And no more caucuses.

1. Paid holiday for elections with presidential primaries and general election.
2. Paper Ballots , no hanging chads
3. automatic voter registration for those with state ID or tax filings.
4. no caucuses
5. and a variety of states as the opening round.
6. Electoral College removal.

You can't force businesses to close on Election Day?

Senator Sanders came in a very very very very close second place in 2016.

Do you believe Bernie is “just like Steve King.” I doubt it.

So summarizing:

Iowa Democratic caucus goers did not elect Steve King.

Reactionary Republicans in a blood red district did.

It is absurd to think Democratic caucus voters elected King. Absurd to tweet it as well.

Your tweeter doesn’t know a damn thing about Democrats who go to the Iowa caucus.

FWIW Amy Klobuchar could get a big boost in Iowa, given the Iowa Minnesota neighboring state connection.

Did you ever think about that? Why would you cut off your nose to spite your face

It is hard to read such nonsense from DUers who apparently reveal in stereotypes.

My friends would be surprised to hear me defend the caucuses in Iowa because I support rotating the 'first in the nation' status among the smaller states. I also support eliminating the Electoral College and electing the president by the popular vote.

However, the Iowa caucuses serve a purpose until the above are achieved. Maybe they need to move to Iowa for the year leading up to the caucus to understand the positive role the Iowa Democratic caucus plays in strengthening the Democratic Party and allowing Democratic candidates to hone their message.

There is no way I would support loading the front end of the presidential season with large state primaries where people base their vote on expensive teevee ads.

Iowa is 90.9% white people. Iowa does not reflect diverse Democratic values, they never have and never will.

<sarcasm>

Your beef is with Iowa Republicans.

Iowa Dem caucus goers are liberals and progressives, and they care passionately about the same issues that DU’ers care about.

Between presidential elections and the electoral college and the Iowa caucus.

However, the Iowa caucuses serve a purpose until the above are achieved.

Ads are cheap, you can meet people in person. An unknown candidate can break out and get a lot of traction.

There is a ton of one on one, and Iowans ask tough questions. That what poster above meant about the process helping candidates hone their message.

I don't give one rip about Bernie Sanders, who he is or what he is. Caucuses keep minority voters away and they are rigged.

Tv Ads are cheap. Amy could break out in a big way in a smaller state.

A lot harder to run in CA. Money doesn’t go very far there.

I would like to see some rotation of first in the nation, but there are definitely strategic advantages of starting the primary in smaller states. A break-out candidate with no money can make a big splash.

At some point you need to think strategically and also not smear liberals and progressives in a state you don’t ‘like’.

Solid picks coming out of the first state. Both ended up going on to win the primary. Solid progressive choices.

endlessly about candidates that in effect, they pick for us in the rest of the country. I am in MO, and am tired of hearing about Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. (no disrespect intended here towards residents of these states) so I was kind of glad to see that Calif. jumped into the primary business so boldly. I can understand why Calif. was chaffing since they pretty well were left (along with a lot of other states too) hanging in the wind.

I can understand the old rationale of it taking time to have a campaign on a national basis and voters need to get to know the candidates, but realistically, having someone stomp all over a state endlessly is going to do the trick, and voters will get to know them? Are they going to do this in all 50 states to be fair and equal to all voters?

IMHO, perhaps a more efficient means to run campaigns is needed, e.g., have short campaigns, 3 months. Have a series of nationwide TV/online interviews with each candidate, and/or debates, and then vote. Short, sweet, simple. And less costly.

Of course the rich boys will yell and scream since they won't get the chance to buy the election in such a short timeframe (and the repugs will object, since they object automatically to any sort of constructive election modification (since they have it all gamed out, they would have to redo their work again)).

I live in PA. I wouldn't want my entire state to be judged by a single congressional representative. We have plenty of nuts outside the Philly, Lehigh Valley, and Pittsburgh regions.

I hate the primary process as currently laid out but attacking Iowa is a little unfair.

I'll give Iowa a little bit of a break since they had Tom Harkin as their Senator just 4 years ago.

Especially in red states. They didn't elect steve king, in fact I believe they fought it all the way I'm sure. And as for caucuses, they are fun, meeting people with the same political beliefs. Sort of a in person Democratic Underground.

Somebody has to go first? I don't mind starting in a small-ish state like Iowa or New Hampshire. These two might not be diverse, but what small state is? Hawaii maybe?? Nevada?

Starting the primary process with smaller states gives the candidates a better chance to meeting voters and outline their platform. I believe Iowans and the citizens of New Hampshire take their role as "first in the nation" very seriously and probably pay better attention to what the candidates have to say before casting their ballot.

If the process started in a diverse state such as Florida, Texas or California the ability to be heard would be cost adverse to the lower profile candidates. As such only the candidates with national reputations and well funded campaigns will win and knock out all the other candidates who may have things to say or ideas to share, but can't due to their lack of funds. I don't want this to happen; you never know what ideas will catch fire with the electorate and this can happen by starting in a smaller state with all the town halls and debates.

I do agree that the process is way too long. There really isn't a need to stretch the primaries over six months. I think starting with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina is fine. Then in two weeks intervals (or something reasonable) we have block voting by regions (states holding elections on the same day like Super Tuesday) - perhaps 3 or 4 blocks. The order of the regions can vary from cycle - meaning if the Western region goes 1st this cycle, they go last next cycle and another region moves up to be first.

Just my thoughts; but something needs to be done to reform the current process which is just a killer for the candidates as well as costly.

Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Georgia, Connecticut, etc.

We should start with states that better reflect our electorate demographically.

The only feasible one you mentioned is New Mexico. The other states are rather large or have expensive media markets which only well funded campaigns can afford. Again, I don't really care who goes first, but some small-ish state or states should start the process followed by the regional voting blocks. I don't think it unreasonable to finish up the primaries in a few months - probably three. That way we don't have to start in January.

I think the current line up of starter states are fine: we start with the traditional two: Iowa and New Hampshire, followed rather quickly by Nevada and South Carolina. This takes about a month. By then hopefully the nation is paying attention. Followed by the regional blocks which should span about two months - one every two or three weeks. That way one allows the candidates to fund raise and campaign in each region.

...have fewer people than Iowa.

We can make changes to campaign financing.

I disagree with those who want a national primary. I think we need to start off with a handful of individual contests prior to Super Tuesday (for one thing, we need to winnow the field, so that there isn't massive vote-splitting). But the states that kick things off inevitably have a disproportionate amount of influence, so those states should reflect our electorate demographically-speaking. I'll take New Mexico and Connecticut over Iowa and New Hampshire.

I agree w/you about no National Primary Election Day....that would be a disaster and we would have billionaires with no real public service enter the race as they have the funds to run a national campaign.

Where we disagree is which states should start the ball rolling. I don't disagree that Iowa and NH are not as diverse as other states. The only advantage they have is they are rather small in size and the media markets aren't expensive as states with the large urban areas.

I don't mind having New Mexico and Nevada considered for going first. However somebody will complain about whatever state gets to go first. The lead up to the first primary states seem to get longer and longer so by the time the primary does take place everybody is exhausted as the candidates declare so early nowadays. Maybe the parties can do something about when one can declare candidacy. But again the media will hound the obvious candidates to death to get create news about who may or might not run.

I think maybe one state from each of the regions, in this case I assume four, should have their primary in the first month followed by the regional block primaries I outlined above. Again they should be relatively small and most importantly the media market should be affordable if that's possible.

So as diverse as California is, I don't support it being one of the first primaries. From the Western region, I think Nevada is fine or maybe Arizona - but I think their media market might be expensive.

...to start off with 2 of the whitest states in the country.

So, I yield.

In my last post, I said we differ as to which states should start the primary season, as we seem to agree that it should start with a few smallish states to allow the less well funded candidates an opportunity to be heard. I conceded that NH and Iowa were not as diverse in population as other states, but their advantage was the media markets were not too expensive and people could get to know the candidates. But I would be agreeable to having other states small in size with affordable media markets start the process - Nevada or New Mexico should be considered. Not sure what others could join them, but maybe one from each region could be in this pool during the first month of the primaries.

i thus find your comment that starting with two of the whitest states confusing as I said we don't have to use them, they just have been traditionally first and agreed that they were not diverse.

You WIN.

I just wanted to respond to your comment about how people will complain no matter which states go first. I think we should rotate which states go first, but they should never be states that don't remotely reflect our electorate. I think that's more important than starting with tiny states. I'm not saying we should ever start with CA. CA on Super Tuesday is ideal, I think. But I'd have no problem with Illinois being one of the first states.

is that Iowa and New Hampshire originally represented Rural and Urban America, with Rural getting the preference.

Times have changed, our country has grown. Rural Iowa doesn't even represent Rural America anymore.


Both parties should have compeltely seperate schedules.

These small States test out the ability of candidate to engage with, and resonate with, actual voters.

Candidates don't build their success based on TV advertising and rally crowds; they do it one-to-one. Answering questions, learning what's on the minds of voters, responding to (and handling) hecklers), and MOS important, turning out voters under difficult conditions. All of those are valuable markers that I use to determine whether a campaign has it's act together.

A popular conspiracy theory around here is that THEY ruined Howard Dean by broadcasting his "scream". Nope. Howard Dean ruined Howard Dean, and I saw it in person. He organized big rallies of his loyal followers, but couldn't convince them to actually show up and vote, coming in a mediocre third placed in Iowa. And then showed he couldn't organize effective campaign activities in New Hampshire.

At least the very corrupt/corrupting Iowa straw poll has died a long overdue death, though we need to keep a watch out for a Republican zombie rising.

Link to tweet

Republicans in one congressional district elected King. The other three congressional districts just sent three democrats to Congress. The democrats who attended the caucuses in Iowa were the voters who sent Obama on his way to the presidency in 2008. In 2016 it was a slim margin between Hillary and Bernie.

I’m sick of people bashing Iowans. And btw, Joni Ernst is in serious trouble, another positive sign.

Every state now scrambles to vote earlier and earlier.

The system should be replaced with six regional primary or caucus dates separated by three weeks to allow campaigning in contiguous states addressing regional issues. The order of primaries would be initially picked by lot. The dates would rotate in subsequent Presidential elections. Each state would have discreet elections, but each region would have equitable influence.

I don't buy the myth that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have some special wisdom that confers on them the right to vet primary candidates. California, New York, and Texas have pretty good diners too where "real folk" can wear baseball caps, eat pancakes, and pontificate for morning TV shows.

The current system is UN-democratic and ridiculous.

Long-standing traditions have a way of instilling myths in the public consciousness.

We should start with states that better reflect our electorate demographically.

That said, I do think we need to start off with a handful of individual contests. After that, we could have a series of 4 or 5 Super Tuesdays. In addition to giving lesser-funded and lesser-known candidates a shot, I think a major reason to start off with 4 individual contests is to winnow the field. If we start off with a whole bunch of states kicking things off on the same day and we have a dozen candidates on the ballot, the potential is there for crazy vote-splitting.

As for regional primaries, I'm not sure that's such a good idea. It would help the candidates in terms of traveling around from state to state, but I worry that states within a region tend to be too similar to one another in terms of political ideology. A particular candidate could do great in the region that kicks things off without that really being reflective of the electorate as a whole. I'd rather have a series of Super Tuesdays that each include states from all different regions.