2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Legbiter]

BOSTON (CBS) — A YouTube video shows supporters for Marco Rubio getting into a scuffle with a protester dressed as a robot outside a polling station Tuesday morning in Manchester, New Hampshire Tuesday.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/02/09/marco-rubio-supporters-robot-incident-new-hampshire-primary/

[Valmy]

Yeah, or as Bill Maher put it, Americans are stupid, so they need a lot of time to black ball the nutty candidates.

Meh look what your country just elected.

[alfred russel]

Again I disagree. We have the tea-party traditional guy in Rubio. The rough Northeasterner in Christie. The polished old money in Bush, who also has kind of a southern thing going for him. And the pragmatic midwesterner in Kasich. All have very different strengths and weaknesses.

Most of those are differences in style, not policy. If you believe some stories, Bush acted as a mentor to Rubio. Kasich was a Gingrich republican that ended up with a Fox News show and then went on to be a union busting governor. Christie is kind of a bully, but all four of them have very similar republican mainstream politics. No one has a platform like Cruz to get rid of the IRS and income taxes, or Trump to keep out all muslims.

[alfred russel]

You can do that with preferential voting as well. There's no need to make a few states shape elections.

I guess, but if you have 17 candidates, a dozen of them plausible based on resume, none of them are going to get much scrutiny. If you want to have everyone vote at once, I think we need multiple rounds of voting.

Personally, I think the system is fine.

[frunk]

Personally, I think the system is fine.

The major problem is that it goes on way...too...long.  From when the campaign really started until the election will be about 18 months.  That's at least a year too much.  Start the primaries in July, have them run for about 5 weeks, party conventions in September, election in November.

[alfred russel]

Personally, I think the system is fine.

The major problem is that it goes on way...too...long.  From when the campaign really started until the election will be about 18 months.  That's at least a year too much.  Start the primaries in July, have them run for about 5 weeks, party conventions in September, election in November.

That would work for me.

Also, with all the old candidates, it isn't implausible that someone has a health crisis between wrapping up the nomination and either the convention or election.

[Admiral Yi]

The major problem is that it goes on way...too...long.  From when the campaign really started until the election will be about 18 months.  That's at least a year too much.  Start the primaries in July, have them run for about 5 weeks, party conventions in September, election in November.

Then it becomes a TV ad buying contest.

[frunk]

Then it becomes a TV ad buying contest.

Why would that be true any more than it is now?  There would still be debates and campaigning.  You can still have Iowa and New Hampshire be on the first week, then say another 3 or 4 on the following week, then the bulk spread over the following weeks.

[Valmy]

The major problem is that it goes on way...too...long.  From when the campaign really started until the election will be about 18 months.  That's at least a year too much.  Start the primaries in July, have them run for about 5 weeks, party conventions in September, election in November.

Then it becomes a TV ad buying contest.

Then the candidate who concentrates on the cable cutters wins.

[Barrister]

The major problem is that it goes on way...too...long.  From when the campaign really started until the election will be about 18 months.  That's at least a year too much.  Start the primaries in July, have them run for about 5 weeks, party conventions in September, election in November.

Then it becomes a TV ad buying contest.

Canada just had a 3 month election campaign.

It was absurdly long by Canadian standards.  Usually it's only 5-6 weeks.

A short election campaign has the virtue that everyone can pay attention all at once.  Nobody but us political geeks pays attention to campaigns that run for months and month.  But even regular joes can pay attention for a few weeks.

[frunk]

Then the candidate who concentrates on the cable cutters wins.

Yeah, I was gonna say I don't think I've seen a presidential campaign ad on tv since the 2000 race.  Not coincidentally I got my first Tivo in 2002.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, or as Bill Maher put it, Americans are stupid, so they need a lot of time to black ball the nutty candidates.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in a person who doesn't believe in Western Medicine.

[Liep]

Ouch.

https://twitter.com/FullFrontalSamB/status/697127451755810816

[Admiral Yi]

Why would that be true any more than it is now?  There would still be debates and campaigning.  You can still have Iowa and New Hampshire be on the first week, then say another 3 or 4 on the following week, then the bulk spread over the following weeks.

Air time in Iowa (and I assume in New Hampshire) is relatively cheap.  Air time in delegate rich states is expensive.  Also, the conventional wisdom runs that Iowa and New Hampshire get a boner for retail politics, i.e. they vote for candidates they get to take a picture next to.  That means relatively unknown candidates (such as Obama) are playing on a somewhat level playing field.

[Valmy]

Ouch.

https://twitter.com/FullFrontalSamB/status/697127451755810816

Canadian on Canadian violence is so tragic. Stop the hate Canada!