Money in politics is already the biggest problem we have.

Hence why a nationwide primary is a terrible concept. It would simply amplify the power of money tenfold.

Even if we ignore money it is a moronic idea though. An unknown candidate can stump around one small state at a time and become the nominee under the current system. It would be impossible with a nationwide primary.

Because voting for someone you know and like is such a moronic idea. What was I thinking? Who would want to vote for someone they know and like?

It is the responsibility of the candidates to get their message out...not the responsibility of the government or political parties. Nothing I've said stops candidates from going state to state ahead of a primary. You implicitly added limitations on my idea that do not actually exist. The whole point of primaries and parties is to ensure that the political process is not fair.

I guess you get the democracy you deserve.

Yes it is a moronic idea, and it is moronic to support it.

How well known someone is has virtually nothing to do with whether or not they are a good person or a good leader.

The joke is that you claim other people don't take the US seriously yet you're still discussing US politics on a US originated forum

Interesting days ahead; Hillary will try to pull away further (and will have the opportunity with big delegate states + more moderate caucus states), and GOP will try their last tricks. Kasich won't drop till Ohio, Rubio beyond that, and Carson's just lounging around (and doing better than Kasich in several states, mind you). Cruz seems like the best person posed to face Donald, but there isn't really anymore states that he can win.

Thanks again for this. Sanders looks to still be competitive in Kansas and Nebraska. Hope she can take one of those two states along with Louisiana by a huge margin. She's actually running up the South in bigger totals than Obama . Granted HRC was still a favorite candidate for blacks back then (unlike Sanders so far) but still . He will probably crush her in Maine too. but hopefully she can rebound with Mississippi and Michigan and run up good margins there. Sanders says he's competitive in Michigan so we will find out.

Finally with regard to Florida, she'll win (as well as IL and NC) but he cannot let her win 30+ in all these huge states it's dooming him
Colorado hates Hillary. They lanslided her ass in 2008 and did another walloping this year. Luckily for her, if she is the nominee, she won't have to worry about caucusing in the GE

We're not talking about picking friends here. We are talking about voting for government officials.

You are the best person to know if they are a good leader or not when you know the person and when they've governed or have some other qualities you think would make for a good president. I know and like many people and I think they'd be terrible candidates for office. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't on average. You can work around the strengths and weaknesses of those you know. It's much harder to do that with someone you don't know.

People want someone they know and like to vote for running for office. Your post just assumes that people you don't know are better than people you know for running for president. That's pretty moronic. If you don't know anything the person you are voting for why are you voting for them? You assume way too much and know way too little.

I get the sentiment behind this idea. And while fundamentally at its purest form, as far as being accessible and convenient for the masses, it makes sense, realistically it doesn't!

You need to think about the fact that the visibility of these elected officials, EVEN ONCE ELECTED, in this day & age is so minimal on the national stage and thats why it takes incredible amounts of money in order to catapult them to where they need to be. Now say you rid the system of this dilemma & make it so we all vote for primaries on the same day nation wide, to give everyone the same national introductory platform? whats to say the actual campaigning (which is what you'd be "getting rid of" in our current system) wont be shifted to another period in this new cycle, that might not be as visible to the public? And when you think about the momentum (with cash contributions & volunteers) little known public officials or candidates running for Presidency gain during our current political system being absent in this new cycle, it leaves it so that the politicians (or even reality tv personalities with $ to fund an entire campaign in this cycle) with the $ behind them are inherently at an advantage from the get go. Because in order to get the groundwork up & going for these potential candidates in this hypothetical scenario they would need a good amount of money to get kicked off.

Ok so even if we take all that off the table (and strictly speaking more so with the Democratic side of the party) even tearing apart the primary/caucus system as it is now eliminates all the failsafes put in places from being in utter shambles (like the RNC is rn with Trump). For example, like when John Edwards ran for President back in 08. Imagine he won the delegates needed for nomination before all of his scandals really broke the news cycle and onto a GE? We'd be ****ed. But the way the system is right now works to subvert a catastrophe like that. And while that can be a double edged sword, its still better than not having one. Also, caucuses are cheaper to run than primaries.

Did you not want Obama to be president back in 2008?

People seem to forget that the legitimate requirements to become President of The United States are SO MINIMAL that if you were to switch the process in which we determine nominees it'd leave room for more Trumps to stand up and run. AND WIN!

Because they could literally pump as much money needed to flood the national stage with w/e platform they build & it would all hang on making sure turn out and support is solid for that ONE day.

People need time to really research and acclimate to a candidates platform. Also this leaves room for realignment in our current system. Making it a one day thing would essentially eliminate that need to research politicians and just go with whatever ad they saw last, that really resonated with them, for a lot of people.

Where did I say we don't take you seriously? On matters like education, military spending, and healthcare you are a joke compared to other developed countries. One does not exclude the other

non americans calling the US a joke is so cringeworthy and tryhard.

Jokes aren't serious...like the fact that I'm even explaining this to you boggles my mind

Or never.

This! I think it could happen and it would just screw us all over

According to CNN's delegate estimate, Hillary Clinton won 492 delegates on Super Tuesday. Sanders won 330.

Including Hillary's 30 delegate lead prior to Super Tuesday, she's now ~200 delegates (non-super; pledged) ahead, with several preferential states to go in March.

All countries with left leaning governments are even worse, look at Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea (they are all extreme left tho) and Socialist Europe which it's in debt for all the social programs and welfare (Greece for example), you don't even understand how great America still is even with all the issues they have!

But they all caught attention before Iowa. Iowa and NH generally narrow the field. So if a candidate doesn't do well with Iowa's or NH's very non-diverse demographic, then it's really hard to continue from there if the candidate doesn't have a lot of money.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...tons-got-this/

Why the fiscally irresponsible should stop donating their 27 dollars to sanders