Posted on 01/27/2020 11:50:55 AM PST by Kaslin
Observing the comings and goings in both Iowa and New Hampshire this month, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt is clearly fed up. The system is rigged, broken and (obviously)… racist. With all that in mind, the author vented his frustrations at the Gray Lady, declaring once and for all that Iowa should never go first again. Let’s let him explain his reasoning.
Right now, I’m as obsessed as anyone with the early-state polls. Yet I also want to use this moment to point out how bizarre the current system is — and to make a plea: The 2020 cycle should be the last time that Iowa and New Hampshire benefit at the country’s expense.
The strongest part of the case for change, of course, is the racial aspect of the current calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire are among the country’s whitest states. About 6 percent of their combined population is black or Asian-American. Almost 87 percent is non-Hispanic white, compared with 60 percent for the country as a whole. Demographically, Iowa and New Hampshire look roughly like the America of 1870.
Julián Castro, the former presidential candidate, was right when he called out the Democratic Party’s hypocritical support for the status quo. “Iowa and New Hampshire are wonderful states with wonderful people,” Castro said. But Democrats can’t “complain about Republicans suppressing the votes of people of color, and then begin our nominating contest in two states that hardly have people of color.”
In addition to both Iowa and New Hampshire being “too white” (according to the white, male author), Leonhardt also complains that neither of them is home to a city with more than 250,000 people. On top of that, both states boast disproportionately high numbers of retired people and fewer under the age of 40 than the national average.
In other words, Iowa and New Hampshire are magnets for old, white people… precisely who we don’t need picking the Democratic Party’s nominee.
Let me first say that at least in terms of the final conclusion, Leonhardt is preaching to the choir here. I’ve been railing against this unpleasant “tradition” for as long as I’ve been interested in politics. Letting these two small states go first and determine who gets the much-coveted “momentum” going into Super Tuesday distorts the process and gives far too much power to certain special interests, such as Iowa’s ethanol lobby. The honor of going first needs to be spread around and I’ve long been in favor of an entirely revamped system, such as a series of regional primaries that rotate in order every four years.
But with that said, Leonhardt’s specific complaints are rather odd, to say the least. For evidence of the racism inherent in the system, the author points to the fact that both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are out of the race and this is blamed on their inability to gain traction in the first two states to vote. To bolster this argument, he notes that both of those candidates of color “were doing as well as Amy Klobuchar in early polls of more diverse states.” That’s a true statement to be sure, but doing as well as Amy Klobuchar back then was akin to saying that you’re doing as well as Joe Walsh is in the GOP primary. Klobuchar only recently cracked double digits in her first polls and she did so because she didn’t quit.
Kamala Harris had her own surge for a while nationally, but she never got into the top tier in California… her home state. And her campaign was famously in a constant state of upheaval, with staffers fighting and the candidate changing her answers on key issues like a leaf fluttering in the breeze. As for Booker, he never climbed in the polls significantly, even in the more “diverse” states containing large cities. He wasn’t offering anything that the voters couldn’t already get from Sanders and Warren. He just wasn’t a particularly exciting speaker or candidate.
Finally, as we peel away all of the clutter and get to what Leonhardt is obviously saying here, the author should keep in mind precisely which people he’s talking about. Republicans and conservatives don’t get to vote in the Democrats’ primaries and caucuses and they’re not being polled on the question. If you think there are too many racists controlling the fate of the nomination process, those are racist Democrats you’re talking about.
But even that argument doesn’t hold much water. South Carolina is also one of the earliest states to vote, is far more diverse and controls more delegates than either Iowa or New Hampshire. And from wire to wire so far they have supported Joe Biden, who still has double the support of his nearest competitor, particularly among black voters. And most of those not backing Biden back Bernie Sanders, so the two oldest, whitest, male Democrats imaginable are running the table. So even if we let South Carolina go first, it’s not looking as if the results would be markedly different and both Harris and Booker probably wouldn’t still be in the race at this point anyway.
Lets get rid of those election thingies altogether too!
They want New York to go first and then to just cancel all the others since the result will be pre-determined. :)
It will be fun to watch if the Democrats try to dis Iowa and (especially swing state) New Hampshire.
Those nasty white folks won’t get mad, they will get even.
I think there is a legitimate question as to why the first several elections in the nomination process are never rotated around. You would think the parties would also require the first few states to hold elections in the nomination process actually regularly vote for their party in recent general elections.
Freegards
Instead of voting booths it would be easier to go by a Twitter poll. That way we wouldn’t have to leave the house.
How many NYT employees could locate Iowa on a map?
I say let them change it to New York or California for first primary voting.
.……...of the six remaining socialist imbeciles, what earthly difference is there between ANY of them????
They have one basic thing in common. They have no chance of winning a General Election as things stand right now today.
Nothing bad against Iowa or New Hampshire - but for both the GOP and the Dems, my ideal first state for voting would be Missouri.
Why?
It has suburbs (KC and St Louis). It has inner cities (both KC and St Louis). The northern part of the state identifies with the Midwest mostly. The southern part of the state identifies with the south mostly.
Demographically (race-wise), it’s about as close as you can get to a representative picture of a typical American state.
IMHO, Missouri should be the first state to vote.
I don’t like Iowa going first because Iowa is a leftist state. Furthermore, it’s not an election it’s a caucus for everybody can see how you vote. Also, it allows the same day so after this flood in from everywhere. Iowa is a farce. Also, it skews National policy in favor of big Ag, ethanol, open borders etc.
Democrats dont really like it because it’s got a 100% yes 100% prediction rate for who the democrat nominee is going to be
if you win the Iowa caucuses you are the democrat nominee
make no mistake about it
and it’s a beautiful thing
these caucus is for Democrats because they need to talk with each other and have multiple votes especially when you have a big plate of candidates like this
the Republicans who make sense can get their arguments done very quickly whereas because liberals are ruled by emotion these things can go back-and-forth there’s tons of silly women involved in it can get very emotional and run around in circles and that’s why when it all gets hammered out in the Iowa caucus style that’s how they figure out who the Democrat nominees actually going to be Accurately
Why not start the candidate selection voting with the most balanced and unbiased electorate in the entire nation: Washington, DC?
If our oaths have meaning, that is the accepted duty of naturalization.
I must admit I am tired of these two states going first too. Should be a rotation of small states: IA, NV, NH, and SC.
Right now, it looks like Iowa will go the same way as New Hampshire - with the Bern.
Why not have a national primary election day? That way, certain states won’t have this perceived unfair advantage in the nomination process.
I understand and appreciate people saying that other states or regions should be able to have the first primaries/caucuses, but I question why we can’t just have a national primary election day,and wouldn’t that be the fairest way of all of nominating candidates?
Of course, parties don’t have to have primaries at all. They can choose nominees in a smoke filled convention hall with delegates chosen by the powers that be.
Even under the current set up, either party could decline to hold caucuses/primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. This situation just evolved for them to go first. There’s no reason they need to always go first, or to have their caucuses/primaries at all.
In the rat party, pretty much. It’s all for show. The “Super-delegates” choose over the people. It’s such a crock of undemocratic crap, I can’t believe these leftists put up with it. The party leaders, sure; but the rat party members have to hate this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.