Michigan will replace Iowa as the first primary contest for Dems

[Ferguson97]

Michigan is a Sanders '16 state and was never going to be allowed to go first.

This is a very weird way to look at it considering Biden won it by an even bigger margin in 2020.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually Michigan will be 5th

https://twitter.com/ec_schneider/status/1598470081557798912?s=20&t=Jkrv22Nn2...

SC first and GA also in the first 4? It's pretty obvious they want the establishment candidate to win.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I don't think these matters too much since on the Dem side, I don't expect the primary to be very competitive especially if Biden seeks-reelection which seems like the most likely outcome.

However, I think the first state should be a smaller state, both geographically and in terms of population because otherwise smaller-name candidates will basically have an impossible time getting anywhere.

My suggestion for the first state would be Nevada. Las Vegas is a relatively concentrated metro, and it's extremely diverse so Dems would have to win over a bunch of racial and economic coalitions to succeed. It seems pretty representative of the Democratic Party for such a small state. It would also help NV be a higher turnout state on the Dem side around the margins since there would be a ton of engagement.

New Jersey would also be a good option as it's geographically compact, and again, has a little bit of everything when it comes to the Dem base, but it's population is large and the media market is extremely expensive.

[Ferguson97]

SC first and GA also in the first 4? It's pretty obvious they want the establishment candidate to win.

If by "establishment" you mean "candidate who can actually appeal to Black voters" then sure.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Awesome. I think that Michigan is very representative of the nation as a whole, give that it has substantial urban, suburban, and rural centers.

[Spectator]

pls no SC..if they want a state that has high Black population to be first, why not Georgia? SC is irrelevant in presidential elections & someone like Clyburn's endorsement will hold too much value...Atleast Georgia is a swing state and Georgia also has growing AAPI, Hispanic population.

Yeah, if I were DNC, Id rather they should just switch Georgia for South Carolina instead for those reasons. Keep NH over Iowa since NH has been loyal to federal Dems.

[Gass3268]

pls no SC..if they want a state that has high Black population to be first, why not Georgia? SC is irrelevant in presidential elections & someone like Clyburn's endorsement will hold too much value...Atleast Georgia is a swing state and Georgia also has growing AAPI, Hispanic population.

Georgia is too big to be the first state.

[Tekken_Guy]

I don't think these matters too much since on the Dem side, I don't expect the primary to be very competitive especially if Biden seeks-reelection which seems like the most likely outcome.

However, I think the first state should be a smaller state, both geographically and in terms of population because otherwise smaller-name candidates will basically have an impossible time getting anywhere.

My suggestion for the first state would be Nevada. Las Vegas is a relatively concentrated metro, and it's extremely diverse so Dems would have to win over a bunch of racial and economic coalitions to succeed. It seems pretty representative of the Democratic Party for such a small state. It would also help NV be a higher turnout state on the Dem side around the margins since there would be a ton of engagement.

New Jersey would also be a good option as it's geographically compact, and again, has a little bit of everything when it comes to the Dem base, but it's population is large and the media market is extremely expensive.

Another issue with NJ is that it’s a machine state. We don’t want political bosses choosing our leaders.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Doesn't New Hampshire by law get dibs as the first-in-the-nation primary? How did the DNC circumvent that?

Either way this sounds like another axe to the caucuses and I'm glad they're doing it. Iowa 2020 was not only a technical f#ckup, it almost certainly spread COVID around even though the pandemic wasn't in full-swing just yet.

[The Mikado]

You guys, for heaven's sake, think for a second.

Kemp isn't going against the RNC to move GA's primary into a prohibited zone by the GOP just to make the Democrats happy. He doesn't care about the Democrats. He also isn't gonna create a second GA primary just to make GA Dems happy.

Also, SC isn't gonna try to leapfrog NH/NV for similar reasons. Why would McMasters do that?

No one on the Dem side is gonna want a state-party organized at the last minute GA Caucus. They'll follow the GA primary date.

First four states on Dem side will either be NH/NV/SC/MI or NV/NH/SC/MI.

GOP will keep IA but will have a big problem with MI moving into the window. Presumably they don't want to alienate the MI-GOP with a major penalty so they'd have two choices: either allow an MI GOP primary early (maybe with the 50% delegate penalty they did in 2008 again) or force MI-GOP primary to be a delegate-less beauty contest with an MI-GOP caucus deciding delegates later on. (IMO this is what they do)

How do you guys follow politics and not know that the primaries are creatures of the state governments? The DNC/RNC can decide whether or not they're delegate awarding events, but the DNC can't just say "there'll be an early Feb Dem primary in South Carolina" without McMaster authorizing the money and polling places to allow that to happen. At most you get a caucus organized by the state party with like four polling places across all of Charleston and people voting in the gay bars and black churches that offer free rent to the SC Dems. MI might move because the MI state government WANTS to move. SC doesn't want to move to that date because the RNC isn't cool with it and McMaster cares more about them than he does about the DNC.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Doesn't New Hampshire by law get dibs as the first-in-the-nation primary? How did the DNC circumvent that?

Either way this sounds like another axe to the caucuses and I'm glad they're doing it. Iowa 2020 was not only a technical f#ckup, it almost certainly spread COVID around even though the pandemic wasn't in full-swing just yet.

They didn't the chair of the NH Dems and Senator Hassen has already put out a statement saying they are going first regardless.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Everyone's talking about how this is good news for Whitmer, bad news for Harris/Newsom, etc. Maybe, but looking more broadly, this is bad news for underdog candidates.

One of the advantages of having four small states go first is that it has an equalizer effect. Smaller states require less money to campaign in, and if you have less name recognition, it's easier to crisscross the state and put yourself out there. Not every underdog is deserving, but neither is every frontrunner, and having small states go first allows the quality of candidates' ground games and campaigning skills shine through. See: 2008 Democratic primaries.

Michigan is a bigger state by area and far, far bigger by population. Underdogs or outsiders who may genuinely be better candidates run a greater risk of getting drowned out, and I'm not sure that benefits the party on the long run.

[prag_prog]

Everyone's talking about how this is good news for Whitmer, bad news for Harris/Newsom, etc. Maybe, but looking more broadly, this is bad news for underdog candidates.

One of the advantages of having four small states go first is that it has an equalizer effect. Smaller states require less money to campaign in, and if you have less name recognition, it's easier to crisscross the state and put yourself out there. Not every underdog is deserving, but neither is every frontrunner, and having small states go first allows the quality of candidates' ground games and campaigning skills shine through. See: 2008 Democratic primaries.

Michigan is a bigger state by area and far, far bigger by population. Underdogs or outsiders who may genuinely be better candidates run a greater risk of getting drowned out, and I'm not sure that benefits the party on the long run.

yeah..agree. That's why Nevada made lot of sense..it's a diverse state but also not a big state.

[prag_prog]

Wish Biden can stfu in this matter..based on reporting, it looks like he is the one who is mainly pushing for SC to be the first state in primaries

[Minnesota Mike]

Now we see how much the DNC is willing to sanction states that jump the line. I think Iowa Dems will swallow their pride and go later but New Hampshire definitely will move up as far as needed. Question is whether the DNC is as tough on them as they were on Florida/Michigan in 2008.

[Minnesota Mike]

Wish Biden can stfu in this matter..based on reporting, it looks like he is the one who is mainly pushing for SC to be the first state in primaries

The President rightfully gets a major say in the next primary schedule, he owes South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire not so much.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

And as for the "Iowa is too white" line of thought, Democrats who aren't popular with minorities and particularly black voters don't get the nomination, period. Buttigieg won Iowa and  came close in New Hampshire, but he was poor in Nevada, and South Carolina ended any realistic chance of him being the nominee. Sanders came very close to winning Iowa twice, won NH and Nevada both times, but flopped in South Carolina both times and ended up losing the nomination. Biden got destroyed in the lily-white electorates of Iowa and New Hampshire, but South Carolina Democrats (probably a majority-black electorate) came through for him and changed the course of history. And of course, winning Iowa is what paved the way for America's first black president. In the last three competitive Democratic primaries, the candidate with more appeal to black voters won the nomination, despite the first two states being very white.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Everyone's talking about how this is good news for Whitmer, bad news for Harris/Newsom, etc. Maybe, but looking more broadly, this is bad news for underdog candidates.

One of the advantages of having four small states go first is that it has an equalizer effect. Smaller states require less money to campaign in, and if you have less name recognition, it's easier to crisscross the state and put yourself out there. Not every underdog is deserving, but neither is every frontrunner, and having small states go first allows the quality of candidates' ground games and campaigning skills shine through. See: 2008 Democratic primaries.

Michigan is a bigger state by area and far, far bigger by population. Underdogs or outsiders who may genuinely be better candidates run a greater risk of getting drowned out, and I'm not sure that benefits the party on the long run.

yeah..agree. That's why Nevada made lot of sense..it's a diverse state but also not a big state.

Yes, plus Nevada's minority population is more diverse than Michigan's. There's a better cross-section of Hispanic, Asian and black voters. Hispanics are the largest of the three in Nevada - they're also the largest of the three nationwide, and they're the ones who Democrats should be the most worried about.

[S019]

Everyone's talking about how this is good news for Whitmer, bad news for Harris/Newsom, etc. Maybe, but looking more broadly, this is bad news for underdog candidates.

One of the advantages of having four small states go first is that it has an equalizer effect. Smaller states require less money to campaign in, and if you have less name recognition, it's easier to crisscross the state and put yourself out there. Not every underdog is deserving, but neither is every frontrunner, and having small states go first allows the quality of candidates' ground games and campaigning skills shine through. See: 2008 Democratic primaries.

Michigan is a bigger state by area and far, far bigger by population. Underdogs or outsiders who may genuinely be better candidates run a greater risk of getting drowned out, and I'm not sure that benefits the party on the long run.

I am sick and tired of this talking point, you need to have broad appeal and be able to fundraise to win the nomination to begin with. If anything big states should go first to filter out the superfluous candidates.

[Devils30]

I do worry about a first SC propelling a weak Harris to the nomination in 2028. Dems would be foolish to run her over Whitmer, they are really not even close in terms of candidate quality.

[The Mikado]

Now we see how much the DNC is willing to sanction states that jump the line. I think Iowa Dems will swallow their pride and go later but New Hampshire definitely will move up as far as needed. Question is whether the DNC is as tough on them as they were on Florida/Michigan in 2008.

IA would be easy to quash as all the DNC has to do is recognize the Iowa Primary (in June) as the delegate selecting contest, and say it won't accept any delegates selected at the Iowa Caucus.

[The Mikado]

One of the advantages of having four small states go first is that it has an equalizer effect. Smaller states require less money to campaign in, and if you have less name recognition, it's easier to crisscross the state and put yourself out there. Not every underdog is deserving, but neither is every frontrunner, and having small states go first allows the quality of candidates' ground games and campaigning skills shine through. See: 2008 Democratic primaries.

Michigan is a bigger state by area and far, far bigger by population. Underdogs or outsiders who may genuinely be better candidates run a greater risk of getting drowned out, and I'm not sure that benefits the party on the long run.

Come join us in the 2020s where any weird rando with a social media presence can raise 10s of millions of dollars and end up on national debate stages despite having literally 0 name recognition before announcing (looking at you Andrew Yang). This idea that bigger stages hurts gadfly underdogs is just so wrong...if anything there's never been a better time to be a random nobody gadfly candidate.

To the extent that larger primary states shuts weird novelty boutique underdogs out, well, good.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

It's disapointing Dems are dropping Iowa with the history and excitement of the caucus just because the state wouldn't vote for them. In 2012 and 2016 Rs still had Iowa first despite Obama winning the state by a decent margin.

[S019]

It's disapointing Dems are dropping Iowa with the history and excitement of the caucus just because the state wouldn't vote for them. In 2012 and 2016 Rs still had Iowa first despite Obama winning the state by a decent margin.

It's being dropped because the electorate isn't representative of the D primary electorate.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

It's disapointing Dems are dropping Iowa with the history and excitement of the caucus just because the state wouldn't vote for them. In 2012 and 2016 Rs still had Iowa first despite Obama winning the state by a decent margin.

It's being dropped because the electorate isn't representative of the D primary electorate.

But they aren't dropping NH and that state is whiter than Iowa.