Debate Practices and Primary Status

The speaker advocates for New Hampshire to remain at the forefront of the primary schedule due to its open process, contrasting it with Iowa's professionalized and exclusionary approach. The speaker suggests reconsidering Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus status, emphasizing that no state should be guaranteed this position without efforts to maintain openness and inclusivity.

Why does the speaker believe New Hampshire should be at the front of the primary schedule?

• Because it has a long history of being first.

• Due to its open and transparent process.

• Because it is a larger state than Iowa.

• Due to its geographical location.

What is the speaker's view on Iowa's approach to the primary process?

• Iowa's process is the most inclusive.

• Iowa should always be first due to tradition.

• Iowa's process is too professionalized and potentially biased.

• Iowa has a very open and fair process.

What does the speaker suggest about Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus status?

• It should be reconsidered due to exclusionary practices.

• It should be maintained without any changes.

• It should be abolished entirely.

• It should be given to another state.

According to the speaker, what should states do to maintain their first status?

• Make efforts to be open and inclusive.

• Have a long history of being first.

• Be geographically central.

• Have a large population.

What criticism does the speaker have about Iowa's handling of debates?

• Iowa holds debates too frequently.

• Iowa excludes people from debates.

• Iowa does not have enough debates.

• Iowa includes too many candidates in debates.

What does the speaker believe should not be allowed in a state with first status?

• Having too many candidates.

• Holding too many forums.

• Changing the primary schedule.

• Excluding candidates from forums.