Oregon Primary: Maybe Late is Better
In yesterday's post about moving up the Oregon primary to February 5th, one of the many benefits Kari cited was increasing Oregon's voice in the selection:
At least two candidates have already visited Oregon and held campaign events here, despite the late timing of our election, currently scheduled for May 20th. Senator John Edwards has already even done an ad buy in Oregon. If we moved to February 5th, Oregon would not be ignored. We're a swing state, after all.
But in comments, Chuck Butcher offered a alternative scenario:
We can hold our election on 5/20 and hope the election isn't over at that point, in which case we become rather more important.
I'm still trying to figure out the logic of moving; the gains touted seem so small versus the losses and considerably smaller than the benefit of being a player 5/20. Our delegation is small, that is a simple fact.
One of the assumptions for wanting to move the primary up is that the race will be over quickly, and only the first states will matter in the process. In past election cycles, that was true. But Super Tuesday changes the calculations and diminishes the importance of winning Iowa and New Hampshire. Candidates will be trying to save money and survive to Super Tuesday, hoping that they garner enough states to carry them forward. It could be that Super Tuesday will only tighten the competition. This is going to be different primary than we've ever seen, and Chuck suggests Oregon's later primary may actually make the state more influential. What do you think?
Discuss.
|
June 12, 2007
Posted in notable comment. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:34 p.m.
Jun 12, '07
Well thunk, Chuck. The nationwide changes this cycle definitely seem to open up the possibility of a primary that is competitive throughout. Having candidates visit us later in the cycle is definitely desirable.
One point I'm unclear on: is it only the presidential primary that moved up, or have our local elections, senate and house primaries, etc. moved as well? And, is this a totally "done deal," or is there a proposal to move it back to May?
(Personally, I think that holding other primaries earlier than May is a really bad idea, and not something to be negotiated away lightly.)
1:35 p.m.
Jun 12, '07
Washington is moving its primary to Feb 19, two weeks after "Super Tuesday". the thinking, as expressed by SoS Sam Reed (R) is that ST will winnow the field down to 2 candidates in each party. WA then can, with the other Feb 19 state, play a critical role in deciding which of the two will gain supremacy.
if Oregon held its primary the same day, we would be able to get those candidates out to the NW -- and with our vote-by-mail, they'd have incentive to come to Oregon immediately after ST. it makes sense to unite with WA on this; it enhances both states' standing and opportunity.
(of course, this is all moot. President-to-be-elect Obama will wrap up the nomination on ST anyway....)
Jun 12, '07
Washington's Democrats apportion their delegates through a caucus on February 9th, and the idea of a regional primary looks to be dead/infeasible anyhow. From today's Olympian:
4:17 p.m.
Jun 12, '07
One point I'm unclear on: is it only the presidential primary that moved up, or have our local elections, senate and house primaries, etc. moved as well? And, is this a totally "done deal," or is there a proposal to move it back to May?
It would be ONLY the presidential primary election - not the regular May primary.
Also, this is very far from a "done deal". This bill would be a one-time change - and it's very far from passage in the Lege.
6:12 p.m.
Jun 12, '07
Actually, unless they've changed it, the plans were to move the March local races (only some counties have these) so that they'd be on the same day as the presidential primary.
All the May races would stay the same.
9:21 p.m.
Jun 12, '07
our vote in Oregon already counts for so little in this process. remember 1968, when we actually mattered? we have a chance to make the Oregon presidential primary mean something; why not do it?
Jun 12, '07
Thinking out loud...how would NOT having the Pres. Primary in May affect turnout for a competitive legislative primary race? Let's say we have Novick, Bates, and a 3rd solid candidate up to run against Smith, what is a normal Pres. year primary turnout? Would we get the turnout desired? Would it help or hurt gettig the best candidate through to face Smith?
Jun 12, '07
I love your optimism T.A.!
But I am one Obama supporter that would love to see the nomination still "in play" when Oregon votes with our State playing a critical role. Wouldn't it be great to see the candidates criss crossing the State from Ontario to Depoe Bay, Medford to John Day, Grants Pass to Astoria, etc.? Wishful thinking perhaps!
Jun 12, '07
I've competed in a depressed turn-out Primary, the results were really disappointing, whether I won or lost is not the point, the point is that picking who represents you against the other side is THE premier election. Move the Prez primary & May will suck for candidates. Move the Prez and be buried in big numbers states - that's guaranteed - our delegation makes that happen. Move the Prez and DNC will be unhappy, very unhappy, they say they can slash our already small delegation - so let's further discredit DPO by having a caucus to apportion our delegates and make the votes meaningless, that'll work well. Move the Prez and maybe somebody will show up and maybe somebody will poll. So what. If it's a done deal it is a done deal without Oregon, we still won't count. We only count if this is a horse race and in May we'll get attention - a lot.
This rush to nominate is offesive. I want to know who can stand up to the process, that's as close as we get to knowing how they'll do as Prez or in the General. Kerry stunk in the General, he never had to play the process out and it showed - later. Al Gore had lots of time to fix his candidacy, he didn't, he also avalanched the Primaries. Both should have kicked GWB's butt and they didn't, do we want to do it again? Do we want a Democrat that Democrats don't care about? A sure recipe is this huge rush.
thanks for the "notable comment" and a chance to expand.