2020 so it should be evident who the top two candidates are, or even possibility the candidate if the numbers are there.

And in 2008 there was almost two months separation between Iowa and herd thinning. Now it’s a month and we’ve given a state that a ham sandwich could win in the GE a decisive role. Brilliant.

NH?

and still lose the GE by 74 electoral votes.

This change favors big money, high name recognition and/or local candidates. It warps the overall contest. Not fatal, but not optimal either. It’s a change for the worse, IMO.

electoral college inequities.

I am slow I guess, but I don't see how moving up the California primaries alters that.

There is no way they will get rid of the electoral college. It would require a Constitutional amendment, and the smaller states won't go for it.

So, the early voting states ought to be states that reflect our diverse electorate.

And they are small enough to give candidates a shot at reaching the voters. Tell me what is gained by squeezing the sprawling empire that is CA into the first month.

...2 states that don't remotely represent our electorate shouldn't hold so much sway. NV and SC haven't always been 3rd and 4th, but IA and NH always kick things off.

I'm not suggesting CA be first, but CA being a lock for the eventual Democratic nominee (your ham sandwich reference) is not a reason for it to not vote early.

Better options for kicking things off include Illinois, Maryland, Arizona, etc.

As for IA and NH, without looking I’d say when we win both of those states in the GE we never lose. And even w/o Fla. President Gore would have been the result if we’d won NH in 2000. Voters in both states have shown pretty good judgment at the caucus and primary level too. Dean was not ready for prime time in 2004, and Iowans saw that. Obama was the best choice in 2008 and Iowans gave him the credibility he needed to win the black vote away from Clinton in SC. And NH has generally opted to keep things interesting rather than anoint front runners.

I have no problem with California voting on Super Tuesday in March. The first 4-5 individual contests should each reflect our increasingly diverse electorate.

What I would prefer is this: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11530161.

And no more caucuses.

Especially with CA loaded in. It’s a recipe for dull, unimaginative and preconceived outcomes. Same with eliminating caucuses.

And caucuses are disenfranchising. Many are not able or willing to take part in such a long and public spectacle. We should be doing whatever it takes to boost turnout.

See post #12. California moving up probably won't have as much impact as some predict.

But, hey, these are people who like the electoral college, a form of winner-take-all.

I'd be pissed if Democrats had WTA primaries. Our system is flawed enough as is.

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2018, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe that happened in 2004 when Iowa voted just after New Years Day.

I actually think that the current system works. It’s not just Iowa and NH. It’s also SC and NV. The four of them do pretty well at covering different regions and demographics. Putting two of the biggest states right at the front hurts less well known candidates like Bill Clinton and Obama.

off the election season. That won't change, not only because your speculation that Iowa and NH would probably move up their dates earlier, but because of historical significance.

The other thing that is even more important is you need to spread out the primaries a little bit so people have a chance to know the candidates.

I think three months between the first primaries and the larger states primaries is a reasonable length of time for that

...is to determine which candidate our (increasingly diverse) electorate wants as the nominee.

...it may not have as much impact as one might expect.

California is significant in terms of how many delegates we have, but we may see a major vote splitting if half a dozen or more candidates (including multiple Californians) are still in the race. Because, thankfully, Democrats don't have a winner-take-all primary system like Republicans do.

Iowa and New Hampshire will still have a disproportionate amount of influence. But because the field is expected to be larger than ever, there may be more candidates than usual by the time Super Tuesday happens. This means California and the other 8 states that vote that day may see a lot of vote splitting. And the winner of California won't necessarily do great in those other 8 states.

Aside from CA moving up, the schedule hasn't been changed much from 2016. Here's the first 6 weeks in 2016:

2/1: IA
2/9: NH
2/20: NV
2/27: SC
3/1: AL, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK, TN, TX, VA, VT
3/5: KS, LA, NE
3/6: ME
3/8: MI, MS
3/15: FL, IL, MO, NC, OH

And here's what the first 6 weeks look like for 2020:

2/3: IA
2/11: NH
2/22: NV
2/29: SC
3/3: AL, CA, MA, NC, OK, TN, TX, VA, VT
3/7: LA
3/10: ID, MI, MS, MO, OH
3/17: AZ, FL, IL

But I'm coming to support that idea.

But it's likely nobody would win, per se, in that nobody would have enough delegates. As a result, superdelegates would, for the first time ever, determine our nominee. That wouldn't go over well.

We need to start off with a handful of individual contests so as to whittle down the field. Ideally, those initial states would reflect our diverse electorate.

See here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11530161

... to get to know lesser-known lights before the big states pick the candidate. The early money will win.

If we had one big primary in 2008, or let the big states go first, we would have never heard of Obama, and Hillary would have been president for two terms. One Bozo's view.

Having a national primary would not be wise, but we also don't need to start with states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. Nor do we necessarily need to start with small states. Having more diverse and more populous states, such as Illinois and Maryland and Arizona, start things off would still allow for all candidates to make themselves known.

Once the first 5 or so individual contests are done and the field has been whittled down, we could have regional primaries.

Both California and Texas are big states. Campaigning in them takes lots of time. So, Iowa and NH aren't going to get as much attention, I'm sure, in 2020.

Texas voted on Super Tuesday in 2016, as well. California moving up is the only major change. Iowa and New Hampshire will still hold more sway than I think they ought to.

The headline of the OP is misleading. See post #12.

These are states with high number of minority voters and both Beto and Biden should do well

It seems like it would be great for Harris and Booker as opposed to those two white candidates.

See post #12.

And unless we know the results of California's mail-in voting prior to Iowa and New Hampshire, which we won't, Iowa and New Hampshire (neither of which reflects our increasingly diverse electorate) will still influence future contests. The article in the OP is pretty misleading if you ask me.