Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why shouldn't a candidate have to compete in every state? (Original Post) Skink Mar 2012 OP
Are you talking about the candidates who missed the deadline for filing in some states? Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #1
No I'm talking about Romney Skink Mar 2012 #2
Shorten the primary schedule? former9thward Mar 2012 #3
Because you only need a majority of delegates. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #4
They should. Never let the right run unopposed. That is the 50 state strategy. Vincardog Mar 2012 #5
Damn would that be nice, but New Hampshire fucks it all up. HopeHoops Mar 2012 #6

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
1. Are you talking about the candidates who missed the deadline for filing in some states?
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:20 PM
Mar 2012

If so, they are deemed to have competed and lost in those states, by failing to file hte required paperwork by the deadline.

former9thward

(32,064 posts)
3. Shorten the primary schedule?
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:38 PM
Mar 2012

That would give candidates even less time to campaign! There are 50 states plus various far flung territories that select delegates. No way is there enough time to campaign in all of them.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
4. Because you only need a majority of delegates.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 12:42 PM
Mar 2012

Was this a trick question?

How about having one national primary to select the party's candidate? Along the way abolish the stupid regressive electoral college in favor of direct national election with a requirement for a majority, not a plurality of the votes and a run-off process (instant or otherwise) to obtain that majority.

 

HopeHoops

(47,675 posts)
6. Damn would that be nice, but New Hampshire fucks it all up.
Sun Mar 11, 2012, 05:26 PM
Mar 2012

The New Hampshire constitution requires it to hold the first primary in the nation. Iowa isn't a primary, but they've been in a perpetual battle that's pushed things back from around early April to January. Eventually they'll be holding the primary before the general election that's four years out!!!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why shouldn't a candidate...