Bloodless Coup

let me see if i understand this correctly: a state, by moving its primary too far forward, loses half its clout at the RNC, by rule!? and state legislatures still have been approving the move!? wtf!? how cynical is it to say we'll take half the clout to get our $0.02 (or $0.01, really) out there first!? and now the quick fix of winnter-takes-all, which ought to be restyled having one's cake and eating it too, since what it reflects is an end-run around the rather-permissive-on-this-front party structure, and one modest rule it imposed to keep us from effectively selecting our nominees several years before anyone gives a shit.

(nb, this is all going to be fine and will continue racing to earlier and earlier dates until some deeply buried, utterly damaging revelation emerges about a nominee in the last month leading up to a general election, something that might have remained buried given less time, and then we'll see how much everyone wants their primaries so early.)

Well fewer delegates is seen as better that more delegates if it gets attention to your state and state party, and the nomination isn't secured before your state goes to the polls (or caucuses) - yeah, that's the idea.

And I should probably point out that the winner-take-all issue is a Republican issue (or problem, depending on one's point of view) in certain states. Democratic delegates tend to be apportioned in something closer to a proportional system, with more rules about gender and racial representation among the delegates.

And sure, this will just keep happening as long as the national parties allow it. They could tell the state parties to go fuck themselves, that they can't move up that early - but they decline to.