Count me as one who is often besides themselves when they think about the fact that two such non-representative states get to go first in the Democratic primary/caucus schedule. I’m not sure what the DNC could do about this, but I wish they would do something. (I’m aware that Iowa has a law stating its contest must be at least 8 days earlier than any other contest, and that New Hampshire has a state law that allows the date of their primary to be moved up if another state would decide to try to precede New Hampshire with a primary.)
In 2016, Sanders basically tied Clinton in Iowa then he beat her very soundly in New Hampshire. After the first two contests in 2016 Sanders clearly had the momentum.
Of course, by the time all the individual state and territorial contests were concluded Clinton had beaten Sanders decisively.
So perhaps this isn’t even something I should care about.
Regardless, I would be happy if this scenario occurs in 2020:
— Buttigieg wins Iowa (as current polls suggest could happen)
— Buttigieg wins New Hampshire (as current polls suggest could happen)
— Buttigieg loses badly in Nevada (as current polls suggest could happen)
— Buttigieg loses badly in South Carolina (as current polls suggest could happen)
— Buttigieg does poorly on Super Tuesday and his campaign is effectively over then
Nothing against Mayor Peter, I like him a lot, but maybe then it would be perfectly clear that letting Iowa and New Hampshire go first, with all the attendant exposure those two contests get, is not an efficient way to conduct a nominating process.
Now, getting off my soapbox and to the main question of this diary: I’m always stunned when I read that some voters let the results of the first two contests affect how they vote in their own state or territorial contests. I know who I want to be the Democratic nominee and I pay no attention to how others have voted before me.