I don't get why small states should have such an advantage over big states. We have more people. That earns us more power.
Here's my plan:
First primary - California, Texas, New York, Florida. The four biggest states. Two liberal and Democratic, one conservative and Republican, one moderate and swingy. All very diverse (all four with big Latino populations and the last three with big black populations). All BIG.
Second - Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. The Rust Belt. Slow-growing but clout-heavy. The backbone of any Democratic victory. Also the second most populated group of four.
Third - everybody else. From Georgia to Wyoming, everybody gets their say.
Doesn't that seem fair?
Second, those are almost too diverse. We want states that aren't all white, but we need to make sure we pick a nominee that appeals to whites as well; I'd rather have a state whose racial background matches that of the nation, rather than one that's too white (NH/IA) or not white enough (CA/TX); let's just pick one that matches the nation; anyone know which states qualify there?.
There will never be a state that is "perfect", and quite frankly, considering how big of a role California plays in the US, we should at least get something of an earlier say.
also please don't ever use the term "not white enough", again, that kind of bothers me.
-C.
Also, we do have to appeal to whites. Even if every non-white American voted for the Dem, they would lose if that's all that voted for them. Maybe not further down the road, but right now, that's the case. What's more, turnout in the General among whites is higher than many minority groups, so I don't think that we should say we can win without anyone just yet.
What's more, we already win in CA. There's no question that the Dem nominee will carry that state. So why not give states that will determine the outcome of the election a choice of who they would back. MI, PA, FL, OH- all are important swing states, just like WI. And even NH and IA are pretty swingy, as they were two of the three states that changed hands this election. I don't think we should hold our most important primary in the most liberal states, just as I don't think the GOP should hold their's in the most conservative; it would lead to nominees that the swing states with middle America would be displeased with.
McCain's victory over the Bush machine in 2000--which might have worked out if he had not gotten off message in South Carolina--would never have happened if we had the primary process you recommend. Johnson would have never been knocked off by McCarthy. Buchanan would never have bitch-slapped Bush Sr.. (I don't like Buchanan either, but it was a hell of a lot of fun!)
Under your system the well-funded party apparatus designates with lots of money and name recognition will win the nomination on Day One. Hell, why don't we just go back to letting the party leaders pick the candidates themselves, like we used to, and save all that campaign cash for the general election?
And it was McCarthy's fault that Nixon was elected. It was Johnson's fault for starting the war in Vietnam and Humphrey's fault for supporting it.
