David Broder laments the rush of early primaries in the 2008
election, saying we'll be deprived of "a steady progression of
contests, challenging and whittling the field of contenders..." I
have mixed feelings about the new calendar that moves us much
closer to a national primary day. On the one hand, having a steady
progression of primaries provides the oppourtunity for voters in
early states to personally interact with candidates, whereas now
we're looking at a system in which voters in most states will only
meet the candidates through TV ads. On the other hand, under the
system of staggered primaries, a few states have an outsized
influence in choosing the nominee. So, even though a lot of people
will miss out on seeing the candidates up close under the
uber-Tuesday system, most Americans are already deprived of such an
oppourtunity, only now at least they'll have a vote that actually
matters. I do agree with Broder, however, that with the nominees
likely decided by the end of February, and the conventions not
until late August/early September, we'll be looking at 6 very
boring months in between. Perhaps another option is to move toward
a national primary sometime in June. That would give candidates
half the year to campaign from coast to coast, and it would
contract the time between the nominees being chosen and the
conventions. Also, perhaps it would mean the campaign wouldn't be
starting two years in advance, as it has this cycle.
biniki| 9.4.09 @ 8:21PM
bikini
bikini swimwear
biniki| 9.4.09 @ 8:23PM
bikini
bikini swimwear