Iowa has moved up its caucus to January 3rd in order to maintain their "first-in-the-nation status". So much for trying to allow for everyone in the country to get a fair chance at voting in the primaries. No. We're not much interested in that. We only care about getting ours in first. New Hampshire has responded that they're going to set a date no later than January 8th. Their original date was January 22nd.

Other states are now moving up their primary dates in reaction to Iowa's assholery. I still don't understand why we need to have multiple primary dates. There should be one date for all states to hold their primaries at once. No longer are we in the days where the candidates need to travel from state to state to campaign in each one individually. We have tv. We have the internet. They can campaign from their own living rooms if they wanted to. The practical reason of having different dates for primaries is no longer valid. And yet, we still practice this ritual.

The only thing that has come out of this is that with tv and the internet, now whoever doesn't win the first couple of primaries is pretty much screwed. The media will continually harp on how they didn't win and inflate the significance of it to the point where people who were originally going to vote for that candidate either switch their vote or give up on them entirely.

Bully for Iowa and New Hampshire, but i sure as hell don't want my candidate selection to hinge on their decision just as much as i'm sure they wouldn't like it very much if New York and California were the first 2 states to hold primaries. I want everyone to throw in their vote at once and see who wins. This jockeying for supremacy and status is completely missing the entire point of the process. It's idiotic. And these are the people who are going to whittle down my choices for me before i even get to cast a vote. Excuse me if i'm less than happy about the prospect.

Howard Dean has tried to mitigate the problem by scheduling more primaries closer together, having experienced first hand how having just a handful of states decide the primaries can destroy a campaign (having your own party members calling up potential voters and bad-mouthing you doesn't help either). I don't think his party is cooperating with him, though. They don't want to offend voters in Iowa and New Hampshire by coming out and saying "Yeah, you don't need to be first." They're Democrats. That's the story of their lives. Don't do anything for fear it might offend someone. Even the people who already don't like you. Poncy wankers.

i don't know what you're complaining about. Last election, Iowa and New Hampshire gave us Kerry, and that worked out just fine. So what's the problem?