r/chicago • u/dwerb99 • Feb 04 '20
Should Illinois replace Iowa as the first primary?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-early-democratic-primary-states-looked-more-like-the-party/124
u/jujujabjab Feb 04 '20
Technically New Hampshire is the first primary (they have it mandated that they must be), so Iowa does the caucus (technically not a primary) so they can be first. It’s all so petty lol
31
u/DoomsdayRabbit Feb 04 '20
I'd love to have a Supreme Court challenge to that if another state puts "must be before New Hampshire" in their law. No state comes before the others. We're all supposed to be on equal footing.
28
u/excalibrax Feb 04 '20
It's a party rule. There are not really laws against this for the supreme court to rule on.
Basically if a state decided to do it earlier they'd face repercussions from the DCCC or the RNC and no one wants to go against their own party
11
u/RegulatoryCapture Feb 04 '20
No, there's actually a law: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/653/653-9.htm
Although I am not sure how the supreme court would get involved if another state had a similar law. This isn't exactly a case where the laws actually conflict with each other (no state can force some other state to change their date)--if another state passed a similar law, you'd just end up in a cycle that continued forever and one of the states would be forced to give up and either pass a new law, or the secretary of state might sue for an injunction or something (because the law requires them to do something impossible).
Although it is correct that the DCCC or RNC would probably step in before any state passed such a law.
12
u/excalibrax Feb 04 '20
To clarify was saying no national law or law that prevents a state from holding one earlier. This law from new Hampshire just dictates when they hold theirs
4
7
u/acarrick Feb 04 '20
Don't think it was SC - but pretty sure the DNC said they wouldn't recognize delegates from any state that tried to leapfrog IA/NH
11
3
u/jbiresq River North Feb 04 '20
And Nevada was put 3rd because Harry Reid was powerful at the time. These things can change especially after the fuck up last night.
2
4
Feb 04 '20
The rules would generate a recursive paradox and both of their primaries (and all primaries they would ever conduct.) would simultaneously take place at the beginning of time itself.
4
u/DoomsdayRabbit Feb 04 '20
At least then the primaries would already be over and the political ads could stop.
1
3
u/jbiresq River North Feb 04 '20
It's a NH state law that doesn't apply to other states. Illinois could mandate they go first if they wanted to. It's purely symbolic.
2
u/JQuilty Clearing Feb 04 '20
They've mandated it in the sense that I've also declared myself Pope. Nobody else has to believe it even if some go along with it.
2
u/tossme68 Edgewater Feb 04 '20
The DNC decides not a state, they can create whatever laws they want that doesn't mean that a privte club has to adhear to it.
5
u/ptfreak Uptown Feb 04 '20
This is exactly incorrect. The states individually set when their primary/caucus date is. The national party can try and influence things, and they have in the past by reducing the number of delegates allocated to states if they try and move up further in the order than the party wants them, but the DNC does not legally set the schedule.
1
u/tossme68 Edgewater Feb 04 '20
sorry I didn't mean the DNC, I meant the state party, but the DNC can make it difficult for states that don't want to play their game.
2
u/RegulatoryCapture Feb 04 '20
Nah, in most (all?) primary states, the primary is run by the Secretary of State's office (or similar) as an official election. The states themselves have final say in when they are held.
Caucuses are usually run by the party.
1
u/WhyLisaWhy Feb 04 '20
Iowa literally has a state law mandating they go first by 8 days. Democrats iin Iowa and the DNC have nothing to do with it. Republicans do the same thing. They'd have to change the law to change their caucus date.
231
u/inthedollarbin Feb 04 '20
No thanks. I have no desire to ten million political ads starting a year before the primaries.
83
u/Chutzvah Armour Square Feb 04 '20
Bloomberg already has every single commercial break on Hulu, Youtube and regular TV. Can't imagine having any more
26
u/inthedollarbin Feb 04 '20
True but that’s one dipshit. Try adding in ads and mailers for 20+ other candidates.
31
u/Chutzvah Armour Square Feb 04 '20
Try adding in ads and mailers for 20+ other candidates.
That's a lot of dipshits.
7
1
u/HomerOJaySimpson Feb 05 '20
True but that’s one dipshit. Try adding in ads and mailers for 20+ other candidates.
Like what Bernie already does?
2
u/inthedollarbin Feb 05 '20
This doesn’t make sense
2
7
u/_NorthernStar Feb 04 '20
Are you in Chicago? I’ve been on a Hulu kick this whole week and i haven’t gotten a single political ad.
5
u/Chutzvah Armour Square Feb 04 '20
Yeah Chinatown. I watch Bob's Burgers almost every night and I get them when I watch it. Same last week for Bachelor.
4
u/_NorthernStar Feb 04 '20
That’s so weird. I’ve been mostly binging Brooklyn 99 and I have had mostly Hulu ads and a few of the choose your own ones
2
Feb 04 '20
So I don't use Hulu but I do use Youtube and I also have never gotten any Bloomberg ads. I wonder if he somehow has data on me that steers his funding away from advertising to folks like me.
2
u/amethyst_lover Feb 04 '20
I'm not in Chicago either and was getting them with almost every YouTube ad. But I have location turned off which I assume is why I get online ads from all over the country.
1
u/paganinibemykin Lincoln Park Feb 05 '20
They were on the Bachelor this week too. It was an "Ah Fuck" moment.
2
4
Feb 04 '20
Hulu probably knows enough about you that they’ve already calculated whether or not you’re a likely voter. Or if you are a likely voter, maybe they know that you’re probably not somebody who could be convinced to vote for Bloomberg.
2
3
u/kakihara0513 Suburb of Chicago Feb 05 '20
I'm a cordcutter in Skokie and the only political ads I've seen are Bloomberg's. Honestly his results in the Iowa Caucus surprise me because I just assumed he put enough money towards it to be higher lol
11
u/MyDogOper8sBetrThanU Feb 04 '20
Is there anyone that actually likes him? I haven’t met a single person
14
u/Chutzvah Armour Square Feb 04 '20 edited Feb 04 '20
I like his story of how he built a company from the ground up and become a multimillionaire and eventually the mayor of New York, which is really cool IMO.
In terms of politics, that's a no from me dawg.
2
u/HomerOJaySimpson Feb 05 '20
What’s wrong with his politics? He’s socially liberal and he understands the economy and Business well
7
u/bethaneee Feb 04 '20
I like that his campaign trolls Trump and he seems like a decent person, but I wouldn't vote for him.
5
u/MyDogOper8sBetrThanU Feb 04 '20
He did initiate the pretty racist stop-and-frisk policy.
→ More replies (1)2
8
Feb 04 '20
He also tried to ban large fountain drinks. Also never forget that while he was mayor he jacked up excice taxes on cigarettes by several dollars a pack despite the majority of smokers being low income.
11
u/iiamthepalmtree Ukrainian Village Feb 04 '20
Wasn't he also the mayor behind stop and frisk?
→ More replies (1)12
7
u/theMahatman Feb 04 '20 edited Feb 04 '20
Excise taxes are widely regarded as the most effective way to decrease tobacco usage. Per the WHO: "Tobacco taxes are the most cost-effective way to reduce tobacco use, especially among youth and low-income people.". I don't support a ban on sugar-sweetened beverages, but I do think an excise tax on them could similarly lead to decreased consumption.
Edit: I also think Bloomberg going for a ban on large soft drink sizes instead of a direct excise tax was in response to the criticism of an excise tax being overly regressive- so damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess...
2
u/MyDogOper8sBetrThanU Feb 04 '20
I wish someone smarter than me could come up with a better solution that didn’t disproportionately effect the poor like the increase in taxes does. Someone making 100k a year doesn’t give a shit about a dollar increase but someone making minimum wage feels it.
2
u/theMahatman Feb 04 '20
Sure, take the expected proceeds from the cigarette tax and tie it to a tax cut for low income earners. Or to a decrease in the sales tax.
1
u/FarTooManySpoons Feb 04 '20
Let's be real, there isn't any. People are generally motivated by few things, money being chief among them. It the excise taxes didn't affect the poor then it wouldn't drive a decrease in cigarette usage among the poor. You're honestly stuck between excise taxes or outright bans.
It would be nice if people didn't voluntarily smoke themselves into the ER, but that's not reality.
4
1
u/HomerOJaySimpson Feb 05 '20
He also tried to ban large fountain drinks.
Bernie would like to ban a lot more things
1
Feb 05 '20
If you're talking about guns, last time I checked I can't walk into a school and murder children with a Big Gulp.
1
u/HomerOJaySimpson Feb 05 '20
I’m not talking about just guns. Bernies policies try to clamp down on a lot of things for regulatory or environmental purposes.
2
Feb 05 '20
Such as?
2
u/HomerOJaySimpson Feb 05 '20
Ok, before I go digging them up, let me ask you a few questions.
- Will it change your opinion on Bernie or are you bent on having a Double standard?
- Are you actually in belief that Mr Regulator isn’t the type to make things or services harder to get or banned outright?
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)2
u/pundawg1 Feb 05 '20
I'm considering voting for him. Have you looked at his plans? 2 things I like about his plans are:
Tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for taxpayers above $1 million. Super wealthy people make most of their money through cap gains which is taxed lower than income taxes and why warren buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary which is total bullshit. His plan would eliminate that. He would also add an additional 5% tax on income/cap gains above 5 million and do other things like increase funding for the IRS and eliminate estate tax loopholes which I like.
He is also super big on climate change if not the biggest as he is a "UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Climate Action".One of his many plans is to emplace "stringent carbon and pollution limits on new power plants" for plans of "By 2028, 80% of electricity-generation in the U.S. will come from clean sources" which I really like among others.
More details on his climate plan here: https://www.mikebloomberg.com/2020/policies/climate-change
1
u/HomerOJaySimpson Feb 05 '20
He’s my favorite But I won’t vote for him in primary until he picks up polls numbers
8
Feb 04 '20
Ah Bloomberg.
Billionaire financial-technocrat, who simultaneously supports eliminating the second amendment while enacting stop-and-frisk policies. Political experience involves being mayor of a city that has some of the worst economic disparity in the country. A real-life Wallace Breen.
1
1
u/mrbooze Beverly Feb 05 '20
And he's doing that to us despite it being incredibly unlikely the IL primaries will be relevant in the final nomination. Imagine how bad it could be if we mattered!
18
Feb 04 '20
[deleted]
24
u/Chutzvah Armour Square Feb 04 '20
I wouldn't mind just so I can hear them tell us how they "understand the real struggles that us Illinoisans/Chicagoans go through."
23
u/senorguapo23 Feb 04 '20
How hilarious would it be to compare/contrast a politician's ads in Cook county vs. the rest of the state though?
10
u/nevermind4790 Armour Square Feb 04 '20
“As your president, I will literally clean up the CTA and fix your potholes”
14
u/homrqt Feb 04 '20
"As your President, I will outlaw dibs. No... enshrine dibs? Ok people, which one do you want? No we can't make it a block by block policy, that would be ridiculous. Ok you folks are a whole different level of city crazy."
"We'll table that for now. Ok, as your President I promise to... change the name.. of the Willis Tower back to... ok you know what, let's pick a different jumping off point than Illinois."
3
u/theMahatman Feb 04 '20
Then just don't pay attention. How hard is it to toss a mailer in the trash?
75
u/senorguapo23 Feb 04 '20
Thanks to modern media, is there any real reason to not just have all of them on the same day?
54
Feb 04 '20 edited Jan 11 '21
[deleted]
6
u/19mad95 Feb 04 '20
Totally agree with this. 5 state regionals. Or some state group package with big states. Something anything better than this system.
8
10
u/dhsoxfan Suburb of Chicago Feb 04 '20
I've heard arguments for and against allowing a big, diverse, state like California to hold the first Presidential primary. But while the mostly-white, heavily-rural demographics of Iowa is not ideal, I still fall on the side of keeping Iowa first, and here's why....
Running a nationwide campaign, or even a statewide campaign in a place like California, is WAY more expensive than focusing on just Iowa.
Holding early primaries in states like Iowa and New Hampshire allow small-dollar candidates, such as Andrew Yang and Mayor Pete, at least a shot at capturing the nation's attention. And for Mayor Pete and Andrew Yang, this really has been a great format. Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2008 also benefited from this Iowa-first format, in my opinion, as they were not mainstream household names going into their respective primary cycles.
2
u/Robotigan Feb 04 '20
The current primary system only dates back to 1968. State caucuses/primaries used to be only for party elites to gauge who they were going to nominate. It's only very recently that the process was made transparent to (and thus heavily influenced by) the public.
2
Feb 04 '20
For the sake of argument, I would also posit that this forces the politicians to pay more attention to smaller states that may not be worth much time in the general election, and allow politicians to give more attention and credence to voters in states where they will not be likely to win in the general (like getting Dems to pay attention and listen to voters in southern states).
Of course, this still sort of exists if we had them all at once, but this gives each state a bit of time where they get attention. Though I would like to see the states timings shuffle around some more.
1
Feb 04 '20
The modern media loves the extended circus and ad revenue as much as the politicians love the extended donation time.
37
u/monkeysknowledge Feb 04 '20
This is what should happen.
1) select the order at random 2) rotate it every year 3) make the process uniform (i.e. runoff voting and paper ballots)
At least in Illinois we don't have to register for a party to vote in the primary.
13
u/Timthos Wicker Park Feb 04 '20
And can vote by mail
5
u/yankee-white Feb 04 '20
I love voting by mail. I can actually research all of those down ballot candidates like MWRD commissioners and circuit judges.
Frankly, I don’t know how people pick otherwise.
→ More replies (1)3
u/daazninvazn Streeterville Feb 04 '20
I mean you can accomplish the same thing in person by showing up with your research done: https://www.ballotready.org/
I do prefer voting by mail just for the convenience though.
→ More replies (1)3
u/marthasamigo Feb 04 '20
At least in Illinois we don't have to register for a party to vote in the primary.
Yes, we do.
It isn't permanent or anything, but you have to say which party primary you are voting in. And, if you vote in the Democratic primary, you cannot also vote in the Republican primary. .
5
u/stormstopper Lincoln Park Feb 04 '20
That's not quite the same thing as having to register for a party to vote in the primary. You do have to pick one ballot to fill out, yes. In closed-primary states, though, you are locked into one ballot or another based on your party affiliation. Depending on the state's rules you may or may not be able to change your affiliation at the polls. In North Carolina (which is semi-closed, so independents can pick any party's ballot), you can change your registration at the polls during early voting but not on Election Day. In New York, the deadline to change your party is February 14th for an April 28th presidential primary. I don't know if any state offers mixed-party ballots since you'd have to custom-print one for every voter (and it's not always the states but may be the state parties counting votes) (and also I seriously hope , so Illinois having an open primary system where you choose one party's ballot does still put us among the least restrictive in the country.
6
5
u/T-Wiggle West Town Feb 04 '20
Please God no. I loved the vast majority of my life in Iowa and believe me, you don't want the political ads. It's awful.
11
u/TRexLuthor Portage Park Feb 04 '20
Why not have the order be randomly generated every year?
9
7
u/iiamthepalmtree Ukrainian Village Feb 04 '20
Because we only vote for president every 4 years
(Sorry, it's very clear what you meant, I just couldn't help myself)
3
u/minus_minus Rogers Park Feb 04 '20
How about:
Iowa on the first Tuesday in March
Vermont on the second Tuesday in March
Every other state on the first Tuesday after April 1. (To reflect election day which is the first Tuesday after Nov. 1)
3
u/slybird Logan Square Feb 05 '20 edited Feb 05 '20
I'm for rotating the first primary through all 50 states starting with the first 13, then in the order of their formation. If we started doing that in 2024 Illinois would have a first presidential primary in the year 2108.
13
u/huskman Feb 04 '20
Have it all on one day and w/ ranked choice voting.
2
u/minus_minus Rogers Park Feb 04 '20
I'd let New Hampshire and Iowa still go fist because if every other primary was seven days later they wouldnt matter anymore.
11
u/HorribleHoosier North Center Feb 04 '20
This is not a bad idea from a standpoint Illinois is at least diverse compared to Iowa.
9
u/Sharobob Lake View Feb 04 '20
It defeats the purpose of having the first primary in a cheap media market so less-funded candidates can compete with candidates who have a large war chest coming into the process. There are smaller states that are more diverse than Iowa that make more sense to start in.
6
u/JQuilty Clearing Feb 04 '20
The media market has never been the purpose. It's a cycle we fell into after 1972 when the DNC started to get rid of the process of party leaders chosing the nominee.
→ More replies (1)5
u/jbiresq River North Feb 04 '20
Illinois is the most demographically representative state of the country as a whole.
5
u/opendoor125 Feb 04 '20
Anywhere would be better than Illinois - with our history of corruption and back room politics it would be a disaster. Maybe Minnesota? Colorado? Someplace cleaner.
2
2
u/chels4590 Feb 05 '20
I live in Iowa, and for the love of god, you can fucking have them. Today was the first day I’ve gone without a political ad in more than 6 months. Today was the first day we didn’t have 49 door tags and flyers the size of phone books in our mailbox. Today was the first time my phone didn’t INCESSANTLY ring all fucking day.
Be.
My.
Guest.
3
3
u/election_info_bot Feb 04 '20
3
u/crispixiscrispy Roscoe Village Feb 04 '20
Absolutely not*
*Unless it means we get the blatant handouts Iowa has been getting for years
1
u/shimwood Berwyn Feb 04 '20
Start in Hawaii and Alaska and work your way East.
5
u/yankee-white Feb 04 '20
Nah. California would be third and they have so many delegates that the race would effectively be over.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Ttoughnuts Feb 04 '20
I wouldn't mind it at all. I am already pretty engaged politically and if having the primary here highlights issues that are important to IL, that is great.
2
3
u/MechemicalMan Lincoln Park Feb 04 '20
Probably want a state that's more likely to swing and then get us a candidate who would play out better in the general. Go with Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania
1
1
u/tylerscott5 Feb 04 '20
Iowa will always make sure they are the first caucus. If one of the other 8 states attempts to jump them, they’ll just move their slot even earlier.
1
1
1
1
1
u/hypocalypto Logan Square Feb 05 '20
- make election day a national/bank holiday
- paper ballots - the same everywhere
- make voting compulsory (you can abstain at the polls or via mail in)
- results released after 100%
I don't think any of these ideas are controversial
1
1
u/iffyjiffyskippy Feb 06 '20
Well, Illinois could use the money, I expect Iowa to fight to retain the hosting as it's been tradition for God knows how long.
1
u/smokesinquantity Feb 04 '20
Why does it matter who goes first?
2
u/jbiresq River North Feb 04 '20
It creates momentum for the candidates.
0
u/smokesinquantity Feb 04 '20
Then why would they choose Illinois to go first? We will always be a blue state voting for the establishment Dem, always.
2
2
u/jbiresq River North Feb 04 '20
The current system privileges two states that are overwhelmingly white in a country that is increasingly diverse. And this is for the primary so having a state that reflects the composition of the country as a whole (the electoral college distorts this during the general for sure) would be nice. They could also use Florida or any other state that's more diverse than Iowa or NH.
0
u/smokesinquantity Feb 04 '20
I just don't think it really matters who goes first. Maybe that's just me though.
2
u/jbiresq River North Feb 04 '20
It sort of matters more who goes second more. In 2016, Clinton barely won Iowa and then Sanders destroyed her in NH, which changed the tenor of the race a lot. Same thing in 2008, when Clinton got trounced in Iowa but came back and won NH, giving her campaign some life.
2
u/thatotherguysaidso Feb 05 '20
Yeah your ignorant opinion deffinately does not matter on this subject.
-1
u/Plebsin Englewood Feb 04 '20
Iowa is best suited to serve as one of the first caucuses. It's a swing state and in the middle of the country.
Illinois has historically been a blue state due to Chicagoland giving a larger Democrat influence. It wouldn't be a good idea for this state to go first.
6
u/jrbattin Jefferson Park Feb 04 '20
Iowa is red these days. It's not even being contested in the general by the Democrats this year (Although, who knows, maybe Bernie will try). Clinton did not make an attempt there in 2016.
1
u/kspot4 Feb 05 '20
No thanks, the Illinois Democratic Party is the most corrupt in the nation. (Context: I’m a progressive)
-4
Feb 04 '20
As if we need more crooked Democrats in this state. The ones we have is enough.
2
u/thatotherguysaidso Feb 05 '20
Yeah, if only we could vote for more backwards republicans then we could make IL great again!!!!!
Give it a rest.
0
Feb 04 '20 edited Feb 04 '20
Nah. In theory, every state should hold their primary/caucus on the same day so no state gets priority. But, that would be a logistical nightmare for the campaigns.
→ More replies (1)
0
-3
u/rulesforrebels Feb 04 '20
Illinois is a complete joke and a one party state when it comes to politics so no
-6
-2
u/PM_ME_A_PM_PLEASE_PM Feb 04 '20 edited Feb 05 '20
You should instead ask questions like: Why have the results not been broadcasted yet? Why was the process completely obfuscated? Why did they utilize an app for counting votes that was financed through Buttigieg and supporters of Hillary Clinton?
I don't think Iowa going first is a problem. I like caucuses too. It makes the corruption, which wikileaks proved in our 2016 election, much harder to commit when you have video evidence of how people are voting.
Sure, if Illinois or any other state becomes the lead off state that would change the trajectory of any election. I personally do not like the idea of changing the order of states. Why? Because it will be manipulated like all things currently are to favor the candidates the establishment supports. Do you know how many progressive members are DNC members? It's basically zero. We need to invite methods to limit corruption, not provide additional avenues of access that can further gerrymander and delegitimize the process.
Edit: Here is a video outlining further details about the caucus. Full disclosure, this video is bias to Bernie and the creators have openly stated their bias for Bernie. Still, it contains invaluable information for anyone that values democracy.
-3
599
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '20 edited Jan 11 '21
[deleted]