Matt Yglesias slaps me around here in a piece entitled "Against Folksy Primaries" for my post here waxing rhapsodic on the Iowa caucuses, saying,
…it's hard to see how any liberal can be happy, at the end of the day, with the distorting effect the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshire have on our politics.
His argument is that Iowa and New Hampshire are too white to be good starting places for the presidential process.
I agree with him on one level. Iowa and New Hampshire are way too white to be ideal starting places for the presidential campaign. As much as I love my old friends in Iowa, I think it's an unfortunate historical accident that those are the first two states. I would prefer that other small states be the first two- New Mexico, Nevada, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Missouri would all be better beginning states because of their racial diversity. That's why I was delighted that Nevada and South Carolina were selected to move up on the calendar by the DNC to provide more influence.
But here's the deal: for all the reasons I argued in my earlier post, and more beyond, I still believe passionately in small state starting this thing. How else will presidential candidates ever be face to face with real voters for such a sustained period? Matt never answers that question, but I think it is essential- I think it is the one thing standing between the presidential races being 100% about money and symbolism.
STATE BLOGS
