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.
- Why do we allow it to continue?
- 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?
- Why are some voters more important than others?
- 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.
Article comments
1 - 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.