Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But there are signs that its influence on the nominating process could be ebbing and that the nature of the voters who tend to turn out for the Republican caucuses — a heavy concentration of evangelical Christians and ideological conservatives overlaid with parochial interests — is discouraging some candidates from competing there.
Honestly I would put the very first primary in one state only and that state would be Illinois. I say that because the demographics and politics of Illinois match what would be those of the country at large. The state is about 1/3 rd urban, suburban and rural. It is both a southern and northern state as Cairo and Chicago have not much in common. Its racial and ethnic mix reflect that of the country at large and it is about 1/2 GOP and 1/2 Democrat. Candidates would have to be moderate and acceptable to various kind of people to win there.
Honestly I would put the very first primary in one state only and that state would be Illinois. I say that because the demographics and politics of Illinois match what would be those of the country at large. The state is about 1/3 rd urban, suburban and rural. It is both a southern and northern state as Cairo and Chicago have not much in common. Its racial and ethnic mix reflect that of the country at large and it is about 1/2 GOP and 1/2 Democrat. Candidates would have to be moderate and acceptable to various kind of people to win there.
No, please. I live in Illinois. The politicians here invented the word corrupt.
Primary order should be rotated regionally (southeast, southwest, northeast, northwest, midwest, west, other territories) every Presidential election year. I say "regionally" because it means less travel for candidates, as they campaign state to state.
So maybe in 2012, the primary order is: southeast, southwest, northeast, northwest, midwest, west, other territories
But in 2016, the order is: southwest, northeast, northwest, midwest, west, other territories, southeast
And in 2020, the order is: northeast, northwest, midwest, west, other territories, southeast, southwest.
This way, everyone eventually gets a crack at being first. I'm sick of Iowa and New Hampshire eliminating my choices.
I think we can all agree that whatever GOP candidate wins Iowa...(s)he WONT be the GOP nominee
Agree, except if it's Tim Pawlenty because he's moderate, and maybe Herman Cain.
But yeah, the candidate winning in New Hampshire will have more chances.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
