Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on New Hampshire Sets its Primary Date

1

And it means that, on February 9th, they will still be viable.

So we get to choose.

Cool!

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 21, 2007 5:47 PM
2

I don't think we've even set a primary date yet. And the WA primary is useless; the candidates are actually selected by caucus, and they can ignore the primary vote if they like. There are other reasons to vote, of course, but strictly for the purposes of selecting a presidential candidate, our primary is an utter waste of time and money. And it is usually so late in the primary season as to be almost irrelevant in any case.

Yay WA. Not.

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 21, 2007 6:27 PM
3

I might be mistaken, but I thought i heard that state gov was considering making WA a caucus state, for budgetary reasons.

I was well behind a competing initiative that would force WA to compete with New Hampshire as far as trumping primaries -- but the more people I talked to about the idea, the more the implications of its viability for Washington state became more questionable. It is possible to be too early, and New Hampshire may very well "out-early" themselves from injecting any influence at all this time 'round.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | November 21, 2007 6:53 PM
4

So.....what's holding us back from a national primary? Pity the idea of the entire country deciding who might run on any given ticket. And I'd like to know what the fine folks of, oh, say,
Wisconsin, New York, Idaho, Pennsylvania etc. etc. etc. have to say.

Posted by heywhatsit | November 21, 2007 8:44 PM
5

can someone at the stranger please do an article/post on how it's at all constitutional that three inconsequential states get to decide our presidential candidates? i don't think enough people understand the strangeness (and unfairness) of the primary process.

Posted by Judith | November 21, 2007 11:33 PM
6

@5: Constitution has nothing to do with it.

Each party gets to decide who their candidate is. If they wanted to base it on a tea reading ceremony presided over by a 300 pound albino eunuch, that's their choice.

Unfortunately, neither the Dems or Repugs are willing to tell Iowa and NH to sod off. So, at least for time being, they get to go first and set the stage

@3: Again, state gov has nothing to do with it. The Dems will base most (all?) of their delegates on the caucuses. I think (and could easily be wrong), that they will allow the primary to have some role in delegate selection.

Posted by gnossos | November 22, 2007 12:11 AM
7

The caucus is February 9th. Nobody cares what happens in the Primary, as no delegates get chosen from that, except for Red Bushies, and they have a bunch of evolution-denying nutjobs to choose amongst.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 22, 2007 1:09 AM
8

So.....what's holding us back from a national primary?

A national primary is great if you only want candidates that can raise a metric shitton of money to be able to compete.

Posted by Aexia | November 24, 2007 10:39 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).