The dangers of the megaprimary

[whometense]

Scot Lehigh: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/20/the_dangers_of_the_megaprimary/

A GOLD RUSH for relevance threatens to ruin the presidential primary system as we know it.

The question: Can democracy-enhancing order be reclaimed out of the impending chaos?...

...But we know what (already diminished) opportunity will be lost: A chance for voters to see candidates tested over a longer period, in different states and circumstances, and under the increased scrutiny that comes as the field is pared down.

Instead, the frantic front-loading can't help but put an emphasis on superficial macro messages, quick-hit media-market hopscotch, and 30-second television ads.

"I think it separates the voters from the candidates and puts more power in the hands of money and media," says John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee.

This latest collapsing of the primary season is the unfortunate culmination of a long trend...

[beachmom]

1. Yep, I agree with Kerry. Some may argue, however, that since

the General Election will be similar, this will give us the candidate most adept at this type of campaign. I just hope there is a big primary voter turnout with people not associated with someone's political machine. Otherwise, we're doomed.

[emulatorloo]

3. The problem with it is that you have to have BIG MONEY to even compete.

Whereas what we have now -- you can break out in Iowa or New Hampshire w/o millions and millions.

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. I agree

100%. One on one with the voters is SO important. At this time in the primary season last time I enjoyed the townhall, house, firehouses, etc. It gave you a chance to really know the candidate. That is not happening now, you know it is really making me jittery, wondering how this will all turn out.

[MBS]

4. ditto ditto ditto n/t

[Inuca]

5. IMHO

if the candidates with less money are smart they should focus (smartly, aggresively & innovatively) on the internets. And I do not mean just the political blogs. Look at the 1984 clip. I am not commenting in its appropriateness, etc., but I think that it will have more of an impact that TV ads worth millions. What kind of an impact... that's a different question.

[Firespirit]

6. What's the population of California?

30 million, give or take? I don't know if it's actually there yet, but it has to be close.

A presidential candidate just cannot meet everyone who wants to meet him/her in a state of that size. In Iowa and New Hampshire, if you wanted to meet a candidate, you were generally able to do so. They wanted to hear from you. In states like that, every voice counted.

Not so much in California.

It's very depressing. What I'm seeing is that, with the exception of the Obama and Edwards supporters, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are all that excited about this primary. They're not pleased with who's out there and they're not pleased with their voices being muffled from the media noise.

We're in the midst of a long war between Big Media and the voice of the people. The explosion of blogs was a powerful move by the people, and while the Uber-Primary may not be connected to the blog movement, I still cannot help think of it as the counter-move by the forces of Big Media and party establishment.

[whometense]

7. I had been thining that this was just the fruit of

a madly selfish scramble on the part of the states to assert their "Me First" rights. I guess a more intelligent question would be, who does this benefit? In the war between Big Media and the voice of the people, this sure as hell doesn't benefit the people.

On the other hand, doesn't it benefit Big Media to extend the Primary Coverage War as long as is humanly possible?

[Firespirit]

8. It is all about money and power with them

The big media types are fundamentally insecure people. They want to fancy themselves kingmakers on every point of public opinion: They want to choose our candidates. They want to dictate cultural trends. They want to determine which movies do well. They want to influence the economy by talking it up despite that it is built on sand. As the disgusting coverage of Bush's shit fit shows, they even want to turn around a matter of public opinion that will not be turned around. All of this is about power. They don't just want in your wallet; they want to influence what you think about things, and the contempt of some "reporters" toward blogs and other privately created content proves that they deeply resent it when their attempts fail.

High drama in a drawn-out primary would definitely sell. But at the same time, early coverage of the general election would also sell -- and, honestly, I suspect that the winner of the nomination would effectively be decided by the early four states even if we didn't have an Uber-Primary, like it happened in 2004. The influence of the Internet and big media would create inevitability. The difference is that those smaller states, honestly, seem to have more common sense than the big ones. Can you see Iowa electing a Schwarzenegger as its Governor? :P

[rox63]

9. Just an OT observation

Is CA electing Schwarzenegger as Governor any stranger than MN electing a pro wrestler (Jesse Ventura) as their Governor? People will vote for (or against) someone for the oddest reasons, often things that have nothing to do with how they would govern.

[ProSense]

10. Saw this coming.

It's a complete reversal to the 50-state strategy. This campaign is an afront to the grassroots in favor of big money and media-hyped personalities.