Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » It Is Time to Change Those Early Primary States

It Is Time to Change Those Early Primary States

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Why are Republicans in Iowa more important than those of us say in…New Mexico, or Colorado, or Oklahoma, or Georgia, or New Jersey?

It makes a thinking person who does not live in one of those spoiled brat early primary states start to ask a few questions.

  1. Why do we allow it to continue?
  2. When the RNC gets together, do our state delegates not have the courage to pull the plug on this pandering which is an insult to the rest of the nation?
  3. Why are some voters more important than others?
  4. Why are the people in Iowa and New Hampshire more important that anyone else?

The other day there were alleged remarks made, by alleged Iowa Republicans, who were annoyed that Michele Bachmann was actually doing her job as a member of Congress. She was unable to meet with a select group of them to pander to them. There were snarky comments that she would need to do better if she wanted their votes.  

Such things make a person who lives in New Mexico wonder just what is required in the bratty early primary/caucus states.  What are candidates to do in Iowa and New Hampshire?  Must they move in with voters, do their dishes, empty their cat boxes, walk their dogs? It sure sounds like that is what the spoiled brats are once again crying about, as usual.

People in New Hampshire require that candidates sing their specific little song, tap dancing around their agenda, meeting and greeting, pressing the flesh, glad handing, etc.  They say that a candidate must really work New Hampshire to win their few pathetic votes, and all the attention that comes once it is all over.  If you don’t do as they demand, well, you just don’t get their sainted vote.  After all, they are in New Hampshire, and primary voters in New Hampshire are far more important than primary voters who don’t even go to the polls in late May or June.

By constantly pandering to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and then the Super Tuesday states, those of us who live in the later primary states get zilch. We are nothing but chopped liver. Our votes don’t count.

All the snotty little towns in Iowa get everyone to visit, and scarf up vile food at their nasty little diners, while they visit and smile and visit and smile, then drink a little coffee and visit and smile some more.  They get all the neat campaign buttons.  They get close up and personal with the candidates.  Their questions get answered. For those of us who live in small town every-place else, fat chance anyone is ever going to campaign here. You see, in the grand scheme of things, we don’t count. We are not important. We mean absolutely nothing to the people running for POTUS.

Either end the early primaries and do a huge Super Tuesday, or break the primaries up into maybe 5 Not So Super Tuesdays.

Let someone else go first.

You know what you get? 

Both parties would get a completely different front-runner.  The parties may even get a completely different nominee than when the regular primary line up is followed.

This will never work.

What would be terribly fair, and a heck of a lot more fun would be to have a drawing to see what state votes when.  The rest of the country would get a chance to get in on the excitement.

The candidates themselves will never go for it. The entire process would either cost way too much, setting up expensive operations in the states they never bother with (ever) or it would cost less.

Then again the POTUS candidates would not like being forced to campaign in a bunch of states they never bother with – like New Mexico, the Dakotas, Montana, Iowa, Wyoming. You know the states. We’re the ones everyone forgets about because we have no clout.  We’re the unimportant states.

The one thing I think almost every voter in 48 states will agree with is a simple little rule of thumb. Make Iowa and New Hampshire go last!

It’s too bad our national parties don’t have the courage to do something different and give other voters in the late primaries a chance to be part of the process.

You can’t blame just the national organizations. The states are just as much to blame. If enough places like New Mexico would begin protesting, something would be changed.

I’m not holding my breath.

Thanks to the bully tactics of the Tea Parties and the far left organizations, our candidates and office holders are so whipped, so lacking in courage, they they are never going to stand up and do something original and creative.  They are afraid of their own shadows half the time.

Making a change in the order that the states vote in the primaries would take courage.

The last thing I expect out of elected officials, Democrat or Republican, or potential candidates is actual courage. They have none. They do, though, know how to pander to the special interest groups who make the most noise and are the most obnoxious. 

Plain old, normal, average voters just don’t count, not any more.  We’re no longer important enough to attract the attention of Senate or Congressional  candidates, let alone someone running in a primary for POTUS.  Normal voters have morphed into the ugly girls at a school dance.  No one’s going to bother with us.  Not where there are exciting and glamorous states like Iowa and New Hampshire with all their seductive early primary voters and caucus attendees.

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • Baronius

    I think the monolithic (or bilithic) primary system is being challenged on a number of fronts. First of all, several states have moved their primaries earlier. Secondly, Iowa’s credibility has diminished because of the nature of the caucus system and some of the picks they’ve made. You’ve seen SC become more influential, and the Super Tuesday states carry more influence by joining together. Additionally, the superdelegate system, while it may strengthen the party’s power compared to the voter’s, does diminish the power of the early-primary voter.

    In 2008, Iowa and NH didn’t settle anything. Three prominent Republicans battled forward, and Giuliani didn’t even participate (although that turned out to be a bad play on his part). Among the Democrats, Clinton stayed viable for so long that the convention could have actually been interesting.

    And finally, one comment in defense of the current system. If we had 51 important primaries, the early contributors would have even more say than they do now. A candidate wouldn’t run if he didn’t have enough money to compete everywhere. The current system at least gives a shot to the little guy, and a voice (via debates) to the forgotten elements within the party.