Do we need to replace Iowa as the first in the nation during primary season?

[LonePirate]

Although some may disagree, I think Iowa's days as a competitive state are now history. The state is firmly entrenched on the red team. Combining that with its small size and its well above average high white population, the state no longer seems like a good fit at the front of the line during primary season. It's certainly not representative of our party. We need a new state to be the first caucus/primary state.

New Hampshire is also small and mostly white but at least the state is still a competitive one. I suppose pushing it forward would not radically alter the primary season too much. However, a state like Nevada would be a much better choice for the first caucus/primary state given its diversity, growth and competitiveness. I would also support a large state like Florida or Pennsylvania going first.

Am I off base in pushing Iowa off its perch atop primary season or do we need to look for a new state to kick things off in 2020?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. "We" can't do it. States pick their own schedules.

[LonePirate]

3. We can apply the FL/MI punishment from 2008 when they jumped the gun.

We also don't have to campaign there which would effectively neuter the state's caucus.

We need to shake up our primary calendar and we need to start with Iowa.

[Va Lefty]

2. In a perfect world, yes. Also New Hampshire should take a backseat.

Sadly, not gonna happen.

[mythology]

4. The problem with putting a large state first is that it's harder for a lesser known candidate to win

Smaller states allow for a candidate who isn't well known to get that recognition without having a lot of money. If you can find a way to get money out of the system, or at least greatly reduce it, I'd be more open to moving to a larger state. But then you run into the Trump problem as nobody on the left would benefit from the amount of free media Trump got.

[rogue emissary]

8. Before trump that was true, but it's clear they don't need to do that type of campaigning.

trump in the primaries and general never did much of the hand shaking & listening tour type campaigning. Like you point out he relied on free media and his rallies to get his vote out.

Iowa and New Hampshire have the worst record of picking a Democratic president. They picked Obama and maybe one other Democratic candidate that went on to win the White House in the last forty years.

[Garrett78]

16. But only a celebrity engaging in buffoonery can rely on free media.

And I'm really hoping that doesn't become the norm.

[CK_John]

5. We are not a federalist top down fiefdom yet. There is nothing wrong with the

system as is. Just learn how to play the game and put up a good candidate.

[JI7]

6. Obama Won Iowa both times

[geek tragedy]

14. he's underwater in his approval ratings there now. it's swung back to its natural status as a solid

red state (governor, legislature, both Senators all Republicans).

And they're not going to get rid of their obsolete caucus, so time to find a better state to go early.

[Garrett78]

15. It's been won or nearly won by the Dem. nominee quite a few times in recent history.

Dukakis of all people won Iowa by double digits in '88.

But I agree that Iowa shouldn't have so much influence. Demographically, it isn't remotely representative of the US.

[Midwestern Democrat]

20. It was barely considered a swing state from 1988 through 2012 (the Democratic nominee won the

state in 6 out of 7 elections) - it was certainly considered the easiest swing state for the Democrats.

[rurallib]

7. with all the money and publicity Iowa gets from the situation

any Iowa leader who says anything against the caucuses gets skewered.

I would love to see it go somewhere else. as an Iowan.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. I think it should be a different state each primary season.

I've never thought that keeping the primary states in a fixed order made any sense.

I'm from Colorado, and 2008 was the first time that I was ever able to participate in the primaries/caucuses at the presidential level, in any meaningful way. It's that way for most states.

[SharonClark]

19. I agree.

It helps build the right-wing network and the right-wing dominates the media. The Dems get scraps.

[Garrett78]

10. I don't think any single state should have so much influence.

I think a handful of states from various regions ought to be first. But, if we insist on having *a* state lead things off, then let's at least make it a state that's more or less a microcosm of the US. Iowa and New Hampshire might be fine for Republicans, but Illinois is (demographically speaking) more representative of the US than any other state.

[beaglelover]

11. YES YES YES YES

A large state like NY or CA should be first. Why a tiny state like Iowa is given so much importance is beyond me. Time to shake up the system.

[Garrett78]

12. I just want it to be a state (or states) that's representative of the US.

I think Illinois would be the best choice.

[beaglelover]

13. I'd be OK with that too.

[sarisataka]

17. I would like to see two primaries

One 12 months before the election the other a month before the conventions. All 50 states would vote in each election at the same time.

No one would be eliminated in the first primary however it will signal their electability. The second work the way the system currently does to select a candidate for each party.

By running the primaries all at the same time it places no state above any other. Such a system would also lessen the importance of polls while increasing the influence of those who actually vote.

[Garrett78]

18. During the primary, I suggested having 2 rounds of primaries.

With those below a certain threshold eliminated after the first round.

But it might be better to just have one round of 4 primaries with each primary consisting of 12-13 states (representing every region of the US). Each primary would be 4-6 weeks apart.

No single state or region would have undue influence.

And I agree with others that something needs to be done about campaign spending. Public funding would be ideal, with each candidate having the same exact amount to spend. At the very least, there should be a cap on how much can be spent. I don't want to open the door to some fringe lunatic winning the nomination, but I also want the party to provide opportunity for those who aren't already very well-known and well-funded.