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.
Ever notice that the run-up to the next US Presidential Election is painfully predictable? We already know this song:
1st - Iowa
2nd - New Hampshire
3rd - Nevada
4th - South Carolina
5th - SUPER TUESDAY staring Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia
6th - Puerto Rico
7th - Hawaii
... etc., etc., etc.
Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the tone and get more influence than they actually deserve because they always go first. Why do they always go first? Why is there always a Super Tuesday? Wouldn't it be great if we could see Montana go first instead? How about Alabama? Texas? California?
No doubt it's been suggested before, but why don't we have the states agree to rotate the order? If you went first in the last presidential cycle, you move to last next time around. And sooner or later, every state gets the chance to go first. Seems like that would be a lot more democratic and fair, doesn't it?
Ever notice that the run-up to the next US Presidential Election is painfully predictable? We already know this song:
1st - Iowa
2nd - New Hampshire
3rd - Nevada
4th - South Carolina
5th - SUPER TUESDAY staring Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia
6th - Puerto Rico
7th - Hawaii
... etc., etc., etc.
Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the tone and get more influence than they actually deserve because they always go first. Why do they always go first? Why is there always a Super Tuesday? Wouldn't it be great if we could see Montana go first instead? How about Alabama? Texas? California?
No doubt it's been suggested before, but why don't we have the states agree to rotate the order? If you went first in the last presidential cycle, you move to last next time around. And sooner or later, every state gets the chance to go first. Seems like that would be a lot more democratic and fair, doesn't it?
They go first because both parties want it that way. When Florida and some other states decided they wanted to be first, their primaries were invalidated.
Since both parties are private entities, they get to make their own rules on such matters. Since the U.S. has a basic 2-party system, state election laws tend to follow the political party's agendas, as it saves the state time and the money the primaries cost each state.
That's why Super Tuesday came about. When so many states hold their primaries early, it allows both parties more time to consolidate around the most likely nominee, and that allows both more time to get financed, get the final campaign planned, and makes the possibility of a too-long convention much less.
It also decides both parties' state and local candidates early, allowing the same benefits to state elections.
The states that didn't join Super Tuesday found themselves becoming irrelevant. Most of them moved their primaries up, since no state likes to be put at a disadvantage. The most money always comes in earlier or at the very end of a campaign (sometimes. In elections that have become unpredictably close)
Puerto Rico and Hawaii aren't ever important, but the first 5 on your list are supremely important because they gather so many committed electors for the candidates. Super Tuesday is by far the biggest shakeout. It was designed to be that way.
It's all a process of elimination vs. time. The more time a party has, the more money that's raised and the more solidity that forms around the candidates inside each party.
Iowa shakes out the weakest very early on. New Hampshire and the others begin to shake out the stronger candidates afterward. After Super Tuesday, the nominee is next to a given.
I think every Dem candidate, that is still in the race, is trying their best to at least get to Super Tuesday (March 3rd) and see what happens. By that point 38% of the Country will have had their primary. While I agree momentum and the "snowball effect" helps, I can see some candidate that doesn't win IA, NH, NV and SC, still do really well come Super Tuesday, maybe even surpassing candidates that won those first states.
Ever notice that the run-up to the next US Presidential Election is painfully predictable? We already know this song:
1st - Iowa
2nd - New Hampshire
3rd - Nevada
4th - South Carolina
5th - SUPER TUESDAY staring Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia
6th - Puerto Rico
7th - Hawaii
... etc., etc., etc.
Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the tone and get more influence than they actually deserve because they always go first. Why do they always go first? Why is there always a Super Tuesday? Wouldn't it be great if we could see Montana go first instead? How about Alabama? Texas? California?
No doubt it's been suggested before, but why don't we have the states agree to rotate the order? If you went first in the last presidential cycle, you move to last next time around. And sooner or later, every state gets the chance to go first. Seems like that would be a lot more democratic and fair, doesn't it?
I totally agree with this proposal. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire always be the ones to go first with regard to the primaries?
I totally agree with this proposal. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire always be the ones to go first with regard to the primaries?
Rotate them all.
Rotating them would lose the expertise the Iowans and New Hampshire voters have acquired in vetting and weeding out the candidates.
Both states are full of voters who are as flinty as rocks, and any candidate has to be good to impress them enough for a vote. The voters in both states all get to know the candidates far better than the rest of the nation does, and they always set a mighty high bar that must be cleared to win.
They do a vital job for the rest of us in that. If rotation was to begin, we would end up with a poorer and less able field of candidates.
That toughness is why some candidates choose to skip over both states entirely. But if any candidate survives the primaries in both states, win or lose, that candidate is fully qualified for the job.
Losing that assurance is something neither party wants, nor does the public if they think about it. All of us want to vote for a good, well-qualified winner. But if our guy doesn't win, at least he was still a good choice who was worthy of confidence.
That would be lost in a rotation, but not for long. Once a rotation was tried out and its failures became evident, we would go back to the old system by the following election.
The real answer to this question is: Do we want to waste our time in another failed experiment? Or are we still willing to stick with an old way that has been long-proven it works for us?
Thinking of an experiment is fun. Living with a failed experiment can be life with a very bad dog who runs the house.
Ever notice that the run-up to the next US Presidential Election is painfully predictable? We already know this song:
1st - Iowa
2nd - New Hampshire
3rd - Nevada
4th - South Carolina
5th - SUPER TUESDAY staring Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia
6th - Puerto Rico
7th - Hawaii
... etc., etc., etc.
Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the tone and get more influence than they actually deserve because they always go first. Why do they always go first? Why is there always a Super Tuesday? Wouldn't it be great if we could see Montana go first instead? How about Alabama? Texas? California?
No doubt it's been suggested before, but why don't we have the states agree to rotate the order? If you went first in the last presidential cycle, you move to last next time around. And sooner or later, every state gets the chance to go first. Seems like that would be a lot more democratic and fair, doesn't it?
Rotating them would lose the expertise the Iowans and New Hampshire voters have acquired in vetting and weeding out the candidates.
Both states are full of voters who are as flinty as rocks, and any candidate has to be good to impress them enough for a vote. The voters in both states all get to know the candidates far better than the rest of the nation does, and they always set a mighty high bar that must be cleared to win.
They do a vital job for the rest of us in that. If rotation was to begin, we would end up with a poorer and less able field of candidates.
That toughness is why some candidates choose to skip over both states entirely. But if any candidate survives the primaries in both states, win or lose, that candidate is fully qualified for the job.
Losing that assurance is something neither party wants, nor does the public if they think about it. All of us want to vote for a good, well-qualified winner. But if our guy doesn't win, at least he was still a good choice who was worthy of confidence.
That would be lost in a rotation, but not for long. Once a rotation was tried out and its failures became evident, we would go back to the old system by the following election.
The real answer to this question is: Do we want to waste our time in another failed experiment? Or are we still willing to stick with an old way that has been long-proven it works for us?
Thinking of an experiment is fun. Living with a failed experiment can be life with a very bad dog who runs the house.
Who cares? It's ridiculous to think that ONLY two states can vet candidates.
There is absolutely NO reason all other states should be forgotten in the primaries.
Who cares? It's ridiculous to think that ONLY two states can vet candidates.
There is absolutely NO reason all other states should be forgotten in the primaries.
None.
You're right.
Super Tuesday came about as a correction for the states that were forgotten too many times.
The entire primary election schedule came from old, often ancient, reasons they are held when they are in all of our states.
I don't know why New Hampshire chose such an early date for holding its primary, but I can take some guesses:
Winter is the time of year when farmers don't have to work all day long every day. Choosing a winter date would be a good time to vote for them.
When all roads were unpaved, winter was often the best time to transport, as the roads were all frozen solid. Ice on roads was no big deal when horses pulled wagons, so a winter day was an easier drive into town to vote.
Being the first in the nation is a big deal for a state. Especially a small state with a small population. Bragging rights are socially important.
An early date may hold advantages for the parties and candidates as a test of electability, a good place to start the campaign trail, and other stuff. For years, there was only one early primary, and then a couple of dead months when there were none at all. A good showing in New Hampshire could be a big help to a winner, or could bring an early death to a losing campaign.
All were practical reasons for the scheduling that don't exist any more. But the long tradition lingers. America has so few old traditions that the ones we have are held very closely.
Most of the primaries also have easy dates to remember, such as the 2nd Tuesday in March.
Our electoral traditions are very strong, so once the election date becomes a tradition, the tradition is extremely hard to break. The practical reasons for setting the date may be long gone to history, but the tradition will carry it on forever.
The reasons are unimportant. It's the ceremony that keeps a tradition alive.
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.
