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?

[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.  

[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.  

[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.  

[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.   

[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.  

[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. 

[Frodo]

Nevada Democrats will no longer be using caucuses to select presidential nominees:

Nevada Democrats move to end presidential caucuses
A new bill would convert the state’s nominating system to a primary election that would threaten New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.

[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.  

Is that why Bloomberg was so successful on Super Tuesday?

Thank goodness Biden won in South Carolina, and used that momentum to power his way to the nomination on Super Tuesday.  Had we had all states voting on the same day before Rep. Jim Clyburn made his famous (and timely) endorsement, I doubt we would have seen the same outcome.