Texas To Hold Primary Yesterday
Well, why the hell not?
The 2008 presidential campaign strategists must be as wily as chess masters in allocating resources with front-loaded primaries and an ever-changing calendar. It got more complicated today as South Carolina Republicans moved up their balloting, making December voting elsewhere a possibility.
The Republican Party in South Carolina announced it will move its primary to Jan. 19 to protect its first-in-the-South status after Florida advanced. The next moves may be in New Hampshire and Iowa where state laws require nominating contests to come first. A number of other contests could be affected, creating genuine calendar chaos. Already, California, New York and other states with troves of convention delegates and expensive media markets have advanced their primaries to Feb. 5.
This compressed early schedule means “you have to work harder than you ever have worked in your life,” said Howard Wolfson, a top adviser to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. “You’ve got to do everything you can to meet as many people as possible.”
The still-evolving calendar will require tough choices even for candidates with plenty of cash, such as New York Senator Clinton, her main Democratic competitor Barack Obama and Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. With some candidates likely to spend $7 million to $15 million in Iowa alone, they will be forced to calibrate budgets for as many as 23 other states that may hold contests by Feb. 5, much earlier than ever before.
There’s something just not right about this election cycle. It’s not that it started so early – at least not completely. It’s that it’s in a big rush, if I may be permitted to grant human agency to an abstract concept. What’s the hurry? It’s the dog days of summer – relax, everyone.
I think the heat is starting to scramble some brains…
Its LONG past time for Iowa and NH to give up the “first in the nation” crap. They are not representative of any party’s base. It should be a revolving regional schedule with all the states in a region voting in the same 2 week period or so. That is the only fair way to hold these primaries. NH and Iowa legislatures and their governors are acting like spoiled babies, and if they are reflecting the will of those state’s citizens then screw them too.
Enough is enough. Why the hell should IA and NH always go first? Its stupid.
I wonder if the Internet and the rise of blogs is part of the reason for this? It wasn’t too long ago that if you wanted to hear or read some good punditry, you had to wait for the Sunday talk shows or read the handful of columnists printed in your local paper. Now you can get punditry all over the Web, in any flavor and style you want, so people who had a tendency to be political junkies can mainline this stuff at any hour of the day. It encourages a certain impatience; after all, it wasn’t too long ago people were saying if Rudy Giuliani didn’t jump into the race by early 2007, he would lose support.
That said, I suppose that makes us readers all users and Mark is our pusher. But he’s such a nice pusher.
Between the changes in media (including addition of the internet), the ease of travel, and the ability of the candidates to raise a lot of money, we have moved beyond the old system of choosing candidates for President. A big part of the reason IA and NH want to be first is a self-interested desire to avoid irrelevance.
POTUS is the only nationally elected office, thus I think it is important that the candidates should be chosen by a broad consensus of the nation. We need a new system that recognizes this and is set up to ensure meaningful participation by all States. I’m not knowledgeable enough of the Constitution to say whether this can be done through federal initiative (I’d be surprised if it were allowed) or through some loose cooperation of the States.
Clearly though, something needs to be done.
Well, the constitution doesn’t even acknowledge parties, so it doesn’t address the nomination of presidential candidates. I don’t see why all states can’t just hold their primaries on the same day.
There is no evidence that the mania for primaries an caucuses is producing better candidate.
Selling a candidate on superficialities just like toothpaste ends up getting flawed candidates like Carter, Clinton Gore and Kerry on the Democratic side and McCain, and Bush and the cast of thousands this time.
I recall the Democratic Party recognizing maybe implicitly that FDR might not survive his fourth term. They had to rationalize the ticket and get rid of Wallace. The Party elders selected an unknown named Truman in the proverbial smoke filled room. The y knew him as an individual and a human being. they saw his strengths and his foibles. America got a great president.
Only the Anti-American who took the Democratic party in ‘68 and cemented in in ‘72 have yet to produce a great selection, ever since.
As far as I’m concerned every elected statewide officeholder and every national elected party officeholder should be automatic delegates to the convention and count for a minimum of 60% of the delegates. Primaries are guides, but too easily manipulated by money and Advertising men. I want some input from people who know them as individuals. Peers who see these candidates on a personal basis and work with them and can take their measure, good and bad.
Bring Back th Smoke-less-filled rooms!
Bring back the smoke(less)-filled rooms…a slogan for our times.
If I may be permitted to stretch out philosophically here, I think the war has something to do with it, too. Because the war has not gone as planned (to put it mildly) and Bush is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a failed president, I think people are in a rush to turn the page.
Of course, that brings up the quite real possibility that the new page is no more to their liking than the previous one, and yet the bookstore that sold us the war is not accepting any returns.
There – now, if that’s not stretching a metaphor, I don’t know what is!…
An Anti-American took the Democratic Party in 1968? Hubert Humphrey? Who knew?
And would the Anti-American in 1972 be George McGovern? The same George McGovern who won the Distinguished Flying Cross for flying 35 missions over enemy territory?
Or is anyone who takes a contrary position therefore anti-American?
Zakaria devotes a considerable amount of The Future of Freedom to the changing nomination process. With the rise of the mass media, running for public office has become more and more like selling anything else. And just like marketing, name recognition goes a long way. When you stay the night in a strange town, you’re more likely to stay at the Holiday Inn (or any other chain) instead of a local hotel. The local one may actually be better, but you just prefer to stick with what you know. Attractive packaging can also sell.
Hence, people are either interested in Clinton or Bush-brand presidents. (Or the Casey or Kean brands in Pennsylvania and New Jersey). Or they go with a telegenic candidate — Edwards, Obama, Thompson, Romney.
In general, as Zakaria says, we’re likely to see many more hereditary politicians, actor-politicians, and businessmen-politicians (who can finance themselves, such as Bloomberg).
Giuliani is really the only candidate who has risen to prominence primarily because of his actions while in a previous office.