The Nevada wild card primary

As I read the latest political buzz each day from a wide variety of sources, I don't think anyone has touched on how unprecedentedly unique the Nevada primary is shaping out to be.  The Nevada contest, at least so it seems, will take place after Iowa and before New Hampshire.  Last week, the Edwards Campaign cut staffers in that state, opening the door for second-tier candidates like Bill Richardson and Joe Biden to suck up the support of potential Edwards backers.

Richardson and Biden are pouring resources into Nevada, meaning it will probably be their best and only opportunity to make their move.  Anything lower than a second place finish would spell doom for their campaigns, since neither of them would have the financial resources to compete in the February 5th primaries without a positive media bounce beforehand.  But if Richardson or Biden do finish second, heading into New Hampshire they would establish themselves as the number one alternative to the front-runner.  Then it's a whole new ballgame!

Comments

[granny]

When I read this article, I am deeply struck, almost with a sense of disbelief, at this astonishing process we have taken unto ourselves; become “owners” of, as if there were some real merit to it: This candidates game. The game of primaries.

We tout it, and revel in its illusions and intricacies, as if it bore authenticity, as if there were realness to the process whereby we end up with some genuine choice of the electorate. This idiotic “chess game” of positioning: withdrawing troops, bringing in troops, filling the coffers, emptying the coffers; legitimizing the income and outgo of money based on the successes of salesmanship in some geographic portion of the country.

We are awash in the details, as if there were to be an outcome of our choosing; an outcome that actually selects “the best man”. And yet we know it, we describe it,even, as just a game.

A money game. A timing game. A jockeying for position game. It’s not that there aren’t worthy candidates. It’s not that there are not people who will vote their conscience. But when all is said and done, the outcome will be the consequence of “gaming”: the money, the press play, the cleverness of competing tacticians.

What could be reasonable about a process of finding a truly capable presidential candidate of which it can already be said, more than a year in advance of an “election” that: “Richardson and Biden are pouring resources into Nevada, meaning it will probably be their best and only opportunity to make their move. Anything lower than a second place finish would spell doom for their campaigns, since neither of them would have the financial resources to compete in the February 5th primaries without a positive media bounce beforehand”

That’s not about qualifications. That’s about money. Nothing more.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Granny, I understand your distaste with the publicity show, otherwise known as the 2008 campaign. But political positioning, like it or not, is a reality in every democracy. Maybe it is just me, but I find political strategy fascinating. That's what I am going to study when I get my Masters Degree.

We might not like the game that is being played. But in order to change the game, you have to get certain people into office capable of bringing about that change. And it's not going to happen without being pragmatic about strategy.

But I do completely see your point.

[granny]

Todd, I love your answer. Thank you. And I'm delighted you are interested enough to be actively engaged (to even be willing to get engaged)in the process.

An interesting piece (I rather think on Huffington Post) a few days ago talked about Karl Rove's activities as a young Republican activist. Precisely as you describe it, he studied what makes things work and set about applying it.

It's the deathly hush that I get worked up about. Nobody saying anything ... It makes me nuts to think everyone's just going along with the "slogans" and buzz words - oblivious of what's actually running the system.

I do wish we were talking more about these realities.

My anxt was certainly not relieved by the piece on the reading skills of the country.

And the piece today, about "Washington insiders" resisting Obama is chilling. Adds to the pot of finagling and clarifies the reality that what is perceived as being "best for the country" is a very subjective (and largely narrow) view.

I applaud your energy and enthusiasm, and have high aspiratins for your continued integrity in a pretty nasty business. You go, pal!