« Kinsley on Primaries | Main | Free Flowing Free Trade »
February 07, 2004
More on Primaries
Let me clarify something below. I don't think a long primary is necessarily bad. I'd prefer a primary schedule that was something like 8 weeks long. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to have 1 caucus/1 week, then 1 primary/1 week, then 10 primaries/1 week, then 2/1, then 1/1, then Super Tuesday.
I think it would make a lot more sense to have something like 2 or 3 primaries a week each week. You could have one northeastern state each week, one southern state each and one western state. That would winnow down the field almost right away to two or three strong regional candidates.
My plan isn't perfect -- you'd have to have some firewall states. So maybe something like 3 states for a couple of weeks, then 1 important state to eliminate 1 or 2 candidates and then a few mini super-Tuesdays with say 5 states each after that.
My calendar would go something like this:
Week 1: Iowa (I know, pander to farmers but no one takes this state seriously anyway)
Week 2: NH, SC, NV, OK
Week 3: PA, LA, WA, AZ
Week 4: MO, FL
Week 5: ND, NM, DE, MI, TN
Week 6: TX, NJ, ME, VA, DC
Week 7: GA, CA, WI, MN, IL
Week 8: Everyone else.
Under this scenario I think the primaries would be playing out thusly: Kerry eliminates Dean in Iowa and NH, Clark takes NV and OK and Edwards takes SC. Then Kerry does well in PA and WA while Clark takes AZ and Edwards takes LA. Then the three do battle in Missouri and Florida, two key swing states. My guess would be that Clark or Edwards would be eliminated and then you'd have a two person race that didn't really favor one or the other geographically and a victory for Edwards in Michigan or Kerry in Tennessee would send an easily interpreted message that one or the other was actually the stronger candidate. But what do I know?
Posted by Chris at February 7, 2004 01:48 AM
Comments
first, as a party we must keep NH as the first primary! NH voters vet the candidates carefully, don't let them avoid key questions, and don't allow them to rely on money. Money is next to irrelevant up here, which is good - because once someone wins up here they can usually improve their fundraising. The essential candidate comes through when fielding questions in small meetings repeatedly over the course of months.
With your revised schedule, MONEY would have been the key deciding factor. And money, this year, would have made Dean the favorite in all post Iowa states.
Fact is, this year's process is selecting a good candidate with flaws - he may not be your guy, but he's the legitimate choice of the plurality of voters so far. There's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: Dan at February 9, 2004 10:15 AM
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.)