Sunday, April 22, 2007
|
|
The Nevada Caucus, The Michigan Primary, and the Inevitable
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
4:15 PM
|
|
The Nevada GOP has moved its caucus date up to Saturday, January 19, putting it five days after the Iowa caucuses on Monday, January 14, and three days before the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 22. The calender is getting crowded.
The Michigan GOP seems committed to February 5 --or earlier. South Carolina holds its primary on February 2.
Florida remains uncertain, but it could see its vote move up to January 29, which would make it the make-or-break primary of 2008 (and the Sunshine state's radio and television stations very happy indeed).
So, which state decides to lose all or some of its delegates but make hundreds of millions for its economy and refocus the presidential campaign on its unique issues by moving its vote --to December, 2007, or even one year prior to the presidential vote?
|
|
|
Why not move the primaries to one month after each election. That way other topics would never be filtered through the prism of what can and should be done for the country, but always through the prisim of electoral anticipation. |
|
|
Our system for selecting Presidents is ridiculous and has been ridiculous for some time now. It like attaching a rocket engine (electronic media) to a horse and buggy chasis (our institutional framework). And now, states are trying to get to the front of the line--get some of that power, glory, and money. Meanwhile, NH and IA act as though it is their God-given right to select this nation's President. It is frigging idiotic. And since America's elites cannot agree on anything anymore, we will just passively endure this idiot system without fixing it. |
|
Speaking for the 4th congressional district of PA, we're ready to go in May. Anyway, we can use the money here.
Don't mind me. I'm the guy who does jokes on his blog. With the jokes we elected last Nov., it seems only appropriate.
steve |
|
|
Heavens to Murgitroyde (how is that spelled?), fun, in blogistan, surely you jest. |
|
|
|
|
I like your spelling a whole lot better than mine. I guess I better fess up--Hannah Brothers had, has, a character, lion, that says something to the effect of "Heavens to Mercatroid." And that as they say is the "rest of the story." |
|
This primary creep along with "winner take all" primaries are not doing a good service to our people. I would like to see a couple of changes.
First of all, parties should not be able to move primaries until the election cycle FOLLOWING the cycle of the proposed change. As it stands now the primaries can be moved up to favor an early leader. By the time the convention comes around, a candidate that won enough delegates to capture a first round nomination might be out of public favor.
Secondly, I would like to see an end to "winner take all" primaries. Divide the delegates according to share of popular vote. That allows a candidate who might begin to gain traction later in the campaign to arrive at the convention with more than a snowball's chance. |
|
That the states will keep trying to leap frog each other to be first? So how will all this play out? Who will benefit from this speed race primary system? I have read analysis that says one candidate will take it all--or that it will guarantee a brokered convention for both Dems and Republicans.
I know Hugh has said that the Romney campaign is carefully focusing on specific counties and precincts in California based on its new rules in awarding delegates (to capitalize on Mittmentum from New Hamshire). I assume Mitt must be competitive in Michigan (although I have not seen any numbers on that state). I would also like to see how the GOP candidates are fairing in some of these big states that are going early. |
|
|
|
|
|