Sunday, December 6, 2009

Fondling the Presidential Primaries

I'm not one that has had much of a focus on trying to understand the issues, trials and tribulations of politics. There is a lot of terminology that I just am not certain of, and I'm sure there's a lot more that I don't understand. Despite these facts, I would like to try my hand it. Feel free to point out my flaws.

The most intriguing issue that caught my eye on the HuffPost today was on Democrats possibly revising the rules of Presidential Primaries.

This past election was the first one that I wanted to really get involved in. I didn't try to be an 'Obama Mama' or anything, but I went out and voted and put my two cents in when people were complaining about Obama's promises and plans. Even though he's not doing as well as we thought he would do, he is still better than Bush. And even though the Democrats are happy with their Obama victory, they still make the point that the primary rules need some altering.

According to the HuffPost article, the 2008 Iowa caucuses took place a couple weeks earlier than it did in 2004. Also, Michigan and Florida were two states that decided to move the date for their 2008 primaries. Even though this didn't really do any particular 'harm', it still made the Democrats a little uneasy because of the possible consequences.These situations caused a bit of party frustration, saying that this would give the Democrats an extra power boost for their candidate.

Now I'm not entirely sure how big of an issue this really is because I haven't done a ton of research, but I remember when Bush was going for one of his terms and Kerry had been pronounced the winner. All of a sudden, Bush's brother, the then governor of Florida, stepped in and then Bush was pronounced the President of the United States. I know respective Democrats had to be angry over that. Since that was multiple years ago I can't remember if it that situation blew up as much as this current situation...or should I say speculation?

So a few states got to go first. A few states got to decide who they were going to support first. Is that nearly as bad as someone's victory being stripped from them moments after they were declared a winner? And unjustly for that matter! I really don't think enough was done to right that wrong...obviously not because we had to deal with Bush for eight years. The Republicans obviously had a few more tricks up their sleeves than the Democrats then. This situation that they are covering now may have been planned, but I'm pretty sure Obama had enough support anyway to get him a victory. Bush knew he wasn't going to win without a back up plan.

My point is that fuss after fuss can be made, but at least Obama won without having to call in some favors. Go ahead and make your changes so that people won't think you've corrupted anything; that's fine. We all know it was a fair fight. Or at least most of us have come to terms with the fact it was a fair fight. Some others may have not come to those same terms. At least he didn't have to ask Michele to vote a few more times...

Chris Good wrote a story for The Atlantic this morning, stating what some of the suggestions were for amending these primary issues:
  • Grouping states in "regions" instead of "sub-regions"
  • Perks given to states that abide by the national schedule
  • Reduce the number of superdelegates
Well, that's all fine. Fix issues that could or could not be fixed. To me, it seems like that are making something that is already simple and in place somehwat conveluted. As long as who ever wins is fair and just about their victory, that would probably be fine with America.

The story also states that since Obama has stated that he will be running for a second term in 2012, these changes wouldn't take place until 2016.

Well, that may set off another round of stories.

No comments:

Post a Comment