Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Yea you'd think Florida would be the LAST state to bring any kind of presidential election sense to the rest of us but maybe they will - unintentionally of course.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/28/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know I'm not the only one that thinks that the system our political parties use to nominate a Presidential candidate is assinine. With all respect to people that live in New Hampshire or Iowa or South Carolina or Nevada, who the hell are you to dictate the process as to who is electable & who is not?

By the time a primary comes around in a state like PA, where I live, it's basically all wrapped up for somebody in most elections. So, why can't Florida go so early? Why can't Delaware for example, as the First State, put their primary or caucus on January 10th?

It's just plain stupid, probably not what the Founding Fathers envisioned....

I have a sense of deja vu about this. IIRC, some state tried to leapfrog New Hampshire 10-15 years ago and got slapped down. Maybe TTBF can answer off the top of his Operative head.

I think all the primaries ought to happen the same day.

Ivytalk wrote:I have a sense of deja vu about this. IIRC, some state tried to leapfrog New Hampshire 10-15 years ago and got slapped down. Maybe TTBF can answer off the top of his Operative head.

Wasn't this attempted last time and FLorida almost didn't make the cut?

The early states are not dictating anything. South Carolina, for example, has such diversity with races, wealth, jobs, industry, etc... that it is a good, early indicator of who is electable.

I wish I had an answer - I've wondered what was so magical about the Iowa or New Hampshire primaries vs. some more populous states. Sure, Iowa is Iowawesome, but aside from that I got nothin'.

AZGrizFan wrote:I think all the primaries ought to happen the same day.

To hell with Primaries, lets have ONE ELECTION!

The caucuses and primaries are located in those states because they're cheaper to run in. The states are smaller - with fewer and cheaper media markets (I don't think this was the original intent - but it's become the rationale the parties use)

The Dems added Nevada to get a western and Latino voice in the process in '08.

The current system allows for each region (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada) to have a say in the early primaries without becoming outrageously expensive. (that's a relative statement, I know) It also tends to mean a focus on retail campaigning...

Moving the primaries to huge states like Florida, California, Texas or New York would be insanely expensive - so that's the basic reason.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:The Dems added Nevada to get the western and Latino, prostitution and organized crime voice in the process in '08.

fify

travelinman67 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:The Dems added Nevada to get the western and Latino, prostitution and organized crime voice in the process in '08.

fify