Ten Republican presidential candidates met in Cleveland for a primetime debate on Fox News.

CNN has announced that they have a minimum qualification which may rule out Governor Jim Gilmore from the second tier debate.

Trump, Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Cruz and Rubio still all seem like locks for top 10 but Carly Fiorina will almost certainly move to the adult table. Out of Christie, Kasich and Paul money seems to be on Christie to head to the kid's table.

It looks like there needs to be a process to week out excessive candidates at the beginning. Perhaps an online sign up sheet by voter ID that winnows the field to 10 before the first debate.

The five Democratic candidates (by age) have a possible 6th candidate in Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders September 8, 1941 (age 73) Brooklyn, New York United States Senator from Vermont (2007–present)
Jim Webb February 9, 1946 (age 69) St. Joseph, Missouri United States Senator from Virginia (2007–2013)
Hillary Clinton October 26, 1947 (age 67) Chicago, Illinois United States Secretary of State (2009–2013)
Lincoln Chafee March 26, 1953 (age 62) Providence, Rhode Island Governor of Rhode Island (2011–2015)
Martin O'Malley January 18, 1963 (age 52) Washington, D.C. Governor of Maryland (2007–2015)

Quote: Pacomartin

It looks like there needs to be a process to week out excessive candidates at the beginning. Perhaps an online sign up sheet by voter ID that winnows the field to 10 before the first debate.

There is a process, its the primaries.
In my opinion this whole process is so absurd.
Its just so so so early.
We are 15 months away from election day. Primaries not till next year.
Do other countries start the campaign process so early?
Why debate now? Nobody gets a chance to vote or caucus till next year.
The weeding out process should be done by IA NH SC and that's next year.
Right now somewhat meaningless polls should not decide who debates.
Have the debates after IA NH SC and use real results by the people to decide who to include at the adult table.

Quote: terapined

The weeding out process should be done by IA NH SC and that's next year.

I oppose the preferential treatment that the early states get. One downside is that only a strongly religious conservative is going to win the GOP primary in Iowa and South Carolina. In my opinion, every state should be allowed to hold its primary/caucus whenever it wishes within a certain range of dates, with that range the same for every state. Every state will probably want to do it on the first day, which would be fine with me.

Regarding the debates, I see that as more of a private sector thing. If CNN or Fox is going to host a debate they can set the rules as they wish. If a candidate doesn't like the rules, he doesn't have to show up.

2016 Schedule
Monday, February 1: Iowa caucuses
Tuesday, February 9: New Hampshire
Saturday, February 20: South Carolina
Tuesday February 23: Nevada caucuses

Tuesday, March 1: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado caucuses; Massachusetts; Oklahoma; Tennessee; Texas; Vermont; Virginia
States with no firm dates
Georgia — Tuesday, March 1 (presumably)
Wyoming - Tuesday, March 1 (presumably)
Minnesota - Tuesday, March 1 (presumably)
Alaska - Tuesday, March 1 (presumably)
North Dakota - Tuesday, March 1 (presumably)

Quote: Wizard

I oppose the preferential treatment that the early states get. One downside is that only a strongly religious conservative is going to win the GOP primary in Iowa and South Carolina.

In 2012 Santorum and Gingrich won Iowa and South Carolina, but Romney came in second in both states.

Republican primary 2012
Iowa January 3, 2012
Rick Santorum 29,839 24.56%
Mitt Romney 29,805 24.53%
Ron Paul 26,036 21.43%
Newt Gingrich 16,163 13.30%
Rick Perry 12,557 10.33%
Michele Bachmann 6,046 4.98%

South Carolina January 21, 2012
Newt Gingrich 244,065 40.42%
Mitt Romney 168,123 27.85%
Rick Santorum 102,475 16.97%
Ron Paul 78,360 12.98%

New Hampshire January 10, 2012
Mitt Romney 97,591 39.28%
Ron Paul 56,872 22.89%
Jon Huntsman 41,964 16.89%
Rick Santorum 23,432 9.43%
Newt Gingrich 23,421 9.43%

Nevada February 4
Mitt Romney (16,486 votes) 50%
Ron Paul (6,175 votes) 19%
Newt Gingrich (6,956 votes)21%
Rick Santorum (3,277 votes) 10%

Quote: Wizard

In my opinion, every state should be allowed to hold its primary/caucus whenever it wishes within a certain range of dates, with that range the same for every state. Every state will probably want to do it on the first day, which would be fine with me.

At the very least they should hold all four states on the same day, instead of debating what it means on the national scene who Iowa votes for.

Quote: Wizard

I oppose the preferential treatment that the early states get. One downside is that only a strongly religious conservative is going to win the GOP primary in Iowa and South Carolina. In my opinion, every state should be allowed to hold its primary/caucus whenever it wishes within a certain range of dates, with that range the same for every state. Every state will probably want to do it on the first day, which would be fine with me.

The problem with all states going at the same time is the current system mostly works. IA/NH are small states of small towns. In my experience, said kinds of towns take more of their time selecting a candidate. At the least, the candidates can get to meet the people. If you live in either state you can have a chance to see the next POTUS in person.

IA goes one better and does it by a caucus. If you are a Democrat, you get to re-select a second choice if your candidate is not viable, which IIRC is about 15%. The GOP does not have a viability rule but assigns delegates differently. Had the entire nation, or most of it, voted on one day, Howard Dean would have been running in 2004 for the Democrats. For those that hate "money and smoke filled rooms" remember that if we had a fast-system then Hillary would have been the Democrat nominee in 2008. Obama flanked her in IA and later state-by-state. On the GOP side, it is doubtful McCain would have taken enough delegates and there would have been a floor fight at the convention, with the possibility of a party selected nominee.

As the man said, be careful what you wish for..........

Quote:

Regarding the debates, I see that as more of a private sector thing. If CNN or Fox is going to host a debate they can set the rules as they wish. If a candidate doesn't like the rules, he doesn't have to show up.

This would be nice, though I'm not holding my breath.

Regarding Romney getting second last time in NH and IA, I would say it is for the same reason he won the overall GOP primary -- Lots of candidates dividing the hard-core Christian vote and Romney had the fiscal conservatives to himself. So, Romney would have likely been the GOP nominee no matter how the primaries went.

Regarding your arguments, I see your point that it lets the late-voting states focus on just two or three names. I suppose the horse race method has some merit but it simply isn't fair that the early states have so much power. Nobody, except Nader and Perot supporters, want to waste their vote on somebody with no hope. However the early states get to decide who has hope. That is powerful.

Here is my suggestion, which I just thought of. Rotate or randomize the early voting states.

Quote: Wizard

Here is my suggestion, which I just thought of. Rotate or randomize the early voting states.

NH started their primary in 1916, and since 1920 they have traditionally been the first primary. It is now state law that they be the first primary. In 1972 Iowa took advantage of being a caucus state and slipped into the first position. Traditionally NH downplays Iowa because it is not a primary. Iowa is in fact one of the very last states to choose its delegates

On August 6, 2010, the Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted new rules for the timing of elections, with 103 votes in favor out of 144. Under this plan, allocation of delegates to the national convention were to be divided into three periods:
February 1 – March 5, 2012: Contests of traditional early states Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,
March 6–31, 2012: Contests that proportionally allocate delegates,
April 1, 2012, and onward: All other contests including winner-take-all elections.

You remember that all hell broke loose when 9 states (over and above traditional 4) scheduled primaries and caucuses before March 5 2012. Iowa ended up caucusing on 3 January.

Quote: Wizard

Regarding your arguments, I see your point that it lets the late-voting states focus on just two or three names. I suppose the horse race method has some merit but it simply isn't fair that the early states have so much power. Nobody, except Nader and Perot supporters, want to waste their vote on somebody with no hope. However the early states get to decide who has hope. That is powerful.

Here is my suggestion, which I just thought of. Rotate or randomize the early voting states.

I have had bar discussions with a friend on this idea. The guy I had them with is pretty far left but we had some agreement on what the system needs. One thing to remember about the "power" thing is fringe candidates will fade either way. Dennis Kesunich was not going to happen no matter what, but let him have his moment, let him get his message out. OTOH, some guys have hope but do fade with the early system we have. History could have changed. The best modern example is when Paul Tsongas pulled out in 1992, leaving Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown. Clinton was battered by scandal but Brown was simply no real challenge. Had Tsongas stayed in, Clinton would very possibly have lost the nomination.

Randomizing IMHO has two problems. One is states need to plan ahead. Local elections area often also happening so they cannot wait to learn when they go, and in some cases laws may need to be changed. Second, it should be balanced by population. CA/TX/FL on one day just decides at one time, same as now. Third, travel matters. A week where a candidate has to visit HI/AK/ME?

I always liked a system where you have the earlies same as now. Then go regional. Few big states really border each other. Break it to 4 or 5 regions. Then you rotate the regions each cycle. You would also move the IA to say March so that we can compress all this process to a mere 8 months. I think this would balance most concerns. Yet then never call me to ask.

Quote: AZDuffman

I always liked a system where you have the earlies same as now. Then go regional. Few big states really border each other. Break it to 4 or 5 regions. Then you rotate the regions each cycle. You would also move the IA to say March so that we can compress all this process to a mere 8 months. I think this would balance most concerns. Yet then never call me to ask.

That's a good idea. I'd enthusiastically support it. One of the few times I think I've agreed with you.

Quote: Wizard

One of the few times I think I've agreed with you.

But we are always civil, the reason the aisle can be crossed. Now we just need to get elected to the Senate, get 58 others to go along, and get it done.