Is Pennsylvania Too far back in the Primaries?

Thread drift from "Ode to the Reluctant Voter"

jinx;425847 wrote:

Meh. It's not like they bring out better choices for the intelligent/rational voters.

I'm still annoyed that Pennsylvania is even behind 'Super Tuesday' and that there may not be any real choice in the primaries by the time it gets to us. I'm still undecided, but I would have like to have been able to vote for Biden or Richardson. I don't even think Edwards will still be in by the time the race gets here.

I was annoyed by the jockeying to be the first state to have a caucus/primary, but I don't think we should be so far back. Maybe we should move to Super Tuesday.

I think they should all be on Super Tuesday.

TheMercenary;425921 wrote:

I think they should all be on Super Tuesday.

That might make more sense. I do sometimes enjoy watching them in the small states first because they actually have to go out and meet people in largely unscripted settings. In the larger states it's all rallies, structured debates, and talk show appearances.

We even learn from their reactions to guys like Mr. "Don't Tase Me 'Bro".

I'm just annoyed that usually after Super Tuesday, there's no choice left. Of course, if it goes into extra innings after then because there is no clear winner, things will get interesting. Pennsylvania with our 181 Democratic delegates(151 'pledged') makes us the largest after Texas and one of the latest. After PA, it's North Carolina with 110 and the other 8 states totaling 344. This makes PA the largest before sliding down to the dregs. If Super Tuesday and Texas don't resolve this, PA will be treated to an unprecedented amount of ass-kissing.

A similar situation exists in the Republican primary, but with PA having less of a gap between the other states.

If Pennsylvania choose to be irrelevant, I say let them.

richlevy;425929 wrote:

I do sometimes enjoy watching them in the small states first because they actually have to go out and meet people in largely unscripted settings. In the larger states it's all rallies, structured debates, and talk show appearances.

I told my husband I thought the spread out primaries were stupid - and he brought up a similar point. If they all went at once, all the focus (both candidates attention and press attention) would be on the big states. I hate that there is so much press on Iowa and NH, when their votes don't really represnt a cross section of America. But the outcome out of NH and Iowa didn't seem to impact many other states - it gave some more press to Huckabee, and the premature doomsday report on Hillary, and that's about it.

aimeecc;426349 wrote:

I told my husband I thought the spread out primaries were stupid - and he brought up a similar point. If they all went at once, all the focus (both candidates attention and press attention) would be on the big states. I hate that there is so much press on Iowa and NH, when their votes don't really represnt a cross section of America. But the outcome out of NH and Iowa didn't seem to impact many other states - it gave some more press to Huckabee, and the premature doomsday report on Hillary, and that's about it.

Which is why we need to retain the electoral college.