A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
February 09, 2007Let's Play Leap FrogFlorida Jockeying for Better Primary Slot If the bill (HB 537) becomes law, Florida's primary - currently in March, when it's virtually irrelevant - would take place either seven days after New Hampshire's, or on Feb. 5, whichever comes first. New Hampshire has not set its date. A bill before the state Legislature is designed to cement the secretary of state's authority to schedule New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary before the Nevada caucuses in 2008 - if he chooses. How about we just have every state hold its primary for the next Presidential election the day after the new President is inaugurated? Posted by Kranky Kritter at February 9, 2007 12:07 PMComments
As far as I can see, the only argument for an earlier primary in any state (other than politicians egos, of course) is: "Voters are so like sheep that they will follow the pattern of whoever votes first. So we need to be first, or at least very early, so they will follow us rather than someone else." Otherwise, it would appear that there simply isn't that great a difference between having a large primary in February and having it in June. Perhaps voters really are that herd-like in their behavior. But I have to wonder.... Posted by: wj at February 9, 2007 11:26 AMOh there's a far better one than that, based clearly on self-interest. What state doesn't want the next President to spend a lot of time in their state listening to their problems, understanding their views, and making promises to THEM while hordes of media and entourage spend lots of money in their state? There's an "everything you need to know you learned in 1st grade" lesson here. If everyone wants something, and there isn;t enough to go around, you have to share. Posted by: bk at February 9, 2007 11:37 AMThe difference between a February primary and a June primary is the number of candidates still in the running. Those who do poorly in the early primaries will have trouble raising funds to stay in the race. In Kansas the last two primaries have been cancelled because there was only one viable candidate remaining in each party by the time the primary would have come. If a state wants to give its voters a choice in selecting the party's nominee, the new reality is that the primary must be earlier to compete with all the other states that are making their primaries earlier. I think this is an unfortunate development because it means candidates must start their fundraising earlier in order to prepare for the blitz of primaries. We are seeing the effects already. Posted by: BruceA at February 9, 2007 11:58 AM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
