Presidential Nominating Process

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Please tell me why Guiliani didn't do Iowa. Fred Iowa? Hmmm... yeah - no did pay attention me thinks. But anyway it matters very little because there will always be some "strategery" when it comes to the nomination process.

Please tell me why every other candidate did Iowa and please tell me why candidates were setting up organization for years in advance in Iowa. Huckabee spent tons of time in the South where there are no particularly important states outside of Florida.

I think your problem is that you're trying to apply Republican race dynamics to the examples I set forth that were from the Democratic one. You've got a winner take all formula (in a lot of cases) and you're trying to use candidate behavior as some sort of answer to my example where two candidates are competing in a PR election. (of sorts) Republican candidates will spend the most time and money in states where the polls are close, because getting just a few % more means you get all the delegates. Democratic candidates are far more likely to spend a lot of time in areas where they can rack up some significant majorities.

Anyways, in a rotating regional primary there is no indication based on current candidate behavior that the candidates would ignore the smaller states. Sure they would get less attention then the big ones, but... duh. More importantly though, with this primary season being the sole exception in god knows how long, a rotating primary would get rid of a situation where the vast majority of states are simply ignored... forever. There's no perfect solution, but the one we have now is completely retarded.

Uh - you obviously are very young and have not been actively watching these thing. Don't feel bad, it takes people a while to get over their noobness and look back at the history of things. Good luck.

I'm 27, and while thankfully that's not too old yet I guarantee you I know more about the primary process, the history of it, and the tactics candidates employ for it then you do. You're the one attempting to compare the tactics of a winner take all system to the tactics of a PR one. That shows very clearly that you don't understand what is going on.

Calling someone young and a "noob" is not a good argument.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Iowa and NH exert gigantic influence far out of proportion with their importance geographically, economically, demographically, and politically. There is no logical reason for this, and so I think it should be changed.

I just don't think they do any more.

They strike me more as small time stages where the candidates start warming up their acts.

I don't really give a crap about who wins either Iowa or NH.

I thought HRC won NH. So, apparently not many other people are influenced by it either given she's lost a ton of states since.

Fern

I don't think that assessment is valid. A large amount of their influence is in terms of campaign contributions, etc. Do you really think if Obama had lost Iowa and NH that he would have had the funds to compete with Clinton in other places? Very unlikely. Do you think Huckabee would have ever been taken seriously as a candidate had he not won Iowa? Very unlikely.

My argument isn't that Iowa and NH determine the election, its that the influence they exert is way out of proportion with their importance as states. I see no reason to continue doing this. (as a side note every political science article I've read says Iowa and NH have a huge impact) If the early states aren't important though, what is the argument against a rotating primary anyway? Implementing it wouldn't cost anything.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't think that assessment is valid. A large amount of their influence is in terms of campaign contributions, etc. Do you really think if Obama had lost Iowa and NH that he would have had the funds to compete with Clinton in other places? Very unlikely. Do you think Huckabee would have ever been taken seriously as a candidate had he not won Iowa? Very unlikely.

My argument isn't that Iowa and NH determine the election, its that the influence they exert is way out of proportion with their importance as states. I see no reason to continue doing this. (as a side note every political science article I've read says Iowa and NH have a huge impact) If the early states aren't important though, what is the argument against a rotating primary anyway? Implementing it wouldn't cost anything.

I love the way you guys claim we have sooo much influence over the election. Then point out that people who receive 3% of the vote in our state go on to gain the nomination. It can be one or the other guys, not both.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-

If the early states aren't important though, what is the argument against a rotating primary anyway? Implementing it wouldn't cost anything.

I don't have a problem with it.

I don't really care who goes first.

I've thought I'd prefer several states going first, one from each geographic area - NE, South, Mid-West & West - to see who had what kind of regional support. Then just repeat that cycle to how things moved.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

I love the way you guys claim we have sooo much influence over the election. Then point out that people who receive 3% of the vote in our state go on to gain the nomination. It can be one or the other guys, not both.

Like most things in politics there are many other factors in play besides just the voting results of Iowa and NH. It is impossible to deny however that the winners of early states gain a large advantage at securing the nomination that is out of proportion with their size or importance.

So yes, it can be both.