I got to thinking, and yea I know it was hard, but we've only had what? a 1/2 dozen primaries, and now Edwards, and Guliani are bowing out, and it's not even super tuesday yet. This brings up the question, what if all those states holding their primaries on super tuesday, all wanted Edwards, or Guliani? Now they can't even vote for them, cause they're bowing out due to low votes in the early ones. And all those people now have to vote for someone else they didn't want to. Wouldn't it be fair to say, that it would be a fairer vote if all the primaries were held on the same day, as to allow each voter the choice from all the canadites, and not just a widdled down few?
To me, anyways, I feel it's unfair to the voters out their who haven't voted yet, are now not going to be able to vote for either Edwards, or Guliani like other voters have. Thus being unfair to them cause they didn't get to vote for them.
Just to make it clear, I'm not for either of the two canadites mentioned above, but feel there is some discrimination here. Just think if all states held their primaries on the same day. It sure would cut down on the political advertisments you see on tv!
__________________
"If we don't end war, war will end us!"
H.G. Wells 1935
It sure would cut down on the political advertisments you see on tv!
That would certainly be a benefit...
I think Giuliani's exit is a result of failed strategy. He was NOT one of the underdogs. Going into the whole process, he was probably one of the top two on the Republican side. But, he wrote off the early primaries, hoping to score the big win in Florida. In doing so, though, he lost all momentum and gave it to the folks who WERE underdogs, i.e. McCain and Huckabee. Unfortunately, Huckabee is low on cash and unable to spread the word as widely and efficiently as Romney and McCain, so he'll probably be relegated to the sidelines soon.
it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ you can raise. You can havea great plan and vision for the country and if you can't raise the Benajmins your done. Every states wnats to try and get their primaries earlier and earlier, why, so the candidate spends cash in their state. If you really think about who cares what Iowa and NH think, They should hold primaries very close together and give the whole countrya choice on who gets to run.
As far as Super Tuesday goes, is it even important what a Republican candidate does in NY? NYC is going to vote Dem just like they have for ever so our state will go the Dem, just like it alway's does.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
it's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ you can raise..
So your saying it doesn't matter that voters on super tuesday don't have the same selection of candadites as those states that are already done with theirs?
__________________
"If we don't end war, war will end us!"
H.G. Wells 1935
Its very important how a Republican candidate does in the NY primary because NY has a whole passel of delegates to the GOP convention. You need to pile up those delegates if you ever expect to get the nomination.
There previously was a proposal to have around eightprimaries in four different states separated by about two or three weeks each. Each election cycle the scheduling of the primaries would change so some states would get their chance to be early voters. Likechanges to the electoral college, the smaller states killed the proposal. Its their chance to be important and to have the big politicos at a steak fry or a hog roast. Folks in Iowa (and New Hampshire) sure like their every four years of being thebelle of the ball.
So your saying it doesn't matter that voters on super tuesday don't have the same selection of candadites as those states that are already done with theirs?
I'm said
Quote:
They should hold primaries very close together and give the whole countrya choice on who gets to run.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
are early primaries unfair to the underdogs?
