By Joseph Price • June 22, 2016
 |
| You could say the worst is over. |
Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard
General election season is upon us. Pretty soon, we’ll be bombarded by nonstop advertisements — not only from the Clinton and Trump campaigns, but also the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, state, county and municipal campaigns.
Sure, we’ll get a short break once the election is over with, but probably not for long. It seems that campaigns start earlier and earlier every cycle. This time around, we had candidates forming exploratory and political action committees as soon as November 2014 for this election.
The first official candidate for the 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz, declared his candidacy on March 23, 2015. That’s 596, or 1.6 years, before the election! That early start didn’t pay off for him as no one is bothering to talk about him since he ended his campaign in May.
Of the remaining major party candidates, Hillary Clinton has been at it the longest, declaring her candidacy for the Democratic nomination on April 12, 2015, or 436 days ago, and Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination June 16, 2015. I might as well mention Sanders because he’s not officially ended his campaign; he’s been in it since April 30, 2015.
Of the two larger, so-called minor parties, Gary Johnson declared his candidacy for the Libertarian Party on Jan. 6, 2016, and Jill Stein declared hers for the Green on June 22, 2015.
Before this action, if that’s what you want to call debates and speeches, kicked off, potential candidates were busy behind the scenes trying to round up donors and support. Our system of election still relies on money, like most other developed countries, so we’re not unique in that. What sets us apart is that we have a system that limits donation limits but not spending limits.
Of course, there are loopholes in regards to that spending, best known as Super PACS which raise and spend as much money as they want as long as they don’t give it directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate.
But that’s behind the scenes. The money exchanging and handshakes aren’t really that interesting to people, unless of course, somebody shines a light on some excess or finds contributors with some particularly interesting baggage.
I really lay a lot of blame on the broadcast media for making these election seasons feel so long. They’re holding the first of their numerous debates earlier and earlier every year. This year, Fox News kicked off the debate season on Aug. 6, 2015, with its Republican debate. There was so many candidates that they divided it into an opening act, featuring lower-polling candidates and a main event featuring the Top 10.
With 16 total candidates, it was the equivalent of a mosh pit where any new arrivals would find the circle too crowded to push their way to the spotlight, being shoved to the peripheral instead.
The Democrats were able to avoid much of this. They still had room on the stage when they held their first debate on Oct. 3, 2016, with just five candidates. Within just a couple of months, it was down to just two.
For me, the debates were one of the most excruciating parts of the process. Honestly, I’m hard-pressed to find one debate interesting enough to watch, let alone five or six. But, big media and political pundits love sound bytes and they got plenty of them by digging out a few minutes from each of these snoozers.
And finally, the big culprits are the primaries themselves. It seems that the states that are not Iowa, New Hampshire, Carolina and Nevada keep trying to one up each other for who can be earliest, though they can’t ever be scheduled before March. The earlier your primary, the more influence your state has after all.
So instead of having these primaries arranged in some orderly fashion that makes sense, they’re held on different days of the week, are sometimes caucuses, sometimes open or closed — just all over the place. All that seems to be for sure is that California is the last one for Republicans and Washington, D.C., is the last for Democrats.
After all, it’s pretty rare that you hear, “It’s down to what California decides!”
But admit it, by the time it’s over in June, you probably stopped paying attention. Your state primary was in March after all.
Personally, I’m not a fan of primaries. This year was a primary example (yuk yuk) of why that’s the case. It’s one of the examples of where I’d prefer either reform or things go back to the “good old days.”
By the “good old days” I’m referring to those smoke-filled back rooms where deals were made between party bosses or those battles on the convention floors between delegates who were actually members of the party.
Sure, the open primaries may be more democratic, but it’s become pretty obvious that often what the voters who turn out want and what party leaders want are often different.
It was not more obvious this year. The establishment by and large wanted someone that was not Donald Trump, while the people who turned out for primaries, who were not all card-carrying Republicans, did. There was a similar story with Clinton, the establishment wanted her, the primary voters made it not-so-clear cut.
So I often want to ask party leaders “if you don’t want these candidates then why do you let them run? If you’ve already got your preference, then why bother with a primary?”
Looking ahead, do we want this same endurance challenge in 2020 and 2024? Instead of this exhausting and boring primary season, can’t we just let the parties battle it out at their respective convention?
Maybe we can talk about that before the 2020 primary season starts Nov. 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment