Special K Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 One thing has blown my mind since I have been involved in politics. Namely, the primary system. I have weird leanings, pretty much wanted J.Edwards to be the dem nominee, but you know what? It didn't matter worth shit, because the first 2 primaries determine which candidate gets nominated. I would think this is something that makes both sides mad, as a very small part of the populace gets to nominate a candidate. Everyone know that it is a broken system, however, no one knows what to do with it, since it's always the way things have been done. Is there anyone campaigning for a simultanious primary system on the legislative level? Becuase I want to give him/her support.money. Special K
Guest MikeSC Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Actually, the first two primaries don't technically decide anything --- however, because the primaries are SO front-loaded (everybody wants to have their primary "mean" something, so they move them all as early as possible), the winner of the first few wins them all far too often. Hell, in 1992, Clinton didn't exactly do well in the early primaries (the primary voters ignore that the primaries serve a necessary role There's no way to fix the problem unless you want to go back to the days of smoke-filled room deals. -=Mike
Rob E Dangerously Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 It's all about momentum. Most candidates don't have the system to run a nationwide campaign. But the momentum carries them. One tactic would involve getting support in Texas, California, New York, and other big states, while also making sure that you get good momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire.
Special K Posted September 30, 2004 Author Report Posted September 30, 2004 Well, duh, Mike. I know the first two primaries are technically just as important as the other 48, but it's indisputable that they have an incredible swaying power. I know they *shouldn't*, we should all vote fro whom we deem the best, but it's pretty undeniable that the first 2/3 primaries have a ludicrous amount of pull in the following proceedings. I guess it ties into the polling thread running now on CE. I just think is there any disadvantage to running simultaneous polling? I think not. I also think it's one of the few things the federal gov't could shape up on and not cost billions of dollars. Of course it probably WOULD.....
Guest MikeSC Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Well, duh, Mike. I know the first two primaries are technically just as important as the other 48, but it's indisputable that they have an incredible swaying power. I know they *shouldn't*, we should all vote fro whom we deem the best, but it's pretty undeniable that the first 2/3 primaries have a ludicrous amount of pull in the following proceedings. Thing is, historically, they really don't (Clinton didn't win the first 2 in 1992 if memory serves. Many candidates didn't win their first two). The truncated calendar makes them more important than they are. The ones that REALLY set the tone are Super Tuesday. I guess it ties into the polling thread running now on CE. I just think is there any disadvantage to running simultaneous polling? I think not. I also think it's one of the few things the federal gov't could shape up on and not cost billions of dollars. Of course it probably WOULD..... The federal gov't has no polling apparatus in place, period. And to put one together would cost a ton of money. And nobody would believe them --- since, theoretically, the candidate who is losing could claim they're unfairly harming them. -=Mike
kkktookmybabyaway Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 In addition, didn't Buchanan win N.H. in '92 -- or was it '96? Or was it both?...
Guest Cerebus Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 In addition, didn't Buchanan win N.H. in '92 -- or was it '96? Or was it both?... He won it in 92 and McCain won it in 96 (cue snuffbox and his "black baby" joke which is, without a doubt, the height of all things comedic).
CheesalaIsGood Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 A joke from back in 92: "It was SO cold during the New Hampshire Primary... all the Buchanan supporters had to wear TWO sheets!" Oh my I'm slapping my knee! Only cuz he won.
Guest TJH Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Why can't the party just say that they will all have them on the one day?
kkktookmybabyaway Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 In addition, didn't Buchanan win N.H. in '92 -- or was it '96? Or was it both?... He won it in 92 and McCain won it in 96 (cue snuffbox and his "black baby" joke which is, without a doubt, the height of all things comedic). I don't get the black baby line -- do I even want to know?...
Justice Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Why can't the party just say that they will all have them on the one day? Because it's almost impossible to run a national campaign for primary candidates; the funds just aren't there. If it were like that, Lieberman would have won on name recognition alone.
Rob E Dangerously Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 NH results: McCain was 2000, Buchanan was 1996, Bush was 1992
Special K Posted September 30, 2004 Author Report Posted September 30, 2004 McCain and his wife adopted an orphan child (I want to say from Somalia?) And there was apparently there was a phone smear campaign in the south. People called McCain supporters, insinuating that McCain had had a black baby out of wedlock, and was trying to keep it a secret. People speculate that Bush sponsored it, of course. I don't even know if the phone calls were reality, or a widespread rumor or what.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now