I believe the states that are moving their Primary Elections ahead of the normal schedule are doing so to inhibit the ability of HONEST candidates to campaign effectively against the big name candidates like Clinton and Obama. What do you think?
2007-02-22 23:24:51 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I know they are trying to get the date in Illinois moved up so as to help Obama. I don't think they should do it. One of his supporter sponsored the bill and said it would show his home state is behind him. Personally I think it might backfire if they do that because he has made some bad votes on some issues, Such as giving SS benefits to illegals.
2007-02-23 02:09:05 · answer #1 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quite a few actually. I'm not entirely sure which ones are but I know that Nevada has shifted to be between Iowa and New Hampshire and I believe that California is also considering the idea.
The reason behind California moving is (when you think about it) very reasonable indeed. California has 55 electoral college votes (that's almost 10% of the total) and yet in 2004 was faced with a choice of Kerry or nobody. By moving the primary for the state forward, it means that they have a greater say in the choice of candidate.
It could be stated that it would be fairer to have all primaries on the same day say perhaps a day in April.
2007-02-23 09:01:06 · answer #2 · answered by Harry Hayfield 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋