Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
18. First of all, the primary schedule is being somewhat misrepresented.
Mon Jan 9, 2017, 02:00 PM
Jan 2017

The order was as follows:

IA
NH
NV
SC
AL, American Samoa, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK, TN, TX, VA, VT
KS, LA, NE
ME
MI, MS
FL, IL, MO, NC, OH
AZ, ID, UT
AK, HI, WA

That was the order through the end of March.

Secondly, we're talking about Democratic primaries. One shouldn't conflate the Democratic electorate of South Carolina or Georgia with the overall electorate in those states. And, as others have pointed out, black folks represent a substantial portion of the national Democratic electorate.

Third, as I pointed out during the primary, most Deep South states are *less* red than a hell of a lot of other states. In the primary, for what it's worth, it was actually Sanders who did best in the reddest states.

Fourth, I think the most important thing is doing away with caucuses.

All that said, I'm all for a completely different way of conducting the primary. The idea I've proposed previously is to have 12-13 states (representing every region) vote every 4-6 weeks. So, a group of 12-13 would vote in early February, another 12-13 would vote in mid-March, and so on. Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the like would be fit in there somewhere.

Perhaps the first grouping could be a little lighter in terms of delegates, so that a candidate who isn't as well-known or as well-funded won't be out of the running right off the bat. But all candidates would have plenty of time to campaign and debate leading up to that first vote in February.

For example, the following states could make up one group: MA, PA, NC, FL, KY IL, TX, SD, AZ, NV, WY and OR. Every region of the US is represented.

An alternative would be to have each group consist of states from more or less the same region so as to make traveling much easier/more economical. Every contested primary, the order would rotate. So, one group might consist of the following: WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM, NV, UT, ID, MT, WY, CO and TX. If that group went first in 2020, it would go last in 2028 the next time there's a contested primary (I'm making the assumption that a Dem will win the general election in 2020 and be unopposed in the 2024 primary).

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'd like to see a weighted system temporary311 Jan 2017 #1
Good thoughts on this! But I don't think I would put states that lost hugely in the Akamai Jan 2017 #4
in 2020 CA and NY can go first. NH and Iowa can go last. its only fair to swap now and then ** msongs Jan 2017 #2
Why wouldn't there be? nt. NCTraveler Jan 2017 #10
the entire Country needs to hold primary elections ON THE SAME DAY. putitinD Jan 2017 #3
Interesting proposition. I am not sure I am with this but have not considered it. Akamai Jan 2017 #5
imagine what a mess we woud have if we had a rolling general, for the same exact reason, we need putitinD Jan 2017 #6
That would advantage the most well known candidates. pnwmom Jan 2017 #7
no, it would give every candidate a fair and equal chance. putitinD Jan 2017 #8
No it really wouldn't mythology Jan 2017 #9
I agree. Early primaries, especially in the South, favor more conservative candidates. jalan48 Jan 2017 #11
no it doesn't. it favors whoever can appeal to black voters who are the most loyal dem voters JI7 Jan 2017 #14
The entire West Coast gave all its electoral votes to Clinton. It's our turn to go first. jalan48 Jan 2017 #17
states deide when to set their primary. JI7 Jan 2017 #21
Try telling Michigan that NobodyHere Jan 2017 #26
california did it to save money JI7 Jan 2017 #28
Michigan tried it NobodyHere Jan 2017 #32
in 2008 JI7 Jan 2017 #33
so black voters who vote dem the most should go last ? JI7 Jan 2017 #12
southern dem primary is largely black voters and they do not support those positions you claim JI7 Jan 2017 #13
And still those southern states reliably go for Republicans ... why handcuff ourselves by appealing Akamai Jan 2017 #15
black voters are reliably dem. far more than whites in the bluest states JI7 Jan 2017 #22
Because frightened Republicans are known for making better decisions? Orsino Jan 2017 #16
First of all, the primary schedule is being somewhat misrepresented. Garrett78 Jan 2017 #18
You've thought a lot about this! Good for you! I guess one of my beliefs is that the big states of Akamai Jan 2017 #19
Again, though, most of the Deep South states are far from being the reddest. Garrett78 Jan 2017 #23
I do believe that the deep South States emphasize guns, gays, Akamai Jan 2017 #29
But we mustn't conflate the Democratic electorate with the Republican electorate. Garrett78 Jan 2017 #30
especially since the gun control issue came up more during the southern primaries since most black JI7 Jan 2017 #34
Illinois should go first. Exilednight Jan 2017 #20
I've said before that if any single state is going to lead things off, it should be Illinois. Garrett78 Jan 2017 #24
the southern states helped Obama become the nominee JI7 Jan 2017 #25
I've always been in favor with letting states with the highest voter turnout go first NobodyHere Jan 2017 #27
So we're just giving up the whole 50-state thing, right? SaschaHM Jan 2017 #31
Why should the same states get to go first every four damn years? Warren DeMontague Jan 2017 #37
Absent Iowa and New Hampshire... SaschaHM Jan 2017 #38
No the states don't pick when they go. former9thward Jan 2017 #39
They tried to move their primaries ahead of a specific date cutoff Feb 5. SaschaHM Jan 2017 #40
The DNC should have no role in this. former9thward Jan 2017 #41
What? That's a reach. SaschaHM Jan 2017 #43
And why the hell is it written in stone for those two states? Warren DeMontague Jan 2017 #42
NJ used to vote earlier crazycatlady Jan 2017 #35
Yeah, we need to rotate the schedule, at the very least. Warren DeMontague Jan 2017 #36
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I sure hope that Californ...»Reply #18