why can't we have regional primaries?

[charlie and algernon]

We can easily do something like this, where each of those regions holds their primary each month from January to May, with the convention in June. It allows the candidates to go to each state, and each primary includes important states, so it would force the candidates to take each one seriously.

[mcctatas]

1. Because it makes sense?

Or why can't we have a national primary? If we can do it for the GE, we can sure as hell pull it off for the primary, right? :shrug:

[charlie and algernon]

11. it still allows for smaller candidates to compete

one national primary eliminates any chance for smaller funded candidates to compete. by spreading it out, it gives those campaigns time to grow. If you do well in the first region, you get more money to help you compete in the second region. You do it all at once, only those campaigns with large war chests and a national infrastructure already in place could do it.

[flor de jasmim]

2. It would help fuel consumption, too!

Shortening the cross-crossing junkets. Oh, and no fund-raising except in states holding the primaries that month!

[JuniperLea]

5. I think you hit on a major reason why this will never be

Think how much milking the media does on these long campaigns... and the travel industry... and this is when deals are struck with candidates. Now is the time when the ultra-wealthy and the corporations ask for favors in exchange for contributions. This sort of talk would cut into their ability to connive their way through. Double edged sword... the same reasons it would be very good for this to happen are the very same reasons it will probably never happen.

Good to talk about though! Good to keep these ideas out there and in the face of the powers-that-be.

[charlie and algernon]

7. that's what the year before can be for

all the campaigns declared last summer, that gives them 6 months to cross the country before the first regional primary

[flor de jasmim]

8. Exactly why we need to change the "powers that be"!

But I agree with you -- it is not about having good ideas, but about making them happen. Using the political capital to find ways to convince people that while they may be giving up some perceived perks, others will come--maybe in the form of more "permanent" bases of operation involving the rental of properties over longer periods of time (and guarantee of payment?!)...

[flor de jasmim]

9. Exactly why we need to change the "powers that be"!

But I agree with you -- it is not about having good ideas, but about making them happen. Using the political capital to find ways to convince people that while they may be giving up some perceived perks, others will come--maybe in the form of more "permanent" bases of operation involving the rental of properties over longer periods of time (and guarantee of payment?!)...

[NoodleBoy]

3. because Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states that no one wants to piss off.

It'd be a great idea.

[charlie and algernon]

4. then new england goes first

and the mid atlantic primary goes second

[NoodleBoy]

6. it's the other way around. also, the proposal by the national conference of secretaries of state

is that one region goes in January, the next in Feb, the next in April, etc etc, and then next year the region that went in January goes last, the region that went in February going in January, etc.

Smart plan, too bad no one has the balls to force Iowa and NH to do it.

[Hoof Hearted]

10. The "reasoning" behind IA and NH going first is about 96 years old.

Prior to 1912 ALL presidential candidates were chosen by legislatures and party insiders. The idea of actually allowing citizens to vote on the nominee was novel and shocking.

NH established it's first in the nation status in 1920 and maintains it partly as a reward for promoting this process.



I'd much prefer a regional primary system.