Posted on 03/15/2007 12:21:01 PM PDT by napscoordinator
What is to stop smaller states from moving their primaries say a week ahead themselves?
Why do you assume Republicans in CA are more liberal and would therefore embrace Rudy automatically over a more conservative choice?
Their vote is no more or less meaningful coming early. California gets to watch the performance of the candidates and vet them.
What having the big states come first will ensure, is that no lesser known candidates will have a chance. In the traditional system, Californians would watch the pack as they performed in a small audience and then decide who to back as the primaries continued. What California has ensured now is that they will simply never hear of or from those candidates, as they won't have the initial bankroll to play in that game.
If I'm a Californian, I'm thinking the new system sucks, and has just severely limited my choices.
An example would be Hunter. Let's say that he is the best candidate for most Republicans after they have seen the herd perform. Well forget him now, he doesn't have the name recognition or money to win on day one, so he's toast.
This not only sucks for California, it sucks for the whole country.
"Why do you assume Republicans in CA are more liberal and would therefore embrace Rudy automatically over a more conservative choice?"
Gee, I have no idea why anyone would think that. Maybe I should ask (R)nold for some help on that!
....why would you say that?.....Calif has tons of conservatives.....can't help it if there are even MORE liberals....Calif conservatives are every bit as conservative as any other state.....we just get all the bad press, way more then any other state....so the Dems are kind of in your face here....
An example would be Hunter. Let's say that he is the best candidate for most Republicans after they have seen the herd perform. Well forget him now, he doesn't have the name recognition or money to win on day one, so he's toast.
I like Hunter, but I find him a bit lazy. If I was running for President, I would be going all over the country and making news. I would be talking at every event I could get my hands on. Perhaps it might be expensive, but if that was a problem for me, I would get in the car and start driving. Yes, he does have a job that he works what 20 weeks out of the year at most. He could go on a talking tour and this would also allow him to shed a couple pounds and let him be ready for the primaries. The guy has a little less than a year to get his act together, but I just don't know if he is a go getter. He has been running for President for short of 1/2 a year already and has little to no traction except for here. He should fire his campaign manager first and then get to work! yes it is hard, but everything is if you really want it.
Conservatives will be forced to choose between second-tier, underfunded candidates such as Hunter or Brownback. In some ways it hurts Rudy since the possibility now exists that he will not really be tested in the primary.
Personally, I think Rudy would fare better in the general election if he successfully fended off a serious, well-funded attack from the right. But this is not the conventional wisdom. The boys in the smoke-filled country clubs want a quick coronation, and it is looking more and more like they will get it.
This will benefit Mrs. Clinton and other frontrunners with money.
I don't think it would be a miracle. Usually, presidential candidates win their homestates, in the primaries.
This isn't a city council race. He'd see zip number of people and get zip news coverage.
Where he has a chance is in a small state primary, where driving around might actually work. Then he gets in the debate, and then if he does well, he gets the money coming in.
All have a national primary (essentially the result of having the large states go first) does is ensure that these candidates are weeded out completely before the primary even starts.
This is the "anti-retail politics" move.
What this really does is simply frontrunner protection. Candidates with less money which might come from behind via a grassroots swell are now shut out.
It is also designed to intimidate the people who could run against Rudy because they have little or no time to raise money. (see Newt, see Thompson)
So move it up to May. But were 51% of the electoral votes really already accounted for?
It is good for California. (Even if not good for the nation.)
Fascinating. Tell me again which country California is in?
Really? Did Dennis Kucinich win the Ohio primary?
Are you a betting man? How much are you willing to wager that Ron Paul will win the Texas primary? Or Duncan the California primary?
> ....why would you say that?.....Calif has tons of conservatives.....
India has the second largest Muslim population in the world, after Indonesia. It is not a terribly Muslim place.
California may have many conservatives, but it has, as you say, even more non-conservatives. Anyplace where the general population has a voice (anywhere outside of party caucus type events) conservatives are drowned out in California.
"I like Hunter, but I find him a bit lazy."
The fact he's still a House member and is traveling all over to do his Congressional duty must have escaped your argument.
that is a real shame than. I don't think we will ever get a small conservative candidate again or ever. I knew when I wrote that it was a bit unrealistic, but I think that for President everyone should have a fair chance if they work hard for it.
He still has a huge amount of time off. More than you and I probably. We really can't use over worked as an excuse.
In what parallel universe?
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.