This week will be a busy week…..the vote in Iowa, the impeachment trial and the State of the Union…..busy, busy, busy!
The 2020 election is on….let the sham begin!
This is #1 in a series that I will post on the process of picking a candidate and president….
It is finally here…..the 2020 campaign and primaries season….that political theater that does little but help the media make billions in ad dollars and the media has a way to drive the conversation and help pick the candidate.
Personally, I think the whole system needs to be put down the toilet where they belong.
This is no way to pick the nominee.
Let’s start at the top: Our system for choosing presidential nominees makes little sense. As Brookings Institution senior fellow Elaine Kamarck wrote recently, “There are many different ways to organize a presidential nominating system and almost all of them are more rational and orderly than the hodgepodge of systems that voters experience today.”
To start, Iowa and New Hampshire go first simply because they do, even though they are wildly unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. They’re smaller, way more white and way more rural, and, in the case of Iowa, more evangelical, with a side of bizarre special-interest politics in the form of the ethanol lobby. Yet they shake up the race, thinning the herd before most of the country has a chance to vote.
Really! These primaries are worthless and boring….only the media loves them….below was from 2004….
If you’re Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe — who has reportedly told all the contenders that if they’re not winning by March 10, they need to drop out of the race — this is good news. The sooner Democrats agree on a nominee, the sooner they can prepare for the general election. It’s also not troubling if you’re a voter in New Hampshire or Iowa, because you will have helped select the party’s candidate.
But if you’re a voter in California, New York or any of the 10 states that vote in the “Super Tuesday” primaries March 2, it’s a different story. You’re going to have a very limited choice — many candidates will already have dropped out of the race, and the front-runner will probably have so many delegates and so much momentum that no one can catch up.
I have rattled on for long enough….how many know exactly what the primary system is all about (a show of hands please)……
A little history is a good thing……these things are not provided for in the Constitution……but yet here they are…..
The presidential primaries are one of the most important elements of the American constitutional order. Given that general elections give voters just two starkly opposed choices, it’s largely through the primaries that nuance enters the political process. Parties define themselves by whom they select to run for president, and the ideological alignments that result end up defining the contours of political conflict.
And yet, despite primaries’ central role, nothing about them is laid out in the Constitution.
In fact, the framers didn’t envision American politics taking the form of two-party competition, so they gave no thought to how parties would select their candidates.
This, in turn, is part of what makes the primaries so fascinating. While the Constitution itself is incredibly difficult to change, party nominating rules and state laws are much more flexible.
Now you have the history…..now what I would rather see….
I would like t see the primary system abolished…it is only a beauty contest and a way for the media to rape dollars out of the system. But if we must have them then go to regional primaries or better yet a National Primary.
The idea that candidates build name recognition in Iowa and New Hampshire and then slowly build momentum as the process moves on is a quaint one but largely mythological. Since Jimmy Carter in 1976, has any candidate emerged as a major party nominee who wasn’t an early front-runner and well-heeled? Certainly, the nominees in the past several cycles have all been early front runners.
A national primary in, say, March, with a run-off in, say, June, would be much preferable to the way we do it now. If a candidate got 50% of the vote, he’d be the nominee. If not, the top two candidates would run against one another for another six to eight weeks.
That would force everyone to engage in retail politics on the issues rather than hanging around Merrimack Restaurant with the locals. And it would virtually guarantee substantive campaigning would continue into the early summer since only shoo-ins such as sitting presidents would likely capture a majority in a multi-candidate race.
YouGov’s latest research shows that most Americans (54%) think that presidential campaigns are too long and drawn out. Only 23% of Americans say that they prefer a long campaign which gives them a better chance of getting to know the candidates.
Currently the primary and caucus season stretches out over months, with the first Iowa caucuses scheduled to take place in January 2016. This has been criticized for giving small states such as Iowa and New Hampshire undue influence as well as prolonging the already lengthy presidential election campaign. Most Americans (54%) want the primaries to all take place on the same day in May or early June. Only 22% of Americans want the current system to continue.
A single national primary day is particularly popular in the Northeast, where 64% of people want to consolidate all the days. The midwest has the highest proportion of people (25%) wanting to continue with the current system where primaries and caucuses are spread out over several months…….https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/03/05/primaries
I made my thoughts known….anyone else feel like they have a better thought or opinion…if so please jump in here…..
I Read, I Wrote, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”