Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/3/2012 5:43:33 PM EDT
Why aren't all presidential primaries held on the same day?

Is there an "official" or historical reason? Or is it just the man trying to oppress me?
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 5:50:06 PM EDT
It would be much harder to contol the results!
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 5:53:15 PM EDT
Because this is how it's been done for a long time. It's a state and party thing, not a national thing.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 5:55:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 103:
Because this is how it's been done for a long time. It's a state and party thing, not a national thing.


Why is the party so retarded?
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 5:57:19 PM EDT
If you do miserably in Iowa, you can forget about that last few weeks of incredible expense and hardcore campaigning in New Hampshire. Or not. But at least you get the option.

Trying to campaign in all states at once would cost as much as running for the actual presidency and be just as much of an effort. And the results would be much less clear, as there would be so many candidates in so many states at this early stage where a lot of people barely know who is running that you'd have a bunch of meaningless results. Running them sequentially narrows the field.

Not saying it is best, just pointing out whatever benefits I see.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:04:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By odfox:
If you do miserably in Iowa, you can forget about that last few weeks of incredible expense and hardcore campaigning in New Hampshire. Or not. But at least you get the option.

Trying to campaign in all states at once would cost as much as running for the actual presidency and be just as much of an effort. And the results would be much less clear, as there would be so many candidates in so many states at this early stage where a lot of people barely know who is running that you'd have a bunch of meaningless results. Running them sequentially narrows the field.

Not saying it is best, just pointing out whatever benefits I see.


With the advent of newspapers, radio, television, computers, the internet, blogs, Youtube, twitter, iphones and ipads, I think old-school campaigning is a thing of the past. If I want to learn about a candidate, there are 87 ways I can do it that do not include seeing them at a town hall meeting or political rally.

With the staggered primaries, the people in the latter primaries simply have votes that do not count.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:32:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2012 6:32:59 PM EDT by DyNo541]
Originally Posted By strat81:
Originally Posted By odfox:
If you do miserably in Iowa, you can forget about that last few weeks of incredible expense and hardcore campaigning in New Hampshire. Or not. But at least you get the option.

Trying to campaign in all states at once would cost as much as running for the actual presidency and be just as much of an effort. And the results would be much less clear, as there would be so many candidates in so many states at this early stage where a lot of people barely know who is running that you'd have a bunch of meaningless results. Running them sequentially narrows the field.

Not saying it is best, just pointing out whatever benefits I see.


With the advent of newspapers, radio, television, computers, the internet, blogs, Youtube, twitter, iphones and ipads, I think old-school campaigning is a thing of the past. If I want to learn about a candidate, there are 87 ways I can do it that do not include seeing them at a town hall meeting or political rally.

With the staggered primaries, the people in the latter primaries simply have votes that do not count.


Nothing will ever beat someone on the ground shaking hands... (Assuming they're the right person)
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:40:06 PM EDT
I've said this before. There should be a set number of intense debates followed by a national election. No campagning, no vote buying, just tell us what your views are and the people can decide what they want. Thats the way it should be. Same with the general election.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:42:09 PM EDT
Candidates would campaign in only a handful of states.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:43:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
I've said this before. There should be a set number of intense debates followed by a national election. No campagning, no vote buying, just tell us what your views are and the people can decide what they want. Thats the way it should be. Same with the general election.


Excellent idea. This way the media can 100% control who we get for candidates. You're really smart!
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:44:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Procyon:
Candidates would campaign in only a handful of states.


This.

If it were possible, candidates would campaign in the Northeast, California, and Chicago. We don't need that.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:46:20 PM EDT
The principle is good as stated above - a national primary would mean only the best financed candidates could afford to compete.

However, it would be better if instead of Iowa and New Hampshire always being first, it rotated around between the states so all could take turns in being 'first in the nation'.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:47:17 PM EDT
IMO it's good that they aren't. During primary season the other candidates in the party act as vetting forces. This is like practice for going up against the Dems and allows us to (hopefully) see all the skeletons in the closets of our guys before we put all our eggs in one basket.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 6:47:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2012 6:49:29 PM EDT by sharky30]
so that those of us in NY never have a real say

I can see not having all on the same day, but it shouldn't be more than 2-3 weeks
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 7:07:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2012 7:09:57 PM EDT by Skibane]
Originally Posted By Lancair:
it would be better if instead of Iowa and New Hampshire always being first, it rotated around between the states so all could take turns in being 'first in the nation'.


Considering that we hold presidential elections every 4 years, a 50-state rotation would give any particular state 'first in the nation' status only once every 200 years.

Want to make it more interesting and unpredictable? Hold a lottery every 4 years.

If your state draws 01, you have the first primary in the nation.

If your state draws 50, you go fishing on that day instead.
Link Posted: 1/3/2012 7:19:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Procyon:
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
I've said this before. There should be a set number of intense debates followed by a national election. No campagning, no vote buying, just tell us what your views are and the people can decide what they want. Thats the way it should be. Same with the general election.


Excellent idea. This way the media can 100% control who we get for candidates. You're really smart!


How so? Are you suggesting the media doesn't already affect the outcome of elections If so, you need to wake up. Why do you think a candidate can be hot one day, then be literally destroyed by the media. Just look at Cain, Gingrich and probably soon to be Paul. The media practically picks the candidates for us.

I watched nearly every debate and they were far more informative than all the political ads, news casts and commentators. The debates would need to be intese and exhaustive, but IMOP, you learn the most about a candidate during the debates. If the primaries were held the way I suggest, every candidate would have a chance based on their record and their stance, with less influence from the media, heavy donors and the few select states who happen to vote first.

Link Posted: 1/4/2012 4:40:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Procyon:
Candidates would campaign in only a handful of states.


Kinda like what they do now?

I must've missed the visit to my county by the RINOs running for office.
Top Top