DNC moves forward with dramatic change to presidential primary calendar "The Democratic National Committee voted on Friday to radically alter its presidential nominating calendar, following President Joe Biden’s recommendations to elevate South Carolina as the first primary state and to eliminate Iowa, breaking with a half-century of historical precedent. But there are still several logistical hurdles for the party to clear to make the new vision a reality. The DNC is on track to reshape its primary calendar after dissatisfaction with the traditional first state, Iowa, boiled over in 2020. Members of the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, charged with recommending a new calendar, gave a near-unanimous vote of approval on Friday for Biden’s proposal, with only minor tweaks to the dates and two ‘no’ votes from Iowa and New Hampshire members. The revised proposal would see South Carolina host the first 2024 presidential primary on Feb. 3, a Saturday, followed three days later by New Hampshire and Nevada. Georgia would then hold an early primary on Feb. 13, and Michigan would hold its contest on Feb. 27. Iowa would be out of the early lineup altogether." This will be interesting. Is this a payback to South Carolina for boosting Biden to the nomination in 2020? The President said it was to get more minority involvement in the process.
Iowa is a 2 time Trump state. It’s meaningless. Boot it.Georgia and Michigan are swing states so I’m in with moving them up.
Iowa isn’t representative of the rest of the country, it’s the whitest state in the Midwest. Really doesn’t do much for choosing a candidate.
they need to do them all on the same day. letting a few states pick who advances and who doesn't isn't good for our country
The reform that’s needed is a single nationwide primary for both parties in April, no special states, no exceptions; followed by run-off elections as necessary in May for those states who do not have a candidate with an electoral majority; followed by party conventions in June. As an added bonus, no debates or political advertisements of any kind allowed until March 1st to blessedly spare us a campaign season longer than one month.
The more spread out, decentralized, and disorganized the process is, the less the results can be questioned in any meaningful way.
And the more one or two states get disproportionate influence over the decision as well as a nauseatingly long campaign season.
I’m not a fan of the Iowa caucuses at all and will not shed a tear for them. But between them and the New Hampshire primary what they did do was allow lower level candidates to get some exposure on a more level playing field using door to door and retail politics. If you start with a larger primary, it is going to favor more established and bigger money candidates and the less known ones may never have a chance.
South Carolina isn't a huge state. What it does is sub out a very white state (Iowa) for a state whose Democratic Party is very Black.
It’s not a huge state but a far cry from Iowa and NH. The result would be more campaigning via TV ads, etc. I wouldn’t have said this decades ago, but African American democrats at this point seem comparatively more moderate than many white urban democrats, and more willing to steer towards the pragmatic vs the ideologically sexy.
It’s more representative of the Democratic Party, though. Primaries are not elections, they’re a method for choosing a party’s candidate.
When Trump ran in the Republican Iowa caucuses in 2016, the delegates that he rightfully won were stolen from him through fraud. Trump accuses Cruz of stealing Iowa caucuses through 'fraud' Iowa caucus: 'I'm the winner' says Trump amid Democrat chaos
Say what?!? When in American history did it become necessary to question the results of an election? Oh, I remember now: November 2000, and it was done meaningfully......except in the minds of those who aren't well-meaning.
