Posted on 08/25/2014 10:31:59 PM PDT by iowamark
The Democratic National Committee over the weekend set its preliminary 2016 presidential primary calender, with the four traditional carve-out states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- holding contests in February and everybody else after that.
The calendar mimics what we've seen from Republicans, who have basically agreed on the same order of succession. Here's how that looks:
Feb. 1 -- Iowa caucuses
Feb. 9 -- New Hampshire primary
Feb. 20 -- Nevada caucuses
Feb. 27 -- South Carolina primary
From there, all other states would be permitted to hold contests between March 1 and June, with party conventions being held in the early or mid-summer.
Seems reasonable, right? Well, the problem is that there isn't much hope the calendar will stay this way. And all it takes is for one state to be the spoilsport and force a re-casting of the entire calendar. (Translation: New Year's in Des Moines.)
In recent years, a handful of the other 46 states have bucked the committees and moved their primary dates to compete with or preempt the early states, wanting the limelight (and campaign spending) that comes along with being one of the primaries that actually, you know, matters. And it's pretty easy for a state like Florida to just crash the party and set its date for late January, as it has done the last two presidential elections...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
They voted for ROMNEY!!
They didn't stay home. They cheated and got full credit.
/johnny
Feb. 1 — Iowa caucuses
Feb. 9 — New Hampshire primary
Feb. 20 — Nevada caucuses
I really don’t like three blue states deciding who our nominees are going to be.
It is usually long over before the true red states have a say. It is also way past time to have closed primaries and caucuses.
If Florida crashes the party and .....
Why do Iowa voters carry more weight than others? It’s BS. All they get is reassurance that they will get all the pork they can for their pork .... that and corn.
Would they like it if Alabama got to be first every time? Why not Texas?
Past time to end open primaries too.
They love open primaries. It lets dems vote for liberal pubs.
And letting liberal states vote in the primary first sets the stage for their hand-picked liberal republican candidate.
They will bitch if you don't vote for their liberal republican candidate. Like Romney. Who didn't even match the party platform.
/johnny
With so many idiots voting early these days, there really is no more drama. There is no chance for anyone to come from behind, because the idiots that voted early voted for the guy they were told was going to win. And so the guy they were told was going to win, ends up winning.
They changed rules during the last convention.
Yes, people do remember that, and will bring it up and it will be a big hairy deal.
Just remember, bookmark, and bring it up come late October, early November.
And then again next year.... and the year after that....
Until we wear the cheating bastards down. Or they die of old age and we outlive them. I don't care which.
/johnny
Fair enough.
I really don't like conservatives who use the liberal media assigned "red state/blue state" talking points. Red represents communism, not conservatism.
As for the three states you mentioned, they are not safe RAT states, but swing states that can be won by either party. Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire have all voted for Republican candidates in closely contested national races. That's quite different from a genuinely one-party communist red state like Massachuttes or Hawaii.
Time to rip up that 4 state early advantage and draw up a new plan but its about time others had a go first
Have the first Tuesday of Feb, Mar, April, May with 12/13 primaries on each day.
The old system of this lot going first is tired and no longer fits.
For POTUS election the primary needs to be a same day National Presidential Primary then date would not matter. I'm getting DS&T of a handful of Liberal states picking party choice before others have equal say. The party manipulators will never allow it though.
Then why doesn’t a red state crash the party and go first?
Then why doesn’t a red state crash the party and go first?
That would suit me fine.
My state still has their primary scheduled late into the spring of irrelevancy.
By the time their primary is held, the nominee will already have been determined — as in 2008, as in 2012.
==
Iowa is a swing state. We have a 5th-term Republican governor, one US Senator from each party, two US House members from each party, a Republican State House, a Democrat State Senate, and the other statewide offices are split. Iowa went for Bush in 2004, but it's true that it has gone for Democrats in other recent Presidential elections. But describing it as a "blue state" is simply not accurate.
But describing it as a “blue state” is simply not accurate.
Okay. I’ll just say it’s bluer than mine.
I still don’t agree with Iowans have more influence on our political system than my state.
If you’re an Iowan, would you have any objection to Alabama going first?
I will add that I would hate all the campaign ads Iowans have to endure so maybe it wouldn’t be such a good deal.
New Hampsire needs to end their nonsense of being the cry baby primary. (waaaah wanna be first waaaaah)
Red Hampshire makes a killing on their meal/lodging/rental taxes during primary season...if not for that; they would probably have an income tax and overall sales tax in short order.
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.