Through his co-sponsorship of anti-immigration legislation with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, which has even drawn praise from white supremist Iowa Congressman Steve King:

Link to tweet

None of them are. It is important that Democrats not use his comments as a wedge to split us especially without challenging that assumed RW smear of the left.

Here he does not say that he would vote for a House version of Sanders bill. In addition, he obviously sees Sanders to be too far out on many issues. What he is doing here is demonizing every other Democrat as being for open borders. He will have many issues, starting with being a Democratic Socialist, that he would hit Sanders on.

I have not read anything on Sanders' bill.

...but would it matter in this particular nomination? Because I believe Biden/Warren/Sanders/Buttigieg etc. are still at the top of more Democratic-looking states like California, etc.

of the Democratic electorate as a whole?

it's not as small population wise (over 8 million)

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/NJ

Illinois would be another option. Bigger, but not quite as diverse.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/IL,NJ

Running in NJ is very expensive for ads that must be run in BOTH of those costly markets.

according to Wikipedia.

Maybe Wisconsin would be better than Iowa- similar in size, a little more diverse, and it is the swingiest of swing states.

Had the race started first in a Georgia, Florida or California, Hillary would have most likely won the nomination because President Obama would not have been able to match her early money and name recognition advantage. When President Obama won Iowa and was competitive in New Hampshire before losing there, AA voters took his chances for real, the rest is history.

That didn't help her in Iowa because President Obama simply ran a more strategic campaign.

which Obama had no vote on, making him seem 'pure' compared to the other Dem contenders. And Obama was a political rockstar, a once in a generation talent. And this was a time before Birtherism/Trumpism/Tea Party/BLM. Obama would not win in this climate, where whites in both parties have moved to a more racially conservative direction.

IA and NH are small white states that set the narrative of a party whose base is diverse/metropolitan.

Basically we have a nomination system that benefits rural whites, just like the Electoral College, the Senate, etc.

A conservative Black man was elected Attorney General in Kentucky, the third highest office in the state. The Black population of both Georgia and Florida is around 15-18%. In Florida, my home state, most of the votes the Black candidate got for Governor came from White people, a very large percentage of his total vote, he lost by around 14,000 votes or something like that. Absent cheating by republicans, the race in Georgia with Stacey Abrams was as close as the one in Florida, Whites made the foundation of her support, there is no way that she could have even been competitive otherwise.

Yes, race plays a big role in our everyday life, but the total picture is more complex than your dystopian view. I believe that if President Obama ran today, he would win and a massive amount of his support would be from Whites. What I see today is many voters know that they are being screwed by the system, the problem is they won't or can't figure out where they are being screwed from and as a result a Republican Party remains relevant when it should be dead. I honestly would like to meet one or two of the people that voted twice for President Obama and for Trump in 2016, the driver for those people doing what they did is more complex than simple racism and we are fools is we continue to believe that narrative.

I trust Iowa and New Hampshire voters to properly narrow the field, they did that well with Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary. A person just has to run a focused and strong campaign, I don't believe that Harris did that.

10.5% AA, Population 3.57m. Allow Iowa to hold primaries.

But yes, ALL states should dump unrepresentative caucuses in favor of primaries.

Treacherous campaigning in the winter months, heavy finance/Wall St. influence.

We want a relatively small swingy states to start or it will be all money. We want it swingy or we doom ourselves over time.
But that really limits the diversity. Maybe Minnesota or Wisconsin and Georgia not small but could work some. Good Urban Rural mix.

But I'd prefer a two phased process. Half of the delegates awarded in the first phase that would resemble the current system. With the early states all in January and the could remain the same.

Phase 2 would be a national Primary the first Tuesday of June. As long as May is open this would allow for the voters to do a lot more of the winnowing.

...it'll start with Iowa and New Hampshire.

There might be reasons other than race why Harris didn't succeed.

Besides that, the frontrunner in those states is either a gay man or an elderly Jewish man, or a woman depending on the poll. So it's hard to argue that the voters are biased.

been the first in the nation primary since 1920 - more than 50 years prior to the vast majority of states even having presidential primaries. The last time states tried to leap frog those two states - in 2008 - we wound up having the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary in the first week of January - just about the worst time you could pick for holding the first primary/caucus - right after Christmas/New Years and taking place during the worst weather of the year.

and that the DNC tried to change things. Once-- and found out it wasn't so easy.

act as if the DNC can just make a decree?

Also why do we have to gie so much credibility to the states that go first?

...he's really only stating what has been obvious to many of us for many years.

Starting with IA and NH has always been ridiculous. And it has a major impact on the results.

It's one big one, but looking at various others, IA actually is far more representative of the nation than realized. Something written on many times, particularly in books and articles discussing this very topic.

Silver's presenting what could be a bare statement out of of the intro to Politics for Dummies explaining that the professionals in government, whose excellence took them the top of their fields years ago, are the dummies. Sheesh. Even the real dummies, most of us, know Iowa is overwhelmingly white. What we don't know is everything else.

Iowa and New Hampshire are each 90+% white and do not reflect the demographics of the party