The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

[Swansong]

Can someone explain to me why, in 2022, we still have caucuses at all? They seem so antiquated.

[Kepler]

Can someone explain to me why, in 2022, we still have caucuses at all? They seem so antiquated.

They are supposed to be more direct democracy than primaries because representatives for the candidates give a pitch before the voting. In practice, though, they are awful. They aren't a New England town meeting, they're the parties forcing the results they want.

[Handyman]

They are supposed to be more direct democracy than primaries because representatives for the candidates give a pitch before the voting. In practice, though, they are awful. They aren't a New England town meeting, they're the parties forcing the results they want.

Yep. I have been to a couple of ours and they are a joke. (my dad uses harsher words)

I dont mind one of Iowa and NH being in the first two but not both.

[Swansong]

Yeah, that's the thing. It would be lovely if we were a small country and people had time and wherewithal to spend several hours meeting and discussing with the actual candidates, but 1820 was a long time ago and we don't have that anymore.

[Kepler]

If we wanted a truly representative primary to start the Democratic process it would be CA. But we can't have that for the same reason we can't abolish the EC. We have an entitled minority that has always been celebrated as somehow more legitimate than the rest of us, even though that is at best complete bullsh-t and more likely not even hidden racism.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

If we wanted a truly representative primary to start the Democratic process it would be CA. But we can't have that for the same reason we can't abolish the EC. We have an entitled minority that has always been celebrated as somehow more legitimate than the rest of us, even though that is at best complete bullsh-t and more likely not even hidden racism.

The classic reason I have always heard about avoiding California to start is it would be extremely expensive to mount a campaign (between travel and advertising). That would limit the number of candidates that could truly mount a campaign and the "lesser-known" (and lesser funded) candidates that might be a great fit would not even have a chance.

Does that argument still hold true today? I'm not sure.

Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?

[Kepler]

The classic reason I have always heard about avoiding California to start is it would be extremely expensive to mount a campaign (between travel and advertising). That would limit the number of candidates that could truly mount a campaign and the "lesser-known" (and lesser funded) candidates that might be a great fit would not even have a chance.

Does that argument still hold true today? I'm not sure.

Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?

Thing is I don't even think you do a traditional primary campaign anymore, as hearing about a candidate from your friend's social media is FAR more retail than a nonsense photo op rushed around by staffers and advance men.

I'd like to see purple states with 1+ big city and significant burbs and some rural sections, so I am thinking: PA, AZ, GA to give a good regional mix. The northeast is too urban. The prairie is too rural. CO could be a possibility but it's REALLY white and it's a state like VA where the Dems who live there are all college educated and wealthy so you aren't getting a cross-section, you're just getting the social stratum that will vote for you anyway.

You need states that have a large number of working class Dems. Actually that probably nixes AZ, too. So we're back to CA.

[French Rage]

Ultimately, we need to do better at picking a more representative primary. From what I've heard, is there will be 4 early primaries: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How about: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Nevada?

I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.

[Kepler]

I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.

It's not representative at all, though, because the demographic split mirrors the partisan split. MD Dems are VA Dems. They are DC bureaucrats with education. They have no relationship to the rest of their states respectively. They are civilized oases in deserts of Republican rural stupidity.

At least there are black rural Democrats in GA, and brown rural Democrats in CA, NV, and even TX. But MD Dems are carpetbaggers from Yale.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Thing is I don't even think you do a traditional primary campaign anymore, as hearing about a candidate from your friend's social media is FAR more retail than a nonsense photo op rushed around by staffers and advance men.

This is certainly a fair point. However, convincing a bunch of old traditionalists that modern candidates have bucked tradition and no longer run a traditional campaign, may be difficult. Maybe in a couple cycles.

I'd like to see purple states with 1+ big city and significant burbs and some rural sections, so I am thinking: PA, AZ, GA to give a good regional mix. The northeast is too urban. The prairie is too rural. CO could be a possibility but it's REALLY white and it's a state like VA where the Dems who live there are all college educated and wealthy so you aren't getting a cross-section, you're just getting the social stratum that will vote for you anyway.

You need states that have a large number of working class Dems. Actually that probably nixes AZ, too. So we're back to CA.

I agree with purple states, it makes a lot of sense. I'd be fine with swapping Nevada for Arizona. FWIW, I'd also be fine with California. I just don't see them getting the nod right now.

As a Colorado citizen, I agree with your assessment to some extent. Colorado is very white, but about 1/4 of the white population is Hispanic. It's certainly not as diverse as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, or California. However, it's not like it's Iowa or New Hampshire. Ultimately, for the "West" primary, I'd prefer one of the more diverse purple states (Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico).

[Fighting Sioux 23]

I'd pick MD over PA. Smaller, easier to get around, limited to a couple markets, most politicians are already in DC, and it has a mix of rural and cities to be more representative.

I had not really thought about Maryland as an option. Do you know if Maryland applied to be one of the early primaries?

[Fighting Sioux 23]

I looked it up. 16 states (plus Puerto Rico) applied:

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Washington

That's who to choose from (at least for the 2024 cycle).

[Kepler]

As a Colorado citizen, I agree with your assessment to some extent. Colorado is very white, but about 1/4 of the white population is Hispanic. It's certainly not as diverse as Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, or California. However, it's not like it's Iowa or New Hampshire. Ultimately, for the "West" primary, I'd prefer one of the more diverse purple states (Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico).

You certainly know more about CO than I. I have only been in Colorado Springs. I've not even been to Denver. My impression from The Industry's presence in places like Aurora and Colorado Springs is the suburbs, other than Boulder, are megachurch country club Cheney Republican. I did not realize CO had a large Latino population -- are they rural farm workers, and are they Dems? Are they unionized or fighting for it like NV? Maybe CO could be a possibility after all. t's the right size, since the other choice TX is too big.

[Kepler]

My picks from those are GA and NV.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

You certainly know more about CO than I, as I have only been in Colorado Springs. I've not even been to Denver. My impression from The Industry's presence in places like Aurora and Colorado Springs is the suburbs are megachurch country club Cheney Republican, other than Boulder. I did not realize CO had a large Latino population -- are they rural farm workers, and are they Dems? Are they unionized or fighting for it like NV? Maybe CO could be a possibility after all. it's the right size, since the other choice TX is too big.

Colorado Springs up to about Castle Rock is pretty conservative, with a pretty large "megachurch" type presence (along with a very large military presence). As you noted, Cheney Republicans. I believe Douglas County (where Castle Rock is located, along with a portion of Parker) was the "richest county in America" for a period of time. I'm not sure if it still is, or where it ranks nationally, but it is still probably the wealthiest area of Colorado.

Eastern plains Colorado is hyper-conservative...your Trump/Gun-Humpers.

Western Colorado is fairly libertarian; however, there is a mix of gun-humpers (think Boebert).

Denver Metro and Aurora (also part of the Denver metro) are pretty liberal (Aurora has changed considerably over the past decade or so...it used to be pretty conservative). Boulder is hyper-liberal. Fort Collins is a mix.

As for the Latino population, it constitutes about 1/5 of the state's population as a whole, predominately found along the Front Range (Fort Collins down to Pueblo). Latinos are split about 70/30 Dem vs Republican.

Unions in Colorado are almost non-existent...probably somewhere north of 5% but less than 10%.