Specter: 1, Club For Growth: 0

[vsp]

<a href="http://www.nbc10.com/politics/3237899/detail.html">Specter edges Toomey for Republican Senate nomination, 51-49</a>

I'm not a big Specter fan myself, but if I'd been faced with the prospect of having Santorum AND Toomey as my senators, I'd have to consider moving to the Yukon.

I kinda wish that they'd rotate the Presidential primaries, however, so that _just once_ I'd get a chance to vote before the nominees have been decided upon.

[BrianR]

I'm leaning more toward a National Primary, with all states holding their primaries on the same day, like Election Day.

I don't see any major downside. A few states may be put out a bit to reschedule things, but that's just a one-time pinprick. And we get our candidates all at once this way.

Brian

[TheLorax]

I realize that the idea behind the electoral college was to make the candidates accessible to voters in a way that they cannot do in the general election. Maybe that is a valid point, but we're living in a new age now and I seriously doubt that people are picking candidates based on who shows up to what pig pickin' anymore.

If you live in Hawaii, Idaho, or Utah then maybe your vote will mean something.

If you live in California, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, or Vermont then maybe your vote will mean something, but it will probably just be a formality.

If you live in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, or Oregon then no one gives a rat's ass what your vote is.

If you live in Alabama, Montana, or New Jersey then your primary is in June and probably won't even get covered by the press. We'll be deeply mired in mud slinging by then and no one will even notice.

My point here is, this is how I feel and right now there are two "I Voted" stickers on my white board. I can only imagine how people who aren't into it feel.

GO TEAM in '04 – I guess.

[smoothmoniker]

I think a national primary day is a pretty good idea. Other than the logistics, I wonder if there's some major reason why it hasn't been broached.

I know the "me first" states would hate loosing out on their status, but overall it seems like a good idea. I can't remember the last time California mattered for a primary candidate. Probably before I started voting.

-sm

[SteveDallas]

Well one issue is that it would require every candidate for nomination to run a national campaign from day 1. As of right now a relatively little-known candidate can gain attention and more money by concentrating on a few early states and coming up big (according to this line of thinking) whereas they could never establish themselves as national candidates unless they were already national figures. In some ways this is what happened with Clinton in 1992, but we also have to remember that almost all of who would have been considered the usual Democratic suspects that year found excuses not to run because they thought nobody would be able to beat Bush Sr. in the aftermath of Desert Storm.