text:
Talk:Jimmy Eat World

Just to be clear....
They are emo (I guess) but I also would label them as post-grunge. Their newer material kinda reflects it. Plus I found a source. :DRaikiriChidori (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

 * They are definitely NOT emo. Come on. Emo music reflects death and the band wear makeup and cut themselves. I can't believe so many otherwise good wikipedia editors believe that all pop punk and alt rock bands are emo. This is completely false and too many people think it is true. Just listen to the band's newer music. It sounds completely different from emo and even from what most people think of emo as today. Calling this band emo is insulting them to the highest degree. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ  (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What, are you kidding? Before you criticize an entire, well-respected genre like that, at least know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.101.163 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah who am I kidding? They aren't emo. I just said they were (I guess) as to not start an argument. Yeah, they're not emo, people. There is another genre in which emotional lyrics apply: post-grunge. If you don't believe me, read this article. It will convince you otherwise. RaikiriChidori (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You dont have to wear makeup and cut urself to be emo, and its not all about death. emo was first used to described emotive/emotion hardcore. emotions dont necessarily hav to be death related. at least kno what ur talkin about if ur gonna talk about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cutting yourself and wearing black has nothing to do with emo.you're just possesed by bands like my chemical romance and aiden.real emos aren't preppy or wear makeup or dress like a woman.jimmy eat world always looked normal.including when they were emo,but they aren't now.so putting 'early' in brackets after emo is very important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Emo is short for emotive hardcore. www.emotivehardcore.com. LEARN before you argue.

Future albums
I don't know what you are talking about, but I added the name of the latest album.--Origami dragon 23:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * cprompt and Camembert Elwhy felt it was pointless to listed "to be announced" (TBA) albums.

My edit.
WTF?

There was nothing wrong with my edit of the Good To Go EP.

Why call it rubbish... thats just mean. -- 195.194.178.252

 * You copied the text off another article (via your browser) then just pasted it all as text. Seriously, you even copied and pasted the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" from the top of the page, as well as the "Edit" Wiki editing links, and left it in there.

 * See for yourself, your edit:

 * Now, compare to how it looks now: Good to Go EP

 * I understand if you're new to Wiki, but please learn the proper code techniques before starting an article. Pick a couple of long articles, click "edit this page", and do nothing but look at how the pages are written and how things are oriented.  Your last edit of this page included several Wiki goofs.

 * Also: articles (a, an, the) and prepositions (of, on, to) are not capitalized in titles. (There are exceptions if the preposition is used adverbially, as in "Stay On" or "Hold On".)  I know that people do it where they capitalize every word, but that's not the accepted standard. -- ChrisB 20:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, consider me told. But seriously, theres NO CHANCE of me ever learning proper code techniques... can't I just carry on doing crappy edits and let you clever people make the changes???

There is no way that Jimmy Eat World is emo.
Where the hell did that classification come from?

 * They were the preeminent emo band of the 1990s. You all do realize that emo existed before 2003, yes?  When people talked about emo in the late 90s, the first name that came out of their mouth was Jimmy Eat World.  Clarity was considered one of the defining albums of 1990s emo.  Seriously, just go to AllMusic and read their bio and reviews, for crying out loud.

 * Jimmy Eat World is one of the main reasons that modern emo is what it is. Before them, emo was something drastically different.  Jimmy Eat World turned mainstream and brought the word "emo" to a more mainstream sound.  BTW, this is all entirely documented in the article for Emo (music). -- ChrisB 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * --Look, these classifications are bullshit, TRIVIAL, to say the least. **

 * ---TOTALLY EMO!!! xx little anna 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 * They are Emo. Early Emo.  However Early Emo is not a genre.--WhereAmI 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * No, but they were Emo and an early band in the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Their very old stuff was emo (a sort of "indie-emo"), but you cannot say the new material is even close to emo. They abandonned that style a long time ago. They're just alternative rock now. -- FatalError (talk | contribs) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I've just cleaned up this discussion a bit, and I'm removing this emo nonsense from the article as it is uncited (saying the information in another article is not citing it).

The albums up to and including bleed american use emo as a genre but after that they are no longer emo EG the 3 most recent albums are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.150.149 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World (1994)
Why is this album not mentioned on the first part of the article? I just double checked, and it is mentioned, but not linked. I'll try to rewrite the paragraph.

.-Zingazin 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Emo Discussion
Tey another artice arguing over the tag emo. Why does the wiki community still continue to use it? "Jimmy Eat World were WIDELY considered the prominent Emo" The keyword there is "were"  Nowadays Jimmy Eat World is no longer considered emo.DevelopmentArrested 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Genre" doesn't specify present day. -- ChrisB 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone were looking to get info. on the band, implying that they play emo music would give the wrong impression. DevelopmentArrested
 * How exactly does it give the wrong impression? Three of their four albums were specifically labelled as "emo", and many media outlets labelled Futures as "emo" as well.
 * Wikipedia is not the court of public opinion. It represents facts and histories.  The "Genre" element of the infobox encompasses a band's entire career, not just the specific present. -- ChrisB 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To reply to this old comment I'm just going to say that the genre should tell what they are NOW with their latest album. For example, If AFI's infobox were to encompass their entire career it would list about 20 genres since the band changes with every release. And also infoboxes should only contain the most general genres which definitely doesn't include emo. So maybe I will just remove emo and some other genres and leave it as alt rock and hopefully solve this problem for good. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ  (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake... They're EMO. GET USED TO IT. Sheesh, people that complain about this annoy me. Should it matter if they're emo or not? No, it shouldn't so shut up.--punkromance 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason they're no longer considered emo is because all the bands,fanboys and girls are trying to distance themselves from the cliche that is emo.Regardless, Jimmy eat world, among so many other bands which insist they are just 'rock' ,'alternative' or 'hardcore' are emo bands and will always be remembered as so. 220.237.23.19 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to consider Jimmy Eat World emo, then why aren't Taking Back Sunday or Brand New labeled as emo on wikipedia? After all they have a lot more emotional styles than Jimmy Eat World. And JEW aren't entirely emo, even if they had a few characteristics similar to 90s emo bands like Sunny Day Real Estate, they are undoubtedly Pop Punk/Alternative rock now. As seen by songs like The Middle and they were in the heart of the 90s punk revival movement (toured with Green Day and Blink 182). Why are you people so hung up on calling them emo anyway?

ok. to the dude abov me talkin about how they hav influences from 90s emo bands. THEY ARE THE 90s EMO BAND that people would take influence from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

-Also I've taken the liberty to say list emo as their early material. That way it satisfies the emo enthusiasts and pop punk/alternative rock enthusiasts. Its true anyway that Clarity had some emotional characteristics but the recent albums have had less.

 * Because the editors of those articles refused to allow Emo to be included in the infobox. That's not our fault or our problem.

 * "Early material" doesn't work in the infobox for several reasons. Mainly, it's not an accepted part of the infobox template.  But, furthermore, what counts as "early"?  It's POV, especially considering that Static Prevails, Clarity, and Bleed American have all been specifically called "emo".  (Some reviewers labelled Futures that way as well.)  There's no reason to split the difference.

 * And, no offense, but your version of events is a little bit of a historical rewrite. Jimmy Eat World have never been popularly considered part of any "90s punk revival movement" (assuming such a thing exists).  Sonic similarity doesn't count - such a statement would need to be

attributed per Wiki guidelines. -- ChrisB 16:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright you have a good point. In my opinion they are generally alternative though. But if its wrong to put early material in the infobox why does it say that in Brand New's infobox? You guys gotta get on top of your game. As for the 90s punk revival movement you would have to be ignorant to say that did not exist. It was brought forth by Nirvana and the grunge movement who basically opened the gate for alternative artists like Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam. Punk, being part of the alternative genre soon broke through with Green Day's "Dookie", NOFX's "Punk in Drublic", The Offspring's "Smash", Bad Religion's "Stranger Than Ficiton", etc. which were all popular albums in 1994. Thus followed by late 90s/early 2000s pop punk bands like Sum 41, Blink 182, SR-71, New Found Glory, etc. I would consider Jimmy Eat World part of these bands because in some situations they are listed as "pop punk". But whatever makes your wikipedia world flawless and happy is fine, I really don't care because I don't have to agree with it. unsigned comment

Just so u kno, a revival is when a genere starts up again. this so called "punk revival" in the 90s was more of punk-pop coming into the public, not a revival —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat my comment from above: Jimmy Eat World are definitely NOT emo. Come on people. Emo music reflects death and is a style in which the band wear makeup and cut themselves. I can't believe so many otherwise good Wikipedia editors believe that all pop punk and alt rock bands are emo. This is completely false and too many people think it is true. Just listen to the band's newer music. It sounds completely different from emo and even from what most people think of emo as today. Even Yellowcard probably has more emo in their music than Jimmy Eat World. Calling this band emo is insulting them to the highest degree. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC) I suggest that you read the emo article, the term "emo" is admittedly wrongly applied to many bands on wikipedi, but music does not have to reflect "death" to be considered "emo", you are confusing the “emo stereotype” with what is actually considered to be “emo music”. As well the genre was been thoroughly sourced in the article, and thus it should remain. Jacknife737 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since only their early albums were emo, I noted that in the infobox. They have changed from emo without a doubt since a few years ago. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk / contribs ) 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are still referred to as "emo" by several notable sources. Right or wrong, "without a doubt" is absolutely incorrect. -- ChrisB 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris B is obviously obsessed with referring to this band as emo so let him leave the little three letter, insignificant word on the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.253.184 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World was not part of the 90's punk movement, they were a part of the 90's indie emo movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.118.197 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Their first single "The Middle" was not emo. It was pop punk. I don't really see how they were part of this "indie emo movement" you talk about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.137.84 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats because the Middle was in their album that was punk pop. The album Clarity and Static Prevails had indie emo elements in them. Although many confused people considered the album Bleed American emo, it was punk pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.82 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

They have said before that they don't want to be lumped in with emo, so let's respect that and not include it in the genres. Rocker10000 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Emo is Emocore
Emo is Emocore! it's like: punk is the smallversion of punkrock! or hardcore for hardcore punk and alternative for alternative rock!

Emo did originally stand for emocore, but that stuff is almost completely different than the emo stuff you hear now. Emocore was hardcore punk with an emotion edge. Stuff like Jimmy Eat World definitely isn't hardcore punk.

Emo isnt emocore? Its 'Emotive Hardcore'. And Jimmy Eat Worlds earlier work is punk. And finally Emotive Harcore/Emo is a type of punk.

 * It's not "emotive hardcore". That term only came into popular usage in the last few years.  Emocore was established as "emotional hardcore".  The elitists in the current emo scene have patently ignored the history of the scene in favor of their own belligerence.

 * The term "emocore" largely fell out of popular usage in the mid-90s, and was almost entirely used to describe the 80s and early 90s emo bands. By the time Jimmy Eat World was associated with "emo", it was simply that: "emo".  It wasn't "emocore".  The terms are not exactly the same: all emocore is emo, but not all emo is emocore. -- ChrisB 00:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ive never really done anything on this site. but my question is if jimmy eat world IS emo....that is the term for the music....what would you label such bands as my chemical romance, sum-41, NEWER greenday, the used, AFI, and stuff like that? the eyeliner the gloves and gay hair?.............also what is the term or label or whatever the f- for bands like thursday, bayside, brand new and taking back sunday? i mean i'm like seriously genuinly curios as to what u guys think. i dont like to be the one to say that the whole emo scene today is extremely stupid, because you know i respect people and their right to a certain lifestyle. but come on....the stereotype thing....ive heard the whole 'cant spell crap without rap' and 'crock without rock' stuff. i hate seeing these pretentious people dressing up in black and growing their hair out, the make up and just the whole style man seriously. do you HAVE to paint ur nails black? what happened to the term goth? when did it become cool and trendy for the outcasts to put those stupid fingerless glove whatever the heck they are things on. i mean HOT TOPIC??? wtf. oh god im getting tooo crazy. im sorry. got a little to into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.150.109 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

okay dude. none of sum41, any greenday, or AFI could really ever be considered emo, punkpop yes, but not emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Emo stands for Emotional Hardcore. Hardcore = Hard, fast, heavy. Jimmy Eat World is not hardcore, and therefore, is not Emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.30.153 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 * You got that from Fox News didn't you?
 * "Emo" doesn't stand for "Emotional Hardcore"; just "Emotional".
 * NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But they were, at some point, so the tag BLOODY WELL STAYS, DISCUSSION OVER PEOPLE - savage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.2.214 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Do you really think the 1994 Self-Titled is Emo? Because none of their other works have any little bit of hardcore. The 1994 Self-Titled is the closest thing to it, but it still IS NOT HARDCORE. 189.110.235.175 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BleedAmerican.jpeg
Image:BleedAmerican.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clarity.jpeg
Image:Clarity.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Futures.jpeg
Image:Futures.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StaticPrevails.jpeg
Image:StaticPrevails.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

my two cents
I disagree with their debut album being called an emulation of punk-rock influences. Is it being claimed that the album sounds more like The Sex Pistols and Ramones than late 80s/early 90s college rock like Husker Du's last album? "most major-label bands were ostracized from the underground as "sell-outs"" is a dubious claim. Most major label bands were ignored by the underground because the kind of music they played was irrelevant to it, however bands that had underground cred to begin with have never typically lost it for signing to a major. I disagree with the claim that Bleed American is a more emo-influenced song than A Praise Chorus. I assume this distinction is based on vocals? The vocal performance on Bleed American has no specific relevence to historical emo vocals styles, although it could be claimed to be "emotional". The chiming guitars and dynamics on A Praise Chorus however do have particular relevence to 90s emo playing styles. "Jimmy Eat World continued to be referred to as an "emo" band, meaning that the term "emo" began to describe something completely different and more mainstream than what existed in the 90s". Yeah, just like Sunny Day Real Estate being called emo in the 90s meant that the term began to describe something completely different and more mainstream than what existed in the 80s. I think the term "completely" is an exaggeration and should be removed or elaborated on. 149.135.107.165 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Liam

 * The contentious statements that you're concerned about are not currently sourced in the article; if no sources can be found to back these statements, they can and should be removed. Several do seem like plausible statements that a reviewer might have made, though, so it's possible that sources will be found. Of course, if there are sources that are in disagreement with these statements, those can be invoked to provide a balanced view, as well. Ante  lan  talk  18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Music videos?
I think the article could use a list of their official music videos. A lot of other band articles or discography articles have these and it is a helpful reference. That's what I was looking for but couldn't find one. Just a suggestion. --IllaZilla 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World Genre
Hello, I believe the justification you gave for the removal of pop-punk as a genre for Jimmy Eat World is insufficient. I’m not debating whether or not the band is considered emo, in fact, if you check some of the article’s history, you will see that I have frequently fought for its inclusion. That said, I believe (and the source provided agrees) that Jimmy Eat World do have strong elements of pop-punk in their music. Several other band articles in wikipedia have various genres listed for the band (ie The Offspring, Green Day) Jacknife737 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you said about "emo" is irrelevant. Jimmy Eat World is not popularly recognized as a pop-punk band.  Even if they were, you've got to find a better source than a negative (and poorly-written) review: WP:RS.  Regardless, whatever pop-punk style they have fits comfortably under the umbrella of "alternative rock". -- ChrisB (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Jimmy Eat World are popularly recognized as pop punk. I agree the source previously included was poorly-written and unreliable, but it doesn't matter if it's negative or not. We are supposed to be aiming for neutrality here. I added 2 reliable sources so it shouldn't be removed again. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk  / contribs ) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, I would argue that Jimmy Eat World are in fact widely recognized as a pop-punk band. Secondly, Chart (magazine) is a prominent Canadian based publication, and I hardly think a single spelling error suddenly invalidates its content. Furthermore, there is nothing under WP:RS that should prevent the reference from being included within the article, Chart is a third party, published and relatively reliable source. Just because you do not like what the source says, does not mean that it is somehow invalid. Jacknife737 (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's one thing if it were a Chart article about the band. But it's one guy's paragraph review of the album.  That's not a reliable source.  Plus, given Tim's sources, it's completely unnecessary. -- ChrisB (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with how it is, but ChrisB, I’d appreciate that next time you decide to move a comment of mine, you’d let me know afterwards. Take care, and happy editing. Jacknife737 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with the guy at the top. Maybe they have a post-grunge sensability. 71.203.146.98 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is COMPLETELY unacceptable
Seriously, this is among the worst rewrites I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

1) Many of the sources fail WP:RS. Songfacts is not a reliable source, and neither is CD Universe (among others).  Furthermore, most of these cites are completely unnecessary.  We don't need to cite that Static Prevails was released in 1996, as the information is not controversial and cannot be challenged for veracity.

2) The rewrite contains incredibly poor grammar, with countless run-on sentences. Honestly, it reads like somebody's grade eight English assignment.

3) The rewrite contains several POV statements, such as "with British new-comers Hard-Fi replacing unfortunately Simple Plan", "the band performed at one of the largest gigs the United Kingdom has ever seen" (unlike every other band that has filled Milton Keynes), etc.

4) The rewite also contains several statements that are COMPLETELY FALSE. Clarity was not a "big hit" - it wasn't even successful.  Capitol didn't promote it, and dropped them a few months after its release.  And Jimmy Eat World never had a deal with Drive-Thru Records - they released the self-titled EP on Fueled by Ramen.

Worst of all, the rewrite was completely unnecessary. Everything in the article as it currently stands is factually accurate (and is siginificantly more detailed than the rewrite). The problem is that it's mostly unsourced. The correct course of action is to add cites for the existing material, not replace it with a wholly inferior new version. -- ChrisB (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Adkins' Death
I've found no information online that he was killed in a car accident on April 18. I was in Des Moines for the show, and if no source can be found confirming his death, it should be removed immediately.

I don't understand!!
Can someone please tell me why people consider Jimmy Eat World "Emo"!? Usually people are ignorant and classify a band's genre as "Emo" simply  if they wear black and/or have hair in their face,  but they don't. Which means they must actually be listening to their music. But I still don't understand. Their music is pretty upbeat. If music doesn't have emotion in it, then it must be sang by robots or machines. Even the heavy metal bands that hate "Emo" have emotion in their music-- anger.
 * NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking the editors and journalists of the New York Times, Village Voice or Rolling Stone would be the only way to know that. -- neon white talk 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---Jesus fu*king christ, "emo" existed before 2003 people, actually dating back to the early to mid-80's. In any case Jimmy eat world certainly fit the description of "emo" as it was in the mid to late 90's, the cliched term since has pretty much NOTHING in common with the genre of old. Christie front drive, Mineral, Chamberlain and dating back to the DC sound was "emo" All the makeup wearing cookie-cutter garbage you hear today may carry the tag "emo" but certainly IS NOT.outintheRED (not signed in)

 * No crap, of course they're not emo in most of our eyes. Just the people that matter, the journos, "experts", all label them emo, so there's not much we can do. kiac (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * They were, in fact, always known as an emo band in the mid nineties. Both the band and emo may have moved in different directions but they are still considered a major emo band. -- neon white talk 12:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I can't believe how much of a fight is being put up against Jimmy Eat World being called Emo. Clarity is considered, according to the article, a landmark album to modern emo.  Regardless of whether they are anymore, or how emo has evolved, they were at the forefront of emo for years, before it became a derogatory term.  And if emo hadn't evolved, Futures would still be widely considered an emo album.  And an awesome one at that. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

claimed influences from other bands
I've noticed that a huge number of bands (pop punk, indie, punk, etc) have claimed that they've been influenced by Jimmy Eat World. I think this should be added. Saying that they influence a lot of today's younger bands is a big compliment and probably interesting information to readers.

Jmh010 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Boring Article
This article used to be lengthy and jam packed with information, now it is just absolute basic stuff you can find on their website and in their fan base. This isn't some small band that does gigs in their neighborhood! These guys have a platinum album and a gold album out, that's an accomplishment! The first section has one short sentence, that's it! Put some detail into this, make people want to be interested by this page and this band!--Samushi101 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 * This is a lot better with the new change!--Samushi101 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Thankyou. I was just going to say when i read this last week, you should be bold and make some changes yourself, i know it's dissapointing when an article loses it's touch because of vandalism, etc. But the only way it gets fixed is if someone puts in, sitting on the sidelines criticising doesn't work. Well it did here cause it spurred me to write the lead ;) Actually i've just seen that the lead was partly deleted, i might look into incorporating that back into the article. Sweet. kiac (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirection
The articles on Jimmy Eat World's band members have been deleted and redirect to this page, why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.61.168 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Read wikipedia's policy on the Notability of things related to music and bands, it reads: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.". kiac (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Emo-Pop
A new genre? All Music Guide: Emo-Pop Or a way to separate the new emo bands from the old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.61.168 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

yes,but jimmy eat world were one of the old.i would hardly consider their 2000's stuff anything like fall out boy or my chemical romance.--Nirvanarox55 (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Emo-Pop is a genre. Jimmy Eat World is not Emo-Pop. Shan (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Splits
how come the discography doesn't have a section for jimmy eat world's many splits.they're even referred to in the split record article about they're releases.all the other indie/emo bands had a section for them so why not jimmy eat world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

 * This page only shows general discography information - Studio albums, because they are the main releases. A more specific look at JEW's releases can be viewed here: Jimmy Eat World discography. k-i-a-c  ( hitmeup  -  the past ) 13:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Post-emo?
I mean that's what their old stuff really is, not as much Emo. Like really, why isn't Post-emo on this website? It'd cover bands like Cap'n Jazz and stuff too.

Why EMO?

 * Emo because multiple, many multiple reliable sources, have said this. It is not up to us to go "No, no, my favourite band is not emo, it's gonna wreck my cred and rep bros!" Wikipedia requires us to use what they say, so that's what we will do. We're not making up crappy genres just to tend to someones need for more freaking categorisation and diversity. k-i-a-c  ( hitmeup  -  the past ) 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that a reply to the post-emo thing? Because post-emo is a real genre that consists of the more indie sounding emo rockers of the nineties like Cap'n Jazz and Texas is the Reason. I'm somewhat suggesting that a page be made for it, although its not that widespread of a genre. However there are other less-known genres on Wikipedia.  And calling them emo is not wrecking real anyone's cred, its just not really their genre.  I can't really make a stub on post-emo though, i don't know enough about it, so i guess this somewhat a plea, someone make a post-emo page please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.29.189 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ja-90 telecaster
Jim adkins custom tele model aught to be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.245.217 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop Rock/Emo Label
Pop rock seems unneeded, as power pop is a subgenre of pop rock. And most of their pop rock songs do fall into power pop.

Also, Jimmy Eat World should have final say on "emo", and they say they aren't: http://rockdirt.com/jimmy-eat-world-cant-shake-emo-tag/11875/. They don't consider themselves an emo band, so we should respect that and not include it the genres. I'm removing "emo" from the infobox on all Jimmy Eat World pages. Rocker10000 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm reverting your mass genre changes. Numerous reliable sources classify Jimmy Eat World as a leading emo act. Statements by the band that they don't care for that label are irrelevant: the fact remains that numerous critics and music journalists place them in that category. The very source you cite is titled "Jimmy Eat World Can't Shake Emo Tag". Please do not make mass changes to genres based on your own point of view. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I must say it's relevant. The most reliable source is the band itself. They say they aren't emo, and don't want to be lumped in with it. It's not just based on my point of view. It's based on theirs, and the one that should be considered the music. It's not like their claiming to be a polka fusion band or something like that. They are just claiming that they aren't emo. That's not necessarily something that is obviously not true. Plus, if you look, emo was originally a subgenre of hardcore punk. I think we can all agree that Jimmy Eat World is not a hardcore act. And your argument about the genres, they might consider themselves a rock group but they never said anything against alternative rock, pop-punk, power pop, or whatever else people are calling them. They just don't consider themselves an "emo" band. They never said "we never considered ourselves an alternative rock band", so a reliable source can remain reliable, but Jimmy Eat World is the most reliable source you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Again, it does not matter if the band dislikes being called emo. That is completely irrelevant. The most reliable sources are reliable secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Numerous such sources (music journalists, critics, historians, etc.) have described Jimmy Eat World as emo and have commented on their importance to the genre. Andy Greenwald, for example, followed the band on tour for his book Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo and devoted an entire chapter to them. Genres are generally applied by secondary sources such as critics and music journalists, not by the artists themselves, and you cannot refute the fact that numerous such sources have over the years categorized Jimmy Eat World as emo. If you read the emo article, you will learn that although it originated from hardcore punk in the 1980s, its style and definition have shifted and evolved over time. Most emo artists today (and even in the '90s) were not hardcore bands, but that does not refute the fact that they are/were considered emo by critics, journalists, and historians. You (and the band) are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Six or Seven Studio Albums?
The article mentions that there are seven studio albums (where the article Jimmy Eat World discography claims that there are six). I am not sure, if we should count the self titled or not, allmusic.com does not list it officially. Cekay1 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like the other article is incorrect as, prior to the release of Damage in June 2013, seven albums have been released by the band. I will look at the albums article.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Cekay1 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
I have reviewed and edited the Lead section, as some of the content was not suitable; however, none of the information has been lost, as I have merged the unsuitable content into the relevant sections in the main body of the article.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jimmy Eat World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BVD5BabK?url=http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Jimmy%20Eat%20World%22 to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Jimmy%20Eat%20World%22
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BVD82vkD?url=http://intunemusiconline.com/2009/03/24/jimmy-eat-world-reubens-accomplice-nyc-223/ to http://intunemusiconline.com/2009/03/24/jimmy-eat-world-reubens-accomplice-nyc-223/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy Eat World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713051020/http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/11/30/jimmy-eat-world-finish-mixing-album-now-mastering/ to http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/11/30/jimmy-eat-world-finish-mixing-album-now-mastering/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105024007/http://jimmyeatworldonline.com/jimmy-eat-world-sign-to-rcadine-alone-records/ to http://jimmyeatworldonline.com/jimmy-eat-world-sign-to-rcadine-alone-records/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206053921/http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html to http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claim removed
I removed:
 * He is famous for wearing the same style of black top for each live show.

I see lots of pictures of him at shows on the web, and I don't see any consistent style of dress. Is there a reference for this claim? -- Beland 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He actually does pretty much wear the same thing almost every concert. I've seen them live 3 times spread out over a 3-4 year period, purchased a DVD, and seen several live videos of him with the same black short sleeve button up shirt. You do have a great point though, there's really no references to back it up. I've even spoken to him about it on the official forums, but that's hardly a reference. Jerolin 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone listed him as being in an "American Boy Band". Anyone who has ever heard even one song by Jimmy Eat World can tell you they hardly fit in the same genre as the Backstreet Boys or Nsync, so I changed it Jerolin 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you actually listened to their first album from 1994 you'd know that they clearly aren't a boyband--86.43.217.185 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

66.96.211.167 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I herd he's jewish. i read in rolling stone mag. adn on the itnernet illl find the site after my heart surgery

I'm pretty sure he's not Jewish, he writes and does a few covers of christmas songs, such as 12.23.95, and Last Christmas.--Samushi101 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Adkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206053921/http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html to http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jimmy Eat World


text:
Talk:French

Chatter
"There are similar expressions in France, but referring to England. The "French cream" (a sweet milky sauce for desserts like cakes) is called in French "crème je s in burkinabe jemerait corespondre avec toi t jesper ma reponse anglaise" (English cream). In the same way condoms used to be called "capotes anglaises" (English overcoats) and "to take a French leave" traduce as "filer à l'anglaise". "

 * Similarly ironic synonyms include Cor anglais and french horn, waters (French old-fashioned/posh slang for toilet) and loo (Brit. English old-fashioned/posh slang for toilet from l'eau, french for water). There is another ones of these but I can't recall it.
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The English are doing things in the wrong way from a French POV. For instance they have the very strange habit to use defeat to name their squares and stations (Waterloo, Trafalgar) while the French use victories names. ;-)

Another common definition of "French" refers to a tube circumference in millimeters, or sometimes defined as three times tube diameter in millimeters (as opposed to true circumference which is pi times diameter).

Links
What is so awful about having links to other pages which have "French" as part of their titles? Why have they been removed (including their definitions, on which somebody worked rather hard I can imagine), and, more importantly, where else can one find them? (Certainly not in Wiktionary, I just had a look there.) As always, my questions are not meant rhetorically.

 * French braid
 * French Bulldog
 * French curve
 * French Curls
 * French dip sandwich
 * French door
 * French drain
 * French dressing
 * French fries
 * French grip
 * French horn
 * French leave
 * French kiss
 * French Kiss
 * French Kiss (film)
 * French letter
 * French Open
 * French Organ Mass
 * French paradox
 * French toast
 * French window

 00:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Anyone searching for "French" is not looking for any of these articles. The disambig pages are meant for just that; disambiguation. I simply think they should be as short as possible.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * While I prefer not quoting non-official guidelines, it seems rather appropriate to do it alongside my own argumentation here. Here's an excerpt from Disambiguation:
 * On a page called Title, generally do not disambiguate:
 * Title County
 * Title City
 * Title Hospital
 * Title University
 * "Title Island", "Title River" or "River Title" may be worth listing in cases where the "Island"/"River" part is often omitted.
 * This practice seems to be generally accepted, but disambigs still require cleaning from time to time because people think these are a place to add various dicdefs and other obscure references. And just think about it yourself, how practical would these pages actually be if people added any off-hand reference to the word "French"?
 * Peter Isotalo 12:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess anyone interested in languages would find a list like the one above rather interesting as it shows at a glance what English-speaking people around the world consider to be in one way or another originating from, or at least linked to, France—things often wholly unrelated to that nation. Of course you can compile such a list anytime yourself by using Google or Wikipedia's own search engine (if it hasn't been turned off "for performance reasons"). However, if one thinks along those lines, everyone is of course free to compile and write their own, private encyclopaedia.

 * Anyway, I never insist on anything here at Wikipedia, and whenever I myself want to retrieve this particular list, I can look at this talk page. All the best,  14:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not disagreeing about all of the added suggestion, but to me this just seems as a matter of setting limits. If we keep French XXX of any sort, how are we to delimit the list? There's no end to articles with that name and these pages are supposed to be navigational helps.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, from all the French XXX entries, the following certainly would not belong in this list:

 * placenames / geographical terms such as French Riviera, French Equatorial Africa, Mount French, French Island, the French Grant or French Lick (unless of course there actually were a place called French, Montana);

 * regional varieties of the French language like African French or Cambodian French (they should be accessed via a link from French language);

 * titles of entries which are not compound nouns (as they could be expressed otherwise) such as French resistance (= the resistance movement in France), French feminism (= feminism in France), French literature (= literature by French authors, literature written in French or whatever), French cuisine, French colonies, French kings, French hip hop, French postcodes etc. etc.

 * There are a few borderline cases like French Revolution, French immersion (which is really about immersive learning rather than anything French in particular), or, more obscurely, French Pragmatism. On the other hand, French Laundry, the name of a restaurant, should not be included either—I agree that no one would try to look it up under "French".

 * Other articles which I think do belong in this list are, for example:

 * French cuff
 * French house (shouldn't the h be capitalized?)
 * French maid
 * French Suites
 * French tickler.

 * Strangely, I seem to have overlooked some people named French, for example Kristen French, Nicci French and Nicki French—although I went through the search engine results very slowly and carefully.

 * So there wouldn't be "no end to articles with that name".  20:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as everyone agrees with your conclusions as to what an acceptable disambig link is. Dab pages are not designed to help people make general searches; we have the search engine for that. Anyone looking for French cuff is going to enter the whole term or "cufflink", and if that doesn't work, they'll use the search engines. They won't enter "French" and hope for the best.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Wiktionary is for lists of phrases containing a word or affix/infix as it is purely a lingustic categorisation (and not a notable enough one for an enyclopedia).
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

People named French
Why is "Neal Greene" on the list? Am I missing something? It has survived multiple edits. Hoibes 21:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

French sayings common in English?
Is there a wikipedia article on French sayings prevalent in English, such as C'est la vie? Nagelfar 04:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found it. Nagelfar 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A General Question
Can someone provide a good justification for why pages like French, German, Romanian, etc., etc., go directly to disambiguation pages? It seems like it would be much better to direct them to the x_language article and put a tag on that saying "This article refers to blah blah, go here for the disambiguation page." I know that every single time I have ever gone to .../wiki/French or whatever, I am looking for French language, not something to link me to the France article or the band or anything. Palinurus june 22 2007 $$Insert non-formatted text here$$[[Media:[[Image:Example.ogg]]

[Headline text]Italic text
]]

What do the French call French Toast?
Please provide a list of the french term for each peculiar "French xxxx" term in English. -69.87.204.97 —Preceding comment was added at 20:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This is an encyclopedia, not a translator. Try http://wordreference.com/ instead. --Cheeser1 01:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I'll still answer it for you though, they call it "pain perdu" which translates to "lost bread" in English.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

just saying...
someone just deleted the whole thing and wrote that french people are french or something like that -_--- ~*Angelstar*~ 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelstarstar (talk • contribs)

why is Neal green in the list?? Am I missing something? Nothing has ever linked me to the French article 41.116.214.23 (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Yeah there isn't any information that we can rely on 41.116.214.23 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:French


text:
United States presidential primary

Each of the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and territories of the United States holds either primary elections or caucuses to help nominate individual candidates for president of the United States. This process is designed to choose the candidates that will represent their political parties in the general election.

The United States Constitution has never specified this process; political parties have developed their own procedures over time. Some states hold only primary elections, some hold only caucuses, and others use a combination of both. These primaries and caucuses are staggered, generally beginning sometime in January or February, and ending about mid-June before the general election in November. State and local governments run the primary elections, while caucuses are private events that are directly run by the political parties themselves. A state's primary election or caucus is usually an indirect election: instead of voters directly selecting a particular person running for president, they determine the number of delegates a candidate will receive from their respective state for each party's national convention. These delegates then in turn select their party's presidential nominee. The first state in the United States to hold its presidential primary was North Dakota in 1912, following on Oregon's successful implementation of its system in 1910.

Each party determines how many delegates it allocates to each state. Along with those "pledged" delegates chosen during the primaries and caucuses, state delegations to both the Democratic and Republican conventions also include "unpledged" delegates who have a vote. For Republicans, they consist of the three top party officials who serve At Large from each state and territory. Democrats have a more expansive group of unpledged delegates called "superdelegates", who are party leaders and elected officials (PLEO). If no single candidate has secured an absolute majority of delegates (including both pledged and unpledged), then a "brokered convention" occurs: all pledged delegates are "released" after the first round of voting and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate, and then additional rounds take place until there is a winner with an absolute majority.

The staggered nature of the presidential primary season allows candidates to concentrate their resources in each area of the country one at a time instead of campaigning in every state simultaneously. In some of the less populous states, this allows campaigning to take place on a much more personal scale. However, the overall results of the primary season may not be representative of the U.S. electorate as a whole: voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other less populous states which traditionally hold their primaries and caucuses in late-January/February usually have a major impact on the races, while voters in California and other large states which traditionally hold their primaries in June generally end up having a significantly reduced say because the races are usually over by then. As a result, more states vie for earlier primaries, known as "front-loading", to claim a greater influence in the process. The national parties have used penalties and awarded bonus delegates in efforts to stagger the system over broadly a 90-day window. Where state legislatures set the primary or caucus date, sometimes the out-party in that state has endured penalties in the number of delegates it can send to the national convention.

Background
There is no provision for the role of political parties in the United States Constitution, since the Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. Thus in the first two presidential elections, the Electoral College handled the nominations and elections in 1789 and 1792 that selected George Washington. The beginnings of the American two-party system then emerged from Washington's immediate circle of advisors. Hamilton and Madison, who wrote the aforementioned Federalist Papers against political factions, ended up being the core leaders in this partisanship: Hamilton became the leader of Federalist Party while Madison co-helmed the Democratic-Republican Party with Thomas Jefferson.

Congressional caucus era (17961832)
Starting with the 1796 election, congressional party or a state legislature party caucus selected the party's presidential candidates. Before 1820, Democratic-Republican members of Congress would nominate a single candidate from their party. That system collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination has been a national convention.

Caucus and convention era (18321912)
The first national convention to nominate a presidential candidate was called by the Anti-Masonic Party in 1831, as they could not use the caucus system because they had no congressmen. The party leaders instead called for a national meeting of supporters to set the party's candidate. This convention was held in Baltimore, Maryland, on September 26, 1831, which selected William Wirt as their presidential candidate.

Delegates to the national convention were usually selected at state conventions whose own delegates were chosen by district conventions. Sometimes they were dominated by intrigue between political bosses who controlled delegates; the national convention was far from democratic or transparent.

Mixed primary and caucus era (191268)
Progressive Era reformers looked to the primary election as a way to measure popular opinion of candidates, as opposed to the opinion of the bosses. Florida enacted the first presidential primary in 1901. The Wisconsin direct open primary of 1905 was the first to eliminate the caucus and mandate direct selection of national convention delegates. In 1910, Oregon became the first state to establish a presidential preference primary, which requires delegates to the National Convention to support the winner of the primary at the convention. By 1912, twelve states either selected delegates in primaries, used a preferential primary, or both. By 1920 there were 20 states with primaries, but some went back, and from 1936 to 1968, 12 states used them.

The primary received its first major test in the 1912 election pitting incumbent president William Howard Taft against challengers Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Roosevelt proved the most popular candidate, but as most primaries were non-binding "preference" shows and held in only fourteen of the-then forty-eight states, the Republican nomination went to Taft, who controlled the convention.

Seeking to boost voter turnout, New Hampshire simplified its ballot access laws in 1949. In the ensuing non-binding "beauty contest" of 1952, Republican Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated his broad voter appeal by out-polling the favored Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican." Also, Democrat Estes Kefauver defeated incumbent president Harry S. Truman, leading the latter to decide not to run for another term. The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary has since become a widely observed test of candidates' viability.

National binding primary era (1972present)
The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the presidential nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern – the McGovern–Fraser Commission – recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation. A large number of states, faced with the need to conform to more detailed rules for the selection of national delegates, chose a presidential primary as an easier way to come into compliance with the new national Democratic Party rules. The result was that many more future delegates would be selected by a state presidential primary. The Republicans also adopted many more state presidential primaries. By 1992, Democrats had primaries in 40 states and Republicans in 39.

Procedure
Both major political parties of the U.S.—the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—officially nominate their candidate for president at their respective national conventions. Each of these conventions is attended by a number of delegates selected in accordance with the given party's bylaws. The results of the presidential primaries and caucuses bind many of these delegates, known as pledged delegates, to vote for a particular candidate.

Both parties also have a group of unpledged delegates. Republicans have three At-Large delegates selected at the state convention from all the states and territories, 168 in number. These are each states' two national committeepersons and the state chairperson.

In Democratic primaries through 2016, about 85% of delegates to the Democratic National Convention are "pledged delegates" who are apportioned to candidates according to the results of primaries and caucuses. The remaining 15% are unpledged superdelegates (consisting of sitting Democratic governors, sitting Democratic members of Congress [i.e., senators and representatives], former and current Democratic presidents and vice presidents, and a few leaders of Democratic National Committee-affiliated organizations, such as the Young Democrats of America) who can vote for whomever they wish. Some superdelegates are former or current state or federal lobbyists. In 2016, following a push by independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran as a Democrat, the party voted in favor of superdelegate reform, such that in future presidential elections most superdelegates will be bound to their state primary results.

Types of primaries and caucuses
Franchise in a primary or caucus is governed by rules established by the state party, although the states may impose other regulations.

While most states hold primary elections, a handful of states hold caucuses. Instead of going to a polling place, voters attend local private events run by the political parties, and cast their selections there. One disadvantage of caucuses is that the state party runs the process directly instead of having the state and local governments run them. Another is that most election laws do not normally apply to caucuses.

Nearly all states have a binding primary or caucus, in which the results of the election depending on state law or party rules legally bind some or all of the delegates to vote for a particular candidate at the national convention, for a certain number of ballots or until the candidate releases the delegates. Some binding primaries are winner-take-all contests, in which all of a state's delegates are required to vote for the same candidate. In a proportional vote, a state's delegation is allocated in proportion to the candidates' percent of the popular vote in a congressional district. In many of those states that have proportional vote primaries, a candidate must meet a certain threshold in the popular vote to be given delegates.

Some states may use a binding walking subcaucus system, where voters may instead be choosing pledged delegates to a local, county or state party convention, which then in turn selects pledged delegates to the national convention. A handful of states may also practice non-binding "beauty contests", which are public opinion surveys for use by caucus delegates to select candidates to a state convention, which then in turn selects delegates to the national convention.

In many states, only voters registered with a party may vote in that party's primary, known as a closed primary. In some states, a semi-closed primary is practiced, in which voters unaffiliated with a party (independents) may choose a party primary in which to vote. In an open primary, any voter may vote in any party's primary. A semi-open primary occurs when a voter must choose a party-specific ballot to cast, instead of being provided a single ballot where the voter must choose on the ballot itself which party's primary to vote in. In all of these systems, a voter may participate in only one primary; that is, a voter who casts a vote for a candidate standing for the Republican nomination for president cannot cast a vote for a candidate standing for the Democratic nomination, or vice versa. A few states once staged a blanket primary, in which voters could vote for one candidate in multiple primaries, but the practice was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2000 case of California Democratic Party v. Jones as violating the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Delegate selection rules
Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party usually modify their delegate selection rules between presidential elections, including how delegates are allocated to each state and territory.

Under the current Democratic Party selection rules, adopted in 2006, pledged delegates are selected under proportional representation, which requires a candidate have a minimum of 15% of a state's popular vote to receive delegates. In addition, the Democratic Party may reject any candidate under their bylaws. Each state publishes a Delegate Selection Plan that notes the mechanics of calculating the number of delegates per congressional district, and how votes are transferred from local conventions to the state and national convention. Since the 2012 Democratic primaries, the number of pledged delegates allocated to each of the 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., is based on two main factors: (1) the proportion of votes each state gave to the Democratic candidate in the last three presidential elections, and (2) the number of electoral votes each state has in the United States Electoral College. The U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands are instead assigned a fixed number of pledged delegates. States and territories who schedule their primary or caucus later in the primary season may also get additional bonus delegates.

The Republican Party's rules since 2008 leave more discretion to the states in choosing a method of allocating pledged delegates. As a result, states variously applied the statewide winner-take-all method (e.g., New York), district- and state-level winner-take-all (e.g., California), or proportional allocation (e.g., Massachusetts). Changes in the rules before 2012 brought proportional representation to more states. The number of Republican pledged delegates allocated to each of the 50 U.S. states is 10 at-large delegates, plus three district delegates for each congressional district. Washington, D.C., and the five U.S. Territories are instead assigned a fixed number of pledged delegates. States and territories get bonus delegates based on whether it (if applicable) has a Republican governor, it has GOP majorities in one or all chambers of its state legislature, whether one or both of its U.S. senators are Republican, it has a GOP majority in its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, and whether its electoral college votes went to the Republican candidate in the last presidential election.

Each party's bylaws also specify which current and former elected officeholders and party leaders qualify as unpledged delegates. Because of possible deaths, resignations, or the results of intervening or special elections, the final number of these superdelegates may not be known until the week of the convention.

In U.S. territories
The primary and caucus system is the only method in which voters in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other U.S. territories can have a say in the presidential race. Under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College, and thus voters residing in those areas are basically ineligible to vote in the general election. On the other hand, as stated above, the primaries and caucuses are non-governmental party affairs. Both the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as other third parties, have agreed to let these territories participate in the presidential nomination process. In the two major party's rules, "territories" are referred to as "states", which can be carried over in discussion and media implying there are more than 50 states.

Delegate voting at the convention
During the convention, there is generally a roll call of the votes. Each delegation announces its vote tallies, usually accompanied with some boosterism of their state or territory. The delegation may pass, nominally to retally their delegates' preferences, but often to allow a different delegation to give the leading candidate the honor of casting the majority-making vote.

If no single candidate has secured a majority of delegates (including both pledged and unpledged) during the first vote, then a "brokered convention" results. All pledged delegates are then "released" and are able to switch their allegiance to a different candidate. Thereafter, the nomination is decided through a process of alternating political horse trading, and additional rounds of re-votes.

A customary ceremonial practice has been for the losing candidate(s) in the primary season to "release" their delegates at the convention and exhort them to vote for the winning nominee as a sign of party unity. Thus, the vote tallied on the convention floor is unanimous or nearly so. For example, during the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton (who only captured about 22% of delegates compared to Barack Obama's approximate 72%) moved to nominate Obama by acclamation, making it a unanimous vote.

Calendar
Campaigning for president often begins almost a year before the New Hampshire primary, almost two years before the presidential election. This is largely because federal campaign finance laws including the Federal Election Campaign Act state that a candidate who intends to receive contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or make expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000, among others, must first file a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. Thus, presidential candidates officially announce their intentions to run that early so they can start raising or spending the money needed to mount their nationwide campaigns.

During the first six months of the year, primaries and caucuses are separately held in each of the 50 states; the District of Columbia, and each of the five permanently inhabited US territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. Each party sets its own calendar and rules, and in some cases actually administers the election. However, to reduce expenses and encourage turnout, the major parties' primaries are usually held the same day and may be consolidated with other state elections. The primary election itself is administered by local governments according to state law. In some cases, state law determines how delegates will be awarded and who may participate in the primary; where it does not, party rules prevail.

Since the 1970s, states have held increasingly early primaries to maximize their leverage (see Front-loading and compression below). In reaction to these moves, both the Democratic and Republican National Committees imposed a timing tier system of scheduling rules, stripping states of delegates if they move their primaries early, such as the case in both the Florida Democratic primary and the Florida Republican primary in 2008.

Iowa and New Hampshire
The first binding event, in which a candidate can secure convention delegates, is traditionally the Iowa caucus, usually held in late January or early February of the presidential election year. It is generally followed by the New Hampshire primary, the first primary by tradition since 1920 and by New Hampshire state law. New Hampshire law states the primary shall be held "on the Tuesday at least seven days immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election." The Iowa caucuses are not considered to be "a similar election" under New Hampshire's law because the former uses caucuses instead of primary elections. Should any other state move its primary too close to New Hampshire's, or before, the New Hampshire secretary of state is required to reschedule the primary accordingly.

In recent elections, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have garnered over half the media attention paid to the entire selection process. After Iowa and New Hampshire, the front runners then attempt to solidify their status, while the others fight to become #2.

Because these states are small, campaigning takes place on a much more personal scale. As a result, even a little-known, underfunded candidate can use retail politics to meet intimately with interested voters and perform better than expected. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have produced a number of headline-making upsets in history:
 * Harry S. Truman ended his presidential re-election bid in 1952 after losing the Democratic Party's New Hampshire primary.
 * Lyndon Baines Johnson dropped his 1968 presidential reelection bid after performing far below expectations in the Democratic Party's New Hampshire primary.
 * In the 1972 Democratic primaries, George McGovern was initially considered a dark horse but he had better-than-expected second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and eventually won the nomination; frontrunner Edmund Muskie who won both contests instead lost momentum.
 * Jimmy Carter had entered the 1976 presidential race with extremely low name recognition and seemingly little chance against nationally better-known politicians but Carter became the Democratic Party front-runner early on by winning the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and he went on to win the nomination.
 * George H. W. Bush won the Iowa caucus in 1980, leading him to claim that he had "Big Mo" (momentum) over Republican Party presidential frontrunner Ronald Reagan. However, Reagan won the New Hampshire primary and several others to take the nomination. Eight years later, in the 1988 Republican presidential nomination battle, Bush, serving as Reagan's vice president, unexpectedly finished third in Iowa which Bob Dole won. Dole was also leading in New Hampshire polls but ended up losing that primary as he failed to counterattack ads from Bush. Bush had no serious trouble clinching the nomination afterward.
 * Gary Hart was initially not considered a serious contender in 1984, which featured former vice president Walter Mondale as the Democratic Party presidential frontrunner. However, Hart had a respectable showing in Iowa and then stunned Mondale in New Hampshire, the latter where Hart had started campaigning months earlier. This resulted in a long primary battle, with Mondale eventually emerging as the nominee after Super Tuesday III.
 * Pat Buchanan's 2nd place showing in the 1992 and win in the 1996 New Hampshire primaries coincided with the weakness of the future Republican Party presidential nominees, incumbent George H. W. Bush, and Senator Bob Dole respectively; Bush and Dole subsequently lost the general election.
 * In 1992, then-Governor Bill Clinton's better-than-expected second-place finish in New Hampshire salvaged his campaign and he went on to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, following on to be elected president with a 43% plurality.
 * Senator John McCain upset George W. Bush in the Republican Party's New Hampshire primary in 2000, Bush's frontrunner campaign had initially not expected serious opposition after other potential candidates like Elizabeth Dole and Dan Quayle decided not to run. McCain's new-found momentum ended after his defeat in the South Carolina primary (see below), and though he pulled out wins in Michigan and his home state of Arizona, his campaign was ended by Super Tuesday.
 * In the 2004 primaries, John Kerry, whose campaign had been sagging in prior months, won the Democratic Party's Iowa caucus while John Edwards unexpectedly finished second, over heavily favored Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt (the latter two had been trading negative attacks in the weeks leading up to the vote). Gephardt immediately ended his campaign, while Dean's post-concession speech drew negative attention. Kerry went on to overcome Dean's initial lead in New Hampshire to win that primary, and eventually the Democratic presidential nomination.
 * In 2008, Democratic Party presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, whose campaign initially banked on a knockout victory in Iowa, unexpectedly finished third in that caucus behind winner Barack Obama and John Edwards. Clinton then pulled off a comeback victory in New Hampshire where Obama had been leading the polls. Although Obama and Clinton were largely well matched in most of the subsequent primaries, Obama's better organization and uncontested caucus victories were crucial to his winning the Democratic nomination.
 * In 2008, John McCain, initially struggling among Republican Party contenders in 2007, decided to skip Iowa and concentrate on New Hampshire (the same primary where he had unexpectedly triumphed back in 2000) and McCain's win rejuvenated his presidential campaign and he became the Republican nominee. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two candidates who had each led in the polls in 2007, did not perform as expected in Iowa and New Hampshire.
 * In 2012, Mitt Romney was initially reported to be the first Republican Party non-incumbent presidential candidate, since the Iowa caucus started in 1976, to win both the Iowa caucus (albeit, by an 8-vote margin over Rick Santorum) and New Hampshire primary. However a final count released by the Iowa state party sixteen days after the caucus contest reported Santorum as the winner by 34 votes over Romney, but by then Romney had already won New Hampshire by a comfortable margin.

Nevada
In 2008 Nevada was given the official "First in the West" status reflecting the growing importance of the West as well as Nevada's electoral bellwether status. America's increasing ethnic diversity, urbanization, and geographic redistribution made influential political leaders come to the realization that Iowa and New Hampshire were not representative of the rest of the country. Following the 2004 election, then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid began making a case for Nevada as the perfect American microcosm. Since 2012, the Nevada caucuses have been the third race in the process after Iowa and New Hampshire.

South Carolina
South Carolina is generally the "First in the South" primary. For the Republicans, it is considered a "firewall" to protect establishment favorites and frontrunners in the presidential nomination race, being designed to stop the momentum of insurgent candidates who could have received a boost from strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. From its inception in 1980 through the election of 2008, the winner of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary has gone on to win the nomination. In the 2012 Republican primaries, Newt Gingrich initially finished poorly in the early states, but then scored an upset victory in South Carolina over frontrunner Mitt Romney. However, after suffering a decisive defeat to Romney in Florida, Gingrich's campaign was relegated back to third place, leaving Rick Santorum as the main challenger to Romney for the rest of the primaries.

In 2020, a decisive win in the South Carolina primary helped former Vice President Joe Biden win the Democratic presidential primary by eliminating several rivals and triggering strong wins across the country on Super Tuesday. Biden had previously struggled in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Super Tuesday
The Tuesday in February or March when the greatest number of states hold primary elections and caucuses is known as "Super Tuesday". Because it is held in various states from geographically and socially diverse regions of the country, it typically represents a presidential candidate's first test of national electability. More delegates can be won on Super Tuesday than on any other single day of the primary calendar, thus convincing wins during this day have usually propelled candidates to their party's nomination.

Front-loading and coordination
With the broadened use of the primary system, states have tried to increase their influence in the nomination process. One tactic has been to create geographic blocs to encourage candidates to spend time in a region. Vermont and Massachusetts attempted to stage a joint New England primary on the first Tuesday of March, but New Hampshire refused to participate so it could retain its traditional place as the first primary. The first regional primary was the Southern Super Tuesday of March 8, 1988, in which nine states united in the idea that a candidate would reflect regional interests. It failed as all but two of the eight major candidates won at least one primary on that day.

Another trend is to stage earlier and earlier primaries, given impetus by Super Tuesday and the mid-1990s move (since repealed) of the California primary and its bloc of votes—the largest in the nation—from June to March. To retain its tradition as the first primary in the country (and adhere to a state law which requires it to be), New Hampshire moved their primary forward, from early March to early January.

A major reason states try to increase their influence, and vie for earlier primaries, is that in recent years the races have usually been decided before the primary season has ended in June. For example, John McCain officially clinched the 2008 Republican presidential nomination in March, while during that same month Barack Obama held a substantial lead in pledged delegates in the Democratic Party primaries. In 2012, Obama faced no major challenger in the Democratic Party primaries since he had the advantage of incumbency (see below), while Mitt Romney gained enough delegates to be declared the presumptive Republican nominee by late April.

In 2012, both the Republicans and the Democrats moved their Florida primary to January 31, which was an earlier date than past election cycles. In response, other states also changed their primary election dates for 2012, in order to claim a greater influence, creating a cascade of changes in other states. This followed what happened in 2008 when Nevada moved its caucuses to January, causing other states to also move their primaries to earlier dates. Senate majority leader and Nevada senator Harry Reid was a major proponent of moving that state's caucuses to January, arguing that Nevada would be the perfect American microcosm: its western location, significant minority population, and strong labor population would be more representative of the country as a whole than Iowa and New Hampshire.

Both parties then enacted stricter timing rules for 2016: primaries and caucuses cannot start until February 1; and only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are entitled to February contests.

Representativeness
Because they are the states that traditionally hold their respective contests first, the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary usually attract the most media attention; however, critics, such as Mississippi secretary of state Eric Clark and Tennessee senator William Brock, point out that these states are not representative of the United States as a whole: they are more overwhelmingly white, rural, and wealthy than the national average, and neither is in the fast-growing West or South.

Conversely, states that traditionally hold their primaries in June, like California (the most populous state overall) and New Jersey (the most densely populated state), usually end up having no say in who the presidential candidate will be. As stated above, the races were usually over well before June. California and New Jersey moved their primaries to February for the 2008 election, but in 2012 both states ended up moving them back to June. California lawmakers stated that consolidating their presidential and statewide primary election in June saves them about $100 million, and that it is not worth the cost when there is generally no competitive balance between the two political parties within California.

In 2005, the primary commission of the Democratic National Committee began considering removing Iowa and New Hampshire from the top of the calendar, but this proposal never gained approval, so those two states remain as the first two contests. New Hampshire also fought back by obliging candidates who wanted to campaign in the state to pledge to uphold that primary as the first one.

Front-loading and compression
States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect. Also, candidates can ignore primaries that fall after the nomination has already been secured, and would owe less to those states politically. As a result, rather than stretching from March to July, most primaries take place in a compressed time frame in February and March. National party leaders also have an interest in compressing the primary calendar, as it enables the party to reduce the chance of a bruising internecine battle and to preserve resources for the general campaign.

In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates to choose where to spend their time and resources. Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. When states cannot agree to coordinate primaries, however, attention flows to larger states with large numbers of delegates at the expense of smaller ones. Because the candidate's time is limited, paid advertising may play a greater role. Moreover, a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and institutional backing of the party establishment.

In an article from Detroit News, Tennessee Senator William (Bill) Brock said about front-loading, "Today, too many people in too many states have no voice in the election of our major party nominees. For them, the nominations are over before they have begun."

Role of superdelegates
The term "superdelegate" itself was used originally as a criticism of unpledged delegates. Superdelegates are only used by the Democratic Party. Political commentator Susan Estrich argued in 1981 that these delegates, who at the time were predominantly white and male, had more power than other delegates because of their greater freedom to vote as they wish. The Democratic Party in particular has faced accusations that it conducts its nominating process in an undemocratic way, because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters.

Advantage of incumbency
An incumbent president seeking re-election usually faces no opposition during their respective party's primaries, especially if they are still popular. For presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, for example, their respective paths to nomination became uneventful and the races become merely pro forma. With the lack of serious competition, the incumbent president's party may also cancel several state primaries/caucuses to both save money and to show undivided support for the incumbent's candidacy. Furthermore, no incumbent president has participated in a primary debate since Gerald Ford in 1976.

Serious challenges are rare, but then generally presage failure to win the general election in the fall. During the 1976 Republican Party primaries, then-former California governor Reagan carried 23 states while running against incumbent president Gerald Ford; Ford then went on to lose the presidential election to Jimmy Carter. Senator Ted Kennedy then carried 12 states while running against Carter during the 1980 Democratic Party primaries; Reagan then defeated Carter in the fall. Pat Buchanan captured a decent percentage of a protest vote against George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Republican primaries, but only received a handful of delegates; Bush too subsequently went on to lose in the general election to Clinton.

Reform proposals
There are several proposals for reforming the primary system. Some have called for a single nationwide primary to be held on one day. Others point out that requiring candidates to campaign in every state simultaneously would exacerbate the purported problem of campaigns being dominated by the candidates who raise the most money. The following proposals attempt to return the primary system to a more relaxed schedule, and would help less-funded candidates by lowering the cost of entry.

California Plan (American Plan)
One reform concept is the graduated random presidential primary system, variations of which have been referred to as the American Plan or the California Plan. This plan starts with small primaries, and gradually moves up to larger ones, in 10 steps, with states chosen at random. The idea is that fewer initial primaries, typically in smaller states, would allow grassroots campaigns to score early successes and pick up steam. However, since states are chosen at random, travel costs may still be significant.

Delaware Plan (Fourfold Round Plan)
A commission empaneled by the Republican National Committee recommended the Delaware Plan in 2000. This plan had states grouped by size into four groups, with the smallest primaries first, then the next-smallest, and so on. Populous states objected to the plan, however, because it would have always scheduled their primaries at the end of the season. Other criticisms included the wide geographic range of the states, necessitating high travel costs. The Delaware Plan was put to vote at Republican National Convention of 2000 and rejected.

Rotating regional primary system
The National Association of Secretaries of State has endorsed a rotating regional primary system, with the country split into four regions: the West, the Midwest, the South, and the Northeast. Unlike the Delaware Plan and the American Plan, the Rotating Regional Primary System would lower campaigning costs by restricting groups of primaries to single, contiguous regions.

Author and political scientist Larry J. Sabato is also a proponent of this plan, but his proposal would have the order of regional primaries determined by lottery on January 1 of each presidential election year instead of on a rotating basis. In addition, his plan would allow for a few small population states, such as Iowa and New Hampshire, to hold their primaries in advance of the first region.

Criticisms of the regional plan include the higher entry costs than the other plans (since 1/4 of the country would vote in the first regional), and the political bias of certain regions (the South or the Northeast) unduly influencing the selection of a nominee.

Inter regional primary plan
In the interregional primary plan, the country is divided into geographical regions. On each primary date from March to June, one state from each of six regions votes. Each election date would contain a wide variety of perspectives. The order of the states in each region is set by a lottery. In a 24-year cycle, every state would have a chance to be among the first primary states. The primary criticism of this plan is that travel costs would be quite high: in each round, candidates would essentially have to cover the entire country to campaign effectively. Contrary to most reform plans, this would reduce the ability of lesser-funded candidates to build up from small contests to large ones.

Timing adjustment
In the 2008 Republican primary, states that ran early primaries were punished by a reduction of 50% in the number of delegates they could send to the national convention. Extension of this idea would set timing tiers, under which states that ran earlier primaries would send proportionally fewer delegates to the national convention, and states that waited would get a higher proportional number of delegates to the convention. For example, the party allowed primaries before March 1 to send 40% of delegates; those during March could send 60%; those during April could send 80%; those during May could send 100%; and those during June could send 120%.

The effect of such a plan would be clumping of primaries at the beginning of each month. It would still allow states to determine the timing of their own primaries, while giving them some incentive to hold primaries later. The disadvantage of the timing adjustment method is that it does not reduce travel time as the regional plans do, although it does permit regional groups of states to voluntarily clump together in a single superprimary as they have done in the past.

In practice, however, this timing tier system did not prevent states from moving their primaries in 2008 and 2012. For example, during the 2012 Republican primary, Florida and several other states still moved their primaries to earlier dates despite being penalized delegates.

Both parties then enacted more severe penalties in 2016 for violating their timing rules. For Republicans, states with more than 30 delegates that violate the timing rules will be deprived of all their delegates but nine; states with less than 30 will be reduced to six. For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates and all of their unpledged delegates.

References and further reading

 * Brereton Charles. First in the Nation: New Hampshire and the Premier Presidential Primary. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall Publishers, 1987.
 * Cowan, Geoffrey. Let the People Rule: Theodore Roosevelt and the Birth of the Presidential Primary (WW Norton, 2016) on 1912
 * Jeremias, Ralf. "Primary Elections in the USA: Between Republicanism and Democracy". Topos. Journal for Philosophy and Cultural Studies, 1/2021, pp. 55-72.
 * Kendall, Kathleen E. Communication in the Presidential Primaries: Candidates and the Media, 1912–2000 (2000)
 * Hugh, Gregg. "First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary", State of New Hampshire Manual for the General Court, (Department of State) No.55, 1997.
 * Palmer, Niall A. The New Hampshire Primary and the American Electoral Process (1997)
 * "Reid, labor aided Nevada with Demos", Arizona Daily Star, July 24, 2006.
 * Sabato, Larry, Politics: America's Missing Constitutional Link, Virginia Quarterly Review, Summer 2006, 149–61.
 * Scala, Dante J. Stormy Weather: The New Hampshire Primary and Presidential Politics (2003)
 * Ware, Alan. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North (2002), a British perspective

title: United States presidential primary