Thursday, August 09, 2007
The fluid presidential primaries
This is both entertaining and ridiculous:
South Carolina's Republican Party will move its 2008 presidential primary forward to Jan. 19, sources said yesterday, a decision almost certain to spark a cascade of calendar changes that could push the start of voting to New Year's Day or even to before Christmas.
The move, set to be announced today, is likely to cause the New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucuses to be shifted at least to early January, and other states are actively angling to stake out spots earlier in the process. The maneuvering has injected a new note of uncertainty into what is already the earliest-starting presidential campaign in history, and top strategists for the candidates said it would force them to revise their carefully worked out plans.
It is entertaining, of course, because anything that forces a presidential campaign to depart from its script creates the opportunity for
But, and this is a big "but," this race to the top of the primary season is also ridiculous. By the time the dust settles Iowans may be going to caucus before they get the harvest in. Much as I like a presidential election, I need to pace myself. Florida and South Carolina should stop this silliness before we all decide to federalize presidential elections (which, by the way, would be bad news for all of us who look to politics for entertainment).
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Aug 09, 08:52:00 AM:
So I want to know who is going to show real political guts and schedule their state primary for the 2012 Presidential election in November of 2008, right after the next Presidential election.
We need to stop the dawdling and make sure the anyone elected is immediately challenged. Democracy, Onward!
-David
By , at
Thu Aug 09, 09:51:00 AM:
This political madness has to be stopped. Iowa and New Hampshire have always had disproportionate influence of who gets mominated.
If we can't select and nominate a well qualified candidate we can't elect one.
This is NOT American Idol.
By 
Viking Kaj, at
Thu Aug 09, 11:20:00 AM:
The more states try to push this forward the more democracy looses. Only the big money candidates who line up their financing from the special interests will be viable.
Also, since the general election season will become longer, elections will become more expensive again favoring the special interests.
Plutocracy here we come...
By , at
Thu Aug 09, 11:34:00 AM:
No Viking, "Democracy" wins.
It's the Republic that loses.
Democracy literally means "rule of the mob", and that is exactly where this is leading us. Millions of Americans sitting in front of their TV's, adsorbing all the regurgitated wisdom (some call this a narrative) passed on by the network talking heads.
No reading, no thought, no memory of the past, no thought of the consequences or the future, no introspection of the candidates.
Compress all the primaries together.
Wham! Bam, Thank you, Ma'am!
Let's get this baby so front loaded that either people stay away in droves because they are disgusted with it, or vote so reflexively it's meaningless.
-David
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Aug 09, 11:20:00 PM:
Sometimes, I can't help but think the Brits' two-week campaign season is the way to go. I think there should be a limit on how far forward of a general election primaries may be held. And what would happen if another state enacted a law like New Hampshire's? They couldn't both simultaneously be 7 at least 7 days before the next soonest primary...
