IMO, no one comes out of this looking good. The DNC has shown that it is willing to invalidate entire states’ voices when they disagree on with state politicians. That’s a very bad look considering they’re still suffering from all their bullshit in 2016.
On the other hand, NH doesn’t get too declare in their own state law that they get to vote before anyone else. Throwing a fit because someone else gets to go first is childish.
Make primaries a single national affair and be done with it. Better yet, make the general presidential elections national too.
One day nationally is a horrible answer. It prevents lesser known candidates from competing at all. It puts the power back in the hands of large donors – a horrible system that we have only in the last few cycles broken free from. If we had national primaries, we never would have had Carter, Clinton, or Obama; and even beyond that, Edwards would have walked away with the nomination in 2004 and Sanders would never have even put up a fight in 2016. Even when these alternate candidates don’t win, they move the eventual nominee’s policies and the party’s platform just by being somewhat competitive.
Honestly, going back to smoke-filled rooms where the party bosses chose candidates would be a better option than a national primary. I swear to god no one on this site even thinks about second and third-order effects in passing.
One day nationally is the only answer.
IMO, no one comes out of this looking good. The DNC has shown that it is willing to invalidate entire states’ voices when they disagree on with state politicians. That’s a very bad look considering they’re still suffering from all their bullshit in 2016.
On the other hand, NH doesn’t get too declare in their own state law that they get to vote before anyone else. Throwing a fit because someone else gets to go first is childish.
Make primaries a single national affair and be done with it. Better yet, make the general presidential elections national too.
One day nationally is a horrible answer. It prevents lesser known candidates from competing at all. It puts the power back in the hands of large donors – a horrible system that we have only in the last few cycles broken free from. If we had national primaries, we never would have had Carter, Clinton, or Obama; and even beyond that, Edwards would have walked away with the nomination in 2004 and Sanders would never have even put up a fight in 2016. Even when these alternate candidates don’t win, they move the eventual nominee’s policies and the party’s platform just by being somewhat competitive.
Honestly, going back to smoke-filled rooms where the party bosses chose candidates would be a better option than a national primary. I swear to god no one on this site even thinks about second and third-order effects in passing.
It’s good to know I’m not the only smoke filled room advocate that exists. I attribute a rise in populism to open primaries