by Rick Pearson
DES MOINES — Don Fowler says he can picture the reception that the next Democratic presidential nominee will get in Michigan and Florida next fall if those states' delegates aren't given a seat at the party's nominating convention.
"We'll just irritate the voters in Michigan and Florida through this process and I can just see it when our candidate goes back there in the fall and their voters say, 'Get lost,'" said Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
This process, as Fowler calls it, is the nation's unsettled presidential nominating calendar, the result of states rushing earlier and earlier — even under threat of losing their convention delegates -- to assert their influence in who should run for the White House.
As it stands now, none of the contenders, or the voters — Republicans as well as Democrats -- know when the formal 2008 nominating process will actually begin, or even what year it will occur.
As New Hampshire ponders whether to take the unprecedented step of moving the 2008 elections into December of 2007, Iowa's Republican Party has scheduled its traditional leadoff caucuses for Jan. 3, the earliest date ever. Iowa's Democrats haven't made a decision on whether to hold their caucuses the same day, a few days later on Jan. 5, or stick to the original Iowa caucus date of Jan. 14.
Moreover, the transformation of the ever-shifting political calendar finds Republican candidates facing perhaps a vastly different schedule of election dates and states than Democrats, further sowing confusion among the public about whether their votes will have any practical effect in picking a nominee.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Obvious solution: National Primary Day. Staggered primaries only reduce voter choice! After each primary, more people abandon non-leading candidates they like, fearing to "waste their vote".
Primaries should all run at once, with no poll stats broadcast until the polls close. Imagine if the election was staggered like this! Bogus!
Posted by: TikiMon | October 17, 2007 4:55 PM
Tiki,
I agree. It's not a perfect solution, and there may be drawbacks, but it's far and away better than what we have now.
Trouble is, just as with the EC, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to fix this cock-up.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 5:03 PM
And why should not individual 'states' hold their own nominating primaries/caucuses/straw polls when they choose??? OR SHOULD WE GO BACK TO 'SMOKE-FILLED' ROOMS OF POWER WHO SELECT THE CANDIDATES??? Let's make them all on APRIL FOOLS DAY - cuz that is what the majority of them are 'FOOLS'!!!
Posted by: Zyskandar A Jaimot | October 17, 2007 5:59 PM
The 'leaders' worry?
The leaders caused the whole screw-up.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 6:55 PM
Let's bring the primary process down to four weeks. Separate the country into four geographic areas. One week, one area holds the primary, two weeks later another area, etc. Every four years the geographic areas rotate, so the same area doesn't lead every four years. It may not be perfect, but the present system has become a joke.
Posted by: John D | October 17, 2007 10:41 PM
Not So Crazy John D, (in this case)
Your plan is certainly an improvement over what we have now.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 18, 2007 11:47 AM
Let us do what we can to reduce the influence of the Iowa primary. Polititians must pander to the farm lobby and corn growers, leaving us with a terrible farm subsidy program and the poor choice of corn ethanol. If politicos did not have to pander to this early primary, the country would benefit.
Posted by: c. perry | October 18, 2007 3:23 PM