Super Duper Tuesday - Early Primaries in '08

[sampsonblk]

Gov Terminator just announced that the CA primary is going to move up to Feb 5th. That's going to be a lot of delegates determined that day. IMHO, stacking the primaries up early benefits big money candidates who can blanket the airwaves. I haven't thought about it enough to be for it or against. But IMHO, Hillary Clinton benefits most.

What sayest thou?

[Beaverhausen]

1. I say it's about time we Californians have a say

Why should Iowa and New Hampshire have all the fun?

[Dinger]

3. I Agree

I live in Wisconsin, and if memory serves mecorrectly, California had their 2004 "primary" in June. I remember thinking that was bullshit, and wondered how voter turnout was for that primary. I'm glad for you California!

[NoPasaran]

5. March 2, 2004, actually

February 5, 2008 is going to be a hell of a day.

[Dinger]

6. Yes It Will

Thanks for the correction:)

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Because it's impossible for candidates without $100 million to compete in California

Iowa and New Hampshire worked because they were small enough states that candidates without much money and name recognition like Jimmy Carter could win there. You can't get anywhere with small gatherings in living rooms in California whereas in Iowa and New Hampshire you can. I'd favor rotating between small to mid-sized states but not putting California so damn early (unless we we fix public financing).

[dmkinsey]

2. Given the MSM's penchant for hyperventilating over the results of the FIRST VOTE

anything that happens AFTER the first vote is mostly insignificant. No one wants to participate in a thing that's insignificant so everybody wants to be first.

It's unfortunate but I don't see how there can be a system that forces some voters to wait until the question is resolved to cast their votes.

On the funding question, it's clear that in big states like California and Michigan, etc., television advertising will be a requirement. This will obviously play into the hands of those candidates with the name recognition to enable them to raise big money.

That said, I think Hillary could still blow it

[MGKrebs]

4. I think they should all be on the same day.

[sampsonblk]

7. Why? - nt

nt

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Again, that would destroy any candidate that doesn't have inside fundraising connections

It may not be fair that they always go first, but candidates could succeed in Iowa and New Hampshire with real grassroots campaigning. That's the test I want to put my candidates through, not how much money they can raise.

Until the playing field is level (we fix the public financing system), it's incredibly unfair to lesser known less connected candidates to have big states to go first or to have a one day national primary (which we will essentially have on February 5th).

[IA_Seth]

12. Thank you.

Very well put. Until the public financing fix (or some other solution) is provided, we have to rely on smaller, cheaper, states.

[MGKrebs]

10. Instant runoff voting could be a big part of the solution.

People can vote for their favorite candidate without worrying that it might be "wssted" if that candidate is not a frontrunner.

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

Sorry I can't participate more, short on time today.

[Bucky]

14. Which is exactly why instant runoff voting will never take place.

It would help the Kuciniches of the world too much. For that matter, it would help the Tancredos and Brownbacks.

[IA_Seth]

11. All hail the almighty dollar!

Because that is the winner here. No longer will any 'second tier' candidates be able to compete against the well-moneyed, bought and paid for candidates that we'll end up with.

I understand the frustration that CA and NY and the other big money states must feel...you are taken advantage of and then left to feel that your votes don't count.

But by allowing smaller, or cheaper, states to go up front we allow candidates that may not have the 50 million dollar warchest to actually compete against those that do. With so many states frontloaded we will now get to see candidates flying in and out of states before they even take a crap, let alone sitting down and having coffee with the regular folks.

Welcome to tarmac-to-tarmac, increased TV ads, and slick advertising campaigns. American politics are now more than ever part of our marketing mess in America. Woo flippin hoo.

[Debi]

13. I say CA/NY/FL/TX will from here on out choose the nominee for President of the United states

Why even hold primaries in other states? :shrug:

Just give a call to 'the big four' and ask them who they've chosen.

As for retail politics? Out the window. x( Candidates will hit Sacramento, Los Angeles and maybe wander around the Santa Monica pier (with a trip to Hollywood for a $1million dollar fund raiser). Otherwise it will be TV/TV/TV.

At least when smaller states were allowed to participate candidates had to face voters one-on-one and answer tough questions. Now all they have to do is get an agent/political consultant and have $40,000,000 dollars in their bank account.