« KY 6 | Main | More on Primaries »
February 06, 2004
Kinsley on Primaries
Michael Kinsley has an interesting column in the WaPo and Slate today about the obsession with electability among Democrats. It has a funny but I believe incorrect conclusion because I just don't think primary voters are wisely looking at 'what other people [non primary voters] want' in a candidate. That is, they may be voting their gut but if they really want to vote strategically they could do a little research and come to a conclusion other than just Kerry.
While I applaud McAuliffe's front loading of the primary I sympathize with Carl Levin and Ed Rendell in wanting to give a state other than New Hampshire a shot at being the earliest primary state. Of course, now that Levin's endorsed Kerry I don't see what his big problem is with letting New Hampshire pick the nominee he wanted anyway.
My own primary schedule would have Iowa caucus first, and then have New Hampshire, a choice between Illinois/Florida, between Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania and between S Carolina/Tennessee/Arkansas go next, all on the same day.
I'd also have a "3 Weeks & You're Out" rule. Yes, Dr. Dean, I'm talking to you. At this point the great danger of Dean's small donor funded campaign is that he's most certainly not going to be the nominee but he keeps milking ideologically comitted donors (many first time contributors) as the ship goes down. If you thought Clinton alienated a lot of first time voters by promising health care reform and then not delivering, just imagine if they had all donated their own money to his cause.
I blame the media for running an issueless primary (the Dean scream) that has hurt my candidates of choice and helped Kerry, who I consider to be quite boring on the stump. They almost have no choice with the current 1-2 layout of Iowa and New Hampshire, needing to immediately annoint a winner (Kerry) and loser (Dean).
With multiple states voting on the same day, we would either have one legitimate big winner but more likely multiple winners. The focus would likely be on which 2 or 3 candidates who'd already shown an ability to win in different regions would be the best general election candidate. Instead Kerry gets a free pass while Dean gets an undeserved beating and I believe the Democratic Party as a whole is the real loser.
Posted by Chris at February 6, 2004 05:38 PM
Comments
I don't think Dean supporters are being taken for a ride - I think they know exactly what they're doing. A donation to Dean at this time serves two purposes. First, it's a protest vote - by giving to Dean even when it's futile, we show how much we cared about what he stood for. Second, we're making it obvious just how much money is available for any candidate who's willing to run on the same platform. The hope is that four years from now, another candidate will step up to the plate, and pick up where Dean left off.
- Josh
Posted by: Josh Yelon at February 6, 2004 06:14 PM
Chris,
I can't believe you would keep Iowa's caucus first!
Did you see those caucuses on C-SPAN, it's a big clusterf*&k!
Keep New Hampshire first! I've had enough of seeing serious people pandering to Iowa farmers about the importance of keeping the ethanol subsidy.
Posted by: Dmitri in San Diego at February 6, 2004 06:23 PM
I almost always agree with everything that Chris posts, but I disagree that a long primary is bad.
The Democrats spend far more time attacking Bush than each other, and Bush does not have a clear target to fight back against. The medias top story right now is something like this:
"Voters are trying to decide whether the fact that Kerry is tougher than Bush is more or less important than the fact that Edwards is more in touch with America than Bush".
And they are sending that message out for FREE. I think we should want to keep it going as long as possible. Whether Edwards of Kerry wins the nod, Bush will still have been damaged by the other one in a way that the winner will not be able to duplicate (Unless Kerry gets himself adopted by a millworker or Edwards goes to the Mekong Delta).
If you doubt me, look at the poll numbers. Kerry AND Edwards are going up while Bush is going down. Some of that is other factors, but a lot of it is all the free coverage caused by a 'Surviver' like primary.
Posted by: Jon at February 6, 2004 06:44 PM
This could all be irrelevant if we can get this to happen: Roy Moore for President. Talk about game over for the Republican Party.
Posted by: K. at February 6, 2004 08:21 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)