- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What are the boards thoughts on the proposed "Southern Super Tuesday"?
Posted on 12/23/14 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 12/23/14 at 1:35 pm
Officials in five Southern states — Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas — are coordinating to hold their primary on March 1, 2016. Texas and Florida are considering also holding a primary the same day but may wait until later in the month. Either way, March 1 would be a Southern Super Tuesday, voting en masse on the heels of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
Read more: LINK
I like this idea because John McCain & Mitt Romney had the nomination already locked up before the southern states even had a chance to vote
Read more: LINK
I like this idea because John McCain & Mitt Romney had the nomination already locked up before the southern states even had a chance to vote
8
Posted on 12/23/14 at 1:39 pm to hsfolk
I think democrats will like this strategy a lot.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 1:45 pm to hsfolk
Something is needed to keep the libs from dictating the Nom. Closed primaries preferably, but the elite birch boys would never allow such freedoms.
This post was edited on 12/23/14 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 12/23/14 at 1:48 pm to KeyserSoze999
I'd think we'd all be better off voting on the same day just like the states do for everything else
Posted on 12/23/14 at 1:54 pm to hsfolk
Yeah, having all states primaries on the same day is a good idea, therefore it will never happen, it would be too hard for the moderates to manipulate
Posted on 12/23/14 at 1:56 pm to KeyserSoze999
quote:
Yeah, having all states primaries on the same day is a good idea, therefore it will never happen, it would be too hard for the moderates to manipulate
no, it would be a bad idea. For moderates or conservatives a like. The presidential race is a marathon, and the primaries need to require a bit of organization to prove that you have a winner.
Now I don't really like our current system but I would like to see 4 states (one from each region) in a week or so early in the cycle, then maybe 15 states a month later. Then the remaining 31 in a big bang a month after that.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 2:37 pm to hsfolk
I think the candidate should be selected in a 'smoke filled room.'
Posted on 12/23/14 at 2:42 pm to hsfolk
This is a self-defeating and illogical strategy for "non-establishment" candidates. Having all 5 states have their primaries on the same day is fine, but doing it on March 1st completely increases the chances for an "establishment" candidate, and one look at 2012 just proves that. I seriously doubt someone like Rand Paul thinks this is a good idea at all.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 3:14 pm to NHTIGER
I never understood what the idiots think. If you want to win why not make the swing States the early primary States because in the end those are the states you have to win in the general.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 3:18 pm to hsfolk
quote:If it were up to me, all 50 states would do it on the same day.
What are the boards thoughts on the proposed "Southern Super Tuesday"?
Posted on 12/23/14 at 3:51 pm to hsfolk
Southern states are worse than the others as far as Republican primaries go.
If you want Santirum or Hucksbee as your nominee, it's good news.
If you want Santirum or Hucksbee as your nominee, it's good news.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 4:10 pm to Volmanac
I have long favored national primaries all on the same day, maybe two primaries, a pre-primary for all candidates to be voted on and a 1st primary like a semi-run-off and then a general election between only 2 candidate. 3 in all. We used to do this in Louisiana in the 70's when I just got out of college, then Edwards stopped it and reduced it to 2 votes only. Remember he raised money for two votes and not 3,was short of money in the 3rd, but won anyway. Nationally, the primaries should all be on the same day. An alternative would be all in a section of the country all be the same day. Like, all in the South ,North, West all the same day regionally.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 4:40 pm to Volmanac
quote:
Southern states are worse than the others as far as Republican primaries go.
If you want Santirum or Hucksbee as your nominee, it's good news.
That was my point above. Consider the following.
1.) Of the 5 states forming this March 1st "pact", 4 of them had completed their 2012 primaries by March 16th, weeks before either Santorum or Gingrich withdrew from the race. Only Arkansas, of the 5, had a late 2012 primary, held in late May, when only Romney and Paul remained as candidates.
2.) In those 4 states in this pact that had voted when there was still a race, these were their cumulative delegate counts after their March 2012 primaries:
Gingrich - 86 delegates
Santorum - 67 delegates
Romney - 62 delegates
Paul - 0 delegates
(These four men comprise the list because they were the top four GOP popular vote winners in the 2012 primaries nationwide.)
3.) Looking at those totals above, now consider this - New Jersey , where Republican politics are as liberal as Republican politics get, went for Romney over Paul by 81%-10% on June 5th, even later than the Arkansas vote. Romney won all 50 NJ delegates, no one else won any - because NJ had, in 2012, a winner-take-all statewide rule in place.
4.) Add those 50 Romney delegates to the totals from the 4 March red states results, and Romney moves from 3rd place to 1st place:
Romney - 112 delegates
Gingrich - 86 delegates
Santorum - 67delegates
Paul - 0 delegates
5.) See the problem here? Mitt Romney did not win the popular vote in ANY of the four red states in this pact - he lost Georgia to Gingrich, and he lost Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi to Santorum. Yet he accumulated a significant number of delegates, and only needed ONE "establishment" state like NJ to easily wipe out those four losses in the southern states
6.) Now let's see what would have happened if GA, AL, TN and MS had used the winner-take all approach, as NJ did:
Santorum - 139 delegates
Gingrich - 76 delegates
Romney - ZERO delegates (and only 50 with the NJ votes added)
Paul - 0 delegates.
7.) If the Southern states really want to make an impact in the 2016 primaries, the smart strategy would be to to wait until March 15th (or later), and go with the winner-takes-all rule. While many of the big-delegate states go to the "establishment" candidates and often give them all of their delegates, the piecemeal plan to be "heard early" strikes out because in most cases the vote are split , leaving no one with a significant edge. (For the record, GA did give Gingrich 78% of their delegates in 2012, but that was a one-off "favorite son" situation that will not be repeated in 2016.)
8.) The net effect of this "SEC pact", wherein the delegates MUST be appportioned per the popular vote, is to allow "establishment" candidates to hold their own and virtually break even in the South, while dominating the North and West. And this is completely the opposite result from the stated goal.
Bad move - they really should think this through before finalizing it.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 4:48 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If it were up to me, all 50 states would do it on the same day.
And 30 of those states would be completely ignored by the candidates - they would all spend their time and money in the 20 most significant states with either the most delegates at stake or where winner-takes-all is in effect. Most states would never even see the candidates, other than an occasional airport tarmac or hangar speech and then back in the plane to head off to where the big votes are.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 5:20 pm to hsfolk
Just off the tip top, (you lose!)(hands down!) We the people believe in all races and salute our flag accordingly to the law, and further more ,we feed our people unlike you! Power to the good people of all races!
Posted on 12/23/14 at 5:49 pm to hsfolk
quote:
The Republican National Committee changed its rules this year to try pushing back the Iowa caucuses from January in 2012 to February in 2016. New penalties also make it virtually impossible for any state other than New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to vote before the end of that month.
How is the RNC able to dictate when states can hold primary elections? What penalties are they referring to? Who penalizes the states?
Posted on 12/23/14 at 6:14 pm to Mac
Caucuses are better than primaries since they are run by the parties and essentially open to the public but private political processes.
Primaries are a waste of state tax dollars. Let the parties use conventions and caucuses to choose candidates not our tax dollars.
Primaries are a waste of state tax dollars. Let the parties use conventions and caucuses to choose candidates not our tax dollars.
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:11 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
And 30 of those states would be completely ignored by the candidates - they would all spend their time and money in the 20 most significant states with either the most delegates at stake or where winner-takes-all is in effect. Most states would never even see the candidates, other than an occasional airport tarmac or hangar speech and then back in the plane to head off to where the big votes are.
Well, given that this is how we do the election they are vying to participate in.............
Posted on 12/23/14 at 9:22 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:This. As far as I'm concerned political parties are entitled to hold as expansive and open a caucus as they want, but on their own dime.
Primaries are a waste of state tax dollars.
Posted on 12/24/14 at 1:09 am to Mac
quote:
quote:
The Republican National Committee changed its rules this year to try pushing back the Iowa caucuses from January in 2012 to February in 2016. New penalties also make it virtually impossible for any state other than New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to vote before the end of that month.
How is the RNC able to dictate when states can hold primary elections? What penalties are they referring to? Who penalizes the states?
The "penalties" is for the most part "penalty" in singular form - taking away most of a state's delegates to the convention. The parties don't directly control when a state can hold its primary or caucus (though they can indirectly via either state legislatures or state secretaries of state.) Florida was the first state to learn a hard lesson in 2012 by ignoring the party, moving up their date and losing 50 of their 100 convention delegates at the convention that was held in their own state. They have been told if they do it in 2016, they will lose all but 12 convention delegates. Florida has assured the party it will follow the party rules this time around. Other states that lost 50% of their GOP delegates by breaking the party rules in 2012 were New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona and Michigan. In all, the 5 states lost a combined 143 delegates to the convention.
I doubt very much any state will break the rules in 2016 with the penalty being increased from a forfeiture of 50% of a state's delegates to allowing only 9, + 3 automatic delegates, for a total of 12 for the larger states, and a loss of two-thirds of a state's delegates for the smaller states (they also get the 3 automatic delegates as well).
Just to be clear, the Democratic National Committee also makes such rules and enforces penalties for states that violate its calendar as well. Florida and Michigan created a major controversy in 2008 when they held Democratic primaries that violated the calendar, resulting in what equaled a 50% reduction in delegates from those two states by letting a full slate of delegates attend the convention and vote, but reducing each vote to a half-vote. So each state ended up with only 50% of its vote allocation, but 100% of its delegates. The Democrats use two tools, an extremely high number of "superdelegates" and a complex system of awarding "bonus" delegates (separate from superdelegates) to some, but not all, of the states, the governance of which is rather arbitrary, to try to keep everyone unhappy. The result is conventions that have considerably more than twice the number (in 2012, 5,556 to 2,286) of voting delegates that the Republicans have, with a large number of them being chosen by party regulars and insiders as opposed to primary and caucus voters. It was primarily these insider superdelegates that gave Obama the win over Clinton in 2008. Those of you who think the Republican powers-that-be hold too much power are ignoring that the problem is far more egregious within the Democrats' realm.
Both parties set the schedule parameters in advance and then deal with renegade states if and when they emerge. At this point, for 2016, only Michigan remains uncommitted to playing by each party's primary,caucus calendar rules.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News