The efforts of states to cut in on the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire in the presidential primaries prompted a New York Times writer to observe: “Iowa and New Hampshire voters display an uncommon command of issues, a sophistication about the contest and its candidates, an understanding of history and an eagerness to participate that clearly sets them apart.”
Here’s an idea: Give voters in the 48 other states now forced to follow Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to go first so they can develop fine qualities, too. Sounds like a smart way to nurture democracy.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Jail consultants straining patience
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JWink on Jail consultants straining patience
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- XXX on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
19 Comments
Two of the smallest states in the Union kick off the primary season.
Who’s the big winner?
Big media, of course. It’s a lot easier for the big networks to manipulate a small state population than a big one.
Howard Dean said that media had to be returned to the fairness doctrine, and his 30 point lead in the polls “evaporated.” The only thing keeping Kerry alive was a second mortgage on his house and suddenly he’s the “front runner.”
Iowa = Idiots Out Wandering Around.
I just checked the Constitution, and it actually says nothing about Iowa and New Hampshire always picking the presidential candidates for the other 48 states. It’s like picking the governor of Kansas by having each party send its candidates to Norton every four years in midwinter, have an election there, then have the Norton winners become the statewide candidates, without giving anyone else in the state an effective voice in selecting them. It is great that a few of the other 48 states are trying to rebel against this ridiculous system, but it looks like the party bosses won’t let it happen.
“Iowa and New Hampshire voters display an uncommon command of issues, a sophistication about the contest and its candidates, an understanding of history and an eagerness to participate that clearly sets them apart.”
Bull!
It assures that the more radical elements of both parties get to pick the candidates. It’s time for a change. Why not have the primaries in all states that hold primaries on the same day? Of course that would leave Kansas out, but that’s not much of a loss.
This process should NOT be valid without being justified.Doesn’t the U.S. Supreme Court have something to say about this?
Those two states have written in their Constitutions that they must have the first primaries so they are restricted by their own laws to be before the other states. Fact checking Rhonda, try it sometime and you won’t be so conservative.
With all due respect, Doug, why should we care what the Iowans wrote into their State Constitution?
How about we write into our State Constitution that we’re the ones who have the first primary?
Also, the caucus process is time-consuming (hurts single parents for example), is NOT a secret ballot, and lends itself to intimidation tactics.
Other than that, it’s great.
The status quo should not be self-perpetuating.
Well Capn, if the question is why do a couple of states have the first primary then you have your answer. I don’t see how it can be any more relevant.
The NYT writer seems to have a point when Kansas continues to elect Brownback, Tiahrt and Roberts.
If you held the first primaries in other states, and you did it on a rotation, then the party machines and newspaper groups and TV people and all the rest would have to put forth a bit more effort to make travel arrangements and also to get acquainted with the long neglected states. They would all be inconvenienced by this process. Ms. Holman makes a good point, but you may add it to the burgeoning list of “nice-to-haves.”
Some ambitious reporter or blogger should embark on a mission to promote the idea to the agenda setters and decision makers, all the while keeping a comical dossier of democracy in action. The key to getting an early primary in Kansas would entail bringing party leaders to a few of the favored diners, and you’d have to do the ordering on arrival.
What would they be having? Chicken fried steak, of course. And mashed potatoes. And lovely, lovely gravy. (And they could smoke!)
We’d get an early primary.
The days of individual states having the first shot at primaries/caucuses may be over after the 08 cycle.
For this time though, it’s going to be Iowa and New Hampshire, so get over it.
The fairest/easiest thing for everyone next time will be to go regional — which is sort of happening already.
The national parties are sick of continually dealing with states trying to leapfrog each other, but it’s going to be up to them to twist some arms to get to some sort of regional model going and make sure smaller states still have some relevance.
Otherwise it’ll just be about California, Texas, New York, and Florida, and screw the rest. So those of you complaining about Iowa better be careful what you wish for.
In defense of Iowa and New Hampshire. They are both reasonable cross-sections of America and are both ‘purplr’ states. As such they can both give the parties an idea of what candidate might be able to appeal to the middle.
Kansas, the other thread (purple) not-withstanding is too far ‘right’ to be representative. Similarly, Massachusetts would clearly be too far ‘left.’
Small states give a ‘dark-horse’ candidate a chance that he cannot get in a big state. Since voters actually get a chance to meet the candidates lots of money for TV spots will be less of a factor.
I worked a campaign in New Hampshire many years ago. We brought forward a dark horse and unseated a president.
Otherwise it’ll just be about California, Texas, New York, and Florida, and screw the rest. So those of you complaining about Iowa better be careful what you wish for.
I disagree. If all states held primaries on the same day, then all states would have an equal chance of picking the president. Giving the small states the edge encourages them to support the screwed up Electoral College system where the big states get to choose the president. Only 1/4 of the states matter in the presidential election in November. The EC gives the advantage to the big states. I have seen people try to defend the EC, but it does not work. With the closeness of many presidential elections, small states can have equal opportunity to swing the vote either way. In the current system, they do not have any chance. In Kansas, your vote does not count if you vote non-Republican. In California, your vote does not count if you vote non-Democrat. Without the EC, your vote would count both places.
A dark horse candidate has the same chance if the primaries were held on the same day.
The DNC has threatened to disallow Florida representation at the Convention if Florida votes early and has warned candidates not to campaign in the breakaway early states or risk punishment from the DNC.
Several posters have made the point about the Kansas primaries and it is as valid for the national presidential primaries.
Wrong facts not straight. We could never have pulled off our upset in a national primary; we didn’t have the millions needed to run blanket TV ads. We did it with ‘retail’ campaigning in the snows of New hampshire.
Do a national primary and turn it over to those with the most money.
Ben,
Given the sort of uncertain at best shift in the Kansas political landscape (other thread), what about running the ‘retail’ type of campaign in ‘08 vs. Roberts? Perhaps I’m not sure what you mean by a ‘retail’ campaign, by I’m thinking that you relied less on TV and mail and brought the dark horse forward by getting out and meeting people. It’s hard to see the point of a campaign against Roberts if the contest boils down to TV ads and mail.
We are going to have to agree to disagree Ben. With the internet these days you do not need a bunch of money to get your point across. Most candidates these days are those with the most money. Do you seriously think that a dark horse candidate is going to win NH/IA? Kerry was not that much of a dark horse.
The best way for a dark horse candidate to win today, either in the current screwed up system or a one day primary for all states is simple and free. Stand out from your opponents. Aside from the internet, there are plenty of cheap and free options for a poor candidate to win the nomination that were not available until recently. There are plenty of ways to generate media coverage without paying a lot of money.
I have seen studies which question blanket ads and their effect on the common voter, and I have not seen where they are worth the money wasted on them. They can backfire a lot easier than most people realize.
Some Democrat candidates have grasped the potential of the internet and are going to be in much better shape than those Democrats who haven’t. Most Republican candidates have not grasped the huge potential of the internet as a means to get their message out. As it is now, people frequently do not pay attention to political ads, and as long as this current set has been going, people are going to pay even less attention the closer it gets to primary time since it started so early.
Ben,
I agree with your points about Iowa, but I think their caucus system is very flawed.
In the ‘04 race, Kerry’s campaign was almost bankrupt in December, and he had to take a huge loan on his house to continue.
Meanwhile, Dean was pulling in large amounts of campaign $’s.
Later in the Iowa caucus, CSpan showed a Kerry supporter (falsely) telling a Dean supporter that Kerry had been raising more campaign $’s than Dean. The Dean supporter switched to Kerry.
TRTaliaferro
I did not mention it, but I did think about it. An old fashion train ride across the country meeting people is more effective than most other means of getting your point across. If you can’t afford the train, drive across America. People are more likely to vote for, or against you, once they meet you. In person, they get a chance to size you up whereas on TV/mail, they don’t get the same chance.
Problem is how many people can you met that way. 50 million or so in California. Millions just in Los Angeles. In small state you stand a chance of meeting a decent fraction on that car tour; not in New York.
I’ve had enough of New Hampshire after this. It would be comic if I didn’t feel like weeping. Iowa and New Hampshire going first is like going to Hooterville in order to choose the leader of the free world. Let’s hear what Uncle Joe and Eb have to say. Somebody fix this, change this.