Talk Elections

Does anyone else feel that the current system of primaries/caucuses forces candidates to cater their messages towards the interests of rural/small town/and suburban voters. IA and NH largely decide the fates of candidates as well as SC. NV has Las Vegas but that's not like a real big city. I wish Illinois, NY, CA, TX, or PA could be chosen as an early primary state especially, perhaps NY.

New Hampshire really isn't that awful, but Iowa is, since every candidate is forced to put themselves in the pocket of Big Corn.

The problem is big cities are expensive to advertise in, thus tilting the race against dark horse and insurgent candidates.

I'm not saying that NH is bad or good but it has no major cities. Instead of focusing on urban policy (housing, environment, public education), the candidates initially focus on corn subsidies, agriculture policies, and rural issues.

The whole primary system, where in most cases few small states decide about everything at very start, is bad.

^^^^


No thanks, the big cities have enough power as is. Besides, your system would guarantee a Clinton/Giuliani style election every time.

Isn't southern New Hampshire fairly close to Boston, anyway?

Is there really that much difference between urban Republicans and rural Republicans or between urban Democrats and rural Democrats as to make this an issue?

Actually, there's a great deal of difference.

In which party and what do you see as the differences?