Would first caucus/primary get as much play if Iowa/NH were 50% black?

Iowa and New Hampshire are not exactly microcosms of America. While people of color make up more than 30% of the U.S.population, they comprise only 6% of the population of Iowa and only 2% of the population of New Hampshire.

So, the presidential election is being largely driven by two small states where whites are substantially over-represented and minorities are are grossly underrepresented in comparison with their national proportions.

Can you imagine the media, pundits and political community giving this much play, influence and power to a process that was similarly skewed - but instead of whites being so overrepresented, it was minorities who were represented in proportions that far outweighed their presence throughout the country?

Just wondering.

Everything before Iowa and NH is simply conjecture, so the results there are the first "real" data available.

not because of the color of the people in the state

people of color. African Americans constitute approx. 12% of the population. Latino voters come in all shades. The also amount to about 12 or 13%. And S. Carolina and NV have been thrown into the mix. The former has a large AA population, and the latter has a large latino community.

at least according to the media - they've made it clear that anyone who wins Iowa and NH is a shoo-in for the nomination.

that greater reflect our diversity, but I don't think NH and IA decide for us.

and heavily populated. These big states contribute more to the treasury than all the others yet their political concerns are ignored.

If the Party wants to target just a few states why not mix up the size, North\South\East\West, and population...political concerns, etc.? Right now it ain't right.

she's raising the question whether people would give the results there as much weight as they're getting if whites were in the minority - or at least significantly underrepresented.

I've wondered the same thing. I have no doubt that the pundits - or even some folks right here on DU - would never give as much credence to these races in such a case. I believe we'd be constantly hearing caveats about how these results aren't that significant since, after all, "these states aren't REALLY representative of mainstream America."

but that's because the party doesn't want them to speak (until the convention anyway). The states who get a voice aren't representative of the rest of America. Their issues different than say...Lousiana, Michigan, etc.

Yes Iowa, NH, and SC should be heard but so should the rest of America. Contrary to the party and media, the primary isn't over just because of those three states either.

RE: Afro-Americans. Their issues and concerns are the same as many white Americans. We want good jobs, rights, freedom of speech, our vote counted (a big one for us both), our cities safe, our children educated, women's equal rights and choice, etc.

but it would be nice if we could speak for ourselves and not have to hope that the white people who vote before us protect our interests!

Right now, I'm listening to pundits agree that Obama and Edwards MUST win Iowa in order to have any hope of getting the nomination. I still agree with the OP - there is no way that this would be said if the decision was being made by a disproportionately black electorate - even if we tried to argue that the black voters had similar concerns as white voters.

Those states were bumped up to include more Hispanics and Blacks. And of course many DUers take exception to the conservative nature of those states.

Which states did you have in mind? I would think maybe New Mexico could help with Hispanics. Washington DC for blacks?

I'm glad that the party is trying to diversify the early primaries.

But I don't have a problem with Iowa and NH going first. What I DO have a problem with is the media, et al treating those primaries as dispositive. And I know that there's no way they would place this amount of weight on them if they were as disproportionately minority as they are disproportionately white.

The fact that the whites have more votes and say in this country is just reality. They are the largest majority.

Black (12% of the whole) populated areas do send representatives to Congress who should be looking after their constituents concerns. At least that's the way it used to be under the Constitution. DC should have representatives in Congress who have a vote. To not have it is unconstitutional because we have "representative government" (We the people...all the people of the US).

Other minority groups who have almost no say are Asians and American Indians. Hawaiians, Somalians, Philippians, etc. also have almost none.

When one American is prevented from speaking or is harmed, it is bad for us all.

Our present leader takes all the power and voices for his own. He represents only the few elite. Without our democracy none of us has any power to argue over. We need to unite against him and impeach his gang.

White Americans make up about about 67% of the American population, with minorities (not just blacks) making up more than 30%. Yet white voters represent more 97% of the voters in the two initial primaries, races that could largely determine the nominee.

Can you imagine the screaming, moaning and complaining we'd hear if the race was determined by the votes of an electorate made up of 50% minorities - or any percentage of minorities that exceeded by even a hair their percentage in the overall population?

While it is considered wrong (and is, in fact, illegal) to set quotas for the hiring or other activities for minorities, we actually have an unwritten "white person" quota in this country - under this system, it is always considered acceptable for whites to be overrepresented in numbers that exceed their numbers in the population. But, under the "white person" quota, if the number of white people dips BELOW their population numbers (i.e., if the number of minorities EXCEEDS their proportions), something is terribly, terribly wrong.

That is why we've hardly heard a peep about the fact that these races may be decided by overwhelmingly white pools of voters while we know full well that if the shoe were on the other foot and there was a chance that the races could be decided by voter pools that had TOO FEW white people (i.e., too many minorities), this would be seen as aberrant and would likely not be allowed to have such a strong influence until it was fixed to make it more reflective of the actual population.

Won't happen unless you are in that type of area. Iowa might have some towns like that I don't know. IF you live in a town like that the nominees come to it...why not get out 50% of the Afro Americans?

South Carolina has more Afro American so the representation in the discussions might be more toward minorities. See if that happens.

To run for President you have to have some experience in government such as being a Senator, Governor, Congress person, etc. You also need an advanced degree. Minorities have been amiss at that.

Minorities are gradually making their mark in our lives and government. There is now a Afro American successful upper and middle class in America. Who said democracy was perfect? We have many miles to go. This President has put us back 100 years regarding freedom and democracy for all.

I am disturbed with the Afro American clergy taking public funds from GW Bush thus silencing many of them (beholden to Bush via religious cronyism). It is also unconstitutional. The Afro American community needs another leader like Martin Luther King. Jessie Jackson ain't it.

I especially liked Julian Bond. He was a Afro American liberal, well educated and spoken but never ran for President that I know of. He was nominated to be VP but was too young as required by the Constitution. http://www.bookrags.com/biography/julian-bond/

There are Afro American women Congress I'd vote for and do watch them on CSPAN regarding many issues. So they do have a voice and we do hear them.

I can't help you figure out about how to have more of a voice if you feel left out. Yes..the discussion would be different if the race or culture was different.

The Mexican illegal immigration increase in population may out number the Afro Americans in a very short time. Even though they were a minority, they may leave us all without a voice (creation of the Americas Union...no democracy). Our country changed forever.

Excuse me?

"The Afro American community needs another leader like Martin Luther King. Jessie Jackson ain't it."

Huh?

And what does "Mexican illegal immigration" have to do with anything in this thread?

right?

That is the status quo in this country. Insincere pandering to minorities to pick up a few votes here and there, but overall our issues, concerns and thoughts do not matter. That is my America.

My point is that the pundits are treating Iowa and New Hampshire as if they could be dispositive - they have consistently been saying that if Candidate X wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, they are the presumptive nominee and if Candidate Y loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, they're doomed and will have to drop out.

I am raising a basic question - if Iowa and New Hampshire looked less like the white folks we see doing most of the prognosticating and, in fact, was the reverse image of what they are now, would they be as likely to give these two contests as much weight.

I think not.

The media - and many others - have no problem with things that are disproportionately white. But anything that is even a shade darker than the makeup of the general population and these folks insist that something is not quite right. It's clear that to many people, white is the norm - even when it is overwhelmingly white, even when minorities are grossly underrepresented or nowhere to be seen. But let there be one more minority than in the broader population, and it's seen as divergent from the norm, something that's not quite right.

Example: Last summer, when Tavis Smiley hosted a Democratic debate at Howard University, he was actually asked whether the fact that the debate was taking place in front of a predominantly black audience meant that Barack Obama would have an advantage. Never mind that the vast majority of the presidential debates were held before overwhelmingly white audiences and that not once, as far as could tell, was anyone ever asked whether THOSE debates meant that the white candidates would have an advantage over Obama. No. Only when it appeared that blacks would be more prevalent than normal was it assumed that this meant that Obama wold have an advantage (and, conversely, that the white candidates would be at a disadvantage - something no one seemed to worry about when it came to Obama appearing in debate after debate in front of majority white audiences). That's just one example of this phenomenon.

but was it the right one for your community or country? Obama has been a media pick and Republican from the start.