Although, it’s a terrible look for Biden and the DNC. And it’s naive to think it won’t have a least a minor effect on turnout in a general where the polling numbers are already concerning.
Although, it’s a terrible look for Biden and the DNC
It’s really not, not at all. IA and NH are in no way representative of the country at large or key groups to the Democratic coalition. This is a great move that should have taken place a long time ago.
It’s a stupid move, does nothing but alienate voters. I’m not saying NH should be first, a better change would be to make it one day nationally, or maybe a couple batches if we really need that (but I don’t think we do).
IMO, no one comes out of this looking good. The DNC has shown that it is willing to invalidate entire states’ voices when they disagree on with state politicians. That’s a very bad look considering they’re still suffering from all their bullshit in 2016.
On the other hand, NH doesn’t get too declare in their own state law that they get to vote before anyone else. Throwing a fit because someone else gets to go first is childish.
Make primaries a single national affair and be done with it. Better yet, make the general presidential elections national too.
One day nationally is a horrible answer. It prevents lesser known candidates from competing at all. It puts the power back in the hands of large donors – a horrible system that we have only in the last few cycles broken free from. If we had national primaries, we never would have had Carter, Clinton, or Obama; and even beyond that, Edwards would have walked away with the nomination in 2004 and Sanders would never have even put up a fight in 2016. Even when these alternate candidates don’t win, they move the eventual nominee’s policies and the party’s platform just by being somewhat competitive.
Honestly, going back to smoke-filled rooms where the party bosses chose candidates would be a better option than a national primary. I swear to god no one on this site even thinks about second and third-order effects in passing.
I would be in favor of a constantly rotating schedule of when states go in the cycle each presidential election that goes through all the states in a predictable order defined well in advance. I don’t think it’s fair that New Hampshire and Iowa voters get more say than voters in other states, over and over again, decade after decade. I’m not gonna shed a tear for them in this case. But we need some sort of fair rotating schedule, not capricious changes based on the whims of party leadership.
I think we’re moving towards a significant pre primary campaign dynamic in the preceding years that lets us do one day primaries. Otherwise though we could do it over a month. Divide states by lottery into 4 groups, and randomly assign a group a week for voting.
New Hampshire having a state law that they always get to go first, for a national election, that’s been around for 100 years, is dumb as fuck.
It’s good this change is happening. The primary orders should shuffle around more often. No state declaring “we’re always first” within their state laws should be recognized at the federal level.
They should let the most populated states go first. I’m tired of having our votes count for nothing because half the candidates have already dropped out by the time they get to us, even though we outnumber the people in all the states that go before us. Those early wins and losses would really mean something if they represented a large and diverse population. Might make up a little for how underrepresented we are in the Electoral College.
You as an individual are under-represented, but you as a populous state are too powerful. If California primaries first , no one else matters.
When New Hampshire primaries first, you get a lot of meeting the candidates, an interesting survey result, but the result is still wide open.
Either way, it’s all of us in the middle who get shafted. We don’t get an early say but our vote doesn’t count for much with the big guys coming soon.
I’m torn about whether it is good to be a “safe”state. While it’s nice that we don’t get the nonsense or the robocalls or the mail or the ads, would it hurt to get some attention? Can we be treated like we matter?
The problem with that version is that, just as in the national election, the candidates will only really campaign in the purple states with a lot of independent or undecided voters. I’d like to see them have to reach out to a diversity of voters within their own parties first. I’m not saying it’s more fair necessarily, just that I think it would be good for the process and maybe help each party wind up with a better (or at least more representative of the party as a whole) candidate in the general.
I’m a fan of random order, all within 5 weeks. With polls being open over the entire week.
Helps get more voices in the say. With every state having turns seeing higher candidate engagement that only Iowa gets now. And candidates not feeling pressured to drop out right away because Iowa didn’t like them.
At first I disagreed a bit, but primaries are changing from what they used to be, so maybe you have a point. Used to be that there wasn’t that much political noise the year before a presidential primary, but now we’ve got debates and all sorts. There’s time now for candidates to get their ideas out there and for people to know who they are. I don’t think that was the case in say 2016, where we really got to know Bernie as time went on and that raised his popularity.
Removed by mod
Well, the DNC also said that they weren’t giving NH any delegates at the same time Biden dropped…
So unless the DNC doubles back and awards delegates after saying they wouldn’t, this means nothing.
Why fight when they can just invalidate an entire states primary?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-delegates-new-hampshire-primary-2024/
Although, it’s a terrible look for Biden and the DNC. And it’s naive to think it won’t have a least a minor effect on turnout in a general where the polling numbers are already concerning.
It’s really not, not at all. IA and NH are in no way representative of the country at large or key groups to the Democratic coalition. This is a great move that should have taken place a long time ago.
It’s a stupid move, does nothing but alienate voters. I’m not saying NH should be first, a better change would be to make it one day nationally, or maybe a couple batches if we really need that (but I don’t think we do).
One day nationally is the only answer.
IMO, no one comes out of this looking good. The DNC has shown that it is willing to invalidate entire states’ voices when they disagree on with state politicians. That’s a very bad look considering they’re still suffering from all their bullshit in 2016.
On the other hand, NH doesn’t get too declare in their own state law that they get to vote before anyone else. Throwing a fit because someone else gets to go first is childish.
Make primaries a single national affair and be done with it. Better yet, make the general presidential elections national too.
One day nationally is a horrible answer. It prevents lesser known candidates from competing at all. It puts the power back in the hands of large donors – a horrible system that we have only in the last few cycles broken free from. If we had national primaries, we never would have had Carter, Clinton, or Obama; and even beyond that, Edwards would have walked away with the nomination in 2004 and Sanders would never have even put up a fight in 2016. Even when these alternate candidates don’t win, they move the eventual nominee’s policies and the party’s platform just by being somewhat competitive.
Honestly, going back to smoke-filled rooms where the party bosses chose candidates would be a better option than a national primary. I swear to god no one on this site even thinks about second and third-order effects in passing.
I would be in favor of a constantly rotating schedule of when states go in the cycle each presidential election that goes through all the states in a predictable order defined well in advance. I don’t think it’s fair that New Hampshire and Iowa voters get more say than voters in other states, over and over again, decade after decade. I’m not gonna shed a tear for them in this case. But we need some sort of fair rotating schedule, not capricious changes based on the whims of party leadership.
I think we’re moving towards a significant pre primary campaign dynamic in the preceding years that lets us do one day primaries. Otherwise though we could do it over a month. Divide states by lottery into 4 groups, and randomly assign a group a week for voting.
It’s good to know I’m not the only smoke filled room advocate that exists. I attribute a rise in populism to open primaries
Hahhhaha see you on election day boy. Orange power to the win!!
Choosing to ditch NH because it’s, “Too white„ isn’t a flex.
New Hampshire having a state law that they always get to go first, for a national election, that’s been around for 100 years, is dumb as fuck.
It’s good this change is happening. The primary orders should shuffle around more often. No state declaring “we’re always first” within their state laws should be recognized at the federal level.
Here’s a crazy idea. Every state has their primary on the same day so that no state gets to dictate who others get to vote for.
Here’s an even crazier idea. Ditch primaries altogether and use Ranked Choice Voting.
I’m sick and tired of other people deciding which lesser evils I’m allowed to choose between long before my turn to vote even comes around.
They should let the most populated states go first. I’m tired of having our votes count for nothing because half the candidates have already dropped out by the time they get to us, even though we outnumber the people in all the states that go before us. Those early wins and losses would really mean something if they represented a large and diverse population. Might make up a little for how underrepresented we are in the Electoral College.
You as an individual are under-represented, but you as a populous state are too powerful. If California primaries first , no one else matters.
When New Hampshire primaries first, you get a lot of meeting the candidates, an interesting survey result, but the result is still wide open.
Either way, it’s all of us in the middle who get shafted. We don’t get an early say but our vote doesn’t count for much with the big guys coming soon.
I’m torn about whether it is good to be a “safe”state. While it’s nice that we don’t get the nonsense or the robocalls or the mail or the ads, would it hurt to get some attention? Can we be treated like we matter?
How is that more fair than every state going at the same time?
The problem with that version is that, just as in the national election, the candidates will only really campaign in the purple states with a lot of independent or undecided voters. I’d like to see them have to reach out to a diversity of voters within their own parties first. I’m not saying it’s more fair necessarily, just that I think it would be good for the process and maybe help each party wind up with a better (or at least more representative of the party as a whole) candidate in the general.
I’m a fan of random order, all within 5 weeks. With polls being open over the entire week.
Helps get more voices in the say. With every state having turns seeing higher candidate engagement that only Iowa gets now. And candidates not feeling pressured to drop out right away because Iowa didn’t like them.
At first I disagreed a bit, but primaries are changing from what they used to be, so maybe you have a point. Used to be that there wasn’t that much political noise the year before a presidential primary, but now we’ve got debates and all sorts. There’s time now for candidates to get their ideas out there and for people to know who they are. I don’t think that was the case in say 2016, where we really got to know Bernie as time went on and that raised his popularity.
Every state should go the same day.
omw to the state capital to draft a law saying my state gets to go firster
Removed by mod