Since apparently Romney has clinched the nomination...

For some reason, I think California (with 12% of the entire country's population) should have at least SOME sway in the Presidential pick...more than New Hampshire, at least (with less than 1/2 of 1% of the population)...

how is this different than any other year? is this your first election?

Since California's electoral votes in the general election will go to Obama, why does the primary matter?

I am honored that Americans across the country have given their support to my candidacy and I am humbled to have won enough delegates to become the Republican Party's 2012 presidential nominee," Romney wrote. "Our party has come together with the goal of putting the failures of the last 3½ years behind us. I have no illusions about the difficulties of the task before us. But whatever challenges lie ahead, we will settle for nothing less than getting America back on the path to full employment and prosperity. On November 6, I am confident that we will unite as a country and begin the hard work of fulfilling the American promise and restoring our country to greatness.

Hey Mitt, here's a nifty page in case you decide you want to be more specific re: when we departed from "the road to prosperity:"
[www.timeanddate.com]

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

You are VERY Welcome.

Seriously.. if I could have avoided the never ending barrage of robo calls and annoying campaign ads leading up to the primary, I would have. Well, I did. The phone was shut off, the TV was turned off. So they called my CELL !

Who schedules your elections? There's no party rule, as far as i know, that says Cali has to go last...

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs
Who schedules your elections? There's no party rule, as far as i know, that says Cali has to go last...

California moved it's primary up to March for a few years. It just made the other states move theirs even earlier. It was a stupid move. June is fine. If a race is tight in June, then California becomes significant.

A bigger issue is why aren't these races competitive to the end anymore? Obama/Clinton was the only example I can think of as a recent example.

Vision... good question. I think the races are not competitive for the long run for the following reasons:

1- Money follows like
2- Polarizing politics tend to drive out all but one candidate.
3- Money
4- Money
and rounding it out at
5- Money

ed: did I mention...


money ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2012 02:22PM by cbelt3.

Quote
cbelt3
Vision... good question. I think the races are not competitive for the long run for the following reasons:

1- Money follows like
2- Polarizing politics tend to drive out all but one candidate.
3- Money
4- Money
and rounding it out at
5- Money

ed: did I mention...


money ?

Unfortunately. I'm a Democrat, but I resent not having a choice. There was no real choice in the GOP either. It should have been a battle between Mitt and Jon Huntsman. Now they're all going to waste money on conventions.

People have been talking about the unfairness of giving Iowa and New Hampshire the first say every presidential election. There have been lots of alternate proposals. I like the idea of doing a lottery of small and medium states for the first round -- we might see the first primary in Oregon and the second in Arizona, or South Dakota and Vermont. It doesn't really matter, and it would end the practice of candidates setting up shop in New Hampshire and giving every one of the residents a chance at a personal conversation. With Iowa and New Hampshire, we have two of the less citified states. New Hampshire is actively opposed to using federal money to help the big cities, and Iowa is Iowa.

Another possibility is for the larger, industrial states to talk to each other and then tell the respective Democratic and Republican National Committees that they are going to hold a large national primary on January 5 of 2016, and if Iowa or New Hampshire try to compete or run their elections earlier, our delegates will vote to exclude them from the convention and will oppose the nomination of whoever competes in those primaries.

Just a fantasy, I know, because the system has a lot of inertia built into it, and candidates have learned that New Hampshire punishes any candidate who does not kowtow to their right to go first.

On the other hand, we have been developing a trend for New Hampshire primary winners to lose the national election or even to lose the nomination. It's actually pretty striking on the Democratic side, but there is also a trend on the Republican side, with a few notable exceptions such as Ronald Reagan. In recent contested elections (ie: when your party does not have an incumbent president in the running), it seems to be that you have to finish second in order to win later. There is something about New Hampshire voters that leads to extremism or iconoclasm.