Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Nevada ought not be an early Primary state

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:44:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Nevada's only justification for being an early state that I have found is that it "adds diversity". Well, if we really care, we should select a state that actually shows up.

Is it really a fair process if such an important state doesn't really show - thereby lessening the importance of work done by the candidates? For example, Republican turnout in 2012 was 8.2%. We can expect this to grow this year with Trump, but this is still rather pathetic.

Democratic turnout was about 80,000. 2008 (2012 was super low for obvious reasons) was at about 120,000 - which I believe was Nevada's record. As of 2010, there were 456,672 active Democratic voters. That is a turnout under 20%. Nearly 150,000 people voted this year in New Hampshire, which has a population less than half of Nevada's.

Aside from all of that, I found this video today. I found it amusing:

https://youtu.be...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:52:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:44:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Nevada's only justification for being an early state that I have found is that it "adds diversity". Well, if we really care, we should select a state that actually shows up.

Is it really a fair process if such an important state doesn't really show - thereby lessening the importance of work done by the candidates? For example, Republican turnout in 2012 was 8.2%. We can expect this to grow this year with Trump, but this is still rather pathetic.

Democratic turnout was about 80,000. 2008 (2012 was super low for obvious reasons) was at about 120,000 - which I believe was Nevada's record. As of 2010, there were 456,672 active Democratic voters. That is a turnout under 20%. Nearly 150,000 people voted this year in New Hampshire, which has a population less than half of Nevada's.

Aside from all of that, I found this video today. I found it amusing:

https://youtu.be...

I'd say I'm for Nevada being an early primary states. The early states should be swing states that can be decisive in a general (BET YOU WISH YOU HAD NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 2000, GORE). This is so the parties can begin their outreach to these states early. I'm really not sure why they throw in South Carolina if that is the case, though. I would think Georgia would be a better state.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 9:58:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:52:03 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:44:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Nevada's only justification for being an early state that I have found is that it "adds diversity". Well, if we really care, we should select a state that actually shows up.

Is it really a fair process if such an important state doesn't really show - thereby lessening the importance of work done by the candidates? For example, Republican turnout in 2012 was 8.2%. We can expect this to grow this year with Trump, but this is still rather pathetic.

Democratic turnout was about 80,000. 2008 (2012 was super low for obvious reasons) was at about 120,000 - which I believe was Nevada's record. As of 2010, there were 456,672 active Democratic voters. That is a turnout under 20%. Nearly 150,000 people voted this year in New Hampshire, which has a population less than half of Nevada's.

Aside from all of that, I found this video today. I found it amusing:

https://youtu.be...

I'd say I'm for Nevada being an early primary states. The early states should be swing states that can be decisive in a general (BET YOU WISH YOU HAD NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 2000, GORE). This is so the parties can begin their outreach to these states early. I'm really not sure why they throw in South Carolina if that is the case, though. I would think Georgia would be a better state.

If you want to pick a state to be a part of the early primary, at least choose one that shows to vote. It's too important a position for a state with absolutely no participation in democracy. Swing state? Ok. But again, there are more states than Nevada that can be swing states - ones that actually do vote.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 10:10:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 9:58:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:52:03 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:44:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Nevada's only justification for being an early state that I have found is that it "adds diversity". Well, if we really care, we should select a state that actually shows up.

Is it really a fair process if such an important state doesn't really show - thereby lessening the importance of work done by the candidates? For example, Republican turnout in 2012 was 8.2%. We can expect this to grow this year with Trump, but this is still rather pathetic.

Democratic turnout was about 80,000. 2008 (2012 was super low for obvious reasons) was at about 120,000 - which I believe was Nevada's record. As of 2010, there were 456,672 active Democratic voters. That is a turnout under 20%. Nearly 150,000 people voted this year in New Hampshire, which has a population less than half of Nevada's.

Aside from all of that, I found this video today. I found it amusing:

https://youtu.be...

I'd say I'm for Nevada being an early primary states. The early states should be swing states that can be decisive in a general (BET YOU WISH YOU HAD NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 2000, GORE). This is so the parties can begin their outreach to these states early. I'm really not sure why they throw in South Carolina if that is the case, though. I would think Georgia would be a better state.

If you want to pick a state to be a part of the early primary, at least choose one that shows to vote. It's too important a position for a state with absolutely no participation in democracy. Swing state? Ok. But again, there are more states than Nevada that can be swing states - ones that actually do vote.

Well A. Nevada is a caucus state, which inherently threatens turnout, and B. It takes place midday. New Hampshire can vote all day in its primaries, and Iowa can caucus right after work. But Nevada's caucus structure discourages turnout. Really, that's what needs to be changed.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 10:40:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 10:10:50 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:58:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:52:03 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:44:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Nevada's only justification for being an early state that I have found is that it "adds diversity". Well, if we really care, we should select a state that actually shows up.

Is it really a fair process if such an important state doesn't really show - thereby lessening the importance of work done by the candidates? For example, Republican turnout in 2012 was 8.2%. We can expect this to grow this year with Trump, but this is still rather pathetic.

Democratic turnout was about 80,000. 2008 (2012 was super low for obvious reasons) was at about 120,000 - which I believe was Nevada's record. As of 2010, there were 456,672 active Democratic voters. That is a turnout under 20%. Nearly 150,000 people voted this year in New Hampshire, which has a population less than half of Nevada's.

Aside from all of that, I found this video today. I found it amusing:

https://youtu.be...

I'd say I'm for Nevada being an early primary states. The early states should be swing states that can be decisive in a general (BET YOU WISH YOU HAD NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 2000, GORE). This is so the parties can begin their outreach to these states early. I'm really not sure why they throw in South Carolina if that is the case, though. I would think Georgia would be a better state.

If you want to pick a state to be a part of the early primary, at least choose one that shows to vote. It's too important a position for a state with absolutely no participation in democracy. Swing state? Ok. But again, there are more states than Nevada that can be swing states - ones that actually do vote.

Well A. Nevada is a caucus state, which inherently threatens turnout, and B. It takes place midday. New Hampshire can vote all day in its primaries, and Iowa can caucus right after work. But Nevada's caucus structure discourages turnout. Really, that's what needs to be changed.

Even during the general it is below the national average.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 10:41:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 10:40:15 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/23/2016 10:10:50 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:58:42 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:52:03 PM, daytonanerd wrote:
At 2/23/2016 9:44:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Nevada's only justification for being an early state that I have found is that it "adds diversity". Well, if we really care, we should select a state that actually shows up.

Is it really a fair process if such an important state doesn't really show - thereby lessening the importance of work done by the candidates? For example, Republican turnout in 2012 was 8.2%. We can expect this to grow this year with Trump, but this is still rather pathetic.

Democratic turnout was about 80,000. 2008 (2012 was super low for obvious reasons) was at about 120,000 - which I believe was Nevada's record. As of 2010, there were 456,672 active Democratic voters. That is a turnout under 20%. Nearly 150,000 people voted this year in New Hampshire, which has a population less than half of Nevada's.

Aside from all of that, I found this video today. I found it amusing:

https://youtu.be...

I'd say I'm for Nevada being an early primary states. The early states should be swing states that can be decisive in a general (BET YOU WISH YOU HAD NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 2000, GORE). This is so the parties can begin their outreach to these states early. I'm really not sure why they throw in South Carolina if that is the case, though. I would think Georgia would be a better state.

If you want to pick a state to be a part of the early primary, at least choose one that shows to vote. It's too important a position for a state with absolutely no participation in democracy. Swing state? Ok. But again, there are more states than Nevada that can be swing states - ones that actually do vote.

Well A. Nevada is a caucus state, which inherently threatens turnout, and B. It takes place midday. New Hampshire can vote all day in its primaries, and Iowa can caucus right after work. But Nevada's caucus structure discourages turnout. Really, that's what needs to be changed.

Even during the general it is below the national average.

Having a later primary date could only hurt that.
#FeeltheFreezerBern