A Nominee by Christmas
(As the nominating contests surge even earlier than we'd thought.)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
What if South Carolina moves its primary up from February 2, to January 19? Well, Iowa moves, New Hampshire moves, and who knows about Nevada, Florida, and the various Whizzo-Tuesdays?
That's what the AP is suggesting:
South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson will announce the earlier date Thursday during a joint news conference with New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner in Concord, N.H.
"We're going to protect this battleground," Dawson said of South Carolina's historic first-in-the-South primary status.
He and his aides declined to disclose the date.
Iowa does their caucus thing on January 14, according to the already-insane calendar, and New Hampshire's primary was slated for the 22nd. Nevada was to do the caucus thing on January 19, and Florida's Republicans go on January 29.
Read More…
Remember, something sane must result from the nominating process, where State A has to be before State N, O, and P, and State I before State E except after State C. "It's a matter of pride."
The evolving primary calendar is the result of states like New York and California moving their contests earlier in the year as the seek to play more of a role in choosing the nominees. As dates have changed, both Republicans and Democrats running for president have had to shift their strategies for winning their party's respective nods.
States have until Sept. 4 to disclose to the Republican National Committee the date and format of their nominating contests. That's when the calendar becomes official under national party rules.
By Dec. 31, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan must formally invite states to the nominating convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul next summer and declare how many delegates each state gets.
Any state that moves its primary or caucus earlier than Feb. 5 before that "call to convention" risks being penalized half its delegates under RNC guidelines set during the last presidential election.
"The RNC rules adopted at the convention in 2004 are clear and will be applied equally to every state party," said Lisa Miller, an RNC spokeswoman.
If a state changes its nominating date after the "call to convention," the RNC will penalize it 90 percent of its delegates.
What can come of this? This is not your standard season, from the days of yore, when winning or placing in Iowa or New Hampshire meant instant gravity for a campaign with the funds to play. But what is the alternative for a campaign?
I'm a conservative guy. I like an ordered political process, with Iowa then New Hampsphire. With South Carolina first in the south. Maybe Nevada first in the west. But this isn't it. Which of the candidates will this help most? It's difficult to play a game when the rules are apt to change at the last minute, and even then from moment-to-moment.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | I Missed The Latest Democratic Presidential Debate . . . — Comments (3) »
A Nominee by Christmas 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
from that Britain place. Heck, they can't even speak American.
Woof!
Franz' 11th Commandment: If anybody messes with you, kill them and eat them invite them to a State Dinner at the White House.
Might be time to get in the water before the pool is empty.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm against the federal government regulating the primary calendar but it's moments like these that lures one in that direction. This has got to end.
OK I'm a little embarrased that I even need to ask this. I'm not a political science scholar but I have been somewhat of a political junkie since I started paying attention to politics in 2000. So please tell me, what difference does it make who people in one or two states vote for in any presidential election?
If the explaination is that a couple of million people in 1 or 2 states is a representative sample of the entire US population then I have to say that I don't buy it. I've got more people that live within 60 miles of me than live in Iowa and New Hampshire COMBINED.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Iowa does it for pork, allegedly.
The rest I think are doing it so the people involved can puff up on camera.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Iowa does it for pork, allegedly.
It's been said a million times since McCain dodged Iowa the first time around and used that as an excuse, when the real reason he dodged Iowa is that the Democrats and independs he was counting on wouldn't exactly be participating in large numbers in the Republican caucuses.
Ethanol is just great politics, for both sides of the aisle. That has nothing to do with the nomination schedule.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
New Hampshire and Iowa are sufficiently small that candidates can actually interact with voters as opposed to making mass market buys like they would where you (and I for that matter) live. Historically they have also tended to mirror the composition of the rest of the country, so they have made good locations to start the weeding process. Right now there are oodles of candidates on both sides. When we are done with New Hampshire and Iowa it will be down to a manageable level.
It also has a bit to do with the principle of protecting minority rights. You remember "the Great Comprimise" don't you? It's too easy for big states to overwhelm little states on a strict popular vote. Somebody who can win a little state still needs to win the big states. If the big states all come first, the little states can't protect their interests, which is fundamentally unfair.
Now, if either of those state ceases to mirror the rest of the country, we should change it out to one that does reflect it. Until then, I don't see a good reason to do so.
this is why the lame attempts by Thompson supporters that "he will still have 7 months to campaign" have always rung false.
By the time he finally jumps in- he will only be campaigning for 3.75 months before the first votes.
While the 21 other candidates from both parties have been campaigning between 8 months and 8 years.
There is a big difference in trying to determine the endurance, strategy, ability to face the media on a daily basis, and energy of a long trial. Most in the GOP understand there is a long nominating process for a reason- and that to shortcircuit the test is to end up with a weaker general election candidate.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
I mean, do you really want to vote for the idiot who has been campaigning for 8+ years when Fred accomplished the same work in less than 4 months????!!!
At this point, if this continues, most voters will be so tired of it all that everyone will stay home in November 2008.
Please! Just declare us a monarchy; send in some jobless British prince and turn us into a parliamentary system so we can elections in six weeks and be done with it!.
I hate this!