Iowa and NH keep producing crappy presidents. What states should go first?

[Agorism]

Small and Libertarianish states would be?

Montana?

Wyoming?

What first few states would be best for us to go first?

[nate895]

I doubt it would be much different no matter who was at the fore.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Montana, Virginia, Arizona and Texas

Actually, why don't we just determine the order by pulling state names out of a hat? Make it different every time.

-t

[Agorism]

Texas is too big for a candidate with less than say 50 million to blow on it to compete in though. I don't like big states.

Are we strong in Virginia? That's a liberal state.

[nate895]

Montana, Virginia, Arizona and Texas

Actually, why don't we just determine the order by pulling state names out of a hat? Make it different every time.

-t

You cannot do that. The entire point of early states is to give small states a shot at having some sort of voice. In order to keep that tradition, we cannot have the possibility of some state like California, New York, or Texas going too early in the cycle. Plus, primaries are set by state legislatures (caucuses by party committees), so it would be impossible to truly force a state to go at a particular time.

[Agorism]

You cannot do that. The entire point of early states is to give small states a shot at having some sort of voice. In order to keep that tradition, we cannot have the possibility of some state like California, New York, or Texas going too early in the cycle. Plus, primaries are set by state legislatures (caucuses by party committees), so it would be impossible to truly force a state to go at a particular time.

If they threw out all the rules out and let them move WAY forward, it might actually be interesting. We could be doing Montana right now rather than in 13 months or whatever.

[oyarde]

Montana, Virginia, Arizona and Texas

Actually, why don't we just determine the order by pulling state names out of a hat? Make it different every time.

-t

i would have been happy last election to open a phonebook in the midwest and randomly pick a small business owner and make them president for a couple years : )

[nate895]

If they too all the rules out and let them move WAY forward, it might actually be interesting. We could be doing Montana right now rather than in 13 months or whatever.

The national party committees do have means of coercion short of truly forcing states to comply with their will. Generally, there is a rule written by the previous convention that a state must choose its delegates within the calendar year of the presidential election or they will not be seated. That has, so far, prevented states from going too far forward.

[Anti Federalist]

Eliminate the primary system entirely.

Let the party structure thrash it out.

If anything, the "choices" are worse than those when the "smoke filled rooms" decided the person to run.

[tangent4ronpaul]

You cannot do that. The entire point of early states is to give small states a shot at having some sort of voice. In order to keep that tradition, we cannot have the possibility of some state like California, New York, or Texas going too early in the cycle. Plus, primaries are set by state legislatures (caucuses by party committees), so it would be impossible to truly force a state to go at a particular time.

OK, well then take the names of the 50% with the smallest population and draw from those.

-t

[wormyguy]

NH is one of the smallest and most libertarian. Problem is that it has a primary instead of a caucus - Paul would absolutely clean up in an NH caucus.

[Agorism]

What was Paul polling in the last PPP NH poll? Probably not that high.

[Razmear]

Random draw. Do 5 states a week for 10 weeks to determine the winner. Having the primary process run for 8 months is way to long, imho.

[wormyguy]

What was Paul polling in the last PPP NH poll? Probably not that high.

High single digits. I think he hit 11% at one point. He actually polls better in NH than any other primary state (and most caucus states too).

[Agorism]

What bout Alaska?

I think we poll well there.

[puppetmaster]

Nevada

[puppetmaster]

we won here...til they stole it

[Agorism]

I think we won 10% in Nevada (same as Iowa roughly.)

The difference was only our delegates actually bothered to attend the state convention.

I remember polling close to 20% statewide in Alaska. Montana I remember being strong as well.

[TheTyke]

Didn't we get 25% in Montana? Or was that a caucus? Anyhow, it qualifies as a low-population state. I'm liking Nevada too..

[oyarde]

Didn't we get 25% in Montana? Or was that a caucus? Anyhow, it qualifies as a low-population state. I'm liking Nevada too..

Caucus I think , most counties .

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Eliminate the primary system entirely.

Let the party structure thrash it out.

If anything, the "choices" are worse than those when the "smoke filled rooms" decided the person to run.


Better yet eliminate the parties entirely and have people run based on their own merit.

The system is broken.

[Bruno]

The problem isn't the states, it's the lack of good candidates.

[amy31416]

I recall Idaho being one of the better states. I've contemplated Coeur D'Alene as a hospitable place.

[sailingaway]

Montana. Idaho. Wyoming...The Dakotas.....

[cindy25]

NH was not the problem, it was the message; they thought McCain was anti-war

[oyarde]

I recall Idaho being one of the better states. I've contemplated Coeur D'Alene as a hospitable place.

Prettiest city out that away , probably .