English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The NY Times reports:
"Big States’ Push for Earlier Vote Scrambles Race"
By Adam Nagourney
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — As many as four big states — California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey — are likely to move up their 2008 presidential primaries to early next February, further upending an already unsettled nominating process and forcing candidates of both parties to rethink their campaign strategies, party officials said Wednesday. The changes, which seem all but certain to be enacted by state legislatures, mean that the presidential candidates face the prospect of going immediately from an ordered series of early contests in relatively small states in January to a single-day, coast-to-coast battlefield in February, encompassing some of the most expensive advertising markets in the nation.
www.nytimes.com

2007-01-25 07:45:28 · 6 answers · asked by Plimothy 3 in News & Events Current Events

6 answers

No, I do not believe it is a good idea because it really does not give the other states an opportunity because these are huge states and a great prize for the winner. My belief is there should be a nationwide primary on one day and the candidate or candidates with the majority of delegates go to the convention and decide who the nominee will be. If a candidate has received 50% +1 delegate over the minimum that is the person who is nominated and the vice presidential candiate would be voted on after the candidate selects whoever they desired. This gives all states the opportunity to vote for the nominee on an equal scale.I am also against a winner take all for states but designated by percentage of the popular vote and the same goes for the presidential election in which congressional districts and not a winner take all would decide who wins what state. (23-0 could actually be 12-11 and gives a better representation of how a state feels about the candidates.

2007-01-25 09:03:18 · answer #1 · answered by Dave aka Spider Monkey 7 · 0 0

No. I like Iowa, then a week to campaign in New Hampshire, then a week to campaign in South Carolina & then a week to campaign in Nevada. After that, they could go to Califonia (only) maybe. If all the states want to be first, the candidates won't bother going to any of them and rely on ads only.

2007-01-31 09:25:00 · answer #2 · answered by Eric 4 · 0 0

CALIFORNIA!!!! i trust like I actually have some expertise in this lol because i recognize human beings in Florida and my moms bf merely moved right here from NJ first ill evaluate NJ and California its hotter right here and all my moms bf talks about is how spectacular that is right here. as far as California vs Florida that is exceptionally a lot an same component except we've extra Mexicans and Florida has extra Cubans we've earthquakes they have storms we've Disneyland and disneyworld they merely have one and we actually have Hollywood which i stay about 40 min from :D

2016-12-03 01:13:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

For sure.

2007-02-02 04:33:24 · answer #4 · answered by robert m 7 · 0 0

who cares.

2007-01-26 18:43:44 · answer #5 · answered by thevillageidiotxxxx 4 · 0 0

very good thing.

2007-01-25 16:17:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers