Idea: Illinois as first-primary state
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:09:03 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)
  Idea: Illinois as first-primary state
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question:
#1
Freedom idea; that should be implemented.
#2
Freedom idea, but there are better states.
#3
Horrible idea, but still better then Iowa.
#4
Horrible idea; even worse than Iowa.
#5
Horrible idea; Iowa is much better.
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Idea: Illinois as first-primary state  (Read 4841 times)
LAKISYLVANIA
Lakigigar
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,165
Belgium


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -4.78

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2021, 01:41:48 PM »
« edited: March 17, 2021, 01:46:41 PM by Laki »

If primaries are to be staggered, Illinois fits the bill for me - representative of the US ethnically, with a large city, suburbs, exurbs, rurals and a mixture of economic sectors and populations.

Illinois would be good, but Illinois is losing population. Look at census county maps and you see red---why not Georgia or Texas, or some other microcosm....
All extremely expensive (and impractical) to campaign in, unless you divide the state primary in several smaller primaries (which is an option, but than it's no longer a microcosm ofc).

Texas is a great microcosm sure, but it would actually not be able to test the desired establishment candidate very well, and in the long it would result in more losses during presidential elections, because it isn't a real test, as smaller candidates have not the money or the ability to campaign in such a large state.

Texas is already (and rightfully) early, but it shouldn't be among the first four. I'm fine with where Texas is right now.

And of course, if you prefer the establishment candidate time after time, you could make the case for just scraping the entire primary process. I mean it would unite the party perhaps much quicker, because having GA/TX/IL all come very early (like the first four primaries) would result in the primaries just being a waste of time for everyone, including the voters.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 17, 2021, 08:56:25 PM »

FTR, if Illinois were actually a crucial primary with several candidates, I think the campaigning would be a LOT more spread out than people realize.  These are 2016 numbers, as I have not updated my spreadsheet in a while:

ILLINOIS: 12,801,539
Chicagoland: 8,488,857 (66.31%)
Chicago: 2,704,958
Instate Suburbs: 5,783,899 (2,498,541 and 3,285,358 in the other counties)
Downstate Illinois: 4,312,682 (33.69%)
- Northern IL: 1,182,137 (46.46% in Rockford/Quad Cities)
- Central IL: 1,921,129 (52.75% in Peoria/Bloomington/Champaign/Springfield)
- Southern IL: 1,209,416 (49.64% in St. Louis suburbs)

As you can see, more people actually live in Downstate than some might assume, and more of those people in Downstate live in decidedly NON-rural areas.  I think it would be an interesting primary, and I absolutely do NOT think it would evolve into some "Chicagoland vs. Downstate" battle whatsoever.  Rockford and Peoria have industrial, minority-heavy city centers with fairly affluent surrounding areas that are more Republican, while somewhere like Springfield has more culturally conservative areas surrounding a "pro-government"-type Democratic center and then you have somewhere like Champaign that is a more "college town liberal vibe."

There would obviously be a candidate playing all-in on Chicago and one playing all-in rural Downstate voters, but neither one would win on that support alone.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 17, 2021, 09:03:39 PM »

FTR, if Illinois were actually a crucial primary with several candidates, I think the campaigning would be a LOT more spread out than people realize.  These are 2016 numbers, as I have not updated my spreadsheet in a while:

ILLINOIS: 12,801,539
Chicagoland: 8,488,857 (66.31%)
Chicago: 2,704,958
Instate Suburbs: 5,783,899 (2,498,541 and 3,285,358 in the other counties)
Downstate Illinois: 4,312,682 (33.69%)
- Northern IL: 1,182,137 (46.46% in Rockford/Quad Cities)
- Central IL: 1,921,129 (52.75% in Peoria/Bloomington/Champaign/Springfield)
- Southern IL: 1,209,416 (49.64% in St. Louis suburbs)

As you can see, more people actually live in Downstate than some might assume, and more of those people in Downstate live in decidedly NON-rural areas.  I think it would be an interesting primary, and I absolutely do NOT think it would evolve into some "Chicagoland vs. Downstate" battle whatsoever.  Rockford and Peoria have industrial, minority-heavy city centers with fairly affluent surrounding areas that are more Republican, while somewhere like Springfield has more culturally conservative areas surrounding a "pro-government"-type Democratic center and then you have somewhere like Champaign that is a more "college town liberal vibe."

There would obviously be a candidate playing all-in on Chicago and one playing all-in rural Downstate voters, but neither one would win on that support alone.
Dynamics would also vary between the parties. Dem candidates would gravitate more towards Chicago, and Reps towards Downstate.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2021, 09:56:43 AM »

^ In many ways, yes (especially for a Democratic candidate focusing intensely on Chicago and/or Cook County), but a huge chunk of Illinois' Republican votes still come from the Chicago area.  I would imagine a GOP primary in Illinois (of this much importance/scope) going something like this:

- A "moderate" or "business wing" candidate who focuses mainly on the Chicagoland suburbs and fundraising in other semi-large population centers with traditionally Republican voters like Peoria, Rockford, Bloomington, etc.
- A "true conservative" who looks to drive up turnout in rural Northern IL, much of Central IL, more ancestrally GOP areas of Southern IL and the outer Chicagoland suburbs.
- A "Trumpist" candidate who looks to win "WWC" voters in ancestrally Democratic areas of Southern IL, the larger small city centers/manufacturing areas like Peoria/Rockford/Quad Cities/some STL suburbs/etc. and also looks to get a "surprising" number of votes out of "WWC" areas of Cook County.
- Several other candidates doing a combination of these.

Any candidate that could have some crossover appeal between those would win.  Whether that's a "business wing" Republican who can also appeal to "true conservative" types due to a stance or two (ala Romney 2012) or a "Trumpist" candidate that captures the frustrations of the moment to also appeal to other Republican groups across many demographics (ala Trump 2016) or a more generic Tea Partyer type who can channel anger at "The Establishment" to combine all of the other groups together like [take your pick of random, crazy 2010-2014 Republican], I do not know.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2021, 11:14:34 AM »

We shouldn't have any state go first. That allows nobodies like Pete or KLOB too much time in the media only for them to fizzle out. Plus it leaves out late voting states

I say we have a national popular vote in all 50 states on the same day. Just registered Democrats and rank choice voting.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2021, 07:58:00 PM »

^ In many ways, yes (especially for a Democratic candidate focusing intensely on Chicago and/or Cook County), but a huge chunk of Illinois' Republican votes still come from the Chicago area.  I would imagine a GOP primary in Illinois (of this much importance/scope) going something like this:

- A "moderate" or "business wing" candidate who focuses mainly on the Chicagoland suburbs and fundraising in other semi-large population centers with traditionally Republican voters like Peoria, Rockford, Bloomington, etc.
- A "true conservative" who looks to drive up turnout in rural Northern IL, much of Central IL, more ancestrally GOP areas of Southern IL and the outer Chicagoland suburbs.
- A "Trumpist" candidate who looks to win "WWC" voters in ancestrally Democratic areas of Southern IL, the larger small city centers/manufacturing areas like Peoria/Rockford/Quad Cities/some STL suburbs/etc. and also looks to get a "surprising" number of votes out of "WWC" areas of Cook County.
- Several other candidates doing a combination of these.

Any candidate that could have some crossover appeal between those would win.  Whether that's a "business wing" Republican who can also appeal to "true conservative" types due to a stance or two (ala Romney 2012) or a "Trumpist" candidate that captures the frustrations of the moment to also appeal to other Republican groups across many demographics (ala Trump 2016) or a more generic Tea Partyer type who can channel anger at "The Establishment" to combine all of the other groups together like [take your pick of random, crazy 2010-2014 Republican], I do not know.

Who do you think would have won the 2008 Republican presidential primary in Illinois if that state had been the first to hold a primary?
Logged
Oregon Eagle Politics
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2021, 09:07:14 PM »

TBH I like IA going 1st, although NV and NH should swap places.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2021, 02:01:26 PM »

The interesting element of this idea to me is what Illinois as first in the nation Republican primary would do. Given where IL Rs are, you'd have a bunch of mostly forgotten areas in rural IL suddenly very relevant.

Like, roughly half of Biden's general election votes in IL came from Cook County, but only roughly a fifth of Trump's did. A first in the nation IL R primary would be a pretty fascinating thing.
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2021, 10:53:21 PM »

#2.
Logged
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2021, 12:57:52 AM »

The only fair staggered primary system is one that's completely randomly decided with who goes first and who goes last. But not having them all on the same day is a tragedy.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2021, 10:00:10 AM »

Heck no, Illinois ought to be one of the last states holding a presidential primary instead of being the first. Here's what I would prefer we have as a presidential primary system: I'm in favor of creating, via a constitutional amendment, a schedule for when presidential primaries and caucuses (if any states continue to hold the latter) can be held.

Prohibit any state from holding a presidential primary or caucus before April 1 (of leap year).

Allow the smallest states, which have just 3 or 4 electoral college votes, to hold primaries in April. This would mean Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming could all choose any date in April for their primaries/caucuses. (The amendment would probably also stipulate that the New Hampshire law that says their state must be first in the nation would be void.)

Allow the medium-sized states, which have 5 to 11 electoral college votes, to hold primaries/caucuses in May. The states which could do so would be Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. These states could choose any date in May for when to hold their primaries or caucuses.

Make all of the largest states wait until June to hold their primaries or caucuses. That would include California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Again, these states could choose any date in June. The majority of delegates to the national conventions would not be selected until June.

With our current system, the nominations are usually already assured by March, and we have to wait an agonizing amount of time until the conventions are held.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2021, 08:31:29 PM »
« Edited: August 07, 2021, 08:50:04 PM by CentristRepublican »

Even better suggestion: NJ.

A more diverse state, and smaller in both area and population.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
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 0.039 seconds with 13 queries.