Iowa and New Hampshire combined are only 65 pledged delegates. Seems a little odd that we pay so much attention to those two small states.
Democratic caucuses and primaries
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Iowa and New Hampshire combined are only 65 pledged delegates. Seems a little odd that we pay so much attention to those two small states.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If you happen to be a progressive in Oklahoma or a conservative in California, you are in much the same electoral position, knowing that your general election vote will not be counted because of how we award electors in a winner-take-all fashion. This should make those voters more motivated to get involved in the primary process, though I do not know if it actually does.
It's terribly odd, though the effects of those two states are both quantifiable and significant.
angrysoba
Philosophile
It would make sense for the Democrats to run Primaries in the swing states first. They could do it if they want.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
How would the DNC convince state lawmakers in MI, WI, PA, OH, etc. to move their primaries up?
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 15,302
I wouldn't think that would be a problem. Who wouldn't want tons of candidate and media attention and money for their state? The problem would be getting others fall in line. NH has a law that their primary is first.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
The only way Iowa gets around it is by having a caucus, and if that isn't quintessential passive-aggressive midwest ********, I don't know what is.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Republicans who want to make things harder for the Democrats, perhaps. In Pennsylvania and Michigan, for example, the GOP holds both chambers of the state legislature at the moment. In Ohio, they also control the executive branch.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
To no one's surprise:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iow...n-resigns-wake-caucus-chaos/story?id=68948006
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iow...n-resigns-wake-caucus-chaos/story?id=68948006
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
"No one" is most likely to have over half of pledged delegates after all the votes are tallied, in the most recent revision of the 538 model.
ETA: This is something of a nightmare scenario, IMO. Moderates & mainstream Dems could easily cut a deal (e.g. between the top two non-DSA campaigns) but then the brokered ticket would hemorrhage electoral support from the DSA wing of the party. If they agree to support Bernie instead, they would be thwarting the majority of their own voters.
ETA: This is something of a nightmare scenario, IMO. Moderates & mainstream Dems could easily cut a deal (e.g. between the top two non-DSA campaigns) but then the brokered ticket would hemorrhage electoral support from the DSA wing of the party. If they agree to support Bernie instead, they would be thwarting the majority of their own voters.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
One of my fears is that if Bernie does not get the nomination, the Bernie Bros will pack their bags and go home.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Apart from in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, are these really matters of state law?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
It seems very strange to me that states can dictate how, when and whether a political party can nominate their choice of a presidential candidate.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
They can't run primaries any old time they want to. Primaries involve the state itself getting involved, which I always thought was a bit weird.
But caucuses or other form of delegate selections can be done without state involvement.
What we have now is a pretty awful system, though. Four weeks after a small midwestern state votes, the nomination will be nearly locked up due to Super Tuesday, but the election itself will still be eight months away, and even the conventions will be four months away.
Of course, Super Tuesday isn't the complete be all and end all, but if you look in recent years at the candidate who won the most delegates on Super Tuesday, they almost always went on to win the nomination. That night's big winner has such a lead that it's hard for anyone to catch up.
As an example, last time around, Trump was the big winner, but with less than a plurality of the voters. Meanwhile, he was almost no one's second choice, but because he maintained that plurality, no one could stop him.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,981
Keep in mind that Trump did so well because many Republican primaries are winner-take-all, while the Democrats make sure that everybody gets a few delegates. Bernie's win in New Hampshire gained him 9 delegates, exactly the same as Buttigieg and only 3 more than Klobuchar.
But he won, and that appears to have helped him more than the increased carping about whether he can beat Trump. If he keeps winning (which seems fairly likely in the short-term), he will continue to get incremental bumps, and of course at some point the other candidates would drop out.
In 2016, Bernie couldn't win anywhere but the North. So winning South Carolina would be a definite indication that he's broadened his appeal.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
I guess that depends on how badly they really want another 4 years of Trump.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
...or to tell the DP that it really needs to get its act together and start listening to the people and quit being just another RP because it can't count on having any popular support as just a second RP.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Are we talking about the party which has won popular vote pluralities every four years since 1992, with only one (wartime incumbent) exception?
If I were the DNC and it was actually up to me I'd run the primaries Swing States First; I.E. the first state would be the state that in the last election had smallest margin, regardless of win/loss and then the next, next, and so forth, saving the safe states for last.
So hypothetically this year my first ten primaries, and I would probably hold these in a block, would be Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, North Carolina, and Arizona.
Nobody should give a crap if Biden, Bernie, Warren, the ghost of Jimmy Carter ("But I'm not dead yet...") or the 4th Assistant Democratic Window Washer from Boise wins in California because spoiler alert the Democrats are going to win California.
But since the DNC, speaking in this context, is not a single controlling entity and this is a series of state run primaries that isn't feasible.
So hypothetically this year my first ten primaries, and I would probably hold these in a block, would be Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Maine, North Carolina, and Arizona.
Nobody should give a crap if Biden, Bernie, Warren, the ghost of Jimmy Carter ("But I'm not dead yet...") or the 4th Assistant Democratic Window Washer from Boise wins in California because spoiler alert the Democrats are going to win California.
But since the DNC, speaking in this context, is not a single controlling entity and this is a series of state run primaries that isn't feasible.
Last edited:
It's not a fear, it's a fact.
https://www.newsweek.com/andrew-yan...r-nominee-democratic-unity-msnbc-poll-1485241
Bernie Bros don't care if Trump loses, they only care if Bernie wins to a degree much higher then the other candidates.