Current Events > Bloomberg SLAMS the role the very white states of Iowa and NH have in elections

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/opinions/iowa-new-hampshire-democratic-primary-bloomberg/index.html

But as we Democrats work to protect democracy from Republicans who seek to exclude voters, we must also look inward, because our own party's system of nominating a presidential candidate is both undemocratic and harms our ability to prepare for -- and win -- the general election.

The Democratic Party reflects America's incredible diversity. But the first two voting states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are among the most homogenous in the nation. While it's great that candidates reach out to voters in these states at every pancake breakfast and town hall around, what about African-American, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islanders, and other voters in places like Detroit, Montgomery, Phoenix, and Houston? I've visited them all recently, and almost to a person, voters tell me the other campaigns have almost no presence in their cities.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the two early voting states are unlikely to be consequential in the general election. So as a party, we are spending all of our time and resources outside of the battleground states we need to win.

Meanwhile, President Trump is spending his time in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and North Carolina -- all states we lost in 2016 by razor-thin margins. In 2020, we need to reverse at least some of those results -- and we also have the chance to flip other states that voted for Trump, including Arizona and even Texas.

But right now, we are in danger of repeating 2016 in large part because, as Democrats focus on Iowa and New Hampshire, Trump is operating at full-speed in the battleground states, with field staff and targeted television and digital advertisements. Tuesday, while Democrats are on stage in Des Moines, he'll be speaking to thousands of supporters in Wisconsin a state Democrats need to rebuild the Blue Wall.

---

Shut up Bloomberg

---

okay bloomer

---

he's not wrong; but this election is about catering to moderate white voters so they dont vote trump.
---

Irony posted...

Shut up Bloomberg

he's 100% correct in this case, and its a great example of how he is indeed insulated from the typical hoops politicians need to jump through to win

---

Probably because they take the POC vote for granted so they don't try in those areas.

---

When he's right, he's right.

Balrog0 posted...

its a great example of how he is indeed insulated from the typical hoops politicians need to jump through to win

We should be clear, though, that his insulation here consists mainly of making no attempt to win these states.
---

He's not wrong..the system is broken.
I already knew this, but damn @ those numbers.

Iowa Demographics
According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of Iowa was:

White: 90.28%
Black or African American: 3.51%
Asian: 2.40%
Two or more races: 2.10%
Other race: 1.25%
Native American: 0.37%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.10%

New Hampshire Demographics
According to the most recent ACS, the racial composition of New Hampshire was:

White: 93.03%
Asian: 2.69%
Two or more races: 2.08%
Black or African American: 1.53%
Other race: 0.49%
Native American: 0.16%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: 0.03%
---

Antifar posted...

We should be clear, though, that his insulation here consists mainly of making no attempt to win these states.

well, yeah. and the other candidates need to win those states to raise money to stay in the race the whole way through, so they can't say the obvious truth

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Hes right. Primaries really should be three weeks of voting for the whole country.

---

Antifar posted...

When he's right, he's right.

We should be clear, though, that his insulation here consists mainly of making no attempt to win these states.

It's also worth pointing out Julian Castro made the same point, but of course he never had a shot at winning either.
True regardless.

I hope that he enjoys his time in Wisconsin. Since he won't be nominated due to that strategy, how is he helping the Democratic Party in any way?

---

Silver Bearings posted...

I hope that he enjoys his time in Wisconsin. Since he won't be nominated due to that strategy, how is he helping the Democratic Party in any way?

he's promised to fund 500 full time staffers to work on the general election whether he wins or not!

I'm less skeptical of his chances than you are, though him winning certainly wouldn't help the party

---

Silver Bearings posted...

I hope that he enjoys his time in Wisconsin. Since he won't be nominated due to that strategy, how is he helping the Democratic Party in any way?

Politicians can help a party without winning races; suggesting a better way forward seems like as good a way to help as any.
---

Yeah how dare Iowa and New Hampshire have too many white people in them. We can't trust that Iowa and New Hampshire will vote correctly due to all that whiteness.

The white vote should be weighted at a lower percentage and the minority vote elevated for true equity.

Loud_Pipes posted...

Yeah how dare Iowa and New Hampshire have too many white people in them. We can't trust that Iowa and New Hampshire will vote correctly due to all that whiteness.

The white vote should be weighted at a lower percentage and the minority vote elevated for true equity.

maybe primary campaigns should just start in more diverse areas, or any number of reasonable and perfectly logical things, some of which are outlined in the article

---

Loud_Pipes posted...

Yeah how dare Iowa and New Hampshire have too many white people in them. We can't trust that Iowa and New Hampshire will vote correctly due to all that whiteness.

The white vote should be weighted at a lower percentage and the minority vote elevated for true equity.

This is not the argument being made, and you're smart enough to recognize that. So why are you pretending to be stupid?
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

It's also worth pointing out Julian Castro made the same point, but of course he never had a shot at winning either.
True regardless.

Every candidate made this point like 5 months ago. Warren had her time making this point brought up by a reporter while she was in Iowa and it got heated lol

---

Antifar posted...

This is not the argument being made, and you're smart enough to recognize that. So why are you pretending to be stupid?

this could go for any trump voter
---

Krojen posted...

Every candidate made this point like 5 months ago. Warren had her time making this point brought up by a reporter while she was in Iowa and it got heated lol

Are you sure? This is the closest thing I remember to that:

https://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/iowa-new-hampshire-not-diverse-enough-to-be-first/article_b440e0a7-d6b5-5c9f-8278-ea72877e63eb.html

if anything she's suggesting the question is disrespectful and refuses to answer. did she respond more clearly else where?

---

or, much more recently, she still refused to answer it:

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Elizabeth-Warren-campaigning-in-New-Hampshire-31905357

Asked on Friday by reporters after the town hall if she thinks New Hampshire should keep its first-in-the-nation presidential primary status, Warren didnt directly answer.
I think that Julian raises an important issue, Warren quickly said.
But she added that I am very glad that the process we use right now is to go to four states in four weeks right at the beginning. It gives us very different states with very different sets of issues to go on. There is no process thats perfect and people are going to continue to talk about it. But Im delighted to be here in New Hampshire right now in the middle of this fight.

---

Doesn't each state set their own primary date?

---

Were_Wyrm posted...

Doesn't each state set their own primary date?

yes, but states that attempt to go before iowa or new hampshire are heavily penalized by the national party

---

I don't know a ton about how US politics / voting are arranged so I'm probably missing something but I don't really see the problem here? Is there something more about being first to vote other than just having your voting happen first? it's not like the other places skip their vote entirely, they just vote later

---

kirbymuncher posted...

I don't know a ton about how US politics / voting are arranged so I'm probably missing something but I don't really see the problem here? Is there something more about being first to vote other than just having your voting happen first? it's not like the other places skip their vote entirely, they just vote later

There's a great deal of weight given to the results of early primaries that shapes fundraising and media narratives for the race to come. Candidates drop out or surge ahead on the basis of these results. In many cases, the states with the latest primaries are voting after the nominee's victory has been assured.
---

kirbymuncher posted...

I don't know a ton about how US politics / voting are arranged so I'm probably missing something but I don't really see the problem here? Is there something more about being first to vote other than just having your voting happen first? it's not like the other places skip their vote entirely, they just vote later

Early voting states can influence an election by showing candidates who win as the "winners" all over media. It can make people think that these candidates are the national favorites and more likely to vote for them.

But this can be misleading because those two states are not representative of the larger voting body. So winning those states makes for a good media push for the candidates who win.

---

Balrog0 posted...

Are you sure? This is the closest thing I remember to that:

https://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/iowa-new-hampshire-not-diverse-enough-to-be-first/article_b440e0a7-d6b5-5c9f-8278-ea72877e63eb.html

if anything she's suggesting the question is disrespectful and refuses to answer. did she respond more clearly else where?

That was it. I meant she got heated with the reporter for bringing it up, I mistakenly thought with light comments Warren had previously made in SC about it. I remember a period where they would all pay lip service to this problem in inverviews. Just not as loudly on the campaign trail or without being goaded like Castro.

Question for Bloomberg is if money is a perfume that can mask not only that he's unpopular, but that he's an unpopular loser after coming in last in the first few states.

---

Krojen posted...

I remember a period where they would all pay lip service to this problem in inverviews.

If you say so, but I haven't seen it. It is a topic of discussion every cycle, but campaigns rarely comment directly; that response from Warren is pretty typical.


---

oh, and I'm pretty sure he isn't on the ballot in the early states for more or less exactly that reason

---

Bloomberg without a doubt is going to run as an independent if Bernie gets the nomination he'll be the Jill stein of 2020

---