Mad Voter: Parties need a new nominating process

Hillary Clinton was visibly exhausted when she arrived on stage at Highland High School in Albuquerque on Saturday. She paused to cough a few times during her 30-minute speech. Her voice was slightly raspy. After she left the Duke City, the cold got worse. She lost her voice during an appearance in Connecticut on Monday, MSNBC reported.

Barack Obama’s voice was also slightly hoarse when he visited Santa Fe on Friday.

Despite their exhaustion, both candidates managed to give rousing speeches and motivate their supporters to make one last push to get out the vote on Tuesday. The campaigns – Democratic and Republican – made a valiant effort to compete in more than 20 states on the same day.

After attending the Clinton and Obama events, it was apparent that the campaign workers are as exhausted as the candidates. Having Democrats and Republicans go to the polls in so many states on one day forces the candidates to race across the nation at a frantic pace that isn’t good for them, their campaign workers or the Americans they’re seeking to represent as president.

The campaigns had trouble coordinating Tuesday’s coast-to-coast get-out-the-vote effort. For example, the Clinton campaign erroneously announced last week that the senator would be in Las Cruces over the weekend, then sent out a revised news release an hour later stating that she would be in Albuquerque, not Las Cruces. Times for other New Mexico events changed frequently.

The states that moved up their primaries and caucuses to Feb. 5 intended to have a greater say in the process. Many are getting more visits from the presidential candidates, but they’re quick, sometimes superficial trips by exhausted candidates who aren’t at their best.

My biggest concern, however, is not that the pace physically wears on the candidates. I wonder what it does to their resolve. These candidates are fighting not only against each other, but also to retain their integrity in a system driven by corporate money. They’re under constant pressure to sell out, to compromise their morals, because they need money to compete.

The chaotic, new primary calendar has caused the process to start earlier and drag on for too long, which only drives up the amount of money it takes to be successful.
Heath Haussamen is an independent, online political journalist based in Las Cruces, N.M.Heath Haussamen is an independent, online political journalist based in Las Cruces, N.M.
The process must wear on the candidates’ ability to hold true to their beliefs and act maturely. Perhaps that’s why the contest between Clinton and Obama degraded into a childish exchange of half-truths and cheap shots that set off racial tensions. It’s more difficult to act with integrity when you’re exhausted.

New Mexico was one of a handful of states that moved up its caucus date to early February in 2004. As a result, the state had multiple visits from candidates and other national attention that year.

Other states copied the idea this year, and New Mexico didn’t get the same level of attention. In fact, national polling companies didn’t do a single survey of New Mexico voters before Tuesday, as the state’s caucus was lost in the shuffle.

After November, Democrats and Republicans must turn their attention to devising a new primary system that puts an end to the chaos. The candidates, and the people they seek to represent, deserve better.

Editor’s note: Heath Haussamen's weekly blogs are part of a feature on PoliticsWest called "Diary of a Mad Voter." The group blog, published in partnership with NewWest.Net/Politics, is intended to give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the 2008 election year.




I agree, but for different reasons

Heath,

I agree with the notion that we need a new and better process for nominating our respective nominees. The reason that I'd like to see the process change is to produce better nominees on both sides.

This year the Democrats have produced Obama as a possible nominee which is pretty exciting, but he hasn't won yet and historically the Democrats have produced some pretty subpar choices: Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry to name a few. The Republicans are in the middle of producing a nominee that is unacceptable to many in that party this year, and have produced W, HW and Bob Dole in recent history. Not an inspiring set of nominees on either side.

We get the occasional John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, but it is for too seldom that we get such an outcome. Ultimately, we need a President that makes the majority of Americans feel inspired about being Americans and ready to put the country first and partisan bickering aside. Don't get me wrong, it is important to have vigorous debate about our principles and priorities as a nation. But, at some point, the Red or Blue jerseys should come off for a while and we should all put on our red, white and blue jerseys and work as a team.

So, what is the remedy? I don't pretend that I have the perfect solution but would like to begin the conversation. I submit a series of 5, 10-state primaries, closed to registered Republicans or Democrats only. For example, beginning in January and continuing through May, once per month a block of 10 states that represent the national parties (to the degree possible) will vote in primaries. Then each voting cycle the order will rotate so that each block has a turn in the early voting that inexplicably has been reserved for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in perpetuity.

With each round representing the national Republican or Democratic party to the degree possible, we will be more likely to produce a nominee that each party can rally around and a clear but inspiring choice to Independents. Additionally, with a month in between, candidates like Clinton, McCain and Obama could pretend that actually have a day job and show up at the Senate once in a while. (Since we're paying them $160K per year; or they could forego their salary which I'd prefer) Hopefully, this is a reasonable compromise to Federalism and the principle of protecting the smaller states without giving a state like New Hampshire or Iowa influence wholly out of proportion with their role in the party and the country.

Thoughts?