All roads lead to Iowa but once you get there be prepared to drive 35mph tops.
Here’s a concept all you “Potential Candidates” Instead of wasting your time in Iowa why don’t you get your face on every teevee at every opportunity denouncing the Lunatic in the White House and fighting for the people who are not getting paid
I venture to say it will get you more votes that the 13 people who currently occupy Iowa
The DNC has decided again that first primary or caucus for the Democratic Presidential nominee should be decided by rural white people from a conservative red state.
The DNC could change this easily, but they won’t because they want to reinforce the power of white people in this country. There is no other good answer.
Want proof?
How many people of color are in this picture of Warren speaking in Iowa?
No Democracy, no justice.
Exactly
And almost enough people to make a real city. Noting more Hispanics than blacks also
They are probably all Oh Look! a negro! when they see a person of color
Because if a candidate can’t make a good showing in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, their campaign is over and all those other people will never get the chance to vote for them.
The reality is, Iowa gets a ton more attention because its first; its practically speaking, the only state where candidates will have a chance to really build a campaign and invest time. After the Iowa caucuses, its off to the races for a whirlwind tour with mere weeks, or days, or even less to spend in each state.
And that is going to hold true, regardless of which state is first. I’ve seen the arguments that Iowa isn’t representative of the rest of the country…but no state is. Each state has a blend of demographics and issues that are characteristic to them, and not rest of the country. I’ve seen it suggested we should start with a bigger state, like CA or NY, which is an even worse idea, because that would essentially make the primary consist of just that one state.
Iowa being First in the Nation is far from being a perfect way to start campaigns. But ignoring Iowa has proven the death of campaigns, ever since Carter first took advantage of its status way back in his '76 campaign.
How much further from perfect can you get? They repeatedly elect the openly racist Steve King to congress, but they don’t even “elect” primary candidates instead using highly manipulable caucuses.
Ah, ok. So the First contest should always be in the state you reside? Assuming of course the state you reside voted the way you did in large margins?
Yeah, THAT sounds very representative.
Or to your earlier graphic of the demographic breakdown of Iowa. You included native Alaskan tribes and native Hawaiians. Guess what…if you held the primary in Hawaii, you aren’t going to have all that many native Alaskans. Or vice versa. And neither of those states is going to have Black population that comes anywhere close to what we have in the Southeast.
But your argument is based on a flawed assumption that whoever wins Iowa, wins the Democratic primary. That simply isn’t true, as we have been shown time and time again in both parties. New Hampshire and South Carolina, also early states, both factor pretty heavily into national campaign strategies.
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with rotating the First in the Nation between those three…and maybe toss in a Western state to make it a rotation of 4 states. But this is one of those cases where there is no perfect solution. And gnashing your teeth and rending your shirt about it every four years just gets tiresome.
A better idea would be to use DC.
New Jersey. They’re used to abuse.
…how would conducting the First in the Nation inside the Beltway be better?? With all due respect, that, IMO, is probably the absolute worst possible pick.
This is a problem that grows giagantically once you start trying to 'fix" it. Because once you start moving around the order of the various states (like I suggested, on a rotating basis), then you are having to schedule every state, every election cycle, from scratch. And every state is always going to be jockeying to be first because its such a huge windfall, both politically and financially. As is second and third.
And even if you decided on Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and lets say…Colorado, as the four “first” states…you just transferred all of these arguments into each region. Why should South Carolina always be the first Southern state? What about GA? And on it goes.
The undercut and the right hook. He hits the mat
Thank You
And which state do you consider more perfect? California? Which has given us Nunes, Rohrbaker and of course Nixon and Reagan?
New York, with its just as detestable Peter King?
EVERY state has provided our nation a list of detestable politicians.
I know, we could just have media that didn’t overinterpret the results in IA and NH. That’d fix it.
Gillibrand is the one Dem candidate I will not support, will not vote for and will actively work against.
Keeping it classy I see 
It’s a city. Cities have far less political power than should be accorded to the number of their inhabitants.
I agree with your sentiment, and would even further side, DC is a city with an even bigger problem regarding lack of political power than every other city in the country.
But it also quite literally, Inside the Beltway. And as such, the Very Serious People are already exerting MASSIVE influence on the entire national campaign (and not just Presidential).
We should go back and look at who DC has voted for for President,