View Full Version : New Primary Schedule
I see the DNC has decreed a new primary schedule. South Carolina will now be first. If Republicans refuse to follow suit, which seems probable, I wonder how the various states will react. The DNC can punish state parties in various ways, but it’s hard to see how they could force state governments to hold primaries on two separate dates.
I have always had a problem with the primary schedule anyway. Essentially, by Super Tuesday, many of the contenders are eliminated and if your state is late in the schedule (as my former state was) you never get a chance to vote for your choice, if your choice is one of the ones that has dropped out. Doesn't make sense to me. Essentially, a handful of states pick the Presidential candidates.
What is the reason for the DNC switching?
iris lilies
2-4-23, 5:35pm
As a former Iowan, I protest!!!!!!I mean, how we gonna get anyone to the state fair if the presidential candidates aren’t there? Who’s going to come and shovel my Iowa sidewalk if candidates don’t congregate along hiway 80 to glad-hand the few people who live there?
Years ago Saturday NIGHT LIVE had a hilarious skit about that very thing. All the presidential candidates show up in small town Iowa to shovel snow, fix the roof, and perform various chores to convince the Iowa voters to vote for them. And it’s so true. If you wanna see a presidential candidate just move to Iowa and you can see them, in fact, hard to avoid them.
Many years ago in the 1970s our house was featured on ABC news channels because one of their main news guys was at our local caucus and they used it as background image.My aunt in Delaware saw it. I should remember which old white guy Newscaster it was, because he was snarky, but I have forgotten. He was snarky because I heard him say “ none of these Iowans know who I am” (quelle horreur!) He did not seem to realize that the local ABC affiliate was a college broadcasting station and was…less professional than CBS and NBC. Sometimes it didn’t even come in over the air waves.
edited to add: I think it was Howard K. Smith in my small home town.
Not to be confused with Harry Reasoner whose wedding I attended. Haha, exaggerating, but I have a photo of him with his new bride standing on church steps since I happened to be in his small Iowa home town the weekend he got married.
The DNC’s choice was based on a desire to have the early primary states be more representative of America than the old schedule was. NH, at 89% white non Hispanic, is quite a bit whiter than the US overall at 57%.
iris lilies
2-4-23, 5:39pm
The DNC’s choice was based on a desire to have the early primary states be more representative of America than the old schedule was. NH, at 89% white non Hispanic, is quite a bit whiter than the US overall at 57%.
So inclusive of them!
It is against the law in NH for them to not be first. Stay tuned.
It is against the law in NH for them to not be first. Stay tuned.
Indeed. It's hard to see how they are going to willingly give up their unjustified outsize importance in the nominating process and become as irrelevant as various other tiny states.
Indeed. It's hard to see how they are going to willingly give up their unjustified outsize importance in the nominating process and become as irrelevant as various other tiny states.
Who will their unjustified outsize importance be transferred to?
How will the DNC impose its will on recalcitrant states? Especially places like New Hampshire or Georgia that are controlled by the bad people. They could cut financial support or reduce the delegate count for the state Democratic parties, but that would seem counterproductive. I suppose they could gin up a “Jim Crow 3.0” campaign, but that particular fabric seems to be wearing a bit thin.
Who will their unjustified outsize importance be transferred to?
Personally I'd rather see some sort of rotational system where the lead states change each time so that no one state has such an outsize roll every time.
How will the DNC impose its will on recalcitrant states? Especially places like New Hampshire or Georgia that are controlled by the bad people. They could cut financial support or reduce the delegate count for the state Democratic parties, but that would seem counterproductive. I suppose they could gin up a “Jim Crow 3.0” campaign, but that particular fabric seems to be wearing a bit thin.
As Ldahl said in another thread… his
There are many branches on the great tree of stupidity. One of the most egregious is the unfounded assumption of superiority so often seen in in our political and cultural discussions.
Of course this whole discussion is somewhat pointless considering that barring a major health problem Biden will be the Democratic nominee in 2024.
iris lilies
2-4-23, 8:58pm
Of course this whole discussion is somewhat pointless considering that barring a major health problem Biden will be the Democratic nominee in 2024.
If it is Biden vs Trump, yet again, I may blow my brains out.
Of course this whole discussion is somewhat pointless considering that barring a major health problem Biden will be the Democratic nominee in 2024.
If it is Biden vs Trump, yet again, I may blow my brains out.
Please don’t do that. You’ve spent so much time and effort making your new house lovely and that would be such a terrible mess to be cleaned up!
Aren’t primaries in some states simply for the benefit of these private political parties, so they can select their candidate for the *real* election?
WA state just recently switched to a semi-open system. Previously our Democrats caucused and didn't even have a primary, iirc, whereas the state GOP did have a primary.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.