Are we really going to go with the Iowa, N Hamp.. and S. Carolina's choice....Why not have all primaries on the same day??? Are we a bunch of cattle being herded to the "Final Rodeo"?????...Actually, I'd love for someone else to throw his/her hat in the ring or should I say circus....I'd love to hear what they are going to do to get us out of the mess instead of personal political attack ads.

That exact thought crossed my mind after listening to all thebickering about who was going to be first out of the chute. It would be better if we held the primary at the same time for all states getting results at the same time.

Originally Posted by jebartle

Are we really going to go with the Iowa, Mass. and S. Carolina's choice....Why not have all primaries on the same day??? Are we a bunch of cattle being herded to the "Final Rodeo"?????...Actually, I'd love for someone else to throw his/her hat in the ring or should I say circus....I'd love to hear what they are going to do to get us out of the mess instead of personal political attack ads.

I have long been an advocate of a national primary day in which states may opt in or opt out. March 1 or thereabouts and no campaign may begin until January 1 (in my dreams of course). I was in Des Moines Iowa for the last two election cycles and saw firsthand the circus that leads up to the Iowa caucuses for a full year! Iowa attracted 120,000 republican caucus goers this year and they got months worth of media attention and millions upon millions of dollars spent for that miniscule participation. Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the smallest population states, and least diversafied, dominate the political landscape WAY out of proportion to their real significance.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

I have long been an advocate of a national primary day in which states may opt in or opt out. March 1 or thereabouts and no campaign may begin until January 1 (in my dreams of course). I was in Des Moines Iowa for the last two election cycles and saw firsthand the circus that leads up to the Iowa caucuses for a full year! Iowa attracted 120,000 republican caucus goers this year and they got months worth of media attention and millions upon millions of dollars spent for that miniscule participation. Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the smallest population states, and least diversafied, dominate the political landscape WAY out of proportion to their real significance.

I sure have these senior moments, I knew it was New Hamp, but typed Mass.....Sure do not think these states speak for America!....Guess the candidates would have difficulty financing a national primary, which is another concern, Richest guy wins, should NOT be the case!...What happened to limitations on election funding????

the jousting that goes on for weeks and weeks is merely the warm up. When the republican candidate is finally decided and we have two candidates for POTUS....the republican and Obama...then the REAL circus will begin.

Let us count the millions that will be spent by the two candidates doing nothing more than we have seen to date.... discredit the other candidate....instead of running on their respective accomplishments and what it is exactly they plan to do for America.....which of course we have all learned is to be taken with a grain of salt as they will do and say what ever it takes to gather the undecided votes. And then the winner will continue with the business of politics in Washington....as usual.

btk

I agree. In this day and age of t.v., internet and radio, there is absolutely no need to hold this Dog & Pony Show of, for example, going in person to all 99 counties of Iowa to prove who's better at glad-handing.

I didn't think it was praiseworthy for Bachmann and Santorum to spend so much energy, money and time going to 99 counties to suck up to the locals in person. I think it is highly egocentric for the Iowa or NH voters to expect the candidates to come and "kiss their ring".

There should be one national primary day, held 4 months before the general election. This presidential campaign has already been going on for too long.

And when are these people ever IN their elected office, with all these campaign trips?? It's a total farce.

Doing so would guarantee that only the 'rich' or the 'annointed' would be considered.

The THEORY is that, by holding primaries in smaller states, it allows the underfunded candidate a chance to make his or her case and, with early successes, be able to 'bankroll' that success.

Even though I live in NH, I could see an argument for *rotating* the primaries between a set of smaller states.