|
Its tough being a voter here in West Virginia during the Presidential primaries particularly if you listen to the media which is trying desperately to crown a winner early in the season based on results in what I believe should be the absolutely meaningless Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary. The New York Times is already speculating about what will happen to Hillary if she finishes third in Iowa. In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed — can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? — aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier.
I'm sorry, but how in the world does an undemocratic event like a "caucus" that involves a small percentage of Iowa Democratic voters in the process mean a bloody thing in the long haul? I guess if you are the New York Times, CNN, or some kind of self appointed network pundit you are longing for a result in the flatlands of the mid-west that will decide who the Democrats will choose to face off against the Republican candidate. I can't imagine how anyone can equate a "caucus" to a real vote by registered voters who actually go to the polls and like vote. The cable news media should take the time to adequately explain to the rest of the country how the process works in Iowa. DesMoinesDem did a great job of explaining the weird world of the Iowa system on MyDD... you can read the explanation here. If after reading that excellent post you are still confused then join the crowd. A bit more can be learned by reading an article by Dan Balz of the Washington Post that still left me confused particularly when he makes statements like this... What's good about the caucus process is that it is very personal. Candidates talk directly to the voters, often more than once, as they campaign in the state. Campaign workers contact voters constantly with phone calls, direct mail, even personal visits from young and eager field organizers.
Isn't that part of the process in any primary campaign? I'm really frustrated by the changing polls and the significantly different polls originating on Blogs and in the media regarding Iowa. The thing that sums up Iowa for me is that in 2004 only 125,000 Democratic Party participants (I can't use the word voters) actually made Kerry a front runner. I'll bet we have a better turnout here in West Virginia in our Primary on May 13th than the participants we will see in Iowa on January 3rd. Our votes for a party Presidential candidate will only mean something if more than one candidate is left running. The New York Times has a great run down on the key dates involved in the Primary process that can be analyzed here. It would be wonderful if more than three candidates are still viable by the time we vote, but the chances of that happening are slim and next to none. Its my guess the West Virginia Primary will be all about our statewide and local candidates, and that our votes for a Presidential nominee will be basically meaningless. We can talk all we want about how we feel about Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich or Gravel and it will mean absolutely nothing in the final tally because we are so late in the process. Maybe the state can do something about at least moving us up to the the Super Tuesday group maybe then our votes may mean something in 2012. In my opinion the whole process stinks in a modern Democracy like ours. There has got to be a better way that allows for more folks like us in West Virginia to have a say in who our candidate will be than what we have now. There is a poll on the flip.
|
