This could get me into some trouble...  

Posted by Jessica in , ,

I haven't written about all of the drama related to Florida and Michigan trying to move up their primaries, but I have been thinking about it a lot. Before I came to New Hampshire I was in Nevada, which will hold the second caucus, which is something new for Nevada. Now I am in New Hampshire which holds the nation's first primary and this is something that is not new. The people out here love that privilege and it certainly holds many benefits, such as seeing so much of the candidates. People in Nevada aren't quite used to it, which would explain why no Republican candidates had any presence in Nevada, and why Edwards could get away with pulling staff from Nevada...

You know you are spoiled when you pass on an Obama, Hillary, or Edwards event because you have heard their stump speech already, multiple times, and you just saw them a few weeks ago. So anyways, New Hampshire and Iowa play the most prominent roles with nominating a candidate and now other states want a piece of the pie and some of the attention that makes us so spoiled here in New Hampshire. Can you blame them? Seeing Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and others visiting your state so often is great for the party, and a great way to build the party.

But then I can blame them. The system isn't perfect, but we have to have some type of system, else a free for all would ensure that candidates spend all of their time in the most populated states, and states like Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada are then ignored. And this is creating all sorts of drama and an us vs. them mentality within the party. And not just within the party either.

So I feel really torn. In a way I can see why having some states always goes first makes sense (what about rotating schedule each presidential election year? hmmm....) but then it leaves a lot of states high and dry. And really, these early states are way too spoiled and couldn't we share the love, but in an organized fashion that doesn't completely leave out less funded candidates?

2 comments

saraeanderson   says October 24, 2007 at 10:29 PM

I'd be more understanding if the deciding primary states were a better reflection of the different demographic factions in this country. Are people of color really getting much representation? First-generation immigrants? The below-middle-working class?

PS - Sorry I've been so ...absent lately. I've had lots of thoughts, but not complete enough ones to write down. Hopefully that will change and I'll actually start blogging again soon.

Jessica   says October 25, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Welcome back! Though we talk on facebook, it's still nice to see you back in the blog world.

The addition of Nevada and South Carolina were meant to include states with some diversity, but there is still some argument about how much diversity there is even with SC and NV.

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post