Like it or not, modern presidential campaigns are all about raising money and using the media, and I suspect we’re better off setting up a system that’s most likely to choose a candidate who can win a modern election. That means someone who’s demonstrated the ability to win in a big, impersonal state like California, not someone who’s demonstrated the ability to hold the most coffee klatsches in a single day.
Indeed. The notion that someone demonstrates their qualifications for president by visiting diners and flipping pancakes has never been persuasive to me.
Others who have commented:
Ezra Klein is opposed to moving the CA primary (although he notes he doesn’t like the current system):
the one thing I do respect about the current set-up is its vulnerability to new voices, voices that would be easily drowned out by California’s cacophonous media sphere and culture.
It seems to me that Klein is buying into the notion that the up-close-and-personal politicking in NH and the like is somehow useful. I simply think that it is a myth that we often buy into without thinking about it. Further, modern campaigning is media campaigning and I think that media coverage likely influences NH and IA voters as much as the coffee shoppe circuit.
Matthew Shugart noted with approval the possible move of the CA primary a few days ago and noted, correctly:
The means by which the major state-sponsored parties pick their presidential nominees would be on the (very) short list of most absurd selection mechanisms in the world. This move, by placing the nation’s largest state in a more relevant position, would make the process somewhat less absurd.
Earlier in the week James Joyner mused about the possibility of a national primary.
Jan Cooper comments on the issue today as well.
My post from earlier this morning on this issue is here.
January 25th, 2024 at 1:49 pm
[...] Some discussion this week by James and Steven about primary elections, and the broken process currently employed in the USA for selecting the major parties’ presidential candidates. The discussion is prompted, in part, by the recent news that California may move its presidential primary up to February, a move that would not only make the largest (by far) state’s voters relevant for a change, but also thereby make the entire process somewhat more national and slightly less absurd than it is now. [...]