Should political parties really dictate primary elections if tax-payers are footing the bill?
National Democrats are poised to upend decades of political precedent this week as they gather in Washington, D.C., to vote on a new presidential nominating calendar — one that is expected to, finally, bump Iowa from its first-in-the-nation status.
Members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee are exploring scenarios that could move New Hampshire or Nevada into the leadoff spot and bring a new state such as Michigan or Minnesota into the early voting window.
Though the outcome is far from certain, few expect Iowa, which has kicked off the presidential nominating process since 1972, to hold its coveted position after a disastrous 2020 caucus in which the party was unable to report results for several days amid a tangle of technology and organizational failures.
The collapse fueled Democrats' rising concerns that the state is too white to represent an increasingly diverse party, prompting the committee to open its review of the calendar and which states vote first.
Those positions are highly sought — and closely guarded — because the opening states draw outsize attention from presidential contenders who meticulously court their voters’ support and bring millions of dollars worth of spending and national media exposure to the state.
The early states also wield immense influence over the trajectory of the nominating process as candidates seek to build momentum or stave off the collapse of their campaigns.
The upheaval is expected to have no immediate effect on the Republican calendar, which has already been approved by the Republican National Committee. Iowa is set to again lead that process in 2024.
The Democratic Rules and Bylaws committee is scheduled to meet Dec. 1-3 to propose and vote on changes to the calendar after choosing in July to delay the politically complicated decision until after November’s midterm elections. A vote could come as soon as Friday.
Though members of the committee have discussed the issue at length over the past year, they have made no public proposals ahead of this week’s meeting. Nor has President Joe Biden publicly weighed in as the leader of the national party.
Still, committee members have made their preferences clear as they’ve considered proposals from more than a dozen states interested in taking over Iowa’s role as the frontrunner. They’ve said they prefer states that hold state-run primary elections, have a diverse electorate and are competitive general election battlegrounds.
Any state they select must also be able to legally and quickly move up the date of their presidential primary election.
The result, committee members say, will better align the party with its base and boost Democrats’ chances of taking the White House in 2024 and beyond.
States such as New Hampshire and Nevada, which have traditionally followed Iowa on the calendar, are competing to take over the lead-off spot in 2024 with aggressive pitches.
And newcomers Michigan and Minnesota are angling to join the early window as two midwestern states with more diverse populations than Iowa's. Committee members have identified the two as possible additions.
Each state is making its case to the committee this week, arguing the 2020 midterm election results prove it is an ideal launching point for the Democratic Party's primary process.
But each state comes with drawbacks.
Nevada and New Hampshire have argued they are clear battleground states after Democratic senators won re-election in both states even as Republicans claimed both governor’s mansions.
"The 2022 midterm results further underscore that no state is better positioned or would deliver more for the national Democratic Party by holding the First-In-The-Nation presidential primary than Nevada," Nevada Democratic strategist Rebecca Lambe wrote in a memo to the committee circulated just after the midterms. "It is even clearer today that no other state meets every key aspect of the DNC’s own criteria for the early window of diversity, competitiveness, and accessibility except Nevada."
But Nevada also showed in the midterms it is slow to count votes, a key drawback in a nominating process that requires quick tabulation — a lesson underscored by the Democrats' delays in Iowa in 2020.
And New Hampshire, though geographically small and easily traversed by campaigns, has an even less diverse population than Iowa.
Democrats in Michigan won a clean sweep of the state Legislature in November, giving them full control to change the date of their primary election by altering state law — resolving a key concern for the committee. Members of the state Senate made a first run at the issue Tuesday, passing legislation that would move the state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February.
But concerns remain about the cost of competing in such a large state with relatively expensive media markets.
In Minnesota, Democrats also control the levers of government and have promised to change state law to allow for an early primary. Gov. Tim Walz and state legislative leaders wrote in a letter to the committee Monday promising to do so.
Members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee are exploring scenarios that could move New Hampshire or Nevada into the leadoff spot and bring a new state such as Michigan or Minnesota into the early voting window.
Though the outcome is far from certain, few expect Iowa, which has kicked off the presidential nominating process since 1972, to hold its coveted position after a disastrous 2020 caucus in which the party was unable to report results for several days amid a tangle of technology and organizational failures.
The collapse fueled Democrats' rising concerns that the state is too white to represent an increasingly diverse party, prompting the committee to open its review of the calendar and which states vote first.
Those positions are highly sought — and closely guarded — because the opening states draw outsize attention from presidential contenders who meticulously court their voters’ support and bring millions of dollars worth of spending and national media exposure to the state.
The early states also wield immense influence over the trajectory of the nominating process as candidates seek to build momentum or stave off the collapse of their campaigns.
The upheaval is expected to have no immediate effect on the Republican calendar, which has already been approved by the Republican National Committee. Iowa is set to again lead that process in 2024.
The Democratic Rules and Bylaws committee is scheduled to meet Dec. 1-3 to propose and vote on changes to the calendar after choosing in July to delay the politically complicated decision until after November’s midterm elections. A vote could come as soon as Friday.
Though members of the committee have discussed the issue at length over the past year, they have made no public proposals ahead of this week’s meeting. Nor has President Joe Biden publicly weighed in as the leader of the national party.
Still, committee members have made their preferences clear as they’ve considered proposals from more than a dozen states interested in taking over Iowa’s role as the frontrunner. They’ve said they prefer states that hold state-run primary elections, have a diverse electorate and are competitive general election battlegrounds.
Any state they select must also be able to legally and quickly move up the date of their presidential primary election.
The result, committee members say, will better align the party with its base and boost Democrats’ chances of taking the White House in 2024 and beyond.
States such as New Hampshire and Nevada, which have traditionally followed Iowa on the calendar, are competing to take over the lead-off spot in 2024 with aggressive pitches.
And newcomers Michigan and Minnesota are angling to join the early window as two midwestern states with more diverse populations than Iowa's. Committee members have identified the two as possible additions.
Each state is making its case to the committee this week, arguing the 2020 midterm election results prove it is an ideal launching point for the Democratic Party's primary process.
But each state comes with drawbacks.
Nevada and New Hampshire have argued they are clear battleground states after Democratic senators won re-election in both states even as Republicans claimed both governor’s mansions.
"The 2022 midterm results further underscore that no state is better positioned or would deliver more for the national Democratic Party by holding the First-In-The-Nation presidential primary than Nevada," Nevada Democratic strategist Rebecca Lambe wrote in a memo to the committee circulated just after the midterms. "It is even clearer today that no other state meets every key aspect of the DNC’s own criteria for the early window of diversity, competitiveness, and accessibility except Nevada."
But Nevada also showed in the midterms it is slow to count votes, a key drawback in a nominating process that requires quick tabulation — a lesson underscored by the Democrats' delays in Iowa in 2020.
And New Hampshire, though geographically small and easily traversed by campaigns, has an even less diverse population than Iowa.
Democrats in Michigan won a clean sweep of the state Legislature in November, giving them full control to change the date of their primary election by altering state law — resolving a key concern for the committee. Members of the state Senate made a first run at the issue Tuesday, passing legislation that would move the state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in February.
But concerns remain about the cost of competing in such a large state with relatively expensive media markets.
In Minnesota, Democrats also control the levers of government and have promised to change state law to allow for an early primary. Gov. Tim Walz and state legislative leaders wrote in a letter to the committee Monday promising to do so.
--USA Today
I agree that while having Iowa and New Hampshire the first primaries makes it easier for candidates with low budgets to campaign "retail" -- also forcing well-heeled campaigns to get out amongst the voters -- it does tend to skew the viable options remaining once the process moves to big, diverse, urbanized states. But should political parties be auctioning off primaries as if they are convention sites when the tax-payers are going to be picking up the costs for primary elections? At least Iowa's caucuses were a party event and not a tax-payer-funded election.
80-89, M
