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.
Nationwide primary would mean only candidates with a billion dollar budget going in would be able to compete.
The national parties have sets of rules. They could be changed, of course.
Yes, Missouri is representative of America.
Ironically, the last Democrat to win Missouri at the presidential level is Clinton in 1996.
The last Democrats to represent MO—Claire McCaskill and Jay Nixon-—moderate Democrats.
Like Bloomberg
Here’s an idea, Democrats. Make the first primary Washington DC and the next one in Puerto Rico. That will insure that the Dem candidate will be some race-baiting extremist that the Republican can easily defeat.
Farmers and big ag are just 1% of the economy but they get a huge disproportionate political footprint mostly due to Iowa “going first”.
I agree with you on this.
It’s actually kind of surprising that there hasn’t already been a progressivist movement to strip lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire of their special first-in-the-nation privilege which allows them to dictate the Presidential candidates of both parties.
I can only guess that it’s because both states also happen to be purple states that the two national parties are afraid to offend the voters in those states by suggesting they be stripped of their privileged status.
If those states ever lose their purple status, I expect they will also lose their first-in-the-nation privilege.
If you’re going to use numbers to make your case, you’d better be right. It’s too easy to check and prove the exaggerations (fake news) The demographics of Des Moines is much closer to the national average than he stated:
The ethnic composition of the population of Des Moines, IA is composed of 143k White Alone residents (66.5%), 28.1k Hispanic or Latino residents (13.1%), 22.9k Black or African American Alone residents (10.7%), 12.7k Asian Alone residents (5.92%), 6.95k Two or More Races residents (3.24%), 609 American Indian & Alaska Native Alone residents (0.284%), 487 Some Other Race Alone residents (0.227%), and 150 Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander Alone residents (0.0698%).
Dick Gephardt won Iowa in ‘88, was not nominated.
And of course home state Tom Harkin in 1992, which rendered the caucuses irrelevant that year.
Well, why should Iowa be first? Tradition is not a good reason. I don’t know why they like having these a-holes flood their IHOPs every four years anyway, obviously it boosts their economy and that’s probably it.
I don’t care what the dems do but on our side, of the current early states, South Carolina should be first (makes sense for Dems too because of the Black vote).
Of course, and so far no one agrees with me, but it’s simply not fair at all unless the whole country votes at the same time. Imagine if it was like that in the general election (Maine used to vote early, but not for President).
I’m devising a system I’d like to see used for the GOP nomination, national caucuses with a state by state point system based on how many Republican votes the state cast in the last election (mimicking the electoral college), runoff if no one gets a majority.
I predict without change eventually every state will try to move to Super Tuesday and create a defacto national primary.
If you insist on staggering the primaries they has to be a better way to do it.
Texas starts voting Feb. 18.
I've a simple solution:
You guys do such a good job now of not reporting things that do not fit your agenda; this should be easy!
I know that 49 (or 56) other states can change their dates if they wish; so THEY can be first.
Wait ‘til that 1% shuts down!
David Leonhardt doesn’t get it.
The reason Iowa and NH are first and need to stay first - IS because they’re small enough that citizens can interact with the candidates.
If we started with large states the person with the most money AND the largest and most talented PR firm would win. Just create a TV image and buy ads. Can’t do that in Iowa and NH... nope, citizens get to take a measure of the candidates.... up close and personal...which helps all of us.
No, because New Hampshire (and probably Iowa) law says that the state has to go first.
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.