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

Quote: Wizard

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

I hate to be a spoiler, but I don't think it matters how good an idea it is.

The media coverage in IA and NH is said to equal all the other state contests combined. That translates to a lot of money spent in those small states. There is no way to control the states as it is not a matter of federal law. You may remember that the RNC disallowed half the NH delegates in 2012 for having their primary in January. If your rotation plan were instituted and even if the Republican National Committee disallows all delegates for scheduling the primary too early, NH will probably still have the primary first just for the benefit of the state economy.

========================
The other thing to remember is that most democracies are governed by coalitions, The USA wants first and foremost for the president to have won a majority, and in a similar manner that the nominees of the parties be elected by the people as a majority. Now majority is defined as a "majority of delegates". Unlike most democracies the 3rd and 4th, etc. parties have little or no real clout.

If major states vote early in the primaries then you will almost always have a plurality since there is by definition no bandwagon.

Remember that any Republican candidate who has the plurality of delegate votes in at least eight states can be nominated. Also ‘winner-take-all’ elections will only be permitted when a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in the primary battle. These rules cannot be changed until 2020.

They may go to convention with Trump having a plurality of delegates. Then the party will more than likely want to nominate a party stalwart that they feel has a better chance of winning the general election. Then they have the devil's predicament of A) trying to buy off Trump with anything less than VP, B) risk having him run as an independent or C) running him in the general election for POTUS.

Quote: Pacomartin

Then they have the devil's predicament of A) trying to buy off Trump with anything less than VP, B) risk having him run as an independent or C) running him in the general election for POTUS.

Too bad there is no provision for D) Coronation.

A) is a non-starter. No way Trump will take anything but the nomination. He won't even take VP.

Really, given the Republican field this year, the GOP would do best by having a Clinton to kick around for 8 years.

Quote: Nareed

Too bad there is no provision for D) Coronation.

A) is a non-starter. No way Trump will take anything but the nomination. He won't even take VP.

Really, given the Republican field this year, the GOP would do best by having a Clinton to kick around for 8 years.

Really? Not at all... they've had 8 years to kick at Obama. It's not made much difference.

Trump vs. Sanders would lead to the most divisive contest yet. They REPs would want Sanders to get the nomination, then they have a great chance to win the Presidential job.

I have seen a theory that Trump is playing a fool for Clinton's benefit... but that seems like a very elaborate plan to play the stalking horse.

Quote: TheCesspit

They REPs would want Sanders to get the nomination, then they have a great chance to win the Presidential job.

Of course they want that. Everyone wants to run against a candidate with regional appeal. Sanders will be 74 years old, and he has never been a Democrat (even though he votes with them 98% of the time).

But seriously about Trump. How is a guy like that going to win a general election?

Quote: Pacomartin

But seriously about Trump. How is a guy like that going to win a general election?

By having something really, really bad on Hillary?

BTW, I hope she wins the presidency, if only to see the GOP throw a tantrum. Also, because a long exile from the White House might be what the GOP needs to cut their "base" down to size.

1st off I think it is ridiculous IA NH SC are the first to vote.
IA and NH have a pretty good track record of picking a winning President but good is not good enough in my opinion.
The states that have the best overall track record should go 1st.
SC has a poor record of voting for the winning Presidential candidate.
My idea is to give states that have an excellent track record of siding with the winner of a Presidential election should go 1st.
These states more accurately reflect the political leanings of the nation as a whole.
I would start with 5 states that have picked the winner at least 85% of the time and start from small to large.

Here is the order
New Mexico should go 1st. As a state, 23 out of 25 elections, they picked the winner
Nevada 2nd, 25 of 28.
Missouri 25 of 28
Ohio 26 of 28
Illinois 24 of 28.

My theory is that if NM NV MO go 1st to winnow down the field.
OH and IL huge states, lots of delegates should go next.

Quote: terapined

OH and IL huge states, lots of delegates should go next.

Larger states should go near the end, putting them first throws the balance to big states. 2-3 big states go and the thing can be almost decided. Also gives a way bigger advantage to big money and party power brokers.

Quote: terapined

Here is the order
New Mexico should go 1st. As a state, 23 out of 25 elections, they picked the winner
Nevada 2nd, 25 of 28.
Missouri 25 of 28
Ohio 26 of 28
Illinois 24 of 28.

My theory is that if NM NV MO go 1st to winnow down the field.
OH and IL huge states, lots of delegates should go next.

Your data is missing the 2012 election. Past history of picking the presidential candidate may not necessarily mean much in picking the primary candidate

New Mexico joined the Union in January 1912. It has participated in 26 presidential elections through 2012, with the results split almost down the middle; 14 for Democrats, 12 for Republicans. NM only got it wrong in 1976 (Gerald Ford) and 2000 (George W. Bush).

Ohio’s misfires came in 1944, when it picked Republican Tom Dewey over FDR, and in 1960, when it preferred Republican Richard Nixon over Democrat John F. Kennedy.

I am not sure of the history of the order, but I know that Iowa started going first in 1972, while New Hampshire always was the first primary since 1920.
!980 order (Reagan-Bush)
Jan 21 Iowa 30% 32%
Feb 17 Puerto Rico 0% 60%
Feb 26 New Hampshire 50% 23%
Mar 4 Massachusetts 29% 31%
Mar 4 Vermont 30% 22%
Mar 8 South Carolina 55% 15%
...
May 27 Nevada (2nd last primary day)

Well if Donald Trump is leading the way in getting Americans used to the idea that a non-politician can be President, it looks like Ben Carson is also following close behind. Between the two of them they won half the vote in a recent poll.

Jeb Bush still has over half of Latinos saying they are more inclined to vote Democrat. But ever-confident Trump has announced that he will win the Hispanic Vote.

Quote: Pacomartin

Well if Donald Trump is leading the way in getting Americans used to the idea that a non-politician can be President,

Grant? Eisenhower? How quickly they forget...

Perhaps we should revert to Greco-Roman forms of democracy.