Posted on 01/31/2008 5:27:28 AM PST by pissant
Cheer up! Things are looking VERY GOOD for post-Super Tuesday voters who want to influence the process. You will likely have a choice of 3 candidates to vote for, and your vote will have a lot of influence.
I wrote an article on this, here: Five Proposals for Fixing the Primary Process for the GOP.
While the establishment will disagree with me...I’d like to suggest a simple solution...where 50 governors meet a year prior to the primary season (no caucuses anymore)...and pull numbers. We start a 3-day voting affair across the nation on the first Tuesday of Feb....with ten states voting. The second day would be twenty states. And the third day...the final twenty. The 50 governors would pull numbers out of a hat and accept their position in the polling situation.
We are standing here....a week before Super-Tuesday...with only two candidates for either party still in the running...which is a pretty fair joke. The number of debates held since July of last year...the number of position changes on various topics....all time wasted in my humble opinion. The massive cash apparatus that was in full-swing....a joke. The number of idiots soaking the candidates for cash....a joke. The idea of Iowa and New Hampshire shape-shifting the entire election....a joke.
I’m probably out of the main-stream...and neither party will appreciate my comments. But I think we are no longer living in 1895 and have folks running around on trains to campaign. Its not necessary to give us twelve debates...or even six debates.
I’ll even add this to my solution...I don’t see any logical reason to wait till July or August for the party convention. I’m a bold-thinker....why not open up a stadium on the first week of May....bring folks in for three days....preferably over a Friday, Saturday and Sunday....and kinda wrap things up. I don’t need some stupid network idiot wasting five nights of my time....analyzing what this dimwit said or that dimwit said. Its like some NCAA football conference playoff season...that goes on forever...and the winner....is really a loser.
Nah! I don't like that either. Then you can get the wealthiest candidate as the nominee. The only one who can afford the massive media buys.
I would favor a series of regional primarys: Northeast, Southeast, Mid-west, Pacific Northwest ... you get the idea. If you take the country in chunks like that you take away the distortion introduced by states that have very narrow focus, like Iowa's farm subsidies, yet you still preserve the opportunity to a less well-funded candidate to get on a roll (which can be a good thing).
Love your tag line.
which two?
Boy, if SC, NH, and Iowa have all gone as blue as this author portends, I think the GOP has bigger problems than the order the states have had their primaries in.
I agree. If the 2000 vote had been similarly divided, McCain would have won then, too.
Outofstyle: you are correct about Reagan getting a majority of the youth vote in '80. I've read that stat many times. And indeed those voters did become lifelong conservatives. I am one of them even though my family is Rino Republican.
Where Jeeves is correct is the next generation, Generation Y as it is sometime referred. My younger sister's politics are left-Democrat. I can't believe I was raised in the same household. Gen Y voters were too young to have actually voted for Reagan, but they absorbed all the Media hatred for the Man and his ideas. They probably cast a majority of their first-time votes for Clinton.
Until McCain gets more than 40% of the vote somewhere, it’s not the liberals giving him to us, is the number of other candidates available for the “anti-McCain” vote to go to.
With your permission, I’d like to post this on another conservative board. Part of the knock on FR is that we’re turning into the “all-or-nothing” types we shouldn’t be. I’d like to demonstrate we’re not all like that—at least not yet.
OH Goodie! Three candidates, two of which I refuse to vote for in Nov, and NONE that I would allow to put a sign in my yard or would do anything to elected!
“It’s the state themselves that set primary dates. Not the RNC. The RNC did try to hold back the flood of early primaries, but Michigan and Florida went early anyway.”
Seems to me that if the RNC was interested in conservatives
doing well in the primaries they do everything they could to have them represented in early primaries. Instead they seem to want to penalize conservative states that wish to move up their primaries.
I would not call either Michigan or Florida a conservative state, would you? My take is that the RNC applied too little control, too late.
This is absolutely true. We have a little more voice than we used to, but we don't yet know how to use it.
Absolutely. I’m flattered.
Exactly what I meant!
I agree absolutely about Rick Santorum, but losing re-election isn’t a good springboard to the presidency.
You are correct. The Union Leader isn’t the Union Leader of old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.