Michigan: Romney's Last Stand

[jefnvk]

IIRC, Michigan only gets half its usual number of delegates because it did something to offend the RNC

Yep, we wanted to have a say in the election process.  Really pisses off those in charge, when you dont play nice with their plans.

At least Republicans arent like Democrats, who get no votes from MI.

I fail to see why there is a problem with having all primary elections/caucuses the same day.

[Matt King]

What did Michigan Dems do that made them lose their delegates?

[jefnvk]

Michigan moved their primary to today, when both parties had said no one besides Iowa, New Hampshire and a few others could have their primaries before Feb 5.  The Democrats response was to allow no delegates from MI, and the Republicans are only allowing half of MI's delegates to vote for the parties candidate.

I believe Florida is in the same trouble, they moved their primary to before Feb 5 as well.

[Matt King]

Hmm. Angering Potential voters doesn't sound very smart on their part. You think they will lose votes in the general election because of this?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The problem is that too many states are trying to move their election days forward.  What needs to happen is for ALL states to agree to have their elections on the same day, as is done with general elections. 

When states like Michigan move their primaries forward they penalize the rest of the states that didn't.  By trying to leapfrog over all the other states, they actually made the problem worse. Both parties were clear about what would happen if states moveed their election dates too far forward, yet some states decided to do so anyway.

[Paddy]

I don't understand what qualifies Romney as Presidential material.  Or McCain or Giuliani or Huckabee either.  And the Dems are a washout, too.  Obama's crying that Hillary's picking on him 'cause he's black. 

There are only two candidates even close to qualified IMO. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I'd vote for either over any of the others.

[SomeKid]

Riley, I can see why you would say Paul is good material. Why Kucinich? What are his good qualities?

jef, I would be against all states in one day, simply because it penalizes candidates who haven't the money to campaign nationwide early on. I think doing it regionally would be better than the current system though. Example, week 1: Midwest, Week 2 Northeast, Week 3 South, Week 4 West etc. Spread it out over about 7 weeks. If this system was a no go, I would then prefer your idea of all in the same day next. But I want the date moves towards April 15th. Under mystem, about the fourth week would be April 15. That way, it is smack in the middle of the primary. If all states voted on the same date, I would have it be sometime during the week after April 15th. What do you think?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Looks like Romney got the job done.

So, who's the next Republican "who must" win an election to stay in?

[Matt King]

Looks like "Rudy Giuliani/America's Mayor" & Thompson both got beat by Ron Paul.

[jefnvk]

Hmm. Angering Potential voters doesn't sound very smart on their part. You think they will lose votes in the general election because of this?

I've been pondering this.  If nothing else, I think the lost campaigning time will hurt the Democrats, at least in MI and FL.

Regarding people not having the chance to campaign in all states if it were held the same day: I don't really see it being an issue.  I think that in this day and age, media campaigning is much more important than in-person visits.  And honestly, chances are if you don't have the money that the big spenders have, you aren't going to have a chance either way.  I think that Ron Paul has shown us, even if you do have the money that the big front runners have, if you aren't a front runner, nothing is going to happen.

Either way, what does having one primary before the other do?  Either peoples minds are made up, or they change their mind based who has or doesn't have momentum, not a good way to pick candidates.

[GigaBuist]

Hmm. Angering Potential voters doesn't sound very smart on their part. You think they will lose votes in the general election because of this?

I've been pondering this.  If nothing else, I think the lost campaigning time will hurt the Democrats, at least in MI and FL.

I think you overestimate the average voter's attention span and ability to think for themselves.  Right up until the election news agencies were running stories trying to explain the situation but voters were still confused.  Seems plenty of Democrats sat home in Michigan because they didn't know what a vote for "Uncomitted" could do if the DNC actually hands delegates back to Michigan, which they'll do IMHO. 

Heck, exit polls show an alarming number of people making up their minds in the last 3 days.  That's an awful short period considering how long these campaigns have been running.

Either way, what does having one primary before the other do?

It gives the candidates, and the party, little tiny test beds for their ideas to see what works and what doesn't.  It also affords them time to put together ads targeted to the state at hand.  They can compare poll results in an individual state as they change their campaigns and see how well that worked.  When it comes to the general election that's good information for the party to have.

At least, that's the only reason I can think of for both major parties do this.

If they're honestly looking out for the little guy with no money they're doing something wrong.

[jefnvk]

If they're honestly looking out for the little guy with no money they're doing something wrong.

Point taken.

[TwitchALot]

I fail to see why there is a problem with having all primary elections/caucuses the same day.

Because then the small states would get ignored as the candidates head to places like California...?

[jefnvk]

Because then the small states would get ignored as the candidates head to places like California...?

So why not have the national election over lots of days?