I fully admit that I would not be writing this blog if I was not satisfied results of last night's caucus. However, I was pleased with the results (mainly Romney and Edwards not winning), and after watching coverage all night, I even found a little more appreciation for the process. Here are some reasons why I am ok with not having a national primary:
1. Money cannot fully buy the nomination, just ask Mitt Romney. Romney spent $7 million, much of it from his own pocket. Yet Huckabee, who spent a quarter as much, prevailed. Having been a political fundraiser back in the day, I of course know that money matters. But it matters much more on a national scale where all you can do is buy ads. Which brings me to...
2. Townhalls and Tough Questions. At least when candidates are focusing on smaller constituencies, they actually have to address the people directly. Last night the pundits noted how impressed they were with the sophisticated questions thrown at candidates on the trail by Iowans and how they pressed the candidates to explain their answers. I like the concept of a dialog, which is often lacking in news coverage, debates, and one-way advertisements.
3. Not everyone has to be subjected to horrible tv ads. This is a little selfish, but I am glad that I am not the one who is bombarded by campaign mailers and ads like this:
Although my appreciation for a more direct democracy does not lead me to support a national primary, I think a good compromise would be to have a rotating primary, where different states would be first each cycle. This would certainly not jive well with Iowa and New Hampshire, but I think it is silly that they always get to be first because they (and their constitution) say so.
No comments:
Post a Comment