And Then There Were Two

Despite all of the complaints, some from myself, about the presidential primary process, it appears that the system has worked admirably this year. Spring training, e.g. the Iowa and New Hampshire preliminaries, washed out a slew of early candidates. The regular season consisting of South Carolina, Michigan, Florida and Nevada, eliminated other second-rate contenders, and now we are down to the league championship on Super I Can Hardly Believe Its Finally Happening Tuesday, February 5.

Not counting the improbable Mike Huckabee, there are the two finalists in each party, the ideal result from the process: Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton and John McCain vs. Mitt Romney. This system may be irrational, bizarre and the political version of a Rube Goldberg invention, but it works just fine.

This will likely remove any imperative for radical change in the presidential primary process for the 2012 presidential election. Minor tinkering with problems caused by rogue primaries in Michigan and Florida do need to be addressed, but we have four years for that to consume political trivia buffs.

Aside: Rudy Giuliani performed a tremendous favor for future presidential hopefuls. For the next generation no one will ever again pursue a big state strategy by ignoring the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Giuliani dropped off the political radar when he and his brilliant New York-based staff decided to skip the early primaries and caucuses and concentrate on Florida and the big states (meaning New York, New Jersey & California) on Super Tuesday. The strategy was a dismal failure that will now be lodged in the American political hall of shame. The New Yorkers failure means that next time Iowa and New Hampshire will be more important than ever.

Aside: I recently wrote that California has 52 congressional districts. Wrong! It still (not for long) has 53.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to And Then There Were Two

  1. Bob Richard says:


    Why is this “ideal”? Why aren’t more choices better than fewer? How does the absence of Kucinich and Edwards not disenfranchise much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party?

    Huckabee and Paul are both still nominally in the race. If they get some delegates they can play a role at the convention. But, unlike the Democratic Party rules that award delegates somewhat proportionally to caucus and primary support, the Republican rules are mostly winner-take-all, so they will have fewer delegates than they deserve. How does that benefit the Christian conservatives (Huckabee) and libertarian-leaning Republicans (Paul) they represent?

    Both major parties require a majority of delegates for nomination. What’s wrong with multiple rounds at the convention to put together that majority? Or, better still, instant runoff voting for the nomination?

  2. You’re right about Giuliani performing a service for future candidates. It seems every four years, people complain that Iowa and New Hampshire have too much sway in the nominating process. Even though their number of delegates may be small, it makes great sense that these smaller states start off the nominating process and Giuliani shows why. The candidates can cover much of the state and many voters can meet them in person. As a result, those of us in larger states who don’t get to meet the candidates one-on-one benefit from seeing how the candidates did in the early states. Giuliani’s choice to skip the early states meant no one got to know him and scrutinize him in the way that the electorate demands. Not a very smart choice.

  3. Hutch Turner says:

    Stepping back from the political trenches the evolvement of the primary system to it’s present day form is an affrimation of the inherent strength of today’s voter empowered by multiple sources of information and speed of communication. The two national parties’ delegate selection process i.e. the Democrats with their delegate identity politics quota system and the Republicans with their inherent suspicion of quick change is insignificant. The real story is primary politics are far more representative of the country as a whole. It’s a much healthier and balanced political process. Despite the best efforts of the national polical parties Michigan and Florida demanded they be heard early in the primary process and they were.The real loser was the national Democratic party in denying an opportunity for Florida Democrats to be heard. How stupid!

    The middle of the road voter, independent or party member, at last through more open and varied primary party voter eligibility intrepretaions is a major consideration. The losers in this change are the national parties, who recently have allowed themselves to be disproportionatly influenced by the hardworking, vocal disciples of the fringes of the political spectrum. Increasingly because of new media options empowering the single voter to be heard in the nominating process the national parties’ power as “gatekeepers” of national political office is diminishing.

    It has already neutered CBS, NBC, ABC and the “non-profit” public broadcasting networks who are now reduced to talking heads blathering on about politics in much the same way and with the same significance as ESPN’s Sports Center. Technology has changed the political paradigm. Intriguingly, the denizens of the print media may have an opportunity to turnaround their continuing descent into irrelevance and unprofitability. If the print media can cleanse itself of its biased perspectives and provide a balanced and reflective view of the days affairs, the middle of the road readers will possibly return having been turned off by a perceived print media journalistic activism. Dan Rather’s behavior at CBS is a notable example of the problem.

    In the past the truism “never argue with those who buy ink by the barrel” described the overwhelming power of print media and its ability to influence daily affairs in a determinate way. The new truism is “if you want their attention, listen – to all of them”. In this primary season the middle of the road is partially being allowed to speak and its influence is being felt. The middle of the road is much wider than most politicians care to admit.

  4. Dennis McQuaid says:

    As Dick Morris has noted, if there was a legal cause of action for political consulting malpractice, Giuliani would have one.

Leave a Reply