Politics gives new meaning to "commercial" success
Published: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 - 8:47pm
Hillary Clinton narrowly won the New Hampshire Democratic primary over the predicted winner, Barack Obama.
What a comeback after her surprising loss in Iowa! We won't mention that before the Iowa caucus, Clinton was ahead in the polls by a much larger margin than what she wound up winning by in New Hampshire.
The result of all of this flip-flopping in the polls: Everywhere on TV, presidential candidates are trying to defend their outcome in the latest primary by pointing out how a different candidate spent more money than they did, or more time campaigning, or ran more television ads.
“Big deal,” I thought. “Nobody actually changes their mind on what candidate they support based on telephone calls or commercials or one little speech they saw on TV.”
But maybe they do. I’m a Hillary Clinton fan. Well, kind of. By that I mean I have a T-shirt voicing my support for her that I have to turn inside-out for PE. However, there are other candidates whose positions I agree with more, such as Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich.
But I don’t support them, mainly because nobody else does. Or at least it looks that way, even though the majority of people I've heard talking about upcoming elections support "less popular" candidates.
Hearsay aside, electability seems to be a huge issue here. Many people I know who support big names like Obama, Clinton, or John Edwards claim to like other candidates better, but just feel that they would be "throwing their votes away." Even if I could actually vote it would probably be for Obama because I think he would be more likely to win against a Republican than Clinton.
In fact, I really only like Hillary Clinton for her ridiculous facial expressions and supercool hairdos. Maybe there’s a good reason why I can’t vote.
Nevertheless, after Obama won the Iowa caucus and all of the pundits were hailing him for hours on end as the new “frontrunner” for the Democrats, I found myself excited for him.
Perhaps it is true that the more you hear about a candidate the more appealing they become. I’m not sure what the solution to this is. Would everyone cutting down on TV time devoted to Clinton and Obama make Biden, Kucinich, or Mike Gravel win any upcoming primaries?
It's doubtful. But maybe the amount of money spent campaigning affects us more than we'd all like to believe. Personally I'll be taking out some 30-second spots to advertise "Give Laura Money for No Apparent Reason Day." My bank account can hardly wait.
Comments
Move all primaries to the same day!
I find it amazing how much of an impact Iowa and New Hampshire have on our presidential nominees, just because they happen to hold the first primaries. The people in those states do not even come close to representing a cross-section of our country. In an ideal world, people would make up their minds based on their own beliefs, and would not look to what others have done to choose a candidate. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.
For the record, I believe in always voting for the person you think is best, regardless of how "electable" he or she may be. If everyone did that we (and the politicians who are supposed to represent us) would have a much better idea of where the country really stands on a number of issues. It seems to me that one simple way to encourage people to do this would be for all states to hold their primaries on the same day. This would prevent people from voting based on what others have voted.
In fact, I would think that right now each state would want to be the first to hold their primary so that they could have the kind of impact that Iowa and New Hampshire do. Over time, this would naturally lead to earlier and earlier primaries, until a cap would have to be set and all states would hold their primaries on the same day. Why this has not happened yet is beyond me...
The problem for the candidates
The problem with a national primary is that it doesn't give the candidates enough time to develop their campaigns. If the candidates are trying to divide their time, money, and energy between 50 states, we get a lot less depth of the candidate and it turns into a game of who can pick the best locations at the right time. With a few "early" primaries and caucuses like in Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidates have a very small playing field where they can focus their efforts, refine their campaign, and be compared on a more level playing field.
I agree that Iowa and New Hampshire maybe have a little too much say in picking the presidential candidate as regional preferences and demographics of the early states can potentially dictate the nationwide scene. I'm in favor of having the bulk of the primaries and elections later, but I think the early primaries and caucuses need to be a little more fair to the states with later contests, somehow.
Candidates' positions shouldn't change based on the state
I definitely see your argument, but I still think a national primary would lead to a better situation than we have today. With a national primary, candidates would still be able to visit each state, they just wouldn't be spending months in each one, as they do now with Iowa. Plus, a candidate shouldn't have to visit a state to make his/her position known to its residents--the position shouldn't change based on the state. There are televised debates, interviews, and websites that all allow candidates to clearly state their positions on the major issues.
With the current system, it is just too easy for someone who knows nothing about the candidates to jump on the bandwagon and vote for the front-runner. I think a national primary would make it harder for people to substitute other's views for their own, and would force voters to become more informed.
Post new comment