2008 Dem Primary Mess

It sounds like things are going to get a little bit messy as states fight for priority within the Democratic Primary system. Anyone with even rudimentary civics knowledge knows that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are the first two "official" events of the presidential election year. Now, it sounds as if that is likely to change.

The Democrats want to insert a southwestern state (rumored to be Arizona or Nevada, but possibly Colorado) into the process between Iowa and New Hampshire, and follow those shortly thereafter with a stand-alone southern state (either South Carolina or Alabama) before opening the process up to other states. New Hampshire politicos are in a fit contesting the changes, South Carolina is upset that it may be losing its importance, and southwestern states are fighting over who gets the coveted post-Iowa spot. In other words, it's a mess.

I have a couple of thoughts regarding this. First, it really is bizarre that Iowa and New Hampshire kick of this process at all, isn't it? Can you get two states less representative of the nation as a whole? I understand the "retail-politics" argument to taking two small-ish states, but it still seems bizarre. Injecting the southwest into the process makes sense, because it is a rapidly growing area. But, honestly, isn't that just adding in more controversy? Where is California in this process? New York? Florida? Generally speaking, by the time the states with the bulk of the population weigh in, an aura of inevitability has set in. Survive Iowa, win in New Hampshire, rack up a couple of victories in the first-round, and it's over. Why not start off with a bang in California?

Second, is it time to consider a national primary day? I'm not sure I favor this idea, but I thought I'd throw it out there. We have one day to decide who the President is, so why not one day, nationally, to decide who the nominee is? There are multiple arguments against this, including the idea that weeks of primary campaigning serve as the kick-start process to the national Presidential campaign. However, if the national primary were held in May, the candidates would have plenty of time to run a national primary campaign and get themselves known. It would require different tactics, but it would be manageable. Of course, it would also mean that they would probably set up shop in California and New York, letting states such as New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina rot...

I don't have a solution, and I don't even necessarily think the process is completely broken now. I believe it starts too early, but that's a minor quibble; better it start early, allowing time for people to familiarize themselves with the candidates, than not start until quite late, allowing for unwelcome surprises. There's no question that it will interesting to see what both parties do in the maneuvering that will take place up to the start of the primaries in (yipes!) only 18 months.