My thought is that the Dems current process of picking a candidate is quite flawed. What looks to be the national committee's answer to a flawed process is another flawed process. I don't think their answer will solve perceived problems. When New Hampshire was the first it was a problem.
As for Cullen's criticism I can't help but to take it with a giant grain of salt. Iowa's first in the nation status brings in a lot of money and notoriety to Iowa no matter whether the method of selection was a caucus, a primary or a giant convention.
Simply because we have a caucus system as first in the nation, many Iowans with any kind of a megaphone have built a lot of myth and defense for it. When I was growing up I heard similar stories about New Hampshire.
Three particular industries in Iowa do really well during the caucus season - restaurants, hotels and motels and news outlets. When the first in the nation status goes so goes much of the money and notoriety. It will be a big hit for many in those industries. The caucus season in Iowa starts a year+ before thee actual meeting night.
For those in the news industry, the caucuses have been a time to create a reputation or to burnish a reputation.
As for me, for a long time I have felt that the first in the nation status ought to be shared among several states at a time and that it rotate every 4 years. For instance, let's say Michigan, Georgia, New Hampshire and Oregon have first in the nation primaries this year. Four years from now four different states get the nod.
My first two caucuses had three and five attendees. It has only been in the past two decades that the importance of first in the nation has become such a big deal. That is mostly thanks to media hype.
= new reply since forum marked as read