comment: >
  
  I guess some of us like having a diverse slate of states upfront that represent a broader swath of the population instead of frontloading with two similar-demographics non-diverse places.  
  South Carolina, quickly followed by Nevada / New Hampshire - a lefter candidate, if they're good, should be able to do well.  If they can't, they should be better candidates.
  ymmv.
context: This makes me happy. I've never understood Iowa's outsized importance in determining the outcome  of a race by establishing early momentum. >
  
  Seems odd that an incredibly red state will now have outsized importance instead. South Carolina hasn’t gone blue in nearly 50 years.
  They should’ve picked a democratic stronghold like California where a large representative sample of their voters would have first say. It makes no sense to give priority to small constituencies in red states because it’ll just skew the results to be more right wing. There is no need for us to operate our primaries with a disproportionally weighted metric unless the party leadership/major donors are scared of the voters pushing them to the left. >
  
  You understand this much more than others in this thread. 
  This is a big win for corporate / right leaning dems as it reduces the probability of anyone truly left from gaining momentum early on. The media will be able to throw even more weight behind corporate dems with these early results and squash anyone who is running on a Bernie like platform.
  If you support medicare for all, free early childcare, etc. then you need to understand how significant this change is and how much it hurts the ideas you support! >
  
  Why does moving a white,  rural conservative state out of first place hurt progressives? >
  
  Because they're moving to an even more conservative state. The right thing to do would be to move the first primary to a purple state like Pennsylvania >
  
  I think PA is too large.  And SC Democratic electorate isn’t that conservative.  Progressives need to find a way to connect with black democrats or they won’t be successful regardless of the order >
  
  Ehh the whole primary thing is stupid.  My state is late in the primaries and the canitdate has only not been decided for one party or the other by the time we vote in like 2 or 3 of the last 20 presidential primaries. >
  
  Yea we need to move to a national primary day or short of that a few weeks where every state has to hold their primary. It's absurd that most of the country gets no say since the field is down to nothing after a handful of states vote. >
  
  The problem with that is only the wealthy candidates would probably win as they can spread their advertising dollars. The advantage of having single, smaller states go first is a less well known candidate can break through. It's not a perfect system, but I'm not sure a national primary would be any better. >
  
  Have we ever had the "small unknown candidate" break through to win a party nomination for president? >
  
  Barack Obama won as a first term Senator, just 3 years after he’d served in the Illinois State Senate. >
  
  He was far from a small, unknown candidate at the time. While just a first-term senator, people were already setting him up for a presidential run when he was running for Senate. >
  
  He had far far less name recognition and establishment backing than Hillary did.
  Once Obama won the initial states, then he used that momentum to win - gaining support among voters and support among the establishment.  
  The race was actually very close. There's 0 way Obama wins if the primaries are all the same week or two. >
  
  Nothing against Iowa, but the primary schedule is stupid. Why should results in a handful of states determine “momentum” for the primaries in the next series of very different (population, size, demographics, industry, etc) states? They historically have, but for not good reason IMO >
  
  Sure, but a national primary avails itself to just the candidates with the most money and name recognition, which also isn't good.  There is a benefit to "momentum" in that it gives exposure to lesser-known candidates as a result of successful retail politicking in a state.
  I agree with what the DNC is doing here because Iowa and New Hampshire have dominated the playing field for way too long, but I'm not in favor of a national primary either.  I'm open to hearing other ideas, but I think rotating regional primaries might be the way to go.  Like a series of mini-Super Tuesdays. >
  
  None of the states on the plains represent the US.  We should be having regional primaries only.  The emphasis on individual states is absurd.  We need something like:
  
  Northeast 
  Great Lakes
  Southeast
  Southwest
  Plains and Mountain States
  West Coast
  
  Six Primaries and call it good. >
  
  What is the rationale for regional primaries?  What order would you put them in and why? >
  
  Primaries allow candidate positions to become clearer and more differentiating.  However, emphasizing individual states skews what candidates say.  We already have some group primaries like “Super Tuesday.” I would prefer to see more populous regions first so we don’t have sparsely populated area having an oversized say in who becomes a party’s candidate. >
  
  Dragging the primaries out for a year is stupid. Have a three month primary campaign and one primary day with ranked choice voting. The rest is a waste of money. >
  
  I think one primary day is a bad idea.  It encourages people to try what Bloomberg attempted to do in 2020: get in late, not be involved in a lot of debates, and pay a ton of money on ads the week of the primary.  I think the 3-month primary is a good idea, but make a 3 round primary and set it up so a majority of states are in the last round (not enough to win, but enough to decide) >
  
  Well, I’m pro parliament, so I’m not a fan of the people picking the candidate in the first place.  It empowers idiots like Trump. >
  
  This is awsome.  Give the rest of us a chance to decide the nominee >
  
  Well now South Carolina is setting the tone, despite being a state that hasn’t “gone blue” in 47 years.
  So it’s not like “the rest of us” are getting much say anyway. >
  
  Clyburn getting his payback for putting thumb on the scales for Biden. >
  
  Also known as "an endorsement". >
  
  It probably didn’t help Iowa’s case to stay first that they couldn’t release any results the night of the 2020 caucus and that the popular vote winner didn’t get the most delegates. >
  
  Excellent!
  (They should really be changing the primary calendar on a regular basis.) >
  
  From your response should I read that you do not support things like medicare for all, free early childcare, etc?
  This is a big win for corporate / right leaning dems as it reduces the probability of anyone truly left from gaining momentum early on. The media will be able to throw even more weight behind corporate dems with these early results and squash anyone who is running on a Bernie like platform. >
  
  I don't follow. Why would changing the order of primaries from time to time be a win for corporate dems? >
  
  My comment was tied to the excitement for this change which clearly helps right leaning candidates. Don't expect them to change it from time to time now that they have the order that clearly helps the corporate dems. >
  
  
  clearly helps right leaning candidates.
  
  howso >
  
  This is a big win for corporate / right leaning dems as it reduces the probability of anyone truly left from gaining momentum early on (Iowa is generally friendly to left candidates , SC is very right voting/corporate dem leaninf). 
  The media will be able to throw even more weight behind corporate dems with these early results and squash anyone who is running on a Bernie like platform. 
  Stories like "looks like dems really dont want a candidate running on health care for all" / "the dem party is fully behind candidate x, here's why" will flood the media.