of the advantages of having four small states go first is that it has an equalizer effect. Smaller states require less money to campaign in, and if you have less name recognition, it's easier to crisscross the state and put yourself out there. Not every underdog is deserving, but neither is every frontrunner, and having small states go first allows the quality of candidates' ground games and campaigning skills shine through. See: 2008 Democratic primaries.

Michigan is a bigger state by area and far, far bigger by population. Underdogs or outsiders who may genuinely be better candidates run a greater risk of getting drowned out, and I'm not sure that benefits the party on the long run.

I am sick and tired of this talking point, you need to have broad appeal and be able to fundraise to win the nomination to begin with. If anything big states should go first to filter out the superfluous candidates.

[S019]

It's disapointing Dems are dropping Iowa with the history and excitement of the caucus just because the state wouldn't vote for them. In 2012 and 2016 Rs still had Iowa first despite Obama winning the state by a decent margin.

It's being dropped because the electorate isn't representative of the D primary electorate.

[S019]

It's disapointing Dems are dropping Iowa with the history and excitement of the caucus just because the state wouldn't vote for them. In 2012 and 2016 Rs still had Iowa first despite Obama winning the state by a decent margin.

It's being dropped because the electorate isn't representative of the D primary electorate.

But they aren't dropping NH and that state is whiter than Iowa.

Honestly, I don't know why they also didn't drop NH, but moving SC first and adding GA into the first states is a good move.