The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to drastically alter the party’s 2024 nominating calendar today.
Iowa and New Hampshire no longer will have the first caucus and primary, respectively. Instead South Carolina’s primary would kick off the nominating season on February 3 followed by New Hampshire and Nevada (February 6) then Georgia (Feb. 13) and Michigan (Feb. 27).
Do those changes make sense to you? Or should the DNC leave the nominating calendar alone?
Iowa hasn't made sense as the first primary at any point in my lifetime (Class of '85 here); neither has New Hampshire. Both demographically and geographically, SC makes far more sense- and requires a different approach from candidates, one that will be more akin to what voters will be hearing nationally in the General. So this isn't a perfect fix or anything, but it's absolutely a step in a better direction.
Iowa Democrats could not make a cake from a cake mix. Besides, they can't elect anyone statewide. NH will keep passing laws until they have a primary in November. Who cares? Move it around, but never in any of the expensive states -- NY, CA, PA, NJ, IL, TX. Never in Texas.
NH is spoiled. They think they're OWED the "first in the nation status" to the point that they use an excuse a state law that they must go first. What would happen if another state passed a law that they MUST go the week before New Hampshire?
This has nothing to with retail politics. It's about retail BUSINESS. What NH wants is all those candidates and their entourages and the media spending months in the state and spending lots of money while they're there.
It's very expensive to run in big states. A candidate can test the waters in smaller, less expensive, states before having to launch the massive campaign effort required by big states. This means that a potential dark-horse candidate can have some success in a small state before having to fund an all-out campaign.
Iowa's system is total 19th-century bullshit. Move into the 21st century Iowans and realize that people elsewhere don't trudge out into the snow to vote as groups.
I lived in a town south of Boston where we had "Old Timey raise your hand" voting on warrants that affected the needs of the town. That was separate from when we voted in local, state, and federal primaries when we used freaking machines to tabulate the vote.
Push Iowa to the end of the process to diminish the vale of their alleged importance in the primary process.
After the debacle in Iowa, it makes sense to no longer have it be the first state, especially if they insist on the antiquated caucus. But NH is a swing state and Dems are essentially napalming the bridge here. Curious how it plays out
I like the change. I'm sick of two such insignificant red states going first. Iowa is a waste of time - we know they'll choose a blood red "winner" or should I say loser.
I kind of like the caucuses because they add a different layer of engagement, perhaps enabling different candidates to get a hearing. But Iowa has led us into over-support for farmers (who today are few in number, heavy in capital) instead of normal workers; overall, the changes better suit the party in preparing to win elections.
I like the old tradition of New Hampshire first, but I don’t think it really matters as long as they space them out to allow candidates to concentrate resources…that seems to be the best way for us to really get to know each candidate and their policy recommendations
If the DNC can't get the relevant state legislatures to make the changes, and obviously they can't in several GOP-controlled states, then no this doesn't make any sense.
If the DNC won't accept the results at the convention, it doesn't matter what the state legislature does.
The state legislature will be disenfranchising their own Democratic voters.
Do you think they'll care?
Iowans voted for Grassley who seems to have been in on the "make Mike Pence unavailable and Grassley will throw it back to the House" scheme. They voted for Ernst who couldn't remember basic commodity prices.
At this point, it appears Iowans will vote for a rock because it begins with an R.
As for NH, the priority of primaries is not in the Constitution.
Also, you can create your own early nominating calendar using this cool tool from WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/democratic-primary-calendar-builder-tool/
The DNC, albeit belatedly, is absolutely doing the right thing. Let’s hear it: mega kudos for courage!
No problem with SC replacing Iowa as first. I’d like to see purplish states earlier for Dems anyway. I don’t care what the Disinformation Party does.
I agree with the new calendar. And it would be better if Iowa changed from caucuses to a primary.
Iowa hasn't made sense as the first primary at any point in my lifetime (Class of '85 here); neither has New Hampshire. Both demographically and geographically, SC makes far more sense- and requires a different approach from candidates, one that will be more akin to what voters will be hearing nationally in the General. So this isn't a perfect fix or anything, but it's absolutely a step in a better direction.
Iowa Democrats could not make a cake from a cake mix. Besides, they can't elect anyone statewide. NH will keep passing laws until they have a primary in November. Who cares? Move it around, but never in any of the expensive states -- NY, CA, PA, NJ, IL, TX. Never in Texas.
Why stick with an early NH ? It’s such an atypical state !
They save the really big ones til later. Why is that? So candidates can cover more ground, shake more hands in smaller states?
NH is spoiled. They think they're OWED the "first in the nation status" to the point that they use an excuse a state law that they must go first. What would happen if another state passed a law that they MUST go the week before New Hampshire?
This has nothing to with retail politics. It's about retail BUSINESS. What NH wants is all those candidates and their entourages and the media spending months in the state and spending lots of money while they're there.
It's very expensive to run in big states. A candidate can test the waters in smaller, less expensive, states before having to launch the massive campaign effort required by big states. This means that a potential dark-horse candidate can have some success in a small state before having to fund an all-out campaign.
Smaller states usually have cheaper media markets.
So the logic is that having small states go first lets candidates without a lot of money get some media exposure.
Starting with NY or CA go first would guarantee that only the richest candidates would have a shot.
Iowa's system is total 19th-century bullshit. Move into the 21st century Iowans and realize that people elsewhere don't trudge out into the snow to vote as groups.
I lived in a town south of Boston where we had "Old Timey raise your hand" voting on warrants that affected the needs of the town. That was separate from when we voted in local, state, and federal primaries when we used freaking machines to tabulate the vote.
Push Iowa to the end of the process to diminish the vale of their alleged importance in the primary process.
After the debacle in Iowa, it makes sense to no longer have it be the first state, especially if they insist on the antiquated caucus. But NH is a swing state and Dems are essentially napalming the bridge here. Curious how it plays out
I like the change. I'm sick of two such insignificant red states going first. Iowa is a waste of time - we know they'll choose a blood red "winner" or should I say loser.
I kind of like the caucuses because they add a different layer of engagement, perhaps enabling different candidates to get a hearing. But Iowa has led us into over-support for farmers (who today are few in number, heavy in capital) instead of normal workers; overall, the changes better suit the party in preparing to win elections.
I like the old tradition of New Hampshire first, but I don’t think it really matters as long as they space them out to allow candidates to concentrate resources…that seems to be the best way for us to really get to know each candidate and their policy recommendations
If the DNC can't get the relevant state legislatures to make the changes, and obviously they can't in several GOP-controlled states, then no this doesn't make any sense.
If the DNC won't accept the results at the convention, it doesn't matter what the state legislature does.
The state legislature will be disenfranchising their own Democratic voters.
Do you think they'll care?
Iowans voted for Grassley who seems to have been in on the "make Mike Pence unavailable and Grassley will throw it back to the House" scheme. They voted for Ernst who couldn't remember basic commodity prices.
At this point, it appears Iowans will vote for a rock because it begins with an R.
As for NH, the priority of primaries is not in the Constitution.
The parties decide the sequence of primaries, not the state legislatures.