they have out-sized influence in the race. Glad to see California move up it's primary however. California is a state that is much more representative of the nation than the tiny, rural non-diverse states. Iowa is also tainted because caucuses are much more undemocratic than primary elections.

Iowa and New Hampshire still hold an outsized influence on the narrative and on who will make it to Super Tuesday.

Iowa and New Hampshire are crucial states for certain candidates especially. For Klobuchar, I'd say a very strong showing in Iowa is vital. For the New Englanders and others, New Hampshire will be vital. The underdogs need a strong showing in the first couple of states in order to build momentum and further their support (in terms of funding and votes).

Sanders is unique in that he ran last time. If the 2016 demographic data holds, it won't matter how well he does in IA and NH...except in the sense that he will impact how others do in those states, which - again - will impact who continues to receive funding. Everyone impacts one another in very important ways.

The first couple of states will always be consequential, which is all the more reason to have those states be ones that actually reflect our electorate. And no more caucuses.

Given it's 50% African American.

When Hillary won by almost 50 points I knew then it was over.

Keep in mind that I'm talking just about donors in this thread. Not voters. Who will get the donations, I think, won't be determined until Super Tuesday.

Say Harris wins South Carolina. That could mobilize support amongst grassroots African-American donors.

This all hypothetical at this point.

In the meantime, people are going to jump in, jump out, and jump through whatever hoops they can.

Personally, I think it's all way, way too early to be seriously talking about 2020. But, it's not my call.

I'm watching it all, but I'm not going to get personally involved until near the end of this year. I have other things to do, and a living to earn.

‘Can he/she recover from the poor start...’ will be the good press!

Then comes Nevada and South Carolina


Super Tuesday will trim the field to 2-3.

Some things have changed, and the media knows about those changes.

Besides, I was very clear. I was talking about campaign donors, not voters and not the media. Conventional wisdom is always subject to change.

“So, if I were a primary candidate, I'd be ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire, pretty much, and spending all of the early money I could come up with in Super Tuesday states, strategically selecting states where I might do well.”

Donors (a word which appeared just once in the subject line, and not anywhere else in the post) don’t spend money, candidates do. That’s probably why you’re having to clarify what your point was in the OP in your responses in the thread.

I don't know how much more I could make it. I write in English.

That narrative will be difficult for someone who came in 5 through 8.

Are you advocating for these states to be abandoned by campaigns? I would hope not.