BigRedBuster
Well-known member
You just explained why they have no desire to do it.
a) they would get much less in donations.
b) they would have to actually govern....which they really don't want to.
How elderly dementia patients are unwittingly fueling political campaigns
- Thread starter Danny Bateman
- Start date
a) they would get much less in donations.
b) they would have to actually govern....which they really don't want to.
funhusker
Active member
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
What if we held a nationwide primary just like we do general elections?
No state-by-state strategy. No gaining or losing momentum, no deep pockets outlasting the less funded, no states rendered meaningless by their position on the calendar. No electors. Just a robust three month primary campaign and a first-Tuesday-in-April vote for your party's nominee. Maybe ranked voting? I don't know. I can't do everything here.
I mean, on a certain level the candidates and donor class would be relieved by the shortened time frame and smaller campaign budgets required. Selling outrage isn't going anywhere -- it will just cost a little less. Without staggered state primaries, you'd need to craft more of a nationwide message.
Does three or four months sound like a short time? All I know is that just over three months ago, Biden was the candidate and Donald Trump had just been shot at. Seems like a lifetime.
The people most pissed off would be Iowa and New Hampshire, who've enjoyed way too much influence on our national elections for years.
No state-by-state strategy. No gaining or losing momentum, no deep pockets outlasting the less funded, no states rendered meaningless by their position on the calendar. No electors. Just a robust three month primary campaign and a first-Tuesday-in-April vote for your party's nominee. Maybe ranked voting? I don't know. I can't do everything here.
I mean, on a certain level the candidates and donor class would be relieved by the shortened time frame and smaller campaign budgets required. Selling outrage isn't going anywhere -- it will just cost a little less. Without staggered state primaries, you'd need to craft more of a nationwide message.
Does three or four months sound like a short time? All I know is that just over three months ago, Biden was the candidate and Donald Trump had just been shot at. Seems like a lifetime.
The people most pissed off would be Iowa and New Hampshire, who've enjoyed way too much influence on our national elections for years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221
Well-known member
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
I love that idea and don't see a reason why we shouldn't. Parties aren't going to like it because they can't go through a couple primaries and then adjust their messaging for the rest.
If we did this, We could hold the nation wide Primary, September 1st, the conventions September 15, General election early November. BOOM!!!
Guy Chamberlin
Well-known member
We'd need to ween ourselves off our 3.5 year campaign cycle. I think a three month primary campaign and three month general election campaign would make it seem less severe. Plenty of room within that timeframe to read and react.
Honestly, the DNC and RNC might be relieved as well. It would save them millions of dollars at all levels, and I can't imagine them getting worse candidates than the current system.
TGHusker
Well-known member
I'll remember to NOT start a Way to Early 2028 Election thread - like I did our current 2024 thread :facepalm:
But yes, I like the idea of a national primary. Maybe with rank voting . If no one gets the needed delegates than the top 2 slug (perhaps literally like some conventions of the past) it out at the convention - it would make those interesting again.
I appoint you as our Election Commissioner to get the idea moving along. :smokin
Danny Bateman
Donor
I caught a radio segment on the way home where a conservative guy from the National Review (like old school conservatism not MAGA) argued for the return of smoke filled rooms where parties just nix primaries altogether and pick their own candidate.
Gut reaction was that’s a terrible undemocratic idea. But he postulated that “democracy happens around parties, not inside them.” Truly parties just choose primaries because that’s how it’s always been; there’s nothing binding them to do so.
Assuming no one comes along and topples our stupid binary two-party system, wouldn’t this scenario just incentivize them to pick whoever they think will get the most votes anyway (thus is most broadly popular)?
Still not sure I like it but an interesting hypothetical.
funhusker
Active member
It leans to the moderate independent since that’s who would decide the general election.
Now we have a “race to the bottom” in primaries.
I also think something could be said to the psyche of the electorate being fragile. And hearing how a candidate is unqualified by opponents in a primary only to then being backed by the same opponent in the general election tends to give us all a pessimistic feeling to the entire process.
I think it would be right up there with ranked choice voting as far as good options would be!
Danny Bateman
Donor
Yeah you're absolutely right on the first two parts. Part of his argument was primaries just lend themselves to candidates pandering to smaller and smaller slices of the electorate that they end up taking some really idiotic positions.
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that third part. Certainly a lot of pessimism around our politics. So much so I'm convinced those right track/wrong track poll numbers are useless.
Ranked choice voting is the bee's knees!