comment: >
  
  Just have another state pass a similar law so that the entire universe collapses from the ensuing paradox. Sure beats the current state of affairs. Do it before we have to file our taxes, please.
context: Doesn’t Iowa have “being first” in their state constitution? I wonder how in the hell this would work >
  
  It seems to be an issue that states and the DNC are still trying to figure out themselves. Here's what some Iowa legislators had to say about the DNC decision:
  Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart said her state “has been put in a position that makes it impossible to comply with both DNC rules and our own state law, which has exactly zero chance of being changed by the Republican legislature.” 
  Scott Brennan, a DNC member from Iowa, said the calendar “is a mess.” He added, “Passing the calendar today accomplished nothing other than kicking a deeply flawed can down the road.”
  In New Hampshire, where state law mandates they hold the first primary, Democrats say they cannot change the date of the primary. DNC officials have already passed rules that dictate states violating the calendar order will be punished, as will candidates who campaign in states that hold primaries outside their assigned days. >
  
  Just have another state pass a similar law so that the entire universe collapses from the ensuing paradox. Sure beats the current state of affairs. Do it before we have to file our taxes, please. >
  
  *The rules of shotgun are very simple and very clear. * >
  
  A Yougov poll showed overwhelming support among Democrats for this new schedule. >
  
  The first Tuesday of March should be the first primary. Then the first Tuesday of April, then May, and finally June. Each month 13 states and territories will vote. The 13 would be a mix of size and demographics so that one section of the countries doesn't always vote first. >
  
  Don't even spread it out that much. There's no reason they can't do a handful of early states (that ideally rotate each election cycle), followed by 2 or 3 weeks of super Tuesdays. Hell, have everyone but the early states vote on the same day.
  The current system is such bullshit. I live in a state that reliably goes Blue, yet I have virtually no say in the primary process since the nominee is always chosen by the time my state votes (they even tried to cancel the primary in 2020 due to COVID concerns and the race already having been decided). Meanwhile, North Carolina, a state that's only gone Blue once since 1980, gets pushed to the fore.
  I'm fine with a few early primaries, it allows candidates with a smaller war chest to get a larger audience, but the rest of the system is such shit. >
  
  I would also suggest that it greats randomized each year. So some years California and Delaware vote first at the same time. Other year New York and Kentucky. Some years Florida and Hawaii, etc. 
  I'm from NJ, the state that votes last. I would voted for Sanders in both 2016 and 2020 but both times he had already dropped out by the time I cast my vote. Randomizing it will give NJ, or NY, more of a say some years and less other years. 
  Another solution would be to have 2 nation wide Primaries using rank choice voting. The entire country rank their top 5 candidates out of all potential nominees in March. The top 5 candidates move on to the second primary in which the entire nation again ranks the remaining five candidate. The second primary would happen 3 months after the first, plenty of time for each to campaign. Whoever wins the rank choice vote wins the nomination. This solution works because now every state votes at the same time and on the same time every year. >
  
  Ah yes, picking one of the most conservative states in the nation to help determine the candidate line up for the primaries. Seems like a great way to “filter out” progressives early on. r/Neoliberal is salivating at this development.
  *apparently a controversial opinion 😂 >
  
  SC isn't any more conservative than Iowa is. 
  Progressives seem to filter themselves out just fine I'm not sure why you think the order matters. >
  
  lmao yeah I remember when Bernie supporters tried to claim Pete was a CIA agent who rigged Iowa. It's even funnier when you remember that the DNC wanted to get rid of the Iowa caucuses but it was Bernie who forced them to keep it.
  But Iowa was just one of 44 states Bernie lost so I don't see the issue. Unless Reddit and Twitter become states he's going to lose regardless of the order. >
  
  
  Biden, who has yet to officially announce his reelection plans but has said he intends to run for a second term, was greeted by cheers of “four more years” as he took the stage.
  
  At Biden's age this is really assuming quite a bit. lol >
  
  Why are they being so aggressive in combating New Hampshire's state law for being the first primary when no other state cares and literally nobody in the country has ever complained about it? I don't understand. >
  
  Doesn’t Iowa have “being first” in their state constitution? I wonder how in the hell this would work >
  
  It seems to be an issue that states and the DNC are still trying to figure out themselves. Here's what some Iowa legislators had to say about the DNC decision:
  Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart said her state “has been put in a position that makes it impossible to comply with both DNC rules and our own state law, which has exactly zero chance of being changed by the Republican legislature.” 
  Scott Brennan, a DNC member from Iowa, said the calendar “is a mess.” He added, “Passing the calendar today accomplished nothing other than kicking a deeply flawed can down the road.”
  In New Hampshire, where state law mandates they hold the first primary, Democrats say they cannot change the date of the primary. DNC officials have already passed rules that dictate states violating the calendar order will be punished, as will candidates who campaign in states that hold primaries outside their assigned days.