Someone please explain to me why a small, rural, mainly white state like Iowa should exercise

[guillaumeb]

so much influence.

Better, in my view, would be to mandate that there be 5 separate primaries, each consisting of 20% of the electorate, on 5 separate days.

That way, we would not see the ridiculous spectacle of flocks of candidates competing with each other in these tiny diners, and local halls, and school halls where a tiny handful of more rightward leaning voters decide which candidates fail and which candidates lose.

I live near Chicago, population 2.7 million, and we will generally only see candidates a very few times during an election.

In contrast, Iowa has a population of 3.15 million.

Demographically, Iowa is 91% white, versus 60.7% for the nation as a whole.

[hibbing]

1. Can't explain besides tradition, way too much influence n/t

[guillaumeb]

5. So no logical reason.

Other than giving older, rural, white voters an outsized influence, that is.

[CaptYossarian]

2. I hated Super Tuesdays, when the nominee was picked before my state's primary.

[NurseJackie]

3. Great post. Thank you.

[guillaumeb]

6. Thank you.

It is ridiculous that the US system is set up this way. Most people do not live in rural areas.

[SterlingPound]

4. I am all for a single day for all primaries

hell I will even compromise and have it broken down into 3-4weeks and break it down into time zones for that week's primary so as to shorten travel time

but the system we have now sucked and they continue to want to make it longer


which is a mistake IMO

[guillaumeb]

9. One advantage of the seemingly endless primary process is....

the advertising expenses are far higher than in many other countries, which benefits the media.

[SterlingPound]

13. I agree 1000% plus the weeks inbetween some primaries allows the media to

be able to sculpt public opinion more than it should be able too

if we want an election system that has minimal interference

then it would seem that having primaries all on the same day would be a great benefit in aiding that goal.

[guillaumeb]

14. Agreed.

And. welcome to DU.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

42. "One big primary" would favor the early money.

The "lesser known" would not have a chance to introduce themselves in the smaller states first.

If we had a "one big primary" system, our previous president would have been HRC, and BHO would be just another senator from IL.

But, I guess that would have been a good outcome, too.

[cwydro]

7. I don't know, but this is like the hundredth post on it.

[JCMach1]

8. IT shouldn't... position should be rotated among the states that want to go early...

[guillaumeb]

11. Or, group states so that 20% of the population is

in each cluster, and have 5 primary dates.

[JCMach1]

43. I don't mind individual states rotating into primaries in Feb. and before March 15.

Rotating regional primaries every 2 weeks following that until done.

[onenote]

10. It exercises influence because people let it exercise influence.

It's not as if there is anything preventing donors and voters from saying who gives a crap what happens in Iowa.

[guillaumeb]

12. And it benefits the media, and the advertising industry.

But the endless campaigning rarely focusses on actual issues. Instead, we hear about likability, and appearance, and energy, and superficialities like that.

[MichMan]

15. This. People will claim those states have too much influence...

Yet after they are over, there will be dozens of posts here at DU discussing the results. lol

[msongs]

16. because like all US citizens they are eligible to vote in elections? nt

[guillaumeb]

17. But their votes weigh far heavier.

And for no valid reason.

[Bettie]

18. In that scenario, the only candidates who could

even have a shot would be the big money people.

If that's what we want, then go with that. In smaller states, a person with very little cash on hand can have a chance.

[guillaumeb]

19. But these smaller, whiter, and more rural states

are simply not representative of the country.

[Bettie]

24. So, I guess there needs to be a decision made by people

much farther up the food chain than I am.

Do we only want candidates who have huge media budgets? Because California, Illinois, Florida, New York...they are all expensive markets for media, meeting/rally space, etc. Also, in smaller states, staffers can get up to speed (lots of college kids) in a place where they can afford to live on not a whole lot of money. Around here, staffers often stay with local people.

Perhaps the best idea is to shut out smaller money candidates, to ensure some kind of purity in demographics.

Which state has precisely the perfect demographic makeup to ensure this pure representation?

Even when I lived in Wisconsin and Illinois, I understood that media is costly in major markets.

More population, more costly media.

So, as I said, there is a trade-off. No more good people without enough money (or enough name recognition to make up for a lack of cash) could realistically run, but we'd have a lot of billionaires who could spend large personal fortunes, either seeking office themselves or for those who would enact their agenda.

Perhaps we should just decide which states are "too white" and "too small" to be allowed to participate in primaries and just let the large population centers make the decision (provided that they have the correct demographic profile)...save the time and money of having everyone vote and just ensure that on the day one there are enough delegates to get the candidate who can make the biggest media buys over the top right away and it is done.

Also, just because someone wins Iowa or New Hampshire doesn't mean that they are destined for the nomination.

[guillaumeb]

25. In Illinois, the race is generally already decided,

by these smaller states.

If primaries were regional, candidates would have to appeal across the region.

And in the money dominated system we now have, big money interests decide who is viable. Sanders was an exception in 2016.

[Bettie]

28. Maybe the real solution is to

find a way to get money out of politics.

But, I get very frustrated with people blaming Iowans for a system that the vast majority of us have zero say in.

If you want your state to be first, figure out who to talk to and work to get it done.

I'm telling everyone I see from county to state party that we need to ditch the caucus. No one cares what I think.

And thanks for not taking offense at my snark, it comes from frustration, not meanness.

[guillaumeb]

33. No offense.

Your comments were accurate and insightful. Many of us are frustrated.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Perfect example of how institutional racism works

It perpetuates white supremacy without anyone having to do a thing.

[guillaumeb]

21. True.

Like the Electoral College, it is designed to give rural whites an oversized influence in the debate.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Yes

[crickets]

23. +1

[Johonny]

44. Good point

[RhodeIslandOne]

70. I hated it when they picked that white dude Obama

[StarfishSaver]

71. And I hate being reminded of the pervasiveness of ignorance and insensitivity right in our midst

But I guess we all have our crosses to bear.

[RhodeIslandOne]

75. I'm sorry Iowa was the first state to spring our first black president

.....to the national conscience....in both the primaries and general....while South Carolina pooped their plantation era pants again and went with McCain in the end.

[StarfishSaver]

76. And South Carolina was the first state to "spring" our first black Member of Congress into office.

That didn't suddenly make South Carolina a bastion of racial diversity and political equality.

The fact that an exceptional black person overcame the odds in one instance doesn't mean that the racial obstacles have all been removed and the playing field is even for all other people of color.

The argument that it has is overly-simplistic and obtuse. You might want to think a little deeper about this issue - and maybe listen to the many people who are taking the time to kindly try to explain it rather than respond with shallow sarcasm.

[at140]

26. Probably tradition? Just like the 250 year old constitution!

[guillaumeb]

34. Many traditions are no longer observed.

And this one is designed to give undue power to lightly populated rural areas.

[at140]

36. No argument, but it is not easy to change

something which goes back long ways.
Which state would you prefer go first?
NH is not also a representative state of American population.

[guillaumeb]

46. Agreed.

My suggest would be regional primaries, where each region would be approximately 20% of the population. And each region would have one common primary day.

[SWBTATTReg]

27. I agree. The entire population of the STLMO metro area is more than the entire state of Iowa. ...

I've heard the arguments etc. that it's expensive to run a campaign etc., but we've already got candidates dropping out and we had no input what-so-ever to the process of thinning candidates out, let alone even pick a candidate.

[Bettie]

29. Polling is done nationwide

not just in Iowa.

I also suspect it isn't super accurate these days. Most of it is phone-based. I'd ask you: how many people do you know who answer their phones if they don't know who is on the other end?

[at140]

37. I never answer any phone call not on my contact list...eom

[MichMan]

32. Are you of the belief that if a different state went before Iowa, no one would have dropped out ?

[SWBTATTReg]

66. No of course not. I'm just saying that more of us should have a say...

in who gets to stay in an election or not. Seems like the first wave of states in a primary season usually will drive those who end up winning.

[RhodeIslandOne]

77. Nobody's dropping out just because of Iowa

A halfway decent campaign sees the board nationally and decides whether to continue tilting at windmills.

[Itchinjim]

30. Iowa Democrats vote in Democratic caucuses. Iowa Republicans vote in Republican caucuses.

Iowa Democrats are pretty much the same as Democrats in other states. It has nothing to do with the state as a whole. We Iowa Democrats gave Obama his first win after all.

[SharonClark]

31. This again?

Did you miss the other dozen or so Iowa-bashing posts or do you just want to vent?

[guillaumeb]

35. I am attacking the process, not any particular state.

And Iowa is easier to type than New Hampshire.

[at140]

38. We all know what NH means during primary season

and it is easier to type than IOWA

[guillaumeb]

47. So my attempt at humor failed?

Noted.

[at140]

48. Sorry, I must have been in a mood which was

non-humorous.

[guillaumeb]

49. Understood.

But if we are not to simply be angry, humor is essential.

[at140]

67. Absolutely! Humor is what separates us from animals

None of the animals can laugh. Only humans are capable of laugh.

[guillaumeb]

68. Trump fakes laughing.

But he has no sense of humor.

[at140]

69. I have never seen Trump laughing

He is a grumpy old man. But there is a very small chance he might laugh if Senate does not remove him.
But I won't hold my breath.

[UTUSN]

39. K&R

[lunasun]

40. A kick

[radius777]

41. IA/NH sets the narrative of presidential politics

for both parties that influences all of the polls and later voting.

If all viewers see on TV are white working class Joes w/hats and pickup trucks at diners - they'll perceive that idealized small town setting as the 'real' America that needs to be appealed to, when the reality is modern America is heavily metropolitan and diverse.

These factors, along with the EC and Senate explain how much our system is weighted towards the rural, white, culturally conservative voter. Even if many of such voters are left-populists, they still aren't representative of what modern day America is.

[Skidmore]

45. Another day of

them dumb rubes in Iowa cain't possibly knows their a** from their elbows so their ideas, issues, and votes should be stripped from them cuz city slickers always know everything.

Yeah, I'm miffed. For decades I've watched big states and urban areas with many more resources and avenues for resolving their problems hand local and state governance over to corrupt people. Basically, almost all of the issues we have are basic to us as humans.

Some of this stuff starts at home, folks. It starts by making certain housing is affordable and people aren't squeezed out into the streets. Increase home ownership and the tax base so schools can be maintained and teachers paid. Make education a priority.

Rural areas may not have much public transportation but we could use some so those without cars or who are unable to drive can get to the a more urban area for shopping or medical care. It needs to be affordable. Cost me $64/trip to go 24 miles on a minibus to get dressings changed and I had to do this daily for a three month period. Yet, we get complaints about our dependence on fos Ed il fuels for travel.

Healthcare is something we all need. Ever have to wait on the next time the bell us it's our fig semi comes so you can get the scan you need? M4All will not solve the jobs and resources sucked to urban areas. These billionaires perhaps could invest in the middle of the nation as the coasts start falling into the sea.

See, our needs are all the same. I think the concern is that rural areas will be more neglected than they already are. I just don't see larger population areas using power more effectively.

[guillaumeb]

50. There is no question that we all have the same needs,

but when rural areas generally vote to support conservative policies that do not meet those needs, something is wrong.

One issue, as you note, is transportation. But if one chooses to live in a remote area, transportation costs are significant. Rural areas simply have low population densities, so there is less tax base to support services. That is a trade off that anyone living in a rural area is making.

Urban areas have higher housing costs, but generally more services. Racism plays a factor as well.

[Skidmore]

53. You know where the power matter most of all?

in Congress. We see what a difference it made in the House. Trump only has this amount of power because of the Senate.

[guillaumeb]

54. And the Senate is also designed to give more power to low population areas.

This is not an attack on rural states. It is simply an opinion that a different primary process is needed, and that the primary process should be redesigned to be quicker.

The GOP Senate majority only represents about 40% of the population.

[Skidmore]

57. Are none of those Republicans

in congress from high population areas? We have a Democrat representative and we're working on getting rid of Ernst now.

[Bettie]

65. Maddening, isn't it?

Apparently, we all suck, because we're stupid and we live in a state with an agricultural base.

What's sad is that Iowa Bashing season never seems to end anymore.

[underthematrix]

51. The purpose of this narrative is to divide us and I say this

as an African American woman. Iowa was fine when President Obama won the primary. What's changed? We have to be very mindful of the subtle ways the Russians are trying to divide us.

[guillaumeb]

52. But we also have to be aware of the not so subtle ways that racism

affects the political process.

There was no Iowa when the Constitution was written, but the rights of rural slave states were given more weight when it was written, The 3/5ths Compromise was explicitly devised to give more power to slave owning areas.

And there is no real reason that Iowa, or New Hampshire, must be first, or that there cannot be regional primaries.

Thank you for your attempt at deciding what my purpose might be, but you are incorrect.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. States set their own primary dates. It isn't something that was decided

on a national basis by the party for the express or even incidental purpose of making sure that "a small, rural, mainly white state" has disproportional influence. Here's an explanation:

"The really important thing to remember about Iowa is not that it's first because it's important. Iowa is important because it's first," said Kathy O'Bradovich, political columnist for the Des Moines Register. She acknowledges that Iowa didn't really happen on purpose.

"It happened after the 1968 Democratic National Convention," she said, which was marred by violence over the Vietnam War and racial tension. "The Democratic Party nationally and in Iowa decided they wanted to change their process to make it more inclusive."

Part of that meant spreading the presidential nominating schedule out in each state. Because Iowa has one of the more complex processes — precinct caucuses, county conventions, district conventions, followed by a state convention — it had to start really early. (The Democratic Party held Iowa caucuses first in the nation in 1972; the GOP followed suit in 1976.)

And once a peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter rode an Iowa caucus win all the way to the White House, Iowa suddenly became a thing.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464804185/why-does-iowa-vote-first-anyway

New Hampshire is a somewhat different story:

New Hampshire state law stipulates that the presidential primary shall be on the second Tuesday in March (the date when town meetings and non-partisan municipal elections are traditionally held), but that the Secretary of State can change the date to ensure that the New Hampshire primary will take place at least seven days before any "similar election" in any other state. The Iowa caucuses are not considered to be a similar election. In recent election cycles, the New Hampshire primary has taken place the week after the Iowa caucus.

The community of Dixville Notch traditionally opens its polling place in the ballroom of The Balsams Grand Resort Hotel at midnight, usually in front of a crowd of journalists, where the village's handful of voters cast their ballots before the polls close about less than ten minutes later. This has led many presidential candidates to visit the area before the New Hampshire primary in hopes of securing an early-morning boost.

New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status was threatened in 2007, when both the Republican and Democratic National Committees moved to give more populous states a bigger influence in the presidential race.

Several states also sought to move up the dates of their 2008 primaries in order to have more influence and dilute the power of the New Hampshire primary. Originally held in March, the date of the New Hampshire primary has been moved up repeatedly to maintain its status as first. The 2008 primary was held on January 8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

The party and some of the other states have been trying to dilute the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire but the states can set their own primary dates if they want. So Iowa and New Hampshire have maintained their "first" status, and my guess is that it's mainly because they want to keep enjoying the media attention and the money that flows into their states as a result.

[guillaumeb]

59. Understood.

But if Congress mandated a series of regional primaries, and national election standards for that matter, the process would remove the outsized influence of these tiny, white rural states.

Most people, the vast majority of people, live in urban areas and have for many years.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. Congress can't mandate any such thing. The Constitution gives states

exclusive control over their own election procedures. The parties have some persuasive influence, as they did after 1968, but the way states handle their elections and when they do it is completely under the states' own control. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't about to give up the cash cow of early primaries and Congress can't make them do it.

[guillaumeb]

61. I know that as well.

My post is mainly a complaint about the process, and the effects of the process.

[rsdsharp]

56. If you think Iowa Democratic caucus goers are "rightward leaning"

you are sorely misinformed. Moreover, not all of Iowa is "tiny diners, and local halls, and school halls," and the only time we see hay bales stacked up as backdrops (or for virtually any other reason) is during caucus season. (It's hard to stack 1500 pound round bales).

Iowa and New Hampshire are about retail politics. The politicians have to get out and meet the people to have any chance. Even if Illinois was first in the nation, you'd still likely not have the access to the candidates that Iowa and New Hampshire do.

And by the way, be careful of what you wish for. We're two months from the caucuses, and I'm already sick of political commercials. It will be wall-to-wall ads on TV and radio by January. We even got a fucking Christmas card from John Delany! For the second straight year! I'm already longing for seed corn commercials -- and I'm not a farmer.

[guillaumeb]

58. So people in lightly populated areas have more right to see the candiates?

Because that is the result.

The entire state has only 40% more population that the city of Chicago. So yes, it is lightly populated, except by the standards of small rural states.

The Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are a media production. The media loves these shots of small crowds engaging with the candidates.

[rsdsharp]

62. Yes, we're a small state, although a defy you to show me where I said

"people in lightly populated areas have more right to see the candidates." It's not a matter of right. It's a matter of logistics.

As for the rest of it, believe what you want. But again, be careful what you wish for. You really have no idea what being first means.

[guillaumeb]

63. It was implicit in your statement, in my view.

The logistics, and media preferences, favor these tiny crowds. But most people live in urban areas, and have for some time. The media obsession with small town America is another matter.

[rsdsharp]

64. My view is different. I'm done with this.

[Kaleva]

72. Does the current system produce bad nominees?

[guillaumeb]

73. Could a different system produce different noiminees?

I have no answer.

[Kaleva]

74. I think one would want to change the current system if they were unhappy with the nominees

and think better candidates should have won.

[fescuerescue]

78. Influence in general is weird thing

Why are some people more influential than others? Aren't we all equal?


Tradition is tradition usually because it's tradition. And to break that tradition would be breaking a tradition and we can't have that can we?

[guillaumeb]

79. True, we must not break with tradition.

Traditionally, insurance debt is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy. And we must respect tradition.