For over 50 years.....the primary season started in Iowa and New Hampshire. If you asked for the logical reason to this....it was supposed to be a build-up....so when you got to state 20 to 40 (four week period)...everyone who had a chance...had their act together.
I noticed this AM....the DNC is talking over an idea of reshuffling the primary season.
Logic? They simply say to have a more 'diverse' state at the beginning.
California or NY? Well....they didn't say that.
They want a meeting and to discuss options.
Part of this problem relates to Iowa and the method they use there....where groups meet and openly discuss 'brand-names' and 'promises'. Hillary....did rather badly in the two times running....starting off in Iowa. If they'd started in Michigan or Washington state? She would have done better.
The problem I see here....if you went to 1st primary (say in California), then went to Nevada and South Carolina....you'd wipe out a bunch of folks in the first seven days. There would just be one or two candidates by state five.
All of this being built for Newsom? Well...you can't help but notice that he's not charging up the Democratic base, and in half the states.....he wouldn't rate as a winner.
Personally? I'd like to line up 25 states to all have their primary run around the first week of March, and the remaining 25 around the first week of April. Yes, as bunched up as possible.
I'd also make a rule for the entire year prior to the primary year....zero paid advertising on TV, radio, newspapers, or the internet.
So prepare for some wild stuff in 2024.
