Tuesday, January 29, 2008

It's Judgement Day For Rudy's Strategy

Polls have opened in the Sunshine State and the fate of the Candidacy of Rudy Giuliani may hang on the outcome (Florida and hang mentioned in the same sentence ... where is the word chad?).

Rudy attempted a new strategy in this election cycle ... one never tried before ... and one probably never to be tried again. He started as the front-runner, and then didn't start running till the Florida primary. He lost all the momentum he had prior to the election season, but hoped that he could win all the "Big States" and therefore the nomination. What ended up happening was he was left out of all the election excitement and all of his supporters started checking out other candidates.

Now why would the initial "front-runner" choose an unproven strategy? I believe there are several reasons:

  1. He felt he did not have enough money to run a National campaign and thought to put the money where he would get the most bang for his buck.
  2. He knew that Mitt Romney had unlimited personal finances and hoped that other candidates could stop him in the early contests (or at least slow him down ... and that has played out for the most part)
  3. Like most people from large states (myself included), he felt that too much power was placed in Iowa, New Hampshire and the rest of the "early voting States" and wanted to reduce the power of those States.

Yes folks, I believe it is unfair that a minority of voters in these little States set the agenda for the rest of the country. By the time I get to vote in March, the field has been dramatically cut, and I don't get to vote for my first choice ... yes, I actually resent that the Religious Right in Iowa and the liberals in New Hampshire get to winnow down the field before I get a chance to vote. Maybe I have just been sucking on sour grapes for too long, but we had 9 candidates when this race started and by the time March rolls along and I get to vote, I might have to choose between just two.

The primary system goes back to the same time as the electoral college and needs to be changed. We need a national primary day where everyone's voice can be heard. And the best part of having it all done on one day ... it will be cheaper for the candidates that won't have to sell their souls for votes in the early States. If Romney spent $20,000,000.00 in Iowa and received 29,949 votes, that means that each vote cost him about $667.80. Quarter 4 finance reports are not in yet, but I think the $20 million is probably a conservative estimate. We have over 100 million people of voting age in the US. That kind of spending extrapolates out into billions of dollars. How can we have an election free of the influence of special interests when so much money is needed to run under the current system. The people who set up the current system could not have foreseen such excesses in spending. When the primary system was set up, It was assumed that the time between primaries was needed in order to allow the candidates to travel by horse drawn carriage and meet with the voters in the various town halls. I say we get out of the 19th century and into the 21st and revamp the primary system.

So Rudy, though your strategy may have been flawed ... I understand where you are coming from.

Sphere: Related Content


Terry said...

Agreed. I think we should have ONE national election day. It would simply the process and give every vote equal weight.

lime said...

try living in PA where we don't even have our primary until april 22. it's pointless, the candidates are decided by then. it's utterly meaningless. i've said the same as terry for years. let all the primaries and caucuses happen on one day and let there be NO media coverage until every poll is closed.

A Little Revolution said...

Unfortunately the special interest groups and the early states hold the money and influence. Just look how the states who moved up their primaries where punished by both parties and everyone just accepts it. Until Hillary started scrambling for delegates everyone was cool with it. They seriously had people I talked to at my University convinced that it was fair to not count the votes of people.

Anonymous said...


Welcome to the club, in California we used to go to the primaries in MAY or JUNE and by then the primaries were OVER. What we need is a NATIONAL PRIMARY, everyone get to vote on the same day with the winners moving on to their conventions. As far as the current candidates, I can not and will NOT support John S McCain or THE CLINTONS, they are part of the past, they are part of FAILED administrations, they are part of what is wrong with Washington. I want to see some CHANGE and those mentioned above are no agents of change, they will give us THE SAME and I and sick and tired of dealing with THE SAME. And oh by the way, did I tell you that I am sick and tired of having a BUSH or a CLINTON in the White House? Twenty Eight consecutive years of a BUSH or a CLINTON in the White House are enuff.

Have a fine TEXAS evening.

I voted - have you?

Tapline said...

My states primary is tomorrow, I think, I haven't heard that much about it. I did take a poll question and it had hill ahead....not my choice however.....stay well.....

In_spired said...

Every time I've felt a 'leaning' toward one of the candidates, they've then made some assinine comment that leaves me in a state of unbelief. If I vote, I see no other way than to do a write-in; and I see no value in this...just to say that I voted. I need an epiphany!!!