(03-11-2022 06:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-11-2022 04:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2022 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-11-2022 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Goodbye, Iowa

You are not diverse enough.

Heck yeah. Not only is it not diverse, it doesn't really represent the country well.

A state like Texas or North Carolina - where there is a significant mix of rural/urban - would be a much better starting point. Iowa (followed by NH) have some really niche politics that have an oversized influence on the primary process.

Yeah, Iowa and NH -and Texas and NC - are not representative - no state is. So what?

Who sez the early primaries and caucuses are supposed to represent the country?
Iowa represents Iowa, and Texas represents Texas. We have states for a reason.

I don't expect California to represent either Texas or the USA. Or Indiana to represent New Mexico, any more than they represent Old Mexico..

Wyoming is averaged in with NYC, and Seattle with Oklahoma to make the composite of what our country looks like.

Using the exact same reasoning, who says the DNC can make a decision to hold their first primary somewhere else?

This isn’t about whether one can or can’t do something, but whether selecting a state besides Iowa would be a net positive in the primary process.

It is unquestionable that the early states have a larger influence on the primaries than the later states.

They cannot find a state that “looks like America”. What are they gonna do, rank them on looking like A,Erica and them hold primaries in order? What is the state that looks the least like America? Hawaii? Arizona? Florida?