Why do liberals have this fetish for “diversity”? And why does it almost always mean racial diversity only, instead of economic, geographic, educational, or some other kind of diversity?
I’m very happy that the GOP is not participating in this lunacy.
I can’t speak for all liberals, but this one thinks it’s important for the nominee to represent the entire country, and giving disproportionate say in the nomination process to two of the whitest and most rural states in the country doesn’t accomplish that.
It pretty much always means those things to some degree, although race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion are usually the big ones where people feels its important to have balanced representation. The idea that it’s “always” racial diversity isn’t supportable.
In this particular case there’s a practical reason to want to have the state that goes first, with all the outsized power that goes with that, to demographically resemble the Democratic electorate as whole.
It’s not diversity for the sake of diversity. It’s diversity to get an accurate read on the party’s voters preferences.
You are correct on the fist, but according to this, Biden got 14. Pete 12, Sanders 9.
Unless I am reading it wrong?
Yeah, in 2020 they just decided to not even bother with a Primary, so that trumpski would have no challengers. That is sooo much better, right? 
In February 2019, the Republican National Committee voted to provide undivided support to Trump.[5][6] Several states canceled their primaries and caucuses.[7] Other states were encouraged to use “winner-takes-all” or “winner-takes-most” systems to award delegates instead of using proportional allocation.[8][9]
Perhaps it has something to do with how much the White Males who have run things for 200+ years have fucked up not only this country but have spread their shit out amongst the rest of the world.
Why do republicans have a fetish for whiteness? Ever see a pic of Trump’s cabinet? Yeah, that’s America.
Well, that is admittedly confusing. If you peruse footnote [e], it appears that, although Bernie and Pete won the most delegates on caucus night, those delegates aren’t officially awarded until the results are certified by the Iowa Democratic Convention in June, by which time Biden had already clinched the nomination and nobody was paying attention. The Convention, for some reason, decided to transfer some delegates from other candidates to Biden in a manner which Wikipedia notes “did not appear to follow any logical rule pattern”. So in the end, Biden wound up with the most delegates, despite finishing fourth.
Shouldn’t the GOP be even more annoyed about Iowa, though? The Republican caucus is dominated by dour religious scolds who vote for unelectable bores like Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum.
Are you under the impression that South Carolina is richer than Iowa? Not to mention we already have another Midwestern early primary in Michigan. Seems like SC-NV-NH-MI is pretty geographically diverse for the first four.
I am with you there. Kinda weird.
I’m all for removing Iowa and New Hampshire from their first positions. South Carolina does seem like a good choice to go first. I’d go further with embracing diversity, though, and make four states with different demographics all go first. In addition to South Caroline, I think Arizona, Michigan, and Massachusetts would be good states to kick things off. There would be diversity in having Blacks, Latinos, Muslims, Catholics, working class voters, as well as the upper middle class and wealthy white people from urban and suburban areas, and a chance to reward two states that are trending blue and have done a lot of the heavy lifting for Democrats in national elections.
Because we believe bigotry is wrong.
You can’t have fair representation if a single demographic dominates. You can’t create a coalition if only the cares of a certain demographic matter.
And we don’t just mean racial diversity. It includes sexual diversity, gender diversity, religious diversity, etc.
And there is some level of ideological diversity. But you can’t go all in on that, because it is actually possible to have wrong/evil ideas. It’s not possible to be the wrong sex/race/etc.
I think it’s good to have the first few States be small, so that it isn’t prohibitively expensive to get a campaign off the ground. Really, I think Iowa is the problem here. Two of the four States that already vote first, SC and NV, give you minority representation and represent the South and West. Take away Iowa and replace it with Wisconsin, a Midwestern State that has a diverse economy, a significant Black population and is a swing State. Then you keep New Hampshire in the Northeast; it’s very white, but it’s also a swing State. And IIRC it’s the least religious State, and secularists are certainly an important part of the base.
Yeah, ideological diversity is a bad thing. Everyone SHOULD subscribe to liberal ideals.
First of all Iowa doesn’t have an election- they have a very undemocratic caucus.
Nor does the winner of that caucus usually win the election-
Ultimately, winning the Iowa caucuses still means winning just one early battle, and may not directly translate to winning the general election. Only three of the seven U.S. presidents since 1976 won their Iowa caucuses: Democrats Jimmy Carter in 1976, Barack Obama in 2008, and Republican George W. Bush in 2000.
Yes, Dems should be more like Pubs . . . just look at all the ideological diversity they have.
Right, because Senators Blackburn and Murkowski have the same political ideology.
I agree with this. And i think New Hampshire has done a good job, unlike Iowa. New Hampshire is small enough that a candidate doesn’t need an enormous war chest to run there. You don’t hear about the subsidies New Hampshire industries have been promised. The New Hampshire electorate takes their job very seriously, and they really study the candidates, try to meet them, and are generally extremely educated as voters.
Yes, it’s very white. But it’s also one of the purpler states in the North East, and there’s a lot to be said for giving moderates a leg up.
I don’t have a strong opinion on the relative advantages of Michigan vs. Wisconsin, but either has got to be better than Iowa as the first Midwestern state. Iowa is deep red, and runs a crazy caucus that many working people and people with kids can’t attend, and that even the participants don’t understand. And they botched it badly.
As with ranked choice voting, it appears that Dem voters at least are coming around to some version of the Delaware Plan for presidential primaries.
The logical thing may conflict with tradition, inertia and self interest but it doesn’t stop being logical because of it.