The Effect Of The Early Political Primaries Is Pure Insanity

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  john-russell  •  8 months ago  •  46 comments

The Effect Of The Early Political Primaries Is Pure Insanity
It's not just that Iowa and New Hampshire are largely homogeneous white population states with limited demographic diversity, although that is part of the problem, but the real problem is that those two comprise a sliver of the national voter base in numbers. 

Chuck Todd told a Biden surrogate that if he doesnt finish in the top two in Iowa tonight , his campaign is in trouble. Todd told a Sanders surrogate that is he doesnt win (come in first) in either Iowa of New Hampshire Sanders is toast.  People like Todd say there are a limited number of "tickets" out of Iowa and if you dont win one of those tickets you might as well fold. 

All this should be perceived as ridiculous, but of course , because the media controls our perceptions of what the early primaries mean, Todd's bs is seen as clear eyed realism. 

It's not just that Iowa and New Hampshire are largely homogeneous white population states with limited demographic diversity, although that is part of the problem, but the real problem is that those two comprise a sliver of the national voter base in numbers.  

It's like you are playing a baseball game and you decide after the first inning that one of the teams should drop out of the game because they are behind. Or a group of six people are bowling against one another and the ones who dont throw a strike in the first frame are told to quit the game. 

On it's face, putting all the emphasis on the first three or four voting states to "weed out" the field is ridiculous, and disenfranchises millions of potential primary voters . If I am in Illinois, or New York, or many other populous states, by the time the primary process gets here my preferred candidate may have been forced out by the results of the first three or four (out of 50) states. 

We should have regional primaries (groups of states in the same geographical region), and the states within each region all vote on the same day, and the entire primary process (all regions) is contained within six weeks or so. Have all the primaries in April and May and the convention in June.  This would also have the benefit of shortening these absurd presidential campaigns that last two years. 

The current system is for the benefit of the media which gets to become kingmakers due to the results in the early states.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    8 months ago

If Biden comes in third or fourth in both Iowa and New Hampshire, all we will hear from the media is that he is "done". 

Why on God's earth should that be the case?  Maybe his support lies somewhere in the other 48 states. 

The same for the other candidates. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

Right now Bernie is the favorite for tonight. That's bodes well for the Republicans.

 
 
 
charger 383
2  charger 383    8 months ago

The campaign season is way too long, By election day most people are tired of it and want it to be done.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3  Nerm_L    8 months ago

Now you're catching on.  The Democratic primary calendar is intended to attract political donations; not select a candidate.  Superdelegates pick the Democratic nominee.  The Democratic primary has been rigged for many decades.

The Democratic Party is all about the money.  But then, so is the Republican Party.  Political parties are private businesses that operate like any other business.  Since both political parties are in the same business and chasing the same political donors; why would it be surprising that the two parties become alike?

Party politics isn't about governing.  Party politics is about raising money; that's what the national committees are all about.  Both political parties sell division to obtain more money; that's the motivation and goal for party politics.  The amount of money raised by the parties determines how much political propaganda can be disseminated to create division and influence an election.

As a nation, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on politics.  Spending more on politics has only increased political polarization and divided the country.  We are rewarding politicians for dividing the country.  That's the source of the problem.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3    8 months ago
We are rewarding politicians for dividing the country.  That's the source of the problem.

There you go!

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4  Dean Moriarty    8 months ago

I don't understand why anyone would watch Chuck Todd or care what he thinks. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4    8 months ago

I miss Tim Russert. He always came well prepared and didn't spare either party's feelings when it came to sorting out the BS.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    8 months ago

We all miss Tim. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4    8 months ago

The media dictates the course of what happens as a result of the primaries. 

That's one of the reasons the media is to blame for Trump being president. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4    8 months ago

I agree with you there, Dean.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.4  dennis smith  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4    8 months ago

I watched Tim Russert until he passed. Chuck Todd does a miserable job of trying to be neutral. I think Meet The Press should end unless they find a neutral moderator.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.4.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  dennis smith @4.4    8 months ago

You seem to forget that they had David Gregory, who was a very fair man, but no one could take to him because he followed Tim. I wouldn't want MTP to end, but Todd is no Russert. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.4.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4.1    8 months ago
I wouldn't want MTP to end, but Todd is no Russert

Totally agree. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.4.3  dennis smith  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4.1    8 months ago

I remember Gregory, as Tim's successor he really had no chance of suceeding.

I would rather MTP go off the air if a replacement for Todd cannot be found soon with someone who can and will follow in Tim's footsteps. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    8 months ago

I can't disagree with the sentiment behind this. I would prefer to see primaries in a group of states right off the bat instead of one or two. I don't know if it needs to be regional, specifically. I think that presents the same sort of problem with limited diversity that we already have, just writ a little larger.

I'd also like to see the whole thing more abbreviated so that politicians aren't campaigning for half their terms.

The media inflates the importance of these things, but the power to make change lies with the parties. What could compel them to change?

 
 
 
Ronin2
5.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tacos! @5    8 months ago

So long as the money keeps rolling in over the course of the entire campaign period, nothing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6  Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 months ago

Here is the deal.

This is one state. It isn't even a big state. It doesn't even represent the American population. What is the big deal with this state? I even heard caucus members joking that they will caucus with the group who brought the better cookies. The media should be shot for making such a big deal about this.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1  dennis smith  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    8 months ago

Spot on about the media. They have no conscience 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6    8 months ago

What I strongly dislike is that the Electoral College can determine the winner of the election before our votes on the voting on the West Coast has even ended. Just like it did with Trump.

It that is the case, why bother to even have voting done by all 50 states at all? 

IMHO, the winner of the election should not be determined until ALL votes across ALL of America, at the least, have been posted. To me, that is the only fair way to hold any election. 

The Electoral College is totally out dated and needs to be ended. It gives a false determination of the true winner of the most votes, which should be the only determining factor in the election as to who the real winner is. 

And no, it does not just relate to Trump, it can, and should, apply to every election. Otherwise, letting the Electoral College determine the winner presents a false determination of who the real winner is. 

It also discourages some people in the Western states from voting, saying that. "why bother to vote when the voting polls have not even closed, or our votes even counted, when the winner of the election is already posted by the Electoral College. So why waste their time?"

That is not right for them not to vote, but, their frustration in not doing so is understandable, or justified.

JMOO

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

The Magic Eight Ball
Texan1211
Vic Eldred
Mark in Wyoming
Tacos!
Gsquared
Gordy327
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Gazoo


39 visitors