• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 days ago

    2020 was the worst, picking Biden after the 3rd primary, and that one being South Carolina…

    Because we really want red states determining who the Democratic candidate is… 🙄

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’d love to see it by last election’s turnout percentage.

      Vermont went 64% D, let them go first.

      Wyoming got 26%, so they go last.

      Some state wants to go first? Tell em to work on their turnout in the general.

      It seems common sense, and in a close race it trickles down to battleground states after the main voting blocks, while maintaining their voter engagement.

      Plus while I don’t think primaries campaigns hurt generals like the DNC keeps saying, this let’s the Dem on Dem ads be ran in places that are voting blue no matter who.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Ooh… that’s a FANTASTIC idea that Iowa and New Hampshire will never let happen. ;)

        I think the trick is each state would need to run two primaries, but then some already do, and some run a caucus AND a primary.

        The problem here would be burning through all the blue states and not getting enough delegates to become the nominee. Then you really WOULD have Red states picking the candidate.

        Yeah, based on this delegate counter:

        https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/delegate-count-by-state

        By the time you burned through all the blue states, you’d have assigned 2,541 delegates with 1,976 needed to be the nominee. It’s possible that someone wouldn’t hit that number just based on the blue states.

        Under this model, the Democratic Primary for 2028 would be this, then invert it for the Republican Primary.

        District of Columbia - 90.3% - 39 delegates
        Vermont - 63.2% - 33
        Maryland - 62.6% - 134
        Massachusetts - 61.2% - 132
        Hawaii - 60.6% - 24
        California - 58.5% - 587
        Washington - 57.2% - 132
        Delaware - 56.6% - 37
        Connecticut - 56.4% - 88
        New York - 55.9% - 274
        Rhode Island - 55.5% - 45
        Oregon - 55.3% - 89
        Illinois - 54.4% - 222
        Colorado - 54.2% - 104
        Maine - 52.4% - 46
        New Jersey - 52.0% - 175
        New Mexico - 51.9% - 56
        Virginia - 51.8% - 99
        NE-2 - 51.3% - 65
        Minnesota - 50.9% - 114
        New Hampshire - 50.7% - 46

        Pennsylvania - 48.7%
        Wisconsin - 48.7%
        Georgia - 48.5%
        Michigan - 48.3%
        North Carolina - 47.7%
        Nevada - 47.5%
        Arizona - 46.7%
        ME-2 - 44.8%
        Ohio - 43.9%
        Florida - 43.0%
        Iowa - 42.5%
        Texas - 42.5%
        Alaska - 41.4%
        Kansas - 41.0%
        South Carolina - 40.4%
        Missouri - 40.1%
        Indiana - 39.6%
        Nebraska - 38.9%
        Montana - 38.5%
        Louisiana - 38.2%
        Mississippi - 38.0%
        Utah - 37.8%
        Tennessee - 34.5%
        South Dakota - 34.2%
        Alabama - 34.1%
        Kentucky - 33.9%
        Arkansas - 33.6%
        Oklahoma - 31.9%
        North Dakota - 30.5%
        Idaho - 30.4%
        West Virginia - 28.1%
        Wyoming - 25.8%

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I want same day country wide just like the regular election. Primaries are an electability test and need to be treated as such

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      We want it so much they were moved to first! It was so clearly a corrupt move and a punishment to two states that said he sucked. Not that Iowa and New Hampshire deserved their prominence, but the whole fiasco had a very clear narrative.