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.
The whole system needs to be tossed out. It’s ludicrous this Iowa-NH thing.
Implicit in Hesh’s ‘critique’ is Iowa’s in-person caucus system, which eliminates NYT/Soros/Socialist aims of destroying caucus for primaries, and also destroying the ‘in-person’ nature of voting.
“ 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.”
Well thought out. Sensible. Refined.
The problem with a National Primary Day, even if each state allocated delegates individually, would be that the candidate with the highest name-ID would tend to win and candidates wouldn’t be able to build support organically. We can complain all we want about IA and NH, but the fact that they go first and second with nothing else on those days, and they are relatively small states, permit candidates to make their case directly to the voters.
Of course, there is nothing magical about IA and NH that couldn’t be replicated elsewhere if two other states went first and second a week apart. (Well, it couldn’t be replicated in CA or probably TX because of their size.) So I would not be opposed to having the first two (heck, the first four) states rotate, with a week off between 1, 2, 3 and 4.
While I like your idea of basing the number of GOP delegates on the number of GOP presidential voters per state—the current system kinda sorta tries to do something similar—I think that the states that go first (rotating) should be the ones that are the most competitive in presidential elections. There are two reasons for this. First, both parties should vote on the same day, not only because primaries cost the state time and money, but also because it reduces the number of people who invade another party’s primary. And second, we want to nominate a presidential candidate that can win the electoral college, so I am more interested in how popular he is in FL, OH, WI, etc. than in how much he can run up the score in more heavily GOP states such as WY or TN. By having battleground/swing states going first, it would work for both parties.
BTW, looking at the past two presidential elections, if I had to choose the key states that should go early in the process based on their competitiveness, both IA and NH would be in the top 15, along with FL, OH, WI, MN, MI, PA, NC, AZ, NV, GA, ME, CO and VA. IA swung from Obama to Trump, and NH was within the margin of fraud.
Agricultural products are traded in a global market. Imported Argentinian beef, Canadian grain and Ukrainian corn is just as good as the subsidized US grown product. Get over it. Farmers are not that important but politicians kowtow to them.
So, on balance, it is a good system.
There is already a delegate allocation formula to favor states which support the party's nominee consistently.
I think that ship has pretty much sailed. Trump had 100% name ID. Most likely rat nominees are Biden, Sanders, and at this point Bloomberg. In the digital age I don't know how much camping out in IHOPs in NH means anymore. Trump only did big rallys. If Bloomberg's strategy works it will blow the whole thing up.
But let's assume that's true, and that it's to our benefit to have such an 'organic' nominee rather than someone with high name ID prior to running.
I'm still not sure that outweighs people in the later voting states getting no real say on the nominee. Texas had no say in 2012 cause Romney put it away already (with less than 50% of the vote).
In any case the disorder of the current system bothers me, scattered dates, different rules in different states. Some states winner take all even with a tiny plurality. Pennsylvania with it's beauty contest and directly elected delegates some of which were unpledged. The rats actually do it better having it all be proportional.
Anyways my thought was, rather than a primary, to do a caucus run by the party, charge a buck or something to participate, that should help pay for it and also reduce democrat interference.
If a candidate cleared 50% (or 40% with a lead of at least 10%) they would get all the points from that state, if not it would split between the top few candidates.
This would end the relevance of convention delegates in choosing the nominee.
Directly basing it on the GOP vote would also encourage those state GOP's to turn out their vote. I know the current formula as you said "sorta" does something like that, I prefer doing things to sorta doing them. ;-D
Going off the last election, Texas would have the most points for 2020 (roughly 7.4% of the GOP vote was from Texas so if we had 1000 total points it would get 74), then Florida and then Cali, PA, OH, NY. Due to the tiny number of GOP votes DC would vote with Maryland. I excluded territories since they don't vote in the general but Puerto Rico could be worked in.
Top two in points go to a runoff, unless someone gets a majority in the first round.
Some kind of national qualification process for who makes the ballot, I'm not sure if Weld or Walsh would clear it ;-).
Anyway, just an idea.
You make some good points about wanting a nominee that plays well in competitive states.
Said by someone who knows the v alue of a Victory garden.
Yes Republicans don’t care if we import every durable good and run $850/yr trade deficits but God forbid we treat agriculture the same way. HYPOCRITES....
Ping for later
State’s rights. no national primary ever.
Populist events are the only way to get conservative populist candidates. No conservative movement will ever dominate the country without an active grassroots.
I like the model that Maine Republicans used: caucuses held daily over a few week period. Delegates elected at same. All are officially uncommitted. You have to survey the 3000 delegates to find out who is winning.
Could work to break the 2-state monopoly.
Michigan did something similar in ‘88.
Continued ...
Michigan 1988
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/03/us/gop-taking-first-step-toward-88-in-michigan.html
https://apnews.com/5f3f9bce2dacacb4fc6be5ffd9f42a6a
There was also Lousiana 1996.
And on Dem side: Maine and Wis straw poll conventions
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-02-07-mn-33299-story.html
Louisiana caucuses 1996
Cranston beats Mondale, 1983 Wisconsin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/06/13/fair-weather-voters-abandoned-mondale-in-wisconsins-straw-poll/83c5be65-a402-4145-8585-0c8cf6110c02/
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.