Originally Posted by
CrazyNotCrazie
I am all for tradition and such but I don't know why the same states get to have the earliest primaries and thus theoretically have undue influence on the nomination process. For example, being the leading Democrat in SC is really pointless. Dems are never going to win SC in a presidential election so the opinions of SC Democrats should not be that influential - I would be much more concerned about who plays well in the purple states.
Here are a couple of reasons, CNC. (a) One advantage with the four early states is that they are individually and collectively small -- under-funded candidates can compete much better than in larger states like FL, CA, TX, NY, etc. (Also, is an advantage for PAC's, who can see how their candidates perform while conserving resources). (b) Plus, they represent four different parts of the country.
Among many problems -- why the hell have caucuses? Colorado, my home, is a caucus state. In 2008 it was -3 and snowing when our county held its caucuses. Turnout is ridiculously low and pretty much limited to the hardcore, not necessarily representative of party voters.
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013