Everyone visits Iowa, everyone visits N.H. and S.C. and Nevada

[question everything]

but I wonder whether they stay away from the homes of other candidates. Do they visit CA? TX? WA? CO? MN? NY? IN? MA? and others?

Just wondering..

[NurseJackie]

1. People have often talked about the possibility of having a National Primary Voting Day...

People have often talked about the possibility of having a National Primary Voting Day. I wonder if it would work, or if it would be advantageous in any form or fashion. Or, are we American too "in love with" our current system? Is it too ingrained into our political culture, and would the change be too drastic to be accepted?

It would certainly speed things up and wouldn't give the CLEAR LOSERS any opportunity to continually nip at the heels of the obvious winner, or to denigrate the party itself... in pursuit of a hopeless and lost cause. In that regard, I think it would give more time for acceptance and unity to take hold rather than going into the convention with hostility, anger and distrust.

All I'm saying is that it's very important for the entire party to be unified going into the General Election... I think everyone can agree with that.

[Blue_true]

3. A national primary is a bad idea.

The reason why is primaries allow voters to sort out candidates, having many days of voting helps that process. A national primary puts all eggs into one basket, giving candidates with the most money a huge advantage, it would have the effect of increasing the role of big money in politics.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. A national primary would mean possibly nominating a candidate with a small plurality of support.

It also goes to a candidate with the highest name recognition and money to get their message out there. Bill Clinton, in 1992, would have lost a national primary - as would, likely, a John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Those candidates trailed in the national popular vote for the Democratic primary but built up their support through caucus and primary wins.

Take 2004 for example:

You could put the primary into the summer, prior to the conventions, and shorten, potentially, the primary campaigning since there's no Iowa Caucus in early January, however, that doesn't really change the polling outcome as things would play out similarly, just potentially delayed a few months of candidates kicked off their primary campaigns say in mid-2003 instead of early 2003.

But using 2004 as an example, here's what the national polls looked like for the Democrats prior to the Iowa Caucus:

(NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from 1/12/04):

Howard Dean: 24%
Wes Clark: 19%
Joe Lieberman: 12%
Richard Gephardt: 11%
John Kerry: 7%
John Edwards: 5%
Al Sharpton: 5%
Carol Moseley Braun: 3%
Dennis Kucinish: 2%

Imagine a primary election where Howard Dean wins the Democratic Primary with just 24% overall support?

That would be ... problematic. Not because it's Dean, of course, but because 75% of the party voted for someone else.

Here's a poll from late Dec., 1991:

Jerry Brown: 23%
Bill Clinton: 15%
Bob Kerrey: 7%
Tom Harkin: 6%
Paul Tsongas: 3%

Brown wins the nomination with 23% of the vote - does that bode well for Nov., 1992? Eh...

[question everything]

5. Rotating regional primaries is better

And by "regional" I don't necessarily mean geographical proximity, but states with common demography, economics, etc. But rotate the order so that Iowa and N.H. will not be the first.

Though now, with Iowa farm economy is suffering, I would think that they are eagerly awaiting the barrage of ads, reporters, etc.

[Blue_true]

2. My guess is after South Carolina, there will be a rush into the Super Tuesday states.

The first four states sets the table and thins the field. The Super Tuesday states go a long way toward determine the nominee.

[zanana1]

6. I'm so glad I live in NH.

It"s a political junkie's dream. I've already met Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden. It's the first state to hold a primary. Iowa is the first caucus.
They need to make a good showing in NH and Iowa to get momentum.