Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States?

[Frodo]

Should Nevada and South Carolina replace Iowa and New Hampshire (respectively) as the first two states on the Democratic primary calendar from 2024 onward?

[538Electoral]

I don't care what state comes first.

[AGA]

Why?

[Frodo]

Why?

Why not?  What makes Iowa and New Hampshire so special that they should be kept first and second in every presidential election cycle?  I want the states that are more representative of the Democratic Party as it has diversified over the past forty years than the two that are way past their sell-by date, while keeping their best aspects, like the in-person retail politicking that enables candidates with less resources to keep pace with their more established counterparts.  

[AGA]

There should be a nationwide primary instead.

[Sumner 1868]

There should be a nationwide primary instead.

Yes, that so many Democrats complain about the Electoral College while maintaining the delegate system is extreme hypocrisy.

[Frodo]

There should be a nationwide primary instead.

No.  And I am tired of people mentioning these simple sound-bite solutions that are probably worse than the disease.  

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

[Frodo]

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

Just because that is the logical conclusion to a nationwide trend as states front-load their primaries doesn't make it any better of an idea.  Front-loading is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, not institutionalized.  Are you truly not concerned that a nationwide primary will advantage only those candidates with the money and resources to compete on a national scale?  Do we really want only billionaires and millionaires to compete for the nomination?  Because that is exactly what this will lead to -the selling of the Democratic Party presidential nomination to the highest bidder.  

[AGA]

There should be a nationwide primary instead.

No.  And I am tired of people mentioning these simple sound-bite solutions that are probably worse than the disease.  

And I am tired of the race being decided before New York even gets to vote.

[CookieDamage]

For short to medium term: Yes

For long term: No

I want the primary calendar to look a whole lot different in the future. I don't think there should be a one-day nationwide primary, but I don't think the primary should be staggered over months and months either.

I think the primary should be a month long, maybe two months. Legally mandated campaigning timeframe. Every week or every other week there'd be primary contest. Each contest would be composed of 12 or 13 states. 12 + 12 + 13 + 13 = 50 state contests staggered over 4 weeks. DC would be somewhere in there.

I think the 12/13 states should be chosen with an eye toward diversity. Not all 12 states on week 3, for instance, should be in the south. Instead, on week 3, there should be 6 contests in the south and the other six in New England, or perhaps the mountain west. Furthermore, there should be a balance of high and low population states, states that are whiter, states that are more ethnically diverse, states with cheaper ad markets, etc.

Perhaps the first week should be composed of predominantly 12 cheap, smaller states like New Mexico, Nevada, Delaware, along with larger states but avoiding the expensive massive states like NY, CA, TX, FL, IL, etc.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Too late, we got another Hilary as the nominee, Bernie, Booker and Warren got the short end of the stick. If Dems lose, in 2020, there will be a change, but if not, there wont be a change

[Frodo]

For short to medium term: Yes

For long term: No

I want the primary calendar to look a whole lot different in the future. I don't think there should be a one-day nationwide primary, but I don't think the primary should be staggered over months and months either.

I think the primary should be a month long, maybe two months. Legally mandated campaigning timeframe. Every week or every other week there'd be primary contest. Each contest would be composed of 12 or 13 states. 12 + 12 + 13 + 13 = 50 state contests staggered over 4 weeks. DC would be somewhere in there.

I think the 12/13 states should be chosen with an eye toward diversity. Not all 12 states on week 3, for instance, should be in the south. Instead, on week 3, there should be 6 contests in the south and the other six in New England, or perhaps the mountain west. Furthermore, there should be a balance of high and low population states, states that are whiter, states that are more ethnically diverse, states with cheaper ad markets, etc.

Perhaps the first week should be composed of predominantly 12 cheap, smaller states like New Mexico, Nevada, Delaware, along with larger states but avoiding the expensive massive states like NY, CA, TX, FL, IL, etc.

I can get behind this, so long as we first let Nevada and South Carolina have their own separate primaries early in the year (probably January) like Iowa and New Hampshire currently enjoy.

And I mean permanently, not just in the short- to medium-term as you would prefer.  And then your schedule can take over from there starting in February.  Or March.   

[LiberalDem19]

No, we should have Illinois and Georgia go first. Both have significant minority populations, as well as a balance of urban, suburban, and rural

[Sumner 1868]

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

Just because that is the logical conclusion to a nationwide trend as states front-load their primaries doesn't make it any better of an idea.  Front-loading is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, not institutionalized.  Are you truly not concerned that a nationwide primary will advantage only those candidates with the money and resources to compete on a national scale?  Do we really want only billionaires and millionaires to compete for the nomination?  Because that is exactly what this will lead to -the selling of the Democratic Party presidential nomination to the highest bidder.  

That's already the way it is.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

There should be a nationwide primary instead.

No, the first four should all go at the same time. One in the East, South, Midwest and the West. If it was SC first it would give unfair momentum to people with high AA support like Biden. There would be no artificial bump for the candidate that would do well with white yuppies or blacks.

[Frodo]

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

Just because that is the logical conclusion to a nationwide trend as states front-load their primaries doesn't make it any better of an idea.  Front-loading is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, not institutionalized.  Are you truly not concerned that a nationwide primary will advantage only those candidates with the money and resources to compete on a national scale?  Do we really want only billionaires and millionaires to compete for the nomination?  Because that is exactly what this will lead to -the selling of the Democratic Party presidential nomination to the highest bidder.  

That's already the way it is.

No, it's not.  Otherwise, we'd be looking at Michael Bloomberg as the front-runner.  

[MillennialModerate]

The election season is too long, I think the ideal scenario would be:



It should be every Tuesday at first:

New Hampshire

South Carolina

Nevada

Pennsylvania

Then a two week pause for Super Tuesday

Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia,
Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Idaho, Colorado, Utah,

and then a week later:

Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia

Four Days later; Saturday:
Hawaii, Alaska, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Montana, Tennessee

Three days later; Tuesday:
Texas

Four Days Later; Saturday:
North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, Louisiana

Three Days Later; Tuesday:
California

Four Days Later; Saturday:
Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, West Virginia,

A week later; Tuesday:
Indiana, Wisconsin

A week Later; Tuesday:
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland

A week later; Tuesday:
Florida

A week later; Tuesday:
Missouri, Kentucky, DC


• Parties should strongly encourage candidates don’t announce until late Summer (August/September)

• First debate should be November. Then 1 per month till the primaries begin in March

• Each state should have all there races primary at the same time (For instance here in Mass our primary for the senate race is differ than the day of the presidential primary)

• Incumbents convention: Late July
• Challengers convention 3 weeks later in Mid August

• First GE DEBATE: Third Week in September
Second: First Week in October
VP Debate: Second Week in October
Third Debate: Last Week in October

[pikachu]

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

Just because that is the logical conclusion to a nationwide trend as states front-load their primaries doesn't make it any better of an idea.  Front-loading is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, not institutionalized.  Are you truly not concerned that a nationwide primary will advantage only those candidates with the money and resources to compete on a national scale?  Do we really want only billionaires and millionaires to compete for the nomination?  Because that is exactly what this will lead to -the selling of the Democratic Party presidential nomination to the highest bidder.  

That's already the way it is.

No, it's not.  Otherwise, we'd be looking at Michael Bloomberg as the front-runner.  

The last four competitive primary contests (2020 DEM, 2016 DEM, 2016 GOP, 2012 DEM) were all won by the national frontrunner pre-Iowa anyway and in most of the cycles before that, the well-funded establishment favorite won. Having a staggered primary just serves to create a prolonged and nasty process to get the result we were likely going to get anyway.

[Frodo]

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

Just because that is the logical conclusion to a nationwide trend as states front-load their primaries doesn't make it any better of an idea.  Front-loading is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, not institutionalized.  Are you truly not concerned that a nationwide primary will advantage only those candidates with the money and resources to compete on a national scale?  Do we really want only billionaires and millionaires to compete for the nomination?  Because that is exactly what this will lead to -the selling of the Democratic Party presidential nomination to the highest bidder.  

That's already the way it is.

No, it's not.  Otherwise, we'd be looking at Michael Bloomberg as the front-runner.  

The last four competitive primary contests (2020 DEM, 2016 DEM, 2016 GOP, 2012 DEM) were all won by the national frontrunner pre-Iowa anyway and in most of the cycles before that, the well-funded establishment favorite won. Having a staggered primary just serves to create a prolonged and nasty process to get the result we were likely going to get anyway.

And 1976, 1992, and 2008 were won by insurgent candidates.  Yes, the current system may seem like it's biased towards establishment candidates, but at least the underdogs have a fighting chance that they definitely would not have under a national primary. 

[Former President tack50]

There should be a national primary day; repeated several times if you care about "small candidates who can't compete in a national primary".

If you are still going to keep the concept of early states, just have all 4 voting at the same time.

[Former President tack50]

no, because we should have it be nationwide, all at once.

Just because that is the logical conclusion to a nationwide trend as states front-load their primaries doesn't make it any better of an idea.  Front-loading is a problem, and it needs to be fixed, not institutionalized.  Are you truly not concerned that a nationwide primary will advantage only those candidates with the money and resources to compete on a national scale?  Do we really want only billionaires and millionaires to compete for the nomination?  Because that is exactly what this will lead to -the selling of the Democratic Party presidential nomination to the highest bidder.  

If that is a problem, why not repeat the national primary several times?

So say, there is a national primary on February (worth 20% of delegates), one in March, one in April, one in May and one in June? That way you get small candidates getting momentum and what not.

[MarkD]

I think every state should be prohibited from holding primaries or caucuses before April 1.

Then allow New Hampshire to have its primary on the first Tuesday in April.

Other states with only 3 or 4 electoral college votes may hold them on dates later in April: Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming. (These states can still hold them even later if they choose.)

Then allow all medium-sized states, with 5 to 11 electoral college votes, to hold them on dates in May: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin. (These states may also wait until June if they choose.)

Make all of the largest states wait until June to hold primaries or caucuses: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington.

This schedule will allow "retail politics" to still matter early in the campaign season (which can start later) and the "dark horse" candidates won't have to focus on raising lots of money early on. The nomination won't be "settled" as early in the year as it is these days.

[Ogre Mage]

I would be fine with Iowa getting bumped after Nevada and South Carolina given their massive clusterf**k caucus this year.

[The Mikado]

I would be fine with Iowa getting bumped after Nevada and South Carolina given their massive clusterf**k caucus this year.

If we're keeping roughly the current system intact, it's probably the path of least resistance and easiest change to make to bump Iowa, ban caucuses, and make the list New Hampshire/Nevada (a primary)/South Carolina/New state. I've heard good arguments for Illinois as the new state for #4...a big state, yes, but a big state going fourth isn't the same as it going first. Another possibility might include Michigan. A big northern state in the Midwest.

EDIT: another advantage of this might be that it'd be a good calendar for the GOP as well, and the two parties like to keep their two calendars more or less harmonious. NH/NV/SC/IL works fine as a first four for the GOP and they no longer have to worry about the Iowa caucus giving a huge bump to random religious charlatans.