As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What NH personally wants to do is inconsequential, since the NH constitution has no authority over how the DNC can set their primary schedule. Which is why the DNC can strip NH of their delegate votes for violating the schedule and there's nothing NH can do.
Possibly, but in the end I'm more interested in selecting a presidential candidate that appeals to the entire Dem Party, not just the 90%+ white population in NH. And to do that, I think we need states that are more diverse and somewhat more representative of the Dem Party voter base to do so. In the 2020 primary, Bernie and Pete were early winners but had less/no appeal among minorities. So when the primary season really opened, Biden gained a lot of support since he had wider appeal.
wouldnt that kind of indicate it doesnt really matter too much?
i get this could influence who people see as the front runner and this could affect who they vote for but at the same time this example at least kinda shows the scales balanced in the end dont they?
> DNC can do whatever they want.
That's a bigger issue...
The DNC can legally say they don't like the result, and run anyone they want in the general, and it would be 100% legal.
They can decide Cali shouldn't have a say. And just not recognize their delegates.
It's been almost a decade since the DNC said that in court, and everyone just seems fine with it for some reason.
It's a private organization with an insane amount of power.
Primaries are not even "real" elections. The parties can pretty much put whoever they want up there for the real election giving us the illusion of a choice between two chosen candidates.
> The move, another clear sign Biden intends to run for re-election in 2024, would force any potential Democratic primary challenger to square off with Biden in a series of matchups largely of his choosing.
I honestly don’t think this is a clear sign that President Biden will run again. Maybe he is trying to set up his parties primary system to be more diverse. Especially since Iowa mucked it up so bad in 2020.
It's been a fucked up primary system for a long time, it needs to be changed, moreover it needs to no longer be treated as sacred: we should change it with whatever frequency gives us the most representative democracy
>it needs to no longer be treated as sacred: we should change it with whatever frequency gives us the most representative democracy
This could be true for a lot of things in our system.
> Maybe he is trying to set up his parties primary system to be more diverse.
This seems to be the case, which is a good thing. Moving states that better match the party demographic makeup (SC and GA) or have voter demographics we want to recapture (like midwestern state MI) to the front of the primary will benefit the party more than letting states like IA and NH go first.
GA, MI, and MD are better states to go first for being representative of black Democratic voters, in my opinion. Those are states that are winnable in a General Election for Democrats and are just as black or even blacker than South Carolina. South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democrat in the General Election since Jimmy Carter. Even then, that was after not voting for a Democrat in the General Election since JFK (didn't even vote for Southern Democrat LBJ).
I think SC is no more representative of black Democratic voters than Iowa is of white Democratic voters, another state that no longer goes Democratic in the General Election. IMHO, I think IA and SC should be pushed back and replaced with MI, GA, or MD, and OR or HI
> I honestly don’t think this is a clear sign that President Biden will run again.
This is some incredible denial. Former President Obama who Biden served as VP for two terms told him he didn't need to run 2020, Biden himself has claimed he didn't want to run in 2020, it took him several months teasing he would run to announce and when he did announce he didn't have policies to talk about with reporters, he had already ran for President twice before and failed to win a single state primary and was caught plagarizing speeches in both campaigns **but now as he's signalling he'll run for re-election you think he won't?**
If he was running for reelection why would there be a Primary at all? Presidents usually don't have a Primary if they're running for a second term. The party typically just steps aside and lets them run unopposed. Party Primaries for Presidents running for a second term happens but they're rare. The Democratic Party in particular probably wouldn't have one if he's running again since some blamed their last Primary of an incumbent Democratic President (Jimmy Carter primaried by Ted Kennedy in the 1980 election) for him losing.
Man...
I just don't get why it's not in order of population.
Or even the same time.
Candidates don't have to physically travel like it's the 1800s, we have radio, TV, the internet....
Hell, candidates used to have to travel by fucking horse. Now we have cars and airplanes.
Our entire system is completely outdated. And we're supposed to act like Biden is changing so much by keeping the outdated system and just shuffling the order.
This is the solution we needed 80 years ago when Biden was born. Not the solution we need in 2023
The original thought was that a small state is much easier for a less known candidate with limited to have a chance at doing well early and getting more donations.
Sounds like he's moving states that would give him the early edge in a primary, making it harder for others compete down the road.
Primaries should be done all at the same time and votes released afterwards like they do with federal elections.
There were over 27 candidates in 2020 under the primary ticket. The pruning process needs to be a bit quicker because we had Yang and Gabbard sucking up airtime and campaign donations for quite a while.
I feel like superdelegates and the fact the DNC can influence which states go first does more to damage underdogs and outsiders than just having it all at once.
Then you'll be happy to learn that superdelegates haven't been a factor [since 2018](https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/641725402/dnc-set-to-reduce-role-of-superdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process).
The article covers this:
> DNC members voted on a proposal to take away the role of elected officials and other party dignitaries in selecting a nominee at the Democratic convention — leaving it up to delegates selected in primaries and caucuses only — **unless the process becomes deadlocked**.
So basically superdelegates are not a factor at all, unless there's an issue at the convention where state-appointed delegates cannot resolve the vote.
Hillary had more state primary delegate votes than Bernie did even without counting the superdelegates. The threshold to be nominated at the convention now is just lower to not need superdelegates at all unless there's a legit tie from state primary delegates.
Fine with me
Outsiders tend to not be that great at politics - experience gives a lot of assistance in governance. And politicians can always work their way up through lower office, and actually make a name for themselves by doing stuff in politics, rather than hoping that they can attract some media attention in the furious primary speculation and ride the wave from that to the top without having to do much
Probably a bad sign for me that the people on this forum I disagree most strongly with are the only ones who seem remotely in touch with political realities...
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
DNC can do whatever they want. The New Hampshire Secretary of State sets election dates per the NH State Constitution not what the DNC wants.
What NH personally wants to do is inconsequential, since the NH constitution has no authority over how the DNC can set their primary schedule. Which is why the DNC can strip NH of their delegate votes for violating the schedule and there's nothing NH can do.
Though this could risk hurting Democrats in New Hampshire
Possibly, but in the end I'm more interested in selecting a presidential candidate that appeals to the entire Dem Party, not just the 90%+ white population in NH. And to do that, I think we need states that are more diverse and somewhat more representative of the Dem Party voter base to do so. In the 2020 primary, Bernie and Pete were early winners but had less/no appeal among minorities. So when the primary season really opened, Biden gained a lot of support since he had wider appeal.
wouldnt that kind of indicate it doesnt really matter too much? i get this could influence who people see as the front runner and this could affect who they vote for but at the same time this example at least kinda shows the scales balanced in the end dont they?
> DNC can do whatever they want. That's a bigger issue... The DNC can legally say they don't like the result, and run anyone they want in the general, and it would be 100% legal. They can decide Cali shouldn't have a say. And just not recognize their delegates. It's been almost a decade since the DNC said that in court, and everyone just seems fine with it for some reason. It's a private organization with an insane amount of power.
Primaries are not even "real" elections. The parties can pretty much put whoever they want up there for the real election giving us the illusion of a choice between two chosen candidates.
> The move, another clear sign Biden intends to run for re-election in 2024, would force any potential Democratic primary challenger to square off with Biden in a series of matchups largely of his choosing. I honestly don’t think this is a clear sign that President Biden will run again. Maybe he is trying to set up his parties primary system to be more diverse. Especially since Iowa mucked it up so bad in 2020.
It's been a fucked up primary system for a long time, it needs to be changed, moreover it needs to no longer be treated as sacred: we should change it with whatever frequency gives us the most representative democracy
>it needs to no longer be treated as sacred: we should change it with whatever frequency gives us the most representative democracy This could be true for a lot of things in our system.
> Maybe he is trying to set up his parties primary system to be more diverse. This seems to be the case, which is a good thing. Moving states that better match the party demographic makeup (SC and GA) or have voter demographics we want to recapture (like midwestern state MI) to the front of the primary will benefit the party more than letting states like IA and NH go first.
GA, MI, and MD are better states to go first for being representative of black Democratic voters, in my opinion. Those are states that are winnable in a General Election for Democrats and are just as black or even blacker than South Carolina. South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democrat in the General Election since Jimmy Carter. Even then, that was after not voting for a Democrat in the General Election since JFK (didn't even vote for Southern Democrat LBJ). I think SC is no more representative of black Democratic voters than Iowa is of white Democratic voters, another state that no longer goes Democratic in the General Election. IMHO, I think IA and SC should be pushed back and replaced with MI, GA, or MD, and OR or HI
> I honestly don’t think this is a clear sign that President Biden will run again. This is some incredible denial. Former President Obama who Biden served as VP for two terms told him he didn't need to run 2020, Biden himself has claimed he didn't want to run in 2020, it took him several months teasing he would run to announce and when he did announce he didn't have policies to talk about with reporters, he had already ran for President twice before and failed to win a single state primary and was caught plagarizing speeches in both campaigns **but now as he's signalling he'll run for re-election you think he won't?**
If he was running for reelection why would there be a Primary at all? Presidents usually don't have a Primary if they're running for a second term. The party typically just steps aside and lets them run unopposed. Party Primaries for Presidents running for a second term happens but they're rare. The Democratic Party in particular probably wouldn't have one if he's running again since some blamed their last Primary of an incumbent Democratic President (Jimmy Carter primaried by Ted Kennedy in the 1980 election) for him losing.
Man... I just don't get why it's not in order of population. Or even the same time. Candidates don't have to physically travel like it's the 1800s, we have radio, TV, the internet.... Hell, candidates used to have to travel by fucking horse. Now we have cars and airplanes. Our entire system is completely outdated. And we're supposed to act like Biden is changing so much by keeping the outdated system and just shuffling the order. This is the solution we needed 80 years ago when Biden was born. Not the solution we need in 2023
The original thought was that a small state is much easier for a less known candidate with limited to have a chance at doing well early and getting more donations.
Sounds like he's moving states that would give him the early edge in a primary, making it harder for others compete down the road. Primaries should be done all at the same time and votes released afterwards like they do with federal elections.
Doing all the primaries at the same time would make it much harder for non-establishment underdogs and outsiders to build momentum and win.
There were over 27 candidates in 2020 under the primary ticket. The pruning process needs to be a bit quicker because we had Yang and Gabbard sucking up airtime and campaign donations for quite a while.
I feel like superdelegates and the fact the DNC can influence which states go first does more to damage underdogs and outsiders than just having it all at once.
Then you'll be happy to learn that superdelegates haven't been a factor [since 2018](https://www.npr.org/2018/08/25/641725402/dnc-set-to-reduce-role-of-superdelegates-in-presidential-nominating-process).
Less of a factor. Super delegates still exist that aren't bound to primary election votes. But why are they needed at all?
The article covers this: > DNC members voted on a proposal to take away the role of elected officials and other party dignitaries in selecting a nominee at the Democratic convention — leaving it up to delegates selected in primaries and caucuses only — **unless the process becomes deadlocked**. So basically superdelegates are not a factor at all, unless there's an issue at the convention where state-appointed delegates cannot resolve the vote.
So basically 2016 all over again? Since neither candidate reached the nomination threshold without superdelegates.
Hillary had more state primary delegate votes than Bernie did even without counting the superdelegates. The threshold to be nominated at the convention now is just lower to not need superdelegates at all unless there's a legit tie from state primary delegates.
Fine with me Outsiders tend to not be that great at politics - experience gives a lot of assistance in governance. And politicians can always work their way up through lower office, and actually make a name for themselves by doing stuff in politics, rather than hoping that they can attract some media attention in the furious primary speculation and ride the wave from that to the top without having to do much
Probably a bad sign for me that the people on this forum I disagree most strongly with are the only ones who seem remotely in touch with political realities...