Bread and Circuses: Primarily Ridiculous

There are about 308 million people that live in the country.  Over 50% of the nation lives in one of the following ten states (starting with the highest):

1. California
2.  Texas
3. New York
4. Florida
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
8. Michigan
9. Georgia (I'm from there!)
10.  North Carolina


The first primaries and caucuses, however, are not held in these states.  They're held in South Carolina (#24), Iowa (#30), Nevada (#35) and New Hampshire (#42).  Combined, these states have a combined population less that of the Los Angeles Metro Area.  The entire state of South Carolina's population could fit in Atlanta, GA.  So, why is it that these states are the ones that have the first primaries?  More or less because... well, they say so.

Everyone in South Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada could live here.

This first in the nation mentality has two adverse affects.  First, it creates a false mentality that the people who live in these states are relevant.  I don't say that to be cruel.  But the reality of the situation is that polticians every four years descend upon the state of Iowa, they make the party chairmen happy and they always make some vague promise about ethanol subsidies and then never do anything about it.  A bunch of money is dumped into the state and then it becomes a political pariah for the remainder of the term of the presidency.

And New Hampshire, classy place that it is, has a state law that requires that the first primary in the nation has to be held there.  It used to be held in March, but when other states even move their primary a little bit close to NH's, they move it up.  In 2008, the Secretary of State of NH, classy guy that he is, said that if the other states would move their primaries again, that it would push NH to have their primary in 2007, almost TEN MONTHS before the general election.  And he didn't care that this was going to elongate the process (the entire election run takes far, far, far too much time) and by elongating the process making it cost more money.  But as long as NH becomes relevant for a few months every few years...

I could go on about how the NH primary hasn't picked the eventual nominee for the Democrats since Jimmy Carter in 1976 (35 years) and hasn't done that with the Republicans since George H.W. Bush in 1988 (23 years).  The reason why this is important because the argument for the NH primary to be held first is because the electorate is said to be more highly educated and better versed in politics, civics and government.  Why hold the first primary in the nation if you're going to pick Senator Paul Tsongas.  Do you remember who that is?  I rest my case.

Now, we're brought to South Carolina.  Gov. Nikki Haley may cut funding for the primary in the state.  (This column will give her credit for being consistent.  If she's going to cut the state's public broadcasting, she should at least cut funding for her party's state primary.)  This means that they would have to move to a less costly caucus and may give other states (probably Florida), the chance to step forward and assume the First in the South Primary.


Sigh.

This kind of infighting is wholly unnecessary and by and large creates a false narrative in the entire election process.  The fact of the matter is that it didn't matter then, it doesn't matter now and it won't ever really matter what voters in one state think.  It's the collective view of the entire population of the country.

And the things that gets me is that it doesn't have to be this way! They are alternatives to the current primary system (which takes far too long and is far too expensive) and they would require not an action of Congress or the President, but they could be done by a conference of all the Secretaries of State for the individual states.  I mean, it's not as if they're doing anything else right now!

The established states should step aside for new ways of making a party's nominee.  It's putting too much power in such a specialized population.  It's nice to think that going to small towns and rural regions give us that homespun wisdom that we need to get by in this crazy, mixed-up world that we live in, but it's disingenuous and, frankly, not practical any more.

www.nuzcom.com

Meghan McCain Is Completely Reasonable (Countdown to her being kicked out of GOP begins NOW!)

Meghan McCain's Advice to the GOP Hopefuls

Two of the things that I've always told myself if I ever started a political blog would be first, that my arguments would be weak and in an echo chamber AND, most importantly, about once a week I would talk about how I have a crush on Meghan McCain.

But whats secretly most appealing about her is that she's someone who is not just extremely beautiful but also very reasonable.  She's like the version of her father that got me interested in politics (a lifetime ago in 2000).  She's like a date-able, blonde George Will.  Don't get me wrong, George Will seems like a nice kind of guy, the kind that would insist on paying the bill and would end the first date with a hug after holding your hand on the walk.  He's classy, in a Gilded-Age "You're not a flapper are you" kind of way.

What was I talking about?  Oh, yeah, Meghan McCain.

I've already included the link where McCain the Younger lists the different things that the GOP Hopefuls will have to do in order to get the nomination.  I don't disagree with her by and large.  There are a couple of little things though:


"What the Republican Party needs is a candidate unafraid to put the president up against the wall and call him out on all the damage his administration has done, especially to the economy, in the last three years. "


And all that damage would include what?  De-regulation of banks?  Turning a blind eye and encouraging the regulators to turn the other way or even get in bed with the people who brought us into the financial mess in the first place?  It's phrasing like this that makes one think that the federal government is the reason why we're in the economic straits that we're in, when we all know that this is not the case.  Would Ms. McCain also be willing to blame the previous president for signing the $700 billion bailout or continue to ignore it and pretend that there was just $787 billion bailout by the current president?

However, McCain makes an open acknowledgement that not many in the GOP are willing to make right now.    The fact of the matter is that Obama is going to be extremely difficult to hit and bring down in 2012.  The sooner that R's begin to admit that, the closer to winning they'll get.

The best bit of advice was to "outlast Palin fever".  McCain manages to be diplomatic about Palin, but also, in a sense, derides the actual tenacity of the campaign.  The one comment of "... at some point she is going to have to do something other than come up with clever soundbites." seems to be a little off.  I remember that was a major critique of Clinton was all he came up with were soundbites and you know what that got him?  Two terms.

One last bit:  the "forget about Iowa" part.  In the section, she talks about how its less important than people might portray it to be and that the real gamble and the real stakes are established in New Hampshire.  She's not entirely correct.  Obama made his first strong showing in Iowa back in 2008, to the surprise (even shock) to many.  Granted, Hilary Clinton came back in the NH primary, but Iowa was supposed to be a cake walk for her and, instead, it marked the beginning of the end (or the seemingly endless Bataan death march to the Democratic nomination.)

Also would be fair to point out that in 2000, John McCain didn't get the nod in IA, he got it in NH and then proceeded to get the shit beat out of him by Bush II all over the rest of the USA.  I say this not with malice towards John McCain; after all, I was supporting him and wishing that the rest of the country would see reason and vote McCain in 2000.  But Iowa did figure into the overall political strategy and, the candidates can't completely ignore IA.  Why?

Well, assume that a plausible candidate like Romney, Johnson or Huntsman pull out of IA and then put everything down in NH?  Now imagine if Herman Cain or (worse?) Michelle Bachmann getting the nod in IA.  They went from being ridiculous and inane to being "legitimate" and "plausible".

I mean, generally speaking, the entire primary/caucus/nomination process (on both sides, but especially the GOP) has to be reformed.  The arbitrariness of random states holding a good deal of political sway in the process isn't good politics and it's detrimental to the entirety of the campaign.  I can go on and on about it (and probably will in a later post).  But, the way that everything is set up currently, the road has to go through IA.  A long, desolate, pointless road, but a road nonetheless.