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.
Why should the RNC and DNC decide when states can hold their primaries? For 2012, it's Florida "acting up" with the RNC. In 2008, wasn't it Michigan acting up with the DNC?
How long have we been telling these folks in the RNC and DNC that we don't like the idea that Iowa and New Hampshire winnow the candidates for the rest of us in every stinkin' presidential election? And how many times immediately after an election have the lawmakers given lip service to changing the sequence of primary scheduling to some type of rotating system but then never act on it?
I'd like to see a rotation in the primaries. I don't think it's right that Iowa and New Hampshire always get first bite at the apple.
The only thing that worries me is a kick-off primary in a large state like California or Texas - then it's not about whether the candidates are good or bad but rather about the size of a candidate's campaign funds. A candidate with lesser funds can't reach out as effectively.
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.
