Anonymous wrote:Good points. Wondering how they’re going to get the Republican majority South Carolina legislature on board to change the date of the primary. Maybe they’ll refuse and New Hampshire will end up being first anyway.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I predicted this after the disaster that was Iowa in 2020 and it appears as if Iowa might finally lose its first in the nation status. This is fantastic because IMO caucuses are inherently undemocratic (little d democratic) plus Iowa is way more white and rural than the rest of America and as such has very little to do with the Democratic Party. New Hampshire with the first primary has similar issues. Since 2020 a lot of people have been floating Illinois, Nevada, Michigan etc. instead, will be interesting to see how this pans out. Huge loss for the economies in IA and NH though.
Although "Iowa is way more white and rural than the rest of America," it was Iowa that gave Barack Obama his big impetus in his first Democratic primary. A bit ironic.
Iowa used to not suck.
Now it does.
Sad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I predicted this after the disaster that was Iowa in 2020 and it appears as if Iowa might finally lose its first in the nation status. This is fantastic because IMO caucuses are inherently undemocratic (little d democratic) plus Iowa is way more white and rural than the rest of America and as such has very little to do with the Democratic Party. New Hampshire with the first primary has similar issues. Since 2020 a lot of people have been floating Illinois, Nevada, Michigan etc. instead, will be interesting to see how this pans out. Huge loss for the economies in IA and NH though.
Although "Iowa is way more white and rural than the rest of America," it was Iowa that gave Barack Obama his big impetus in his first Democratic primary. A bit ironic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I predicted this after the disaster that was Iowa in 2020 and it appears as if Iowa might finally lose its first in the nation status. This is fantastic because IMO caucuses are inherently undemocratic (little d democratic) plus Iowa is way more white and rural than the rest of America and as such has very little to do with the Democratic Party. New Hampshire with the first primary has similar issues. Since 2020 a lot of people have been floating Illinois, Nevada, Michigan etc. instead, will be interesting to see how this pans out. Huge loss for the economies in IA and NH though.
Although "Iowa is way more white and rural than the rest of America," it was Iowa that gave Barack Obama his big impetus in his first Democratic primary. A bit ironic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why are the democrats letting a state that they have zero chance of winning go first?
Because in a primary it doesn’t matter whether you can win the state or not. Although I agree North Carolina would be better.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why are the democrats letting a state that they have zero chance of winning go first?
Because in a primary it doesn’t matter whether you can win the state or not. Although I agree North Carolina would be better.
You’re spending a ton of money introducing yourself to a state you will never win
Anonymous wrote:I predicted this after the disaster that was Iowa in 2020 and it appears as if Iowa might finally lose its first in the nation status. This is fantastic because IMO caucuses are inherently undemocratic (little d democratic) plus Iowa is way more white and rural than the rest of America and as such has very little to do with the Democratic Party. New Hampshire with the first primary has similar issues. Since 2020 a lot of people have been floating Illinois, Nevada, Michigan etc. instead, will be interesting to see how this pans out. Huge loss for the economies in IA and NH though.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why are the democrats letting a state that they have zero chance of winning go first?
Because in a primary it doesn’t matter whether you can win the state or not. Although I agree North Carolina would be better.
You’re spending a ton of money introducing yourself to a state you will never win
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why are the democrats letting a state that they have zero chance of winning go first?
Because in a primary it doesn’t matter whether you can win the state or not. Although I agree North Carolina would be better.
Anonymous wrote:Why are the democrats letting a state that they have zero chance of winning go first?