>and that boosted him in later states (including South
>Carolina)

so you agree with the rest of us that ia shapes the resulting media narrative following the caucus or...?

do you agree or disagree that ia is largely unrepresentative of the entirety of the party?

p booty did exceedingly well in ia and nh (1st and 2nd in delegates). got a ton of media coverage with him among the democratic frontrunners. a boost of energy, organizing, and money for his campaign based on media coverage from those early results.

after only *2* more state contests his campaign is officially done and over with. thats an indisputable real world testament to what we are saying.


>everytime it comes up, "oh, if only we started with a
>less-white state"
>then Nevada caucus comes up, Bernie KILLS it with Latino
>voters (like Obama was doing in many states).
>
>
>"oh, if only we started in a state where there were more
>older, black voters that would skew toward the right-wing
>Democrat that our donors and party apparatus like"
>
>foh.
>
>let democracy do its thing.


the rest of us are saying get rid of caucuses and let a *group* of states (*including* ia, nv and sc) go first together to get a truly diverse representative snapshot of our partys voters at once. aka the pinnacle of democracy. not just 1 or 2 states that are unrepresentative of the party base but has an outsized influence over the politics/portrayal of the race.

you somehow turn that into some muddled anti-establishment bernie-persecution rant where youre defending lily white ia going first...and you call a pretty straightforward consensus opinion galaxy brain?

care to clear this up?