I agree. Didn't Jeb send DVD players with DVDs about his campaign to all caucus-ers in Iowa?
California or Florida would be a better states for starting this process. Or all states simultaneously? With 6 weeks only for campaigning.
Well the states get to pick their own dates. I get the states rights arguments but this is an election for national office.
I wish the primaries were held in a window of a couple weeks. Stretching it out like they do forces out viable candidates because of money. MONEY
I'll go one step further: I think the primaries should be held on one day just like the general election. Too many voters get swayed by the person that's winning and they want to be on the winning side.
I voted for Trump here, although I don't know how I will vote by the time it gets here to Ohio. After all, our Governor is running for the office although I don't like his stance on many issues.
Plus I have to worry about who Trump would nominate for the Supreme Court. IMO, it's the most important consideration to have when choosing a President.
You haven't given that much thought have you? That primary idea of yours.
What's wrong with it? I think it would be a great idea.
It sounds great.....until you stop and think about how much money and infrastructure it takes to wage a national campaign. If every potential candidate was forced to run in 50 state primaries before having a chance to get some mojo going.....only those with the most money would ever run.
People like Carson, Kasich, Paul, Fiorina and Sanders wouldn't have considered a run.
As it is now, a candidate can go into a few relatively small races ( Iowa, NH, SC, Nevada ) and test the water. If they get something going ( with the media attention they get ) they can raise the funds needed to keep going. Like Obama did in 2008.
I don't think the same places need to be first every cycle....but I definitely think there needs to be a gradual rollout for reasons noted above.
