Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I wish the primaries were on the same day in every state.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:24 PM
Original message
I wish the primaries were on the same day in every state.
that is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. I share that wish
The primaries might have a lot more meaning and might appeal to more than just the "party faithfuls"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. is there a special reason they aren't? I've always wondered why they stagger them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corkhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. keeps the selection in the hands of the power brokers and their handmadens the press, not the people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I do too
it's all but over by the time it's NY's turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. k&r in agreement.
wish the dem leadership would buy a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EdwardM Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. I see two sides to this issue
If they were all on the same day then it would mean the candidate with the most money would have the biggest chance of winning because they would have the ability to campaign in all states. The way it currently is, it allows a candidate with less money to stand some sort of chance. But on the other side, it is unfair to the other 49 states that Iowa gets their choice first. At the very least, I'd like a different state to go first each time, because I don't like a 95 percent white state like Iowa getting to pick the president every year. I really don't know how best to solve this though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. well by the time it gets around to us in Ca. it's almost a done deal which really sucks.
i know they're trying to move the date up for us and i see what you're saying but i think they'd all have a fair shot if it was held on one day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Same here
Usually by the time primaries get here everyone is thinking "why bother".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meldroc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I can think of a couple solutions...
1. Use the same schedule for the primaries, but withhold all results until the national conventions. That way, the primary results in the early states don't affect the primaries in the late states.

2. Randomize the order of primaries. Some states still get ahead while others get screwed, but it's not the same states each time.

But my proposals make sense and would actually be fair, which is completely unacceptable to the assholes who actually get to make the decisions, so we're stuck getting screwed in the current system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjornsdotter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. Same here



...I think it would be better. As it is now it's usually over by the time it's Illinois' turn.

Cheers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R'd
I wholeheartedly agree. We didn't get our caucus in MN until both my choices were axed in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
10. That would STRONGLY favor wealthier candidates.
There's a reason they start first in a small state that any candidate can afford to campaign in and where money isn't as big an advantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. that's true.
but it's also true that Iowa and NH have way too much say on who the nominee is. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Arizona's is in September - think of the money that could be saved if it was held in June!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Dark horses don't stand a chance with a front-loaded primary system. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. me too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
14. That would be a logistical nightmare
for the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. I don't!
It would only benefit the most well-known, wealthiest candidates.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would never have gotten nominated under such conditions. Howard Dean never would've had a shot.

I like making 'em get out there and work for some votes, rather than just buying ads in the largest states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suziedemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. All Primaries on the same day - but multiple primaries to narrow the field in stages.
So - Nationwide Primary 1 takes the field down to 5 or whatever
Nationwide Primary 2 takes the field down to 2
Nationwide primary 3 picks the party candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
20. I think
states should not be able to set their dates sooner and sooner every year. We've got people declaring the month after the previous election for God's sake. And I'd like to see states get rotated so that Iowa and New Hampshire don't decide who's president every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-24-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. that a good point, also the sooner the presumptive nominee is picked
the sooner the swiftboating begins, it would be nice to have less time between the primary and the convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC