Should Mississippi Go First on the Democratic Primary Schedule?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

No way. Mississippi is way more conservative and religious than the Democratic Party as a whole. If we are going to move the first in the nation primary/caucus to a more diverse state, I'd nominate Nevada. They not only have their fair share of African Americans but also a healthy supply of Hispanics/Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans that are indeed more reflective of the Democratic Party. Of course, the only problem with Nevada is that all the candidates would be spending 99 percent of their time in Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson City with maybe one or two appearances in the cow counties. Just my two cents.

But the fact is that close to 99 percent of Nevada Democrats come from Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City...

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

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

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

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)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

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.  

They were not in order actually hahaha how would you put them in order?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

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)

In fairness if doing that the early 4 should become an early 5 alongside like Vermont (the most non-Hispanic White state)

In truth, I agree with your reasoning (also because Vermont is very likely the most liberal state, while Mississippi is the most conservative state) but I kind of think many Democrats wouldn't.

(However Vermont should go fifth otherwise it's the problem of IA/NH repeated all over again)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

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)

Alaska + Hawaii would be no-goes because of geography - one of the justifications for using a staggered primary system which starts with IA/NH/NV/SC is that they're cheap states which are easy to campaign in. The geographical isolation of HI/AK makes them more expensive, as does the sheer vastness of AK.

This holds true for any group, of course, but ranking states by most X doesn't work well because the heterogeneity within groups. We're all well-aware of the diversity within white voters, but there are noted differences between how Southern and Northern blacks vote, for example. With New Mexico and Hawaii in particular, you have Hispanic and Asian electorates which are very different from their counterparts in the rest of the country.

The fact that Alaska and Hawaii are remote is a setback but is really part of why I mentioned them. They need more attention. Maybe I am just a fool.

For the other part, I understand. In fact it seems to me that too little attention is given to the diversity inside Black voters (although maybe that's starting to change), the diversity inside Hispanic voters, et cetera. But really, my four states were a "pumped up" version of the original idea of this thread (Mississippi first) and you're not the first one to say that it would not actually be so representative. (To me, the case for Nevada first is much stronger)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

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)

Alaska + Hawaii would be no-goes because of geography - one of the justifications for using a staggered primary system which starts with IA/NH/NV/SC is that they're cheap states which are easy to campaign in. The geographical isolation of HI/AK makes them more expensive, as does the sheer vastness of AK.

This holds true for any group, of course, but ranking states by most X doesn't work well because the heterogeneity within groups. We're all well-aware of the diversity within white voters, but there are noted differences between how Southern and Northern blacks vote, for example. With New Mexico and Hawaii in particular, you have Hispanic and Asian electorates which are very different from their counterparts in the rest of the country.

The fact that Alaska and Hawaii are remote is a setback but is really part of why I mentioned them. They need more attention. Maybe I am just a fool.

For the other part, I understand. In fact it seems to me that too little attention is given to the diversity inside Black voters (although maybe that's starting to change), the diversity inside Hispanic voters, et cetera. But really, my four states were a "pumped up" version of the original idea of this thread (Mississippi first) and you're not the first one to say that it would not actually be so representative. (To me, the case for Nevada first is much stronger)

Yeah, I’d agree that that Alaska and Hawaii don’t get much attention, though a large part of that is because of their remoteness. The cost to campaign there and for media travel is prohibitive, and the reward isn’t really there because of the small population. Your plan would at least change the latter, but it’d still be considerably more expensive for a candidate to campaign in Alaska and Hawaii than Iowa and New Hampshire – Alaska especially because of how large the state itself is. One of the supposed merits of the primary system is that it’s more accessible to lower-funded candidates because of how inexpensive the first four states are and using Alaska and Hawaii would prevent that. (I personally don’t care because I’d rather just move to a national primary, but that’s neither here nor there...)

I mostly agree, but I don't like too much the idea of a national primary. I would prefer what I say below.
You see, one of the things I hate most about the US presidential primaries is candidates dropping out. I think that candidates should not be allowed to suspend their campaign*, because I want people in New Mexico or Oregon as broad a choice as people in Iowa or New Hampshire. And then everyone gets their fair share of delegates and the convention is an actual convention and not a media circus.
*unless someone literally runs out of cash on hand, which is rare

This is radical, but it would be kind of nationalizing primaries while keeping the advantages of "small states first"

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

To be honest my ideal preference is a national primary day, and as I say if need be repeat the primary multiple times (so primaries monthly every month from February to June, each worth 20% of the delegates)

What makes you think though that each month things would go differently? especially considering that likely those candidates who went badly in the first round might simply drop out?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

To be honest my ideal preference is a national primary day, and as I say if need be repeat the primary multiple times (so primaries monthly every month from February to June, each worth 20% of the delegates)

What makes you think though that each month things would go differently? especially considering that likely those candidates who went badly in the first round might simply drop out?

Precisely that candidates that did badly would drop out is what would change things

Not to mention candidates that did surprisingly well getting a boost and what not.

I'm not truly convinced.
I like your method in that it would allow us Atlas nerds to get high on comparing the same state or the same county across 5 different elections with almost the same candidates - it would be a nerdfest, but otherwise...
It would also extremely costly