Democrats prepare to boot Iowa from “first in the nation” status

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm going to say that at this point, New Hampshire should move up to first (since it's rather clear that stripping of them of their delegates won't deter them, and candidates of both parties will campaign there anyways).

So, my ideal order for the early states would be:

1.New Hampshire

2. South Carolina

3. Michigan

4. Arizona

[Progressive Pessimist]

This is long overdue, and not even out of spite for how Republican the state has become or for the fiasco that was its caucuses from the last cycle. There are many more representative states in the nation that should be first and help define the primaries.

[Landslide Lyndon]

That infamous law that mandates New Hampshire be the first primary in the nation, is it constitutional?
Because I read that Michigan will challenge it in court if NH refuses to accede to DNC's calendar.

[NewYorkExpress]

That infamous law that mandates New Hampshire be the first primary in the nation, is it constitutional?
Because I read that Michigan will challenge it in court if NH refuses to accede to DNC's calendar.

It almost certainly isn't.

However, I imagine the Supreme Court, assuming the case got there, likely wouldn't rule on this anyways, viewing it as a political question that they have no jurisdiction over.

[progressive85]

I always thought Pennsylvania would be the best state for either party to go first.

[emailking]

It's the right decision but I doubt that Republican trifectas in Iowa and New Hampshire will just sit idly and relinquish their coveted position in the primary calendar. It will be up to the DNC then to discourage the candidates from campaigning in these states.

For New Hampshire yeah, but aren't the caucuses run by the party?

Correct. The Democratic and Republican Caucuses can simply be held on separate days in IA. This already routinely happens for NV.

For NH, the DNC can simply strip it of its delegates and then it just becomes a non-binding beauty contest. They can hold a caucus or something at some later date, or just not allow NH to vote at the DNC at all.

They always restore those delegates at the convention though.

Nope. When they took away some delegates from disobedient states in 2008 they held firm and those votes were not cast. In 2016/20, all states eventually complied with DNC demands.

Nahh they were restored at the convention in 2008, I remember it. There had been months of contentious of debate about whether the Florida and Michigan primaries should mean anything, particularly Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and then they just counted them anyway in the end.

[Pres Mike]

That infamous law that mandates New Hampshire be the first primary in the nation, is it constitutional?
Because I read that Michigan will challenge it in court if NH refuses to accede to DNC's calendar.

Constitutional? Eh

Georgia must be the first state to harvest peaches each year! Is it constitutional to mandate it?

[Joe Republic]

The first state should be the one with the closest margin from the previous election.

Out of curiosity, here's how this system of determining the first primary state would have played out:

2024: Georgia
2020: Michigan
2016: Florida
2012: Missouri
2008: Wisconsin
2004: Florida
2000: Kentucky
1996: Georgia
1992: Washington
1988: Minnesota
1984: Massachusetts
1980: Oregon
1976: Minnesota
1972: Missouri
1968: Arizona
1964: Hawaii

It's not the worst way of deciding who goes first, even if it's still a bit of an arbitrary reason.

[Beet]

Making it Florida is a great way to troll Democrats and would probably cause the party to self-destruct.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's the right decision but I doubt that Republican trifectas in Iowa and New Hampshire will just sit idly and relinquish their coveted position in the primary calendar. It will be up to the DNC then to discourage the candidates from campaigning in these states.

For New Hampshire yeah, but aren't the caucuses run by the party?

Correct. The Democratic and Republican Caucuses can simply be held on separate days in IA. This already routinely happens for NV.

For NH, the DNC can simply strip it of its delegates and then it just becomes a non-binding beauty contest. They can hold a caucus or something at some later date, or just not allow NH to vote at the DNC at all.

They always restore those delegates at the convention though.

Nope. When they took away some delegates from disobedient states in 2008 they held firm and those votes were not cast. In 2016/20, all states eventually complied with DNC demands.

Nahh they were restored at the convention in 2008, I remember it. There had been months of contentious of debate about whether the Florida and Michigan primaries should mean anything, particularly Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and then they just counted them anyway in the end.

Okay, looked at it again, and you're technically correct, but it was only restored after Obama himself personally signed off on doing so. If the Nomination was still contested at that point, they in all likelihood would have been counted at half-weight as previously ruled by the DNC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_National_Convention#Seating_of_delegates_from_Florida_and_Michigan

Half-Weight isn't total invalidation but it's a pretty steep punishment.

[ProudModerate2]

I'm good with this.
I would like to see a rotating system where a group of states do there primary on the same day, then another group does it 2-3 weeks later. Etc, etc.
Maybe 5 or 6 groups, each with 9 to 11 states/territories.

States/Terr in each group change every four years.
Maybe randomly chosen for each group, but if your state/terr was in group A or B in the last presidential election, your state-name goes back in the hat.

[Green Line]

Michigan would make a great new First in the Nation.

Too many white people.  That would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise, which is to make a statement.

[kwabbit]

Delaware and Rhode Island are underrated. Nevada is the best choice IMO. Very diverse and small in population.

Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey would all be good in terms of diversity, but the media markets are too expensive and IL and NJ are too large.

Alaska is also diverse and small in population, but they are obviously not going to put the first contest in Alaska during the winter.

[NYDem]

Michigan would make a great new First in the Nation.

Too many white people.  That would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise, which is to make a statement.

The white-hating party of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer. What a batch of infamous anti-white racists!

The same party whose top 6 presidential primary candidates were Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Klobuchar. The anti-whiteness is just so apparent.

[John Dule]

The first state should be the one with the closest margin from the previous election.

Out of curiosity, here's how this system of determining the first primary state would have played out:

2024: Georgia
2020: Michigan
2016: Florida
2012: Missouri
2008: Wisconsin
2004: Florida
2000: Kentucky
1996: Georgia
1992: Washington
1988: Minnesota
1984: Massachusetts
1980: Oregon
1976: Minnesota
1972: Missouri
1968: Arizona
1964: Hawaii

It's not the worst way of deciding who goes first, even if it's still a bit of an arbitrary reason.

I don't think it's all that arbitrary. The point of the primaries is to find the candidate who is best suited to winning swing states... so why wouldn't it be in the party's interest to put the swing states first?

Here's what this principle would look like extrapolated to the whole primary season. I just made this in five minutes, so please nobody whine at me about it:



Basically, you would frontload the primaries with the swingiest states in order to give well-deserved momentum to whichever candidate those states prefer. Then you move down the list of states in order of the margin from the last election. This way you have voters in unflippable states (California or Oklahoma) going last and thus not influencing the outcome as much as voters in swing states. This system has the added bonus of altering the order every year, which takes away the permanent "first in the nation" power from any one state.

Not saying this rule should be followed rigidly, or that things should be scheduled in the exact way I said in that pic, but I honestly don't see why the DNC can't adopt something similar to this (aside from the usual regionalist bickering and entitlement from various bullsh*t states like New Hampshire).

[free my dawg]

We will never yield.

[NewYorkExpress]

We will never yield.

Then prepare to have no Congressional Representation as long Democrats control either house of Congress (which is what Democrats should do if they have the spine to stand up to New Hampshire).

[Pres Mike]

The first state should be the one with the closest margin from the previous election.

Out of curiosity, here's how this system of determining the first primary state would have played out:

2024: Georgia
2020: Michigan
2016: Florida
2012: Missouri
2008: Wisconsin
2004: Florida
2000: Kentucky
1996: Georgia
1992: Washington
1988: Minnesota
1984: Massachusetts
1980: Oregon
1976: Minnesota
1972: Missouri
1968: Arizona
1964: Hawaii

It's not the worst way of deciding who goes first, even if it's still a bit of an arbitrary reason.

I don't think it's all that arbitrary. The point of the primaries is to find the candidate who is best suited to winning swing states... so why wouldn't it be in the party's interest to put the swing states first?

Here's what this principle would look like extrapolated to the whole primary season. I just made this in five minutes, so please nobody whine at me about it:



Basically, you would frontload the primaries with the swingiest states in order to give well-deserved momentum to whichever candidate those states prefer. Then you move down the list of states in order of the margin from the last election. This way you have voters in unflippable states (California or Oklahoma) going last and thus not influencing the outcome as much as voters in swing states. This system has the added bonus of altering the order every year, which takes away the permanent "first in the nation" power from any one state.

Not saying this rule should be followed rigidly, or that things should be scheduled in the exact way I said in that pic, but I honestly don't see why the DNC can't adopt something similar to this (aside from the usual regionalist bickering and entitlement from various bullsh*t states like New Hampshire).

The DNC likes to front load southern states. Their democratic primary voters are mostly older African Americans who typically vote for more moderate candidates

Although, this does have a point. Democrats can’t win the presidency without high black turnout in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Allowing someone like Pete Buttigieg to win the nomination without black support would doom chances in a general election.

Hence I support a national primary day where every state voted. Candidates would have to balance every region

[TDAS04]

Politically smart, as Iowa is no longer a swing state.  The dare not touch swingy New Hampshire, though.

[Frodo]

We will never yield.

As long as New Hampshire remains a swing state, and doesn't follow Iowa (Democrats') path into darkness and despair, you won't have to.  

[John Dule]

The DNC likes to front load southern states. Their democratic primary voters are mostly older African Americans who typically vote for more moderate candidates

Although, this does have a point. Democrats can’t win the presidency without high black turnout in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Allowing someone like Pete Buttigieg to win the nomination without black support would doom chances in a general election.

Hence I support a national primary day where every state voted. Candidates would have to balance every region

How would you prevent a fifty-state same-day primary from overwhelmingly favoring candidates with high nationwide name recognition and lots of cash? Obama would've probably failed to get the nomination in '08 under this system.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Michigan would make a great new First in the Nation.

Too many white people.  That would defeat the whole purpose of this exercise, which is to make a statement.

I get that you're trolling but this is a really weird post. Using "Detroit" as a dogwhistle for "black people" is like using "Milwaukee" for the same goal, except it's actually subtle and passable for some weird reason.

[JGibson]

My ideal First Four/First Five states:
1. New Hampshire Primary
2. Nevada Primary
3. Michigan Primary
4. South Carolina Primary
5. Minnesota Primary

[Pericles]

Pennsylvania would be a great choice for being representative of the party and a swing state, though it could be too big. If Bernie Sanders won big in a state though, it is not representative to go first, and neither are states like South Carolina that are dominated by moderate black voters.

One contender could be Missouri. It is not a swing state in the general election, but it is not a huge state and is decently representative of the party, it was extremely close in 2008 and 2016.

[US Politics Fanatic]

It has to be a state in which there are a lot of african americans and college educated whites. Georgia, Illinois and Maryland would be good choices.