Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 01:16:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should Nevada and South Carolina (in that order) be the first two states in the Democratic primary calendar?
#1
Democrat: Yes
 
#2
Democrat: No
 
#3
Not a Democrat
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 79

Author Topic: Should Nevada and South Carolina be the First Two States?  (Read 480581 times)
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,774


« on: April 02, 2020, 11:07:27 PM »
« edited: April 02, 2020, 11:11:40 PM by The Mikado »

I would be fine with Iowa getting bumped after Nevada and South Carolina given their massive clusterf**k caucus this year.

If we're keeping roughly the current system intact, it's probably the path of least resistance and easiest change to make to bump Iowa, ban caucuses, and make the list New Hampshire/Nevada (a primary)/South Carolina/New state. I've heard good arguments for Illinois as the new state for #4...a big state, yes, but a big state going fourth isn't the same as it going first. Another possibility might include Michigan. A big northern state in the Midwest.

EDIT: another advantage of this might be that it'd be a good calendar for the GOP as well, and the two parties like to keep their two calendars more or less harmonious. NH/NV/SC/IL works fine as a first four for the GOP and they no longer have to worry about the Iowa caucus giving a huge bump to random religious charlatans.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,774


« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2020, 10:40:43 AM »

I would be fine with Iowa getting bumped after Nevada and South Carolina given their massive clusterf**k caucus this year.

If we're keeping roughly the current system intact, it's probably the path of least resistance and easiest change to make to bump Iowa, ban caucuses, and make the list New Hampshire/Nevada (a primary)/South Carolina/New state. I've heard good arguments for Illinois as the new state for #4...a big state, yes, but a big state going fourth isn't the same as it going first. Another possibility might include Michigan. A big northern state in the Midwest.

EDIT: another advantage of this might be that it'd be a good calendar for the GOP as well, and the two parties like to keep their two calendars more or less harmonious. NH/NV/SC/IL works fine as a first four for the GOP and they no longer have to worry about the Iowa caucus giving a huge bump to random religious charlatans.

Illinois is definitely too big and New Hampshire proved to be totally irrelevant this year for the Democrats. If they want a Northeastern state then Connecticut and Delaware are far more diverse and representative of their coalition.


I don't like that New Hampshire is early, but A. the GOP isn't losing NH, and B. NH's state government is perfectly willing to hold their primary early even if the party tells them not to and no way candidates are going to resist the siren song of competing in the first contest, and C. NH is a swing state and is really touchy and I don't particularly want NH to start voting GOP because Dems kill their stupid tradition and GOP keeps with it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 15 queries.