Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:36 pm 
Offline
** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:42 pm
Posts: 1265
Location: McAlester, Ok
Likes: 173
Liked: 107
Quote:
CHICAGO (Reuters) – Skimpy budgets are cutting into the way states pay for schools, health care, and now -- even primary elections.
At least six states are considering either canceling or delaying their 2012 presidential primaries, mostly to save money.
None of this will likely have much effect on the Democratic presidential candidate, expected to be President Barack Obama.
But it could cause trouble for moderate Republicans, by allowing a protracted battle and giving conservatives a louder voice, according to political analysts.
"The candidates are going to be falling all over themselves to appeal to the Republican base, which is very, very conservative, and the Tea Party people, and they could paint themselves into a corner there, taking positions that are far to the right of the swing voters," said Alan I. Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

The biggest state considering a delay is California, where a bill has unanimously passed a State Assembly committee that would move the presidential primary from February to June, to coincide with its state and local primary.
"We'll save $100 million by eliminating the stand-alone presidential primary," said Democratic California Assemblyman Paul Fong, the bill's sponsor.
Fong believes the combined election will increase turn-out and fight voter fatigue. "Three major elections in one year is too much," Fong said.
Legislators in Missouri and Alabama have also proposed bills shifting their presidential primaries to June, combining them with state primaries. Washington and Kansas are considering skipping the presidential primaries altogether, allowing parties to pick candidates through caucuses. The idea of skipping the primary also came up during a Massachusetts budget hearing.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/pl_nm/us_primaries

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:02 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Skipping a primary in favor of a caucus I like. Caucuses are better and bring out the real activists who really believe in something (not to say that those people cannot vote in primary, but still).

Delaying until June I don't believe in... well, at least not Huckastates like Alabama and Missouri. California on the other hand ought to move their primary to sometime after the national convention ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:16 pm 
Offline
** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:42 pm
Posts: 1265
Location: McAlester, Ok
Likes: 173
Liked: 107
Wendero wrote:
Skipping a primary in favor of a caucus I like. Caucuses are better and bring out the real activists who really believe in something (not to say that those people cannot vote in primary, but still).

Delaying until June I don't believe in... well, at least not Huckastates like Alabama and Missouri. California on the other hand ought to move their primary to sometime after the national convention ;)


And Massachusetts :P

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between a primary and caucus? I've been out of the campaigning loop for a while now and have forgotten since 2008. :oops:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:19 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Well, not that I'm an expert, but it takes hours to vote in a caucus, there's much less privacy too. Therefore, fewer not-so-involved people care to vote :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:51 pm 
Offline
** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:42 pm
Posts: 1265
Location: McAlester, Ok
Likes: 173
Liked: 107
Wendero wrote:
Well, not that I'm an expert, but it takes hours to vote in a caucus, there's much less privacy too. Therefore, fewer not-so-involved people care to vote :)


Oh, like the whole "contraversy" in West Virginia last time. Thanks. Forgive my brain fart. :P

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:00 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
No problem.Like I said, I'm not an expert myself.

I have a hard time seeing the point with letting super-blue states have a primary at all; they are not going to vote for whoever the nominee is, so why are they given such influence? New York and California will never vote for the GOP, yet they might give the nomination away to Romney.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:25 pm 
Offline
** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:42 pm
Posts: 1265
Location: McAlester, Ok
Likes: 173
Liked: 107
Wendero wrote:
No problem.Like I said, I'm not an expert myself.

I have a hard time seeing the point with letting super-blue states have a primary at all; they are not going to vote for whoever the nominee is, so why are they given such influence? New York and California will never vote for the GOP, yet they might give the nomination away to Romney.


While that sounds good, I think it would lead to a slippery slope.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:55 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
I know, I know... It just bugs me off that if only those states which voted Republican in 2008/2004 would be able to influence the process, then Huckabee's nomination would already be secured.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:39 am 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:54 am
Posts: 655
Location: Newport Beach in Southern California
Likes: 181
Liked: 35
Quote:
The biggest state considering a delay is California, where a bill has unanimously passed a State Assembly committee that would move the presidential primary from February to June, to coincide with its state and local primary.


Woo-hoo! Moving it to December '12 would be even better. 8)

_________________



Image
Please click^ on the tank and join up today :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:43 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Agree Craig :)

Tim Pawlenty is set to form an exploratory committee today at 3 PM btw. Wonder if he gets a bump and it that case who will he take from?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:07 pm 
Offline
MODERATOR

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Posts: 1017
Likes: 281
Liked: 340
Wendero wrote:
Skipping a primary in favor of a caucus I like. Caucuses are better and bring out the real activists who really believe in something (not to say that those people cannot vote in primary, but still).

Delaying until June I don't believe in... well, at least not Huckastates like Alabama and Missouri. California on the other hand ought to move their primary to sometime after the national convention ;)


True, but caucuses also play to the organizational/financial strength of a candidate (e.g. GOTV-effort), especially on a crowded primary day with multiple states voting (= Super Tuesday). This would be Romney, as was also seen on Super Tuesday in February 2008. I would therefore prefer primaries, except in states where Huckabee can focus a lot of attention, i.e. Iowa.

_________________
He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose. -Jim Elliot


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:20 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Point made, German4Huckabee (do you have any snow in Germany? We still have loads here, won't be gone for another month or so). Still think caucuses are better, just in general. GOTV wasn't a big problem the last time for the Ames straw poll anyway, right?

I see your point though.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:31 pm 
Offline
MODERATOR

Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Posts: 1017
Likes: 281
Liked: 340
Wendero wrote:
Point made, German4Huckabee (do you have any snow in Germany? We still have loads here, won't be gone for another month or so). Still think caucuses are better, just in general. GOTV wasn't a big problem the last time for the Ames straw poll anyway, right?

I see your point though.

No snow that I know of. :D

We'll be alright for the Ames straw poll. That's in Iowa after all, isn't it? :wink:

_________________
He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose. -Jim Elliot


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:26 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 960
Likes: 3
Liked: 58
Wow, that's really sad... I love snow! :) Can't understand why I didn't emigrate to Greenland instead of Ireland.

Yes, the Ames straw poll is in Iowa.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY