Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dfwgator
That’s why we need a National Primary Day.

You mean in order to guarantee that the richest candidate wins all the time? The deepest pockets would just flood the airways in all the big markets in every key state and win by default forever. You think guys like Santorum or Newt had a hard time competing this time around, under your plan they wouldn't even have a chance. Your national primary day proposal eliminates the ability for a guy with few resources like Santorum to gain traction over the course of a primary and at least have an opportunity to emerge. If you ever, ever, ever want more candidates in touch with the grass roots running for office, you absolutely do not want a national primary day. Not saying what we have is all that great, but national primary day is simply an atrocious alternative.

25 posted on 04/24/2012 10:39:09 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Longbow1969

What about a national party day primary #1 to whittle the list of potential candidates. Then have numerous widely-televised debates moderated not at all. Turn on the cameras and mikes and let the 4 or 5 candidates have at it. Let US decide what we think. Great TV too!

Then after a few months, have a national party primary day #2 to select the Presidential candidate. The convention would then nominate and select the veep and everyone give speeches.

Nowhere is it written that we have to do things the way we have been doing them to select a party’s candidates.


31 posted on 04/24/2012 10:54:23 AM PDT by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Longbow1969

Why should Iowa determine who the candidate is, how many candidates are eliminated because these little states don’t like them? It’s not fair that the race is already decided before the Texas primary.


36 posted on 04/24/2012 11:10:59 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Longbow1969
You mean in order to guarantee that the richest candidate wins all the time?

As if they don't now?!?!?!

38 posted on 04/24/2012 11:13:59 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Longbow1969
"You mean in order to guarantee that the richest candidate wins all the time?"

Not in a runoff. The best Conservative merely needs to make it to #2, then consolidate the Conservative vote. Project that scenario onto 2012, and this thread could be about Gingrich announcing his VP choice...

41 posted on 04/24/2012 11:24:18 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson