Iowa Now On the Bubble
The DNC is now considering what to do about Iowa in terms of where it sits in the order of presidential primaries, since it is traditionally first to go in the presidential race every 4 years. My opinion? Dump it. The unmitigated shitshow of 2020’s caucuses should be the nail in the coffin of Number One Primary, but it goes beyond that. Iowa voters are not 
predictive of a winner; its population is older, more rural, and generally less informed than many other states. As an aside, I even question the importance of New Hampshire, but whatever, let’s dump on Iowa tonight. I’ve got an idea, how about we start out with Super Tuesday and just go from there?
There’s also other upsides to dumping Iowa; no more stupid steak fries, corn on the cob roasts, butter cow sculpture contests, and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on bus rentals going from VFW hall to VFW hall to press the flesh of octogenarians. On top of that, the Iowa Dems can’t even manage implementing a Goddam iPad app, hence 2020’s disaster. In short, fuck those hayseeds. Go to the back of the line; sit down, shut up. Eat your corn.
Not that I’m opinionated. Or worn out. Or just sick of hearing about Iowa. Rant over, good night.
Can appreciate your frustration, El Jefe. Much like the NH first primaries. The Senate is a mess when control is exerted by less than 30% of the population out shouting the 70% who want democratic government. Conservatives love to shout about the “coastal elites,” while subjecting the majority to the whims of the fanatics.
1I say Georgia first. If the swing states like Georgia determine the election, they should go first.
2I also want all politickin’ to be done only the last six weeks before the elections. This is absolutely nutz, having candidates declare for a spot TWO YEARS before an election.
Stop it, already.
3I’m with ya, WA Skeptic. Holy Mother Pierce Me Through this endless campaigning has gotten waaaaay beyond utterly ridiculous. I will concede that perhaps, maybe, three months would be allowed for national candidates since there is a lot of geography to cover in these (sort-of) United States. Otherwise, if you can’t make your case in six weeks, OK maybe two months, then you don’t deserve to run.
Oh HELL, I’d be happy if they ran only six months. Trying to be realistic (hahahahaha!!!!!) here.
4I’m an Iowan, although I live in what the rest of the state often refers to as “The People’s Republic of Iowa City.”
51. We don’t have a primary. We have a caucus which is an arcane holdover from somebody’s political fever dream. The only good thing about it is an opportunity to speak directly to those of your neighbors who took the trouble to attend to try and convince them to vote for your candidate. That unique property is what got Obama the win in 2008.
2. Whatever state has the first primary, it should resemble Iowa in the low financial bar to needed for a candidate to make an impact. The money spent on buses schlepping to VFWs is a tiny fraction of the cost of breaking into the political limelight of a state like California or New York. This allows for some fresh ideas to get aired at the very beginning of the campaign. And believe me when I say that most people who go to the caucus are far from “less informed.” after a year of meeting and talking to the candidates, face to face, we have a pretty good idea where they stand. The state chosen for first in the Nation should also have that quality.
Please suggest some States with a relatively low population, and a representative population of people of color. Those would be ideal.
I like the Super Tuesday first idea; much more meaningful. Iowa is stupid, agree!
6@Wally “…representative population of people of color”? Bro, Iowa is the 6th whitest state in the union behind Maine, Vermont, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and Wyoming. Predictive? Only THREE of the last 11 presidents won Iowa. I do agree, though, that Iowa is stupidly expensive. In 2016, Jeb Bush paid almost $3,000 PER VOTE. Go to the back of the line.
7Speaking from New Hampshire, I’d be more than happy to see them go somewhere else for a change. Trust me, it gets really annoying every four years.
I nominate Delaware. It’s really small, has a representative population of PoC, has its Northern and Southern components, and face it — nobody else knows or cares anything about Delaware other than the toll booth on I-95. In fact, other than Joe Biden and maybe George Thorogood, you couuldn’t name anyone of note who ever came from Delaware. So, they’re welcome to it.
8Iowa has become one of those states that have way too many “militia” members. And Ernest Hemingway loved the place for fishing and hunting when it got too hot in Florida.
9What, if any, is the advantage (long term, leading to good governance) of having some states have earlier primaries than the others? Of the long gap between primaries and party conventions? Of not having both party conventions at the same time?
Either candidacy is decided by primaries or it’s not. If it is, why the national conventions (other than the chance to meet & mingle with people from other states)? If candidacy is decided at national conventions, why the primaries? And yes, the campaign season is WAY too long.
10Really, Hemingway? I lived in Iowa and did my senior paper on Hemingway and never heard word connecting the two.
Iowa has changed a lot since it jumped itself to the head of the line. In those days it was one of the most unionized states. It was Democratic: Culver, Harkin, Hughes.
What I liked then about its politics was its unpredictability, an I think some of that remains in the caucuses, if not in the state elections.
When the state was redistricted in 1980 (it had 6 House seats) everyone greed the 2 eastern seats would go Democratic and the 2 western ones would go Republican. Results were exactly opposite.
11I would like to see First-Tuesday-like primaries by region.
Regions would be West, Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and South. Or, whatever.
Over a five-month period, each region would have their primary during one month. February through June? No conventions.
Candidates would travel all over the region for that month.
Each region’s primary would happen the first day of the following month. Or first Tuesday or first Saturday of the following month.
Four years later, the regional schedule would adjust: Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, South, and West. And, so on.
Pros:
1. shortened primary season
2. candidates have shorter travel times within each region
3. states that don’t normally see candidates would see some
4. “third-parties” would have a chance to compete
Cons:
1. Regions at the end of the schedule (South or West from above examples) would complain the the nominee was decided before they got a chance to vote.
Well, suck it up! How do you think the rest of us feel now?
12I agree with a lot of these remarks– politics is toxic to the nation, I swear. I thought we would all be so relieved by the election and I completely underestimated the level of stupid in the retrumplican party, and the people listening to Dumpface. I never believed anything would happen and if it did, it would be at the various capitals a la Michigan. I never envisioned what happened or that the country is full of crazies beyond the usual repug crazies. That party is damaged beyond repair. I don’t really care about them, but somehow we have an entire congress upended because of it all. Despair, is what I feel.
13E. J.
14I think you misunderstood me. When replacing Iowa, finding a state that has a “representative population of people of color” is important specifically because Iowa definitely doesn’t have it. Also, I didn’t agree with you that Iowa is expensive. Even with the ridiculous amounts of money prospective candidates spend in Iowa, it is still dirt cheap compared to getting a traction in a high population, major media market state. Choosing the right smaller, less expensive state for the First in the Nation Primary can make or break the concept of new blood and new ideas getting to be heard early when they still have a chance to be accepted by the Party. I’m definitely not defending the Iowa Caucus, I’m pointing out some things that are actually good points of it that should be considered in choosing the replacement.
@Elizabeth Moon & @Suzanne Melton
15These are the kinds of suggestions and questions I was hoping to see here. Maybe rotating the order of regional Super Primary Days, so each region is first sometime. Grouping regions so they on a par population wise, ie same number of Congressional districts…
Ideas for some sort of joint primary dates (by regions or even by “neighbors” agreeing to cooperate) keep cropping up … and then breaking down on the relative priorities of different state election regimes.
Key reforms: * get rid of caucuses. * work to have primaries that allow party members and independents a chance to vote, and block members from other parties. * make sure the primaries use paper ballots and mandate post-election audits.
For schedule, I’d like Democrats to prioritize primaries of states, territories and Overseas Democrats by how much of a difference there was in the outcome of the previous election. Closest percentages go first.
16The first month of primaries would be available to the 10 states/jurisdictions with the closest margin in the previous campaign.
The second month, any of the next 20 states by their margin in the general election.
The third and fourth months, any of the remaining contests, including those eligible in previous months who didn’t schedule in their month.
I agree that Iowa is a mess and NH isn’t really representative of the party. But there are advantages to keeping the cost of early campaigning low. If you start with a Super Tuesday, you’ll get the best fund raisers and likely party choice nominees. Suppose you changed the early order to:
17SC
NV
NH
IA
South Carolina and Nevada look a lot more like the party base, and are still inexpensive to campaign in.
DE
SC
NV
wouldn’t be bad either.
Primaries were supposed to be the answer to selection in a smoke-filled room. They still work reasonably well for the Democrats. But they are now useless for the Republicans.
The big change was the voting rights act. Until then there were conservatives and liberals in each party. Now we have a moderate liberal party and an extreme right party.
Why the Democrats have been slower to move to the extreme is the question that interest me.I have ideas about it but am not sure they are correct.
18