Change to Democrats’ 2024 presidential primary schedule benefits Biden, not voters

By demoting the state that crushed his presidential ambitions in 2008 and nearly did so again in 2020, President Joe Biden has abused a position of power to skew the 2024 Democratic primaries in his favor.

In the 2008 Iowa caucuses, Biden came in fifth, with less than 1% of the vote, and was forced to drop out. In 2020, despite campaigning heavily in the state, he came in fourth. In 2024, Iowa would have been the 80-year-old incumbent’s biggest challenge, since they tend to choose and elevate fresh young faces. At Biden’s request, the Democratic National Committee has now removed that threat and smoothed his path to reelection.

It is true that Iowa’s demographics do not represent America’s diversity. However, it is unethical for election changes to be designed by a candidate that stands to benefit from them. South Carolina is equally insufficient from a demographic standpoint. Hispanics and Asians make up even smaller percentages of South Carolina’s population than they do of Iowa. The real reason for the selection of South Carolina is as a reward for saving Biden’s political career in 2020 and because they are the safest bet for him in 2024. This is not an impartial decision about what is best for American democracy, but political cronyism and an attempt to rig the next election in the incumbent’s favor.

An NPR analysis in 2016 of which state best represents America found that both from a racial perspective and with regard to demographics overall, Illinois is the clear winner. Illinois also presents a less drastic geographic shift from Iowa, keeping the opening of the election at the center of the country. And it offers a broad cultural and geographic balance of rural, small-town, suburban and urban America.

From an objective standpoint, the best state to replace Iowa and open the presidential election season is its neighbor, Illinois.

Stephen C. Compton, Glenview

Who’s the real Bobby Hull?

Rick Morrissey’s criticism that Blackhawk fans should remember Bobby Hull as a wife-beater and racist are unjustified. He writes that “many Chicagoans choose to remember Hull for bringing them to hockey.”

Well, duh. They remember him only as a great hockey player because they never bought a ticket to his bedroom or had dinner with him. They only knew him as a player.

If he wasn’t a Hall of Fame hockey player, his obituary would be a three-line blurb his family paid for, same as everyone else. Instead it’s a page 1 only because he was a hockey player so that, in turn, should be the focus of his obituary.

All those decades fans only knew Hull the hockey player is because that’s all sportswriters told us about him. If it wasn’t relevant enough during his life to educate us, why in his death should it be the focus?

William Choslovsky, Sheffield Neighbors