Should Mississippi Go First on the Democratic Primary Schedule?

[Frodo]

What do you think?  African Americans are the bedrock of the Democratic Party in the South (and in the nation as a whole) yet the primary schedule hardly reflects that reality, and they have long felt taken for granted.  So why not Mississippi which has the highest proportion of African-Americans in the country, and is also the poorest with the greatest concentration of poverty in the Delta?  And are we not the party that have traditionally stood up for the poor and destitute since William Jennings Bryan, and for the disenfranchised at least since the 1960s?  This state will bring us back to our roots as a political party but in a way that is inclusive, and would force Democratic candidates to focus on African Americans and their issues and concerns in a way they haven't.  And as an added bonus, it is still small enough population-wise to enable the kind of retail politicking that Iowa and New Hampshire currently enjoy, and would allow insurgent candidates with limited resources to compete on a more even playing field against more established candidates.   

[Frodo]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-early-democratic-primary-states-looked-more-like-the-party/
Mississippi is the 50th most representative state. Not a good idea.

We can have Nevada come in second.  But to me it is only fair to reward a constituency that has been our most loyal through thick and thin, and what more visible way to reward that loyalty than by having the poorest, most African American state in the Union the first say in who our nominee should be?

[Frodo]

Any Mississippi Democrats who actually live in the state want to weigh in? 

[Frodo]

Nope.

Maybe just do Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina all on the same day

Not a bad idea, actually.  Collectively, they should be representative enough to go first.  Though they should all hold primaries, and New Hampshire would hate it.

The idea is to pick one state small enough in population early in the process so contenders with less resources are on a more even playing field vis-a-vis more established candidates.  

[Frodo]

Why not Alaska, by the way, since Native Americans are like 3000 times more ignored than African Americans?

Even though Alaska does have the highest percentage of Native Americans of any state, I feel New Mexico would be a more representative state to go first in the primary. Although it has a slightly smaller percentage of Native Americans than Alaska, it has more Native Americans overall along with a heavily Latino population that Alaska doesn't really have. But I'd be in favor of having New Mexico and Alaska go earlier than they do in the primaries to get more say to Native voters.

I agree. A really pumped up way to render the ideas we shared in this thread would be substituting all the first four primary states with:
Alaska (the most Native American state)
New Mexico (the most Hispanic state)
Hawaii (the most Asian state)
Mississippi (the Blackest state)

Interesting assortment of states, though I would change the order a bit.