It could all be over after 'Super Duper Tuesday'

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: It could all be over after 'Super Duper Tuesday'
February 5, 2007
By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst

....Look at the nominating calendar as it currently stands, nearly a year before the first real votes are cast.

January 14, 2008: The Iowa caucuses open the race.

January 19 (Five days later): Nevada Democrats hold their caucuses.

January 22: The New Hampshire primary.

January 29: South Carolina Democrats vote

February 2: South Carolina Republicans vote

Then February 5 could be Super Duper Tuesday. Right now, eight states are scheduled to hold primaries or caucuses that day (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia).

Another twelve states are considering moving their contests to February 5, including big states like Florida, New Jersey, Michigan -- and the biggest one of all, California (also North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming).

In other words, February 5 -- Super Duper Tuesday -- could become, essentially, a national primary. The campaign could start on January 14 and end just over three weeks later, with two thirds of the Democratic delegates and over 80 percent of the Republican delegates chosen by February 5.

Those states may move up on the calendar because they want a cut of the action. They want less attention paid to small states like Iowa and New Hampshire and more attention paid to big, diverse states like Florida and California. To run in those big states, you need big money and national name recognition. Obscure contenders need not apply.

Even if an unknown candidate pulls off a surprise win in New Hampshire the way Jimmy Carter did in 1976, there may not be enough time to raise the money you need to compete in, say, California....

***

Ironically, however, the new calendar may make Iowa and New Hampshire more important. You pull off a surprise win in one of the preliminary states and the news coverage propels you to victory in the big states....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/schneider.superduper.tuesday/index.html

[Warpy]

1. I would like to see the primary system changed and

done regionally, in order, with the last state moving to first in the next primary season, and on down the line.

That would reduce stress on the candidates plus their advertising and travel costs. Each region would get a chance at being first in line and all regions would be heard.

Of course, that makes too much sense and New Hampshire will never agree, nor will Iowa.

[InvisibleTouch]

2. Maybe a dumb question, but...

...why don't all the states have the Primaries on the same day? Do it in one fell swoop and get it over with.

[Redneck Socialist]

3. Bad idea

That would reward only those candidates with good name recognition and boatloads of money.

The practical reason is that each state gets to set the date of its own primary and those states that have traditionally gone early jealously guard their turf.

[trayfoot]

6. I agree, invisible

To be a truly "democratic device", all primaries should be held on the same day. It is NOT fair that the candidate is chosen before some states even get to vote. Yes, it WOULD be an inconvenience to the "front runners", but so what???!!! The whole idea of having primaries was to allow the "rank and file" to have a say in who the Party chooses - rather than the party bosses. The intent of the reform has been thwarted by this idiotic Primary calendar.

[Orangepeel]

8. it would be big *convenience* for the frontrunners

the current system, flawed as it is, allows for the possibility that a lesser known, lesser funded candidate will gain some traction among voters (real, rank and file voters) in smaller states that he or she actually meets and talks to. Ideally, this traction would allow the smaller candidate to gain the name recognition and money to have a fighting chance in later states.

I've never lived in a state with relevant presidential primaries, so I totally understand your frustration with the system. But, I'd rather it be the way that it is than to have it be just like the general election, where it's all about money and advertising.

[Robson]

4. It's too long

The election process should last 6 months max. These extended candidacies are bad for America and bad for the candidates. Too negative too long.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Front loading is basically a way of giving influence back to the party insiders

Back in 1968, Hubert Humphrey won the nomination without winning a single primary. After '68 they changed the system to make it so that party insiders didn't get nearly as much say as to who gets the nominee.

Now we've changed it back via fundraising. Who do you think is helping Clinton, Edwards, and Obama raise all of the $100 million that they need to be competitive? Party insiders. If you don't have their support, you can't raise the cash, period.

Iowa and New Hampshire aren't perfect but I'd much letter let the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire pick our nominee than the party hacks that can raise money. At least every candidate will have a chance and not just the ones that can raise $100 million.

[fuzzyball]

7. Can't wait to hear Hillary's victory speech on Feb 6, 2008.....eom