Idea: Illinois as first-primary state
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:05:48 AM
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)
  Idea: Illinois as first-primary state
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question:
#1
Freedom idea; that should be implemented.
#2
Freedom idea, but there are better states.
#3
Horrible idea, but still better then Iowa.
#4
Horrible idea; even worse than Iowa.
#5
Horrible idea; Iowa is much better.
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Idea: Illinois as first-primary state  (Read 4840 times)
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 05, 2021, 08:50:43 AM »

One pivotal, recurring point of criticism concerning Iowa's first-caucus privilege is its non-representative ethnic makeup: It's 90.2% white as compared with the nation's 60.1% white population.

There is one U.S. state that is some kind of microcosm when it comes to its racial composition: Illinois.

Race
Illinois
USA
White
71.7%
60.1%
African American
14.1%
13.4%
Hispanic-Latino
17.3%
18.5%
Asian
5.6%
5.9%
Native American
0.3%
1.3%
Pacific Islander
0.1%
0.2%
Two or more races
2.7%
2.8%

What are you're thoughts about the Bundy-Winslows-McCallister state getting assigned the prerogative of narrowing down the candidates' list?
Logged
neostassenite31
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 564
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2021, 09:15:50 AM »

The state might be too populous/big and thus put certain candidates at a disadvantage.

Imagine the costs of running an effective ad campaign in the Chicago DMA (the third largest in the U.S.)
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2021, 09:29:23 AM »

The state might be too populous/big and thus put certain candidates at a disadvantage.

Imagine the costs of running an effective ad campaign in the Chicago DMA (the third largest in the U.S.)

Perhaps, the Democrats could circumvent that problem by allocating each congressional district the same number of delegates, so that Southern Illinois won't be disregarded during the candidates' campaigns.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2021, 03:49:26 AM »

I wonder how many parts of Illinois presidential candidates usually visit.
I guess only Chicago, Aurora, Springfield, and Rock Island County.

And what about statewide candidates? Has any gubernatorial or senatorial candidate seen regions of Illinois south of Sangamon County? 🤷🏻‍♂️
Logged
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2021, 08:57:12 AM »
« Edited: March 06, 2021, 09:13:16 AM by Laki »

The state might be too populous/big and thus put certain candidates at a disadvantage.

Imagine the costs of running an effective ad campaign in the Chicago DMA (the third largest in the U.S.)

Perhaps, the Democrats could circumvent that problem by allocating each congressional district the same number of delegates, so that Southern Illinois won't be disregarded during the candidates' campaigns.

Southern Illinois is majorly white. It just shifting the problem. I also wouldn't say Chicago is very representative of the USA as a whole. And i'm not sure Afro-Americans in Illinois / Chicago are representative of Afro-Americans as a whole. Demographics is much more complicated than it looks like.

The GOP could hold their first primary in Florida, but would Florida hispanics be representative of the entire Hispanic community in America?

The benefit of IA is that it's small, cheap to campaign in and because grassroots support and popularity are being tested for real here and voters are elastic, so yes i'm a big proponent of IA first, NH second, despite the general consensus of many Atlas users.

There are tons of Afro-American states that come early as well (the first super sunday is full of states with large proportions of Afro-Americans in states that are likely not going to be competitive in the general election too, and SC as well as fourth already).

I'm not sure if there is an alternative to Iowa and/or New Hampshire. Nevada is the only one i can come up with. Kansas perhaps too, since it has a sizeable hispanic population. And Colorado is an option too. All states with many Afro-Americans are rather large, expensive to campaign in and are not going to be competitive.

Michigan and Pennsylvania are options, but both are way too large, although they shouldn't vote late too, given how important they are and how PA might be the "average" state of USA in terms of demographics and more.

States that should vote last are: West Virginia, both Dakota's, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Tennessee and Kentucky should be late too.

All smaller states i haven't named should be quite early, followed by the larger states (NY, CA, TX), followed by some other similar states (FL, OH)

I'd think this order would be good:

Nevada
Iowa
New Hampshire
North Carolina
________________________
Texas
Michigan
Minnesota
California
Colorado
Maine
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Arizona
____________________

Wisconsin
Georgia
New Mexico
Alaska
Washington
______________________

Hawaii + other overseas regions and Americans in foreign areas
Illinois
Kansas
Utah
_________________

Massachussets
New York
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Virginia
DC

_________________

Florida
Nebraska

______________

All others I believe: KY, WV, ND, SD, ID, WY, TN, SC, AL, MS, LA, AR and that's it?
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2021, 03:38:27 AM »

Theoretically, Florida may be the most representative state, but it is too big and the Florida Democratic Party is not competent enough. If Republicans want to start with Florida, that should help Trump, maybe that's what the RNC wants though (and if he's going to win anyway, maybe they should wrap it up quickly). They could always do some convoluted delegate weighting system that gives rural areas more of a voice, it would be unfair but a good test run for an actual general election lol.
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2021, 08:32:04 AM »

I wonder how many parts of Illinois presidential candidates usually visit.
I guess only Chicago, Aurora, Springfield, and Rock Island County.

And what about statewide candidates? Has any gubernatorial or senatorial candidate seen regions of Illinois south of Sangamon County? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Ted Cruz did 5 events in Illinois in 2016:

2 Chicago area ones (one was in Glen Ellyn in the far west suburbs, no idea where the other was)
Peoria
Decatur
Springfield

The other pieces of information I have on that are that about a quarter of the population lives below I-80 and that for statewide elections some candidates come downstate a lot while others don’t. JB Pritzker was the only one in the last gubernatorial primary who spent much time downstate.

I don’t know about your other question except I remember reading an article in Golf Digest about how someone took Senate candidate Barack Obama on his first trip to the part of Illinois below the Mason Dixon line to golf at a particular course that this person really liked. Obama’s Senate campaign ended up going all over the state and won basically everything from Rockford to Cairo in a huge landslide that teed him up for his presidential run in 2008.

The only statewide politician who’s from that far south is Dick Durbin.

I’m sure you didn’t want that wall of text but I hope that answers your question.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2021, 08:50:54 AM »

I wonder how many parts of Illinois presidential candidates usually visit.
I guess only Chicago, Aurora, Springfield, and Rock Island County.

And what about statewide candidates? Has any gubernatorial or senatorial candidate seen regions of Illinois south of Sangamon County? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Ted Cruz did 5 events in Illinois in 2016:

2 Chicago area ones (one was in Glen Ellyn in the far west suburbs, no idea where the other was)
Peoria
Decatur
Springfield

The other pieces of information I have on that are that about a quarter of the population lives below I-80 and that for statewide elections some candidates come downstate a lot while others don’t. JB Pritzker was the only one in the last gubernatorial primary who spent much time downstate.

I don’t know about your other question except I remember reading an article in Golf Digest about how someone took Senate candidate Barack Obama on his first trip to the part of Illinois below the Mason Dixon line to golf at a particular course that this person really liked. Obama’s Senate campaign ended up going all over the state and won basically everything from Rockford to Cairo in a huge landslide that teed him up for his presidential run in 2008.

The only statewide politician who’s from that far south is Dick Durbin.

I’m sure you didn’t want that wall of text but I hope that answers your question.

That wasn't a wall, but rather an informative rundown of Illinois campaigning to get the gist. Kiss

As a consequence, what you wrote validates my suspicions. Illinois is probably that state among the big ones that attracts the least attention. Plus, from what I've heard, Southern Illinois is quite poor and decayed. Drawing national attention to their problems through an early primary may surely help its inhabitants..
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2021, 11:30:54 AM »

If primaries are to be staggered, Illinois fits the bill for me - representative of the US ethnically, with a large city, suburbs, exurbs, rurals and a mixture of economic sectors and populations.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2021, 11:44:15 AM »

If primaries are to be staggered, Illinois fits the bill for me - representative of the US ethnically, with a large city, suburbs, exurbs, rurals and a mixture of economic sectors and populations.

Illinois would be good, but Illinois is losing population. Look at census county maps and you see red---why not Georgia or Texas, or some other microcosm....
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2021, 11:46:00 AM »

If primaries are to be staggered, Illinois fits the bill for me - representative of the US ethnically, with a large city, suburbs, exurbs, rurals and a mixture of economic sectors and populations.

Illinois would be good, but Illinois is losing population. Look at census county maps and you see red---why not Georgia or Texas, or some other microcosm....

Fair enough.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2021, 12:22:01 PM »

If primaries are to be staggered, Illinois fits the bill for me - representative of the US ethnically, with a large city, suburbs, exurbs, rurals and a mixture of economic sectors and populations.

Illinois would be good, but Illinois is losing population. Look at census county maps and you see red---why not Georgia or Texas, or some other microcosm....

The second-best microcosm is Wisconsin, which would even had an advantage over Illinois, since it is one of the three bellwether states.
Logged
The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ
laddicus finch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,833


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2021, 05:21:50 PM »

Nah, too big of a state. Granted most IL voters live in the Chicago area, it's still a huge population and would put smaller candidates at a major disadvantage.

If the current primary system is to be maintained, Nevada and Delaware are good choices for first two. Both are small (by population) but fairly diverse states with significant WWC, Asian and Hispanic populations (NV) as well as Black and White College-educated populations (DE). Geographically this covers both west and east, although these states are dominated by metropolitan areas, so perhaps cancel that out by letting a state like Iowa go early too (though not first). For the Democratic Party, Nevada is a more #populist state while Delaware is more corporate, so it covers those wings too - for the GOP, they might want to include a heavily evangelical state, as well as a more moderate northeastern state go with them.
Logged
Canis
canis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,509


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2021, 03:49:22 PM »
« Edited: March 11, 2021, 06:34:26 PM by Canis »

Yes, if certain candidates will get a lead because they appeal to white primary voters in IA and NH only for their lead to be wiped out with states with large African American populations then what's the point of having IA and NH first? The last 3 primaries showed it just makes the primary more expensive and takes longer. At this point, id be fine with IL NV and SC first or just have every state vote on the same day and get it over with. If you plan on leading the democratic ticket in the general you need to be able to appeal to the base of the party. IL works well because it's a big state with roughly the same demographics of the country. and party in order to win the primary their you have to be able to appeal well to White Hispanic and African American voters it just makes sense. I get that progressives will say you need a lot of money to be able to compete in states as big as IL but you're going to need a lot of money to win a general and the primary is supposed to determine the strongest candidate so just announce a few months earlier than you normally would and fundraise your butt off.
Logged
User2836
legitinsanelunatic22
Rookie
**
Posts: 68
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2021, 07:35:59 PM »

I'm for an all at once primary with ranked choice voting.

Anything else is broken beyond repair.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2021, 08:00:16 PM »

This is a great idea.  Thank you!
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2021, 12:55:17 PM »

If primaries are to be staggered, Illinois fits the bill for me - representative of the US ethnically, with a large city, suburbs, exurbs, rurals and a mixture of economic sectors and populations.

Illinois would be good, but Illinois is losing population. Look at census county maps and you see red---why not Georgia or Texas, or some other microcosm....

The second-best microcosm is Wisconsin, which would even had an advantage over Illinois, since it is one of the three bellwether states.

I don't think Wisconsin has any appreciable Hispanic or South Asian populations. Also between WOW and Dane exurbs it has some of the weirdest and most idiosyncratic suburbs in the country.

Wisconsin is a fascinating state to study politics because it's weird in so many ways. I don't think it's a good microcosm state.

Bronz (who I usually adore) is making a totally nonsensical point here (very strange and unexpected!).
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2021, 06:01:38 PM »

I wonder what would have happenden if Illinois had been the first primary (caucus?) state back in 2008?
I mean Obama could only have lost, no matter how well he would have fared.
He basically had to perform on Tom Harkin's level in order to not get slayed by the media. Plus he would have had to spend too much time and money for a state that he would win anyway, consequently lacking resources for further campaigns.

Moreover, I wonder what result Hillary ought to have achieved in order to be perceived as the actual "winner". Would she even have had a "birth home" advantage?

And the third guy, whose name I forgot? Would he still have become the runner-up? What parts of Illinois would have been his strongholds?
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2021, 04:59:23 AM »

Given African Americans are a major part of the base, Democrats should start with South Carolina.

As South Carolina has a good track record in predicting the Republican nominee, Republicans probably should start there too.

My first four would be:

1. South Carolina
2. Nevada
3. New Hampshire
4. Hawaii
Logged
TiltsAreUnderrated
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,771


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2021, 06:47:27 AM »

Illinois is too big for a first primary state, and a national primary is even worse. We saw with the Democratic primary that it's already hard enough for candidates without much access to national media (e.g. Bullock, Inslee) to break out of the pack, and that shouldn't be made any worse.

There needs to be room for retail politics. IA's problems lay in the poor administration of its caucuses and the inability of an option for people to just vote instead of having to spend 3+ hours at the event. Maybe a more representative/competitive state like NV would be preferable, but a small and unrepresentative state is probably still a better place to start than an expensive battleground.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,115
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2021, 07:02:26 AM »

Where is the "Horrible idea; Iowa is much better." poll option?
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2021, 10:55:53 AM »

Where is the "Horrible idea; Iowa is much better." poll option?

Fixed.  Kiss
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,248
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2021, 05:14:05 PM »

I am totally on board with this, and CA, NY, and NJ should be the other new first four states, diverse, large states would help to eliminate candidates who only appeal to one demographic and would never gain traction if not for our current stupid system. Hot take, but smaller fields are a good thing, and it allows people to see who the actual serious contenders are.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2021, 11:38:50 AM »

I am totally on board with this, and CA, NY, and NJ should be the other new first four states, diverse, large states would help to eliminate candidates who only appeal to one demographic and would never gain traction if not for our current stupid system. Hot take, but smaller fields are a good thing, and it allows people to see who the actual serious contenders are.

I've read your post several times, and I still ain't sure if my sarcasm detector detected sarcasm... 🤔
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,248
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2021, 11:40:58 AM »

I am totally on board with this, and CA, NY, and NJ should be the other new first four states, diverse, large states would help to eliminate candidates who only appeal to one demographic and would never gain traction if not for our current stupid system. Hot take, but smaller fields are a good thing, and it allows people to see who the actual serious contenders are.

I've read your post several times, and I still ain't sure if my sarcasm detector detected sarcasm... 🤔

It's serious, candidates like Klob and Pete should've never gained traction and wouldn't have if not for NH and IA being first.
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 0.064 seconds with 13 queries.