What state should go first in Democratic primaries/caucuses
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:35:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  What state should go first in Democratic primaries/caucuses
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: What state should go first in Democratic primaries/caucuses  (Read 2290 times)
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2020, 12:34:22 AM »

If I could run the system unilaterally, I'd do ten sets of five states at a time with a random drawing of which state was going when each election. The only problem I have with a nation-wide primary is that it would almost never result in a candidate getting a mandate from their party, and I think the spread-out primary process really helps to pull a full majority of the party around one candidate.

But in the spirit of the question, I'll say Puerto Rico, since it gets screwed over all the rest of the election season and it could use the campaign funds thrown its way.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,709
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2020, 11:57:47 AM »

Nevada and Mississippi should certainly replace Iowa and New Hampshire.  They are still small enough to allow for the in-person retail politics that Iowa and New Hampshire currently enjoy, while better reflecting the diversity of the present-day Democratic Party.  And as an aside, it will force Democratic candidates to confront the endemic poverty of the inhabitants (predominately black) living along the Mississippi delta.   

MS Democrats are actually less representative of the national Democratic electorate than IA Democrats.  538 estimated that 72% of MS Dems were Black, compared to only 58% for South Carolina (these estimates seem a bit low, but are probably relatively correct).
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2020, 06:57:20 PM »

Nevada and Mississippi should certainly replace Iowa and New Hampshire.  They are still small enough to allow for the in-person retail politics that Iowa and New Hampshire currently enjoy, while better reflecting the diversity of the present-day Democratic Party.  And as an aside, it will force Democratic candidates to confront the endemic poverty of the inhabitants (predominately black) living along the Mississippi delta.  

MS Democrats are actually less representative of the national Democratic electorate than IA Democrats.  538 estimated that 72% of MS Dems were Black, compared to only 58% for South Carolina (these estimates seem a bit low, but are probably relatively correct).

African-Americans (especially African-American women) are the bedrock of the Democratic Party in the South.  I think it's high time we place them first.  It will at least send a signal that we will no longer take them for granted.  So why not a state that has the largest proportion of African Americans in the country?  A state that is the poorest in the Union?  A state that has long been overlooked except in civil rights documentaries on PBS.  
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2020, 10:33:36 PM »

DC
Logged
KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸
KoopaDaQuick
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,299
Anguilla


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2020, 11:25:00 PM »

Iowa goes first, all the other contests happen later on the same night on Super Duper Tuesday.™
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2020, 12:06:50 PM »

Part of the problem is that, for very real logistics reasons, states would like to keep their Democratic and GOP primaries on the same day. Obviously, it doesn't happen with every single contest, but it's fairly likely that no matter what happens in 2020, there'll be open-ish primaries on both sides in 2024 (Biden probably wouldn't run for a second term if he wins, and if Trump wins there'd be no incumbent on either side) so the GOP calendar becomes important too.

That said, one advantage is that the GOP can't be thrilled with the IA Caucus and its tendency to vote for ridiculous religious charlatans with no chance of winning the nomination. The IA Caucus has a horrible record on the GOP side. I do think it's possible to get the DNC and RNC to agree to spike Iowa's primacy, even if everything else is difficult.

I think the most likely outcome in that case would be to move NH, NV, and SC up one and pick a new state for the newly vacant fourth slot, and make that Illinois. IL going fourth would alleviate some of the "Big state dominating the primary" fears while still giving a big state some early relevance. IL would be a good state for the GOP as well.

The Dems might couple this change with abolishing all caucuses (so NV becomes a primary, for example) and awarding bonus delegates to states which use RCV like they already do for clustering primaries and for having states vote in contiguous groups.

The GOP would probably keep its rickety collection of primaries, caucuses, and conventions that no one actually gets to participate in. (Three states, including a mid sized state like Colorado, flat out held unelected state conventions to select delegates on the GOP side in 2016)
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2020, 04:14:32 PM »

The GOP would probably keep its rickety collection of primaries, caucuses, and conventions that no one actually gets to participate in. (Three states, including a mid sized state like Colorado, flat out held unelected state conventions to select delegates on the GOP side in 2016)

Honestly I would not be surprised to see the GOP increasingly move away from popularly elected primaries (especially if their party remains united around Trump's successor) consider not only those three states from 2016 but also all the states this year that have cancelled their primaries all together
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2020, 10:00:55 PM »

The GOP would probably keep its rickety collection of primaries, caucuses, and conventions that no one actually gets to participate in. (Three states, including a mid sized state like Colorado, flat out held unelected state conventions to select delegates on the GOP side in 2016)

Honestly I would not be surprised to see the GOP increasingly move away from popularly elected primaries (especially if their party remains united around Trump's successor) consider not only those three states from 2016 but also all the states this year that have cancelled their primaries all together

True, but that happens every cycle that a president runs for reelection. There were a number of cancelled GOP primaries in 2004 and Dem primaries in 2012.
Logged
538Electoral
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,691


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2020, 10:07:44 PM »

Not OH.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 11 queries.