Some have suggested a national primary day. But, the current system sure shows how candidates can or cannot stand up to stress, and how they can or can’t deal face to face with opponents.
I’m all for closed primaries, NOT spread out over 6 months, and the end of the insanity of a caucus.
That being said, I’ve seen little today to to prove that the “allegations” from NV were anything more than allegations.
Hopefully the rest of the states will be better prepared for the record turnouts
In Nebraska, the Democrat party went the other way, switching from a primary to a caucus. Mainly because their primary isn’t until May and they were jealous of Iowa getting all the attention.
Those guys on Mt. Rushmore, how many primaries with strictly democratic rules did they win?
Careful what you wish for! Do we really want DC political parties to have even more control than they do now? Really?
This issue arose during 2008, when Hillary was beating Obama in primaries (where votes were counted) versus caucuses (where “enthusiasm” counted); the caucuses were a back door to allow the Dem machine to (successfully) stop Hillary. While I prefer the primary system, I believe each state should do its own thing.
A lot of Hot Air (.com) from one Ed Morrissey, whose “solution” is to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Seems to me the real problem in NV (and SC, too) was simply that the state’s political parties held their caucuses on different dates, which allows everyone to participate in more than just their own caucus.
If Iowa’s Democrats didn’t hold their caucuses concurrently with the Republicans, I likely would have attended theirs, too, just for the Operation Chaos factor.