ayup
not surprised it’s the foreign voyeur heinrich who is all googly-eyes for pete b

People are going to step into the voting booth, imagine Pete giving the first lady fellatio, and think "Nope"

Irrelevant metric. That number has NEVER mattered and the only reason it's being reported is because Sanders begged the DNC to release the 3 metrics. But anyway, this is just the media reacting to Iowa. They ALWAYS make a big fucking deal out of this. Personally, if I had it my way, I'd have 4 small states go on the same night (i.e. New Hampshire, Utah, South Carolina, and Iowa). Basically, make it easy to campaign but have it be more representative of the country geographically. You'd get a hell of a lot more insight that way at least.

the popular vote shows bernies strong support. in most other states, there will be a primary where only the number of votes matter, not their distribution. notable exception being nevada iirc.
so bernie's strength in the Iowa popular vote does project strength in the contests to come, and therefore is relevant.

I say random state first each time. Pick it 6 months out
I get iowa gets to be first cuz reasons like tradition and corn subsidy but i’d love to see oklahoma or texas first for (D)s and cali or washington state first for (R)s

That's not true actually. If you look at the green papers, every state has delegates awarded at the state level (raw percentage) but MOST delegates are awarded by congressional district. Granted, there's some pretty heavy correlation between the two, but you can't just turn out youth in cities to win. You need broad support.

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/

Also, I know Iowa isn't necessarily a good indicator, but the fact that turnout was closer to 2016 than 2008 is a terrible sign for Bernie. I wouldn't put much thought into it (n=1), but we should keep that in the back of our mind for other states. If it becomes a trend, I think Sanders will have a much tougher time getting the nomination.

if anything, states like michigan and florida should go first, since they are relevant in the general election, and they are diverse and somewhat representative of the country as a whole.

the purpose of primaries is to find the candidate best suited to win the general election. hence, the Democrats dont really care about which one of them would be doing best in oklahoma, and the republicans dont really care about who'd be strongest in california.
that's why battleground states should start the primaries.

The two parties are coalitions of many types of voters. For Republicans, you probably want an evangelical state, a libertarian-esque state, and a few big money business states (maybe New Jersey or something). Texas and CA are probably too big regardless for a long shot candidate but Washington/Oklahoma aren't bad ideas.

so, since the folks on CNN kept talking up Buttigieg's strong numbers in Iowa's Obama-Trump counties, I thought this might be relevant:




I dont think that a lot of those voters will be coming back to the D's in 2020. At this point, it seems as if the realignment we saw in 2016 will be permanent and not just a one-off.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 4 2020 07:56pm

It's certainly possible. Iowa used to be a swing state (same with Ohio) but they both look pretty red to me. Pennsylvania was deep purple but it's probably a toss up at this point.