Forgive my political noobnees buuuut [Ron Paul]

K

Kowboy

Banned
The media is always talking about primaries, iowa caucasus, the two front runners of the moment, and all of that. From the way they make it sound, two states basicly decide who the other 48 get to vote for in the general, it sounds pretty unfair to let that happen so I might be wrong on how that works. If they pick Clinton and Huckabee how does that work for the rest of the candidates? Are they blocked from still running in the general or can they still choose to run? Would I still be able to vote for Ron Paul :)kiss:) if that's what I chose to do?

I think I'm missing something, do those two states really have the "final" say and leave us with just two choices? I remember last time when it was a choice between a turd sammich and a giant douche... (lol southpark ref, im super funnah!) what was the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result...

Tell me I'm wrong :disgust:
 
Those states are just going first. The rest will follow. You can vote for anyone you want to, candidate or not.
 
RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
 
Primaries are a parties way of determining who will be on their ballot for the General Election. Its done by state because its a giant media frenzy and its about the only thing we could come up with to make an pointless election seem interesting.

If a candidate doesn't get selected as the winner of the primary they can still run, but may not be on their party's ticket.

Those two states go first as a matter of tradition and nothing else, however research shows that whichever candidates these two states choose will be far more likely to win the primary overall.
 
The reason 2 small states start is tradition in part but also money

If you had every state on the same day whoever can raise 100 million to advertise in 50 states at the same time wins, and or small states get ignored so they can spend money in cali,texas,florida,new york, ohio, michigan, penn ect ect

They probably should have like 5 states go a few weeks before and just rotate it, you cant do them all at once though it would be god awful and require people to research on thier own or just trust who the media tells them should win

of course this is all based on the archaic notion that they need to visit the state to get your vote. Why the fuck do you need to see them in your state? Get online do research and make your own mind.

But we dont want to think for ourselves we are using our limited brain power to get mad over the writers strike and use it on anger over Greys Anatomy ending early!
 
Last edited:
Kowboy said:
The media is always talking about primaries, iowa caucasus, the two front runners of the moment, and all of that. From the way they make it sound, two states basicly decide who the other 48 get to vote for in the general, it sounds pretty unfair to let that happen so I might be wrong on how that works. If they pick Clinton and Huckabee how does that work for the rest of the candidates? Are they blocked from still running in the general or can they still choose to run? Would I still be able to vote for Ron Paul :)kiss:) if that's what I chose to do?

I think I'm missing something, do those two states really have the "final" say and leave us with just two choices? I remember last time when it was a choice between a turd sammich and a giant douche... (lol southpark ref, im super funnah!) what was the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result...

Tell me I'm wrong :disgust:
Click to expand...

They absolutely do not have "final" says but what they can do is set a tone and disturb perceptions of who's on top.

So, while Romney is the dog to beat in the primaries right now, if Huckabee won Iowa caucuses (which are like people sitting around in small groups in homes) then that is huge. That can shift the political tides, shift funding and change how people vote in the coming weeks.

The bottom line is they want to win enough delegates to the National Conventions to sweep the party nomination.

Generally speaking, the first couple early primaries can be huge for setting a pace and setting expectations. But February 5th, you have a huge day with a bunch of states chiming in with their primaries.

Candidates who are not in the top 2-3 slots after Feb 5th generally have to start thinking about stepping down if they don't have the funds.

Expect 2-3 candidates to remain contenders this year in both parties through Feb 5th. Some others will continue, hoping to make a surprise win in later primaries or perhaps just to gain political leverage.
 
{FSC}Godfather said:
The reason 2 small states start is tradition in part but also money

If you had every state on the same day whoever can raise 100 million to advertise in 50 states at the same time wins, and or small states get ignored so they can spend money in cali,texas,florida,new york, ohio, michigan, penn ect ect
Click to expand...

That isnt why at all.

Your mixing up the electoral college arguments with the primaries. Primary order is tightly controlled by both parties, but it isn't really about money as much as state party power at conventions.

Iowa and New Hampshire are kinda 2 of the most notoriously independent and grass-roots cultures in america. FFS you basically have to meet in half the living rooms in Iowa as a candidate, and NH is a state where they often don't consider Federal law binding until they fucking ratify it. :lol:

They are decent "thermometers" for certain demographics.

IN the weeks that follow, they will get in michigan, the carolinas and florida which will be important tests. On Feb 5th, we'll have a good sense who the top contender is gonna be... with half the states being done with their primaries after that.
 
Evil Light Bulb said:
Does Florida matter for the Dems yet or are they still out?
Click to expand...

I believe Florida is considered a contested state again. More importantly, a Dem taking Florida decisively will show themselves to be a better contender as opposed to taking a solidly democrat state.
 
No, I meant in the primaries. Last I heard Florida's delegates were still 'not welcome' to the convention. While I can understand the DNC's need to do.. whatever it is they think they're doing... 'alienating' any potential voters in a swing state just seems like a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top