2008 South Carolina Moves Up Its Primary
posted by on August 9 at 11:46 AM
And Dan Balz of The Washington Post goes off:
South Carolina Republican chairman Katon Dawson won his moment in the political limelight today by shifting his state’s GOP primary to Jan. 19, 2008. But in doing so, he may have put the entire tradition of the presidential nominating system at risk.South Carolina’s move is almost certain to trigger other changes in the calendar. The issue is how much the current system can be bent and stretched and warped before it finally breaks apart.
That is what elected officials and state party leaders in states like New Hampshire, Iowa, Michigan, Florida and South Carolina should be thinking about as they contemplate how to react to Dawson’s announcement today.
Tradition, self-interest and pure envy have shaped the 2008 calendar and they ultimately could be the system’s undoing. At some point there is likely to be rebellion against a process that forces voters to begin picking presidential nominees 10 months or more before the general election.
Can any state official truly justify asking voters to think seriously about presidential politics in the calendar year before the presidential election — and in the middle of the holiday season to boot? That now appears distinctly possible if New Hampshire feels crowded by South Carolina and moves to early January and Iowa feels crowded by New Hampshire and moves into December.
This is getting ridiculous. What exactly is the issue with designating a National Primary Day?
@1: Then people might forget that places like Iowa and New Hampshire even exist.
As I understand it, the issue is that states that have traditionally held early presidential primaries don't want to lose those coveted slots, because they tend to attract candidates who might otherwise blow them off in favor of larger states holding more Electoral College votes.
Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, if large states like CA hold earlier primaries, then it's going to shake out the field much more quickly (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), but it also means candidates are going to have to concentrate more of their time and money in those states (where most of their funding comes from in the first place), thus giving comparatively less attention to smaller states with fewer Electoral votes.
However, your point about this trend toward increasingly earlier primaries is well taken; it IS getting ridiculous. At the rate this leap-frogging is occuring now, by the 2012 cycle states will need to start holding primaries in late 2010 just to keep in the running as it were.
As I understand it, the issue is that states that have traditionally held early presidential primaries don't want to lose those coveted slots, because they tend to attract candidates who might otherwise blow them off in favor of larger states holding more Electoral College votes.
Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, if large states like CA hold earlier primaries, then it's going to shake out the field much more quickly (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), but it also means candidates are going to have to concentrate more of their time and money in those states (where most of their funding comes from in the first place), thus giving comparatively less attention to smaller states with fewer Electoral votes.
However, your point about this trend toward increasingly earlier primaries is well taken; it IS getting ridiculous. At the rate this leap-frogging is occuring now, by the 2012 cycle states will need to start holding primaries in late 2010 just to keep in the running as it were.
As I understand it, the issue is that states that have traditionally held early presidential primaries don't want to lose those coveted slots, because they tend to attract candidates who might otherwise blow them off in favor of larger states holding more Electoral College votes.
Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, if large states like CA hold earlier primaries, then it's going to shake out the field much more quickly (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), but it also means candidates are going to have to concentrate more of their time and money in those states (where most of their funding comes from in the first place), thus giving comparatively less attention to smaller states with fewer Electoral votes.
However, your point about this trend toward increasingly earlier primaries is well taken; it IS getting ridiculous. At the rate this leap-frogging is occuring now, by the 2012 cycle states will need to start holding primaries in late 2010 just to keep in the running as it were.
Okay, something definitely effed up with the comments posting...
Okay, something definitely effed up with the comments posting...
As it is someone can do well with relatively little money (Edwards!) because the all important first few states are so small it doesn't take allot of cash to get votes.
You don't want Cali or Texas first because it raises the bar so dang high. Also allot of money will get spent on candidates that don't have a prayer.
First of all, this is just for the GOP not the Dems. (South Carolina is traditionally the BIG one for the GOP like Super Tuesday is for the Dems)
But the entire process is not going to break like the writer is freaking out about. Read up on some history of the changes in the nomination process that both parties (and the Whigs as well) have done and frankly this is not that revolutionary in the least.
This just in...
Iowa has time-warped back to December 2005 and held its 2008 primary.
The results: Not interesting in the least.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).