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.
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