Democratic party leaders are considering overhauling the 2024 presidential primary calendar, a transformation that would include ousting Iowa and New Hampshire from their cherished perches as the first states to vote https://t.co/v7wKwBdAwb
— POLITICO (@politico) March 31, 2021
… At least in this household:
… Senior party leaders and Democratic National Committee members are privately exploring the idea of pushing South Carolina and Nevada to the front of the primary election schedule, as well as the possibility of multiple states holding the first nominating contest on the same day…
“I don’t think it’s appropriate to have those two states to set the tone. It’s really a false premise that if you do well in Iowa and New Hampshire you’re going to do well across the country. That was proven wrong with Joe Biden,” Reid said in an interview. “There’s no diversity in Iowa. There’s certainly no diversity in New Hampshire.”
Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic leaders, DNC members and state party officials reveal that intense behind-the-scenes jockeying is already underway, with conversations ranging from reconfiguring the early state order to moving up Southern or Rust Belt states in the timeline…
The outline of the 2024 presidential nominating process is coming under scrutiny in part because of Iowa’s botched 2020 caucuses, which failed to deliver a clear winner at a time when the Democratic Party’s increasing diversity focused attention on the state’s predominantly white electorate. Elevating South Carolina’s role would pay homage to a changing electoral map, where Southern voters — including in Georgia — stepped up to support Biden in the general election.
Similar political and demographic considerations are at play in Nevada, where Reid has advocated ending caucuses altogether and the state Legislature is considering a proposal to do so…
Even if all that can be accomplished for the 2024 primaries is killing caucuses in favor of primaries, that’s a genuine win for representative democracy, IMO.
And Clyburn tells me: IA and NV “demographically do not represent the Democratic voting bloc. They should not have an outsize influence,” Clyburn said. “South Carolina is a state that gives Democratic candidates the best chance for developing a national primary.”
— Natasha Korecki (@natashakorecki) March 31, 2021
And look who *hates* the idea, because he’s so looking forward to swinging his Big, um, Ego around the Granite State using donors’ money:
HR1 could strike a dagger in the heart of NH as the first in the nation primary. Are NH’s Senators with the people of NH or are they with progressives & Democrats who want to take that decision to DC? I'm with NH. I guess the Senators’ votes will tell us the answer.
— Mike Pompeo (@mikepompeo) March 30, 2021
raven
Dang
artem1s
gotta stop the race to see who can be earliest too. let’s shorten the campaigning season, not lengthen it. Super Tuesday would be a good compromise as the earliest. But I’d be just as happy if none of them happened until early summer. It’s not like it’s the 1890s and voters needed to meet a candidate at a town hall in order to find out something about them. you can look up someone’s history online. Rallies also are no indicator of how someone will do in a primary or whether they are qualified to do the job. It used to be the primary season was when the parties raised money and the candidates proved their name would help that effort. Neither party needs 11 months of glad handing at town halls to raise money. The process of raising money has taken over campaigns to the extent that voters are picking someone based on the dog and pony show, not the candidate’s ability or record – like it’s some reality TV show – and look at where that got us. Time to reverse that course as well.
Make primaries boring again.
Dorothy A. Winsor
We need a change. IA and NH don’t represent the party or the country
mali muso
Definitely agree with getting rid of IA and NH as the first hurdles for Democratic candidates. And let’s dump all caucuses. As someone with a young child, I cannot imagine a more unfriendly process to participation.
Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]
My personal view on how the nomination should be run is this:
1) No caucuses
2) 4 sub-primaries (must be on the same day of the week of the election, good practice for GOTV organizations) one a week over the period of a month.
3) some sort of lottery that randomizes the states, but provides good spread over the country (both size wise and location wise for each sub-primary)
Brachiator
I don’t have much of a problem with the current system, including caucuses. Didn’t Obama win Iowa? Which primary result are people unhappy with?
Betty Cracker
@Brachiator: Sanders tended to do better in caucuses than primaries, which is where some of the animus comes from. I don’t give a crap about that, but I do believe caucuses are un-democratic. Not everyone is free to stand around for hours in a high school gym while the process unfolds. It disenfranchises working folks, people with small children, people with disabilities, etc. I’d be happy if caucuses went away.
Barbara
@Brachiator: It’s not just the results, it’s the process that effectively excludes many voters, certainly that’s true in Iowa, less so in Nevada. Excluding voters should be seen as a true negative and states should get dinged for it. I can actually see having four states go “first” in a “mini” Super Tuesday, and that could include New Hampshire and Iowa, but only if Iowa adopts a primary.
geg6
@Brachiator:
It’s not necessarily about the result, IMHO. It’s about how two lily white states get to set the narrative for all of the rest of us states, which are much, much, much more diverse and representative.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Is that a typo for NH?
the trouble with all these plans is the places that actually reflect the urban/suburban coalition of the party are also the most expensive media markets, which I think would give an advantage to the biggest fund-raisers/highest name recognition candidate. I don’t have a solution, but there is certainly no good reason I can think of not to make a change. “Iowa should be first because Iowa has always been so important! (since 1976)” is not a good argument IMHO.
Betty Cracker
I’m glad it’s not my job to figure out how to reform the primaries. There are so many considerations, including demographics, state party competence, media market costs and the effect on retail politicking, etc. That said, I hope there’s a way to break the current model altogether instead of enshrining another handful of states as FIRST. A rotating schedule, ranked choice voting, etc., might be worth considering.
Ken
Correct me if I’m wrong, but HR1 has nothing to do with the way the Democratic party schedules and conducts its nominating process. I have to think Pompeo is deliberately confusing the two.
I do wonder though, what happens if the two parties disagree on their schedules? Will some states have to run two sets of elections?
citizen dave
What Betty and all the other jackals said. Only posting because I know the Dem leaders read this top 10,000 blog. Don’t have the answers–might be better to rotate them around regionally to make travel more efficient, but almost any change will be better than the traditional way (sorry Iowans–not sorry New Hampshire–not sure I’ve ever read a self-identified New Hampshire jackal).
I’ve posted before, I still fail to see why the government is involved in operating elections for private political parties (but do enjoy the two extra days off 3 out of every 4 year cycle). Would be interesting to see what would happen if the parties were forced to operate their own processes.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Ken: IIRC caucuses are run by parties, primaries run by states. I suppose a state party with enough money could make a “caucus” that was actually a primary– collect the votes at local/county party offices on a given day, or over a given week?, but a state party with extra cash is, I think, a rare thing.
Another Scott
There’s a zoom and enhance joke upstairs, and this could go as a reply, but I don’t want to muddy the thread.
re: 1/6
Ubiquitous high quality video from cell phones really is a game changer. Just astounding.
Cheers,
Scott.
Ceci n est pas mon nym
Would be nice not to see those ridiculous “politician-eating-corn-dogs” pictures we have to see every four years.
I think we should have a contest for the first state based on what food all the candidates will have to eat in their photo op. I cast a vote for Maryland, and the food is either raw oysters or MD blue crab, eaten traditional style with nothing but your hands and a little hammer and knife.
Kay
I don’t care how they do it but the RESULTS of the last three Dem Presidential party primaries reflected the diversity of the Party so the thing actually worked even if it was constructed poorly or outdated.
I could see the outrage if it was like “HOW is David Duke our nominee?!”, but that didn’t happen. The candidate who gets the broadest support actually wins.
But I don’t have any problem with rewarding the states who picked the winner. They do pick the winner though- no matter the sequence.
Kay
Last four. Five if you include Carter, who was an actual southerner :)
PJ
Getting rid of caucuses is smart – who wants to stand around all day arguing with people until one side gives up? Not to mention the bias against people who are unable to put in that kind of time.
Iowa and New Hampshire also need to be ditched as the first states to go, as they are in no way representative of Democratic primary voters.
My plan would be to have primaries over five months, from February through June, with smaller (population wise) representative states, like Delaware, going first, so that richer or more well known candidates cannot dominate (as would happen if California or New York were first). The order of states would also rotate every four years, so that we are never stuck in a position with NH or IA always being first.
Elizabelle
@Brachiator: I really wonder sometimes if you put up comments like that to troll us. I mean, WTF?
No more caucuses. No more Iowa and NH first. System of rotating multi-state primaries, and perhaps much later in the year.
This isn’t the late 19th or early 20th century. Candidates do not need that amount of time between primaries, conventions (virtual, please!! — last year’s Democratic one was terrific!) and the general election.
All you are doing is giving the malefactors more time to gin up lies and obfuscation on social media.
Enough. I don’t know that any other “leading democracy” puts up with the calendar/political-media industrial complex that we do.
Just like other first world countries don’t have our gun-death bloodscape.
Cull out some of the American “exceptionalism” that is actually there for no good reason, or for bad ones. (Enshrining the plutocracy/status quo and fantasists.)
Elections are big, big money, to the media and to the political sphere, and too much interference/manipulation by big donors. For dog’s sake, we ended up with the worst “president” in history because even he saw the opportunity for massive grift and self-dealing.
Same with guns. We could do better with less of both.
PJ
@Kay:
Yeah, but a lot of people get weeded out by IA and NH, two states which have very few minorities. If SC had come later in the primary cycle, Sanders might have been the Dem nominee, and I think he would have definitely gotten fewer votes vs. Trump than Biden did.
PJ
I know Biden has a lot on his plate now, but he might have some ideas about how to improve the primary process.
e julius drivingstorm
I’m impressed with the enthusiasm in Georgia, thank you Stacey Abrams. They should go first if they want to, alone or with South Carolina.
oatler.
https://www.azmirror.com/2021/03/31/arizona-senate-hires-a-stop-the-steal-advocate-to-lead-2020-election-audit/
StringOnAStick
I like a regional idea just from a climate change perspective. The amount of fuel and carbon involved in jetting all over for campaign events is crazy.
Brachiator
@Betty Cracker:
Bernie Sanders is the past. And ultimately, his doing better in the caucuses did not matter. And again, I note that Obama won the 2008 Iowa caucus. This ended up energizing the party.
Yep. There are obvious problems with caucuses. And I live in California, so I am not pushing for something that I participate in. But I wonder whether this weird mix of primaries and caucuses in the long run gives people different ways of learning about the candidates and in the end helping citizens make a decision.
But it looks like there is a consensus for a shorter, all primary campaign season. Sure, let’s give it a try.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kay: People were almost ready to dismiss Biden before SC. He was almost out of money. That changed because SC was early enough. It isn’t like a sports season where every game counts the same amount. Early contests make a difference.
Redshift
@Betty Cracker: The changes after 2016 strongly encouraged primaries, and caucuses almost completely went away. The only ones left are Iowa, Nevada, and the territories.
That was part of the “unity commission” where the top Bernie people were arguing that caucuses were “more democratic” (with the impeccable logic that everyone knows Bernie was more popular with “the people,” so any system where he did better must be more democratic, I think), so I was pleased they didn’t give in to that logic in the name of “unity” and instead went with what was actually more democratic.
Betty Cracker
@Brachiator: I’m certainly not an expert, but I think the reason Iowa can be a break-out state for a talented but not that well known politician is that it’s small enough for retail politics, not because it’s a caucus state. New Hampshire is the same, and they don’t do caucuses.
Redshift
@Brachiator:
And he won the nomination in part through a strategy of focusing on caucuses, finding places where his campaign could work the process to pick up more delegates. The was a lot written about it after ’08. It was a fine outcome, but it doesn’t particularly indicate there is something inherent in the caucus process that made people more likely to pick Obama. If the process was different, they would have followed a different strategy, and might well have had equal success because they were better strategists.
Bethanyanne
Maybe pick the 10 smallest states as a pool. Draw 2 out of the pool every four years to start the circus. And don’t start the damn thing until April. End it in July. 4 months.
smith
@Bethanyanne: By “smallest” I assume you mean “least populous.” As of 2019, these are the least populous (not counting DC): New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming.
With the exception of DE, and maybe RI, I’m not seeing much that represents the diversity of Democratic voters.
rikyrah
@Omnes Omnibus:
Biden had a buck twenty-five going into South Carolina.
You might not remember, but, I do, all the talking in the media that maybe Biden should BOW OUT. I remember all of that.
gene108
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
My pipe dream is to have my state of NJ be the first primary state, but we are in two very expensive media markets, NYC & Philadelphia.
I think a solution is for the DNC pay for a set number of broadcast ads for each campaign, in order to take the edge off needing to fundraise for such expensive markets.
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Right, and Obama benefited from Iowa. I don’t care how they refigure it, but basing the redesign on Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders is dumb, as is insisting caucuses lead to some consistent, unrepresentative result nationally.
I don’t blame them at all for jostling for position- there’s no real reason Iowa or New Hampshire should own all the economic activity and media attention but the order of the primaries is just one of hundreds of factors. A lot of the supposed threats brought on by the current system are addressed elsewhere in the rules. Pulling this one out and announcing it’s the most important and determines a result is an exaggeration.
Kay
I mean, if you’re actually looking for a representative “sample state” you can do that, and order that way but the rest of this stuff is just guessing and based on counterfactuals. Hundreds of factors.
OTOH, if it’s really more about promoting the states where the Party is growing and demoting the states where it’s shrinking that’s perfectly valid but it shouldn’t be a response to Biden v Bernie because you will never again have that exact scenario.
Paul T
Iowa is just the stupidest political side show at the dumbest circus ever. Just completely idiotic series of old tired cliches. That goes on waaaaaaayyyyy too long. Like this comment.
Kattails
Eating a very late lunch and skimming the comments, has anyone mentioned that NH has an outsized complement of Independent voters, and that the first in the nation primary is IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION? We would literally have to amend that. Just saying.
PJ
@Kattails: You can put whatever you want in your state constitution, but the DNC sure isn’t obligated to give two fucks about it.
Ken
What about 2024?
(Just kidding. I devoutly hope.)
Kattails
@Betty Cracker: To enhance your point, I was dragged down to the local “city” of about 30,000 people to see a new candidate called Bill Clinton. There was a tiny room, the press crowded into a corner, I ducked in next to them (to some grumbling but fuckem) and was the first person to shake his hand as he came through the door for his first round of campaigning.
Many of us, believe it or not, are from other states and have friends and family elsewhere, so you know there’s this communications thing that can happen to the outside.
Kattails
@PJ: We also have an all female, all Democratic contingent of Senators and congresspeople and although there are only a couple of congressional seats, the contingent is loyal. Although they do not have to thread the needle that Manchin does, the national party might want to be somewhat careful about undermining the state party. Shaheen has been in for a long time, but Hassan’s seat is less secure. As others have mentioned, it is a complex issue.
Kay
@Ken:
There will be a candidate on the Left in 2024 who garners 20% of the vote in South Carolina. That’s Bernie. Biden got 48%. Tom Steyer? 12%. Did it save Biden’s campaign. Absolutely yes. But it isn’t a formula.
I would demote NH just because I’m tired of their supposed flinty maverickyness, which I find insufferable, but that’s not a formula either.
Kattails
@Kay: the Flinty maverickyness is more of a media construct at this point, in the same way as they seek out the guys hanging around midwestern diners. It does not fit any voter that I know, at least on the Democratic side.
One more thought is that as a small state, but with a real primary, it’s not a bad spot to start out campaign interns. They can learn in a smaller theater where it’s easier to figure out who you are working with locally, and then move on to the bigger states with some organizing experience under your belt. And if someone makes a mistake, it’s not as critical as in the larger and higher stakes races.
Taken4Granite
Late to this thread, but as you might guess from my nym, I am also a NH resident.
The reason why NH ended up with the first primary was because, in an exercise in Yankee frugality, state officials decided to have the Presidential primary coincide with town meeting, traditionally the second Tuesday in March. The provision that NH has to go first is state law, not AFAIK in the constitution. The law says that the NH primary has to be at least a week before any similar contest; IA gets a pass because they are a caucus state.
There are advantages to having the first primary be in a state with a small population: retail politicians have a chance to break out of the pack, as Carter, Clinton, and Obama did. (Obama did not actually win the NH primary in 2008 but ran a strong second behind Hillary.) But the state is quite white (although not as white as ME, VT, or WV). And there are downsides to living in the state with the first primary, such as incessant calls from polling organizations. I actually unplugged my landline phone for a week before the 2020 primary because I got tired of the incessant phone calls.
I think that on balance, I could go either way. If we returned to the traditional Town Meeting day and had the rest of the primaries come within two months after that, that would help. And I share the concerns about whether changing the primary now might undermine the all-D congressional delegation, particularly Hassan, who is a potentially vulnerable Senate incumbent in 2022 (which would be Gov. Sununu’s best chance to move up to the Senate, as Hassan herself did in 2016).
Anonymous At Work
I think Reid has it wrong. If I were *Jim Clyburn*, I’d not want to arm-wrestle Harry Reid. Reid’s the type, with all love and respect, to shiv you rather than make it a fair fight.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@rikyrah: We should all bless Jim Clyburn every day. What does he think about reforming the primary system? Although Biden got 7million+ votes than TFG, it is scary how close T* got in 3 crucial states (44,000 votes is the number that sticks in my mind). No way Bernie, or even my beloved SPW would have gotten the needed votes to beat him. Black people saved this nation in the 2020 election (especially black women). We should listen to them
I agree about having a smaller state or two early in the process so retail politics may be practiced by a lesser-known pol who doesn’t have as much $ to get their ideas out.
The whiteness of Iowa did work for the benefit of the party in 2012 when it proved that white people would vote for a black man when Obama won the caucus.
Michael Cain
@PJ: Nor does the state have to acknowledge the national parties, and most don’t. In many/most states, only state parties can conduct a caucus or put names on the ballot, and state parties that don’t play by the state’s rules are fairly quickly put out of business.
Comrade Colette
@Another Scott: Late, but that red-hatted asshole has been arrested.
WaterGirl
@Comrade Colette: Score one for the good guys.