On Presidential Primaries...

I know I'm getting waaaaaaaay ahead of the game on this, but I had to toss this out there.

[sarcasm alert] Gee, the New Hampshire primary is soooooooooo important because we all know that Henry Lodge (over Goldwater in ‘64), Ed Muskie (over McGovern in ‘72), Gary Hart (over Mondale in ‘84), Paul Tsongas (over Clinton in ‘92), Pat Buchanan (over Dole in ‘96), and John McCain (over Bush in ‘00) all went on to become their respective party nominees.

And, what about the Iowa caucus? Hmmmmm... Ed Muskie, again (over McGovern in ‘72), “Uncommitted” (over Carter in ‘76... those Iowans might've been onto something there!), GH Bush (over Reagan in ‘80), Dick Gephardt (over Dukakis in ‘88), Bob Dole (over GH Bush in ‘88), and Tom Harkin (over Clinton in ‘92).

In other words..... oh puhleeeeease. The New Hampshire primary and Iowa caucus are only important to ego-centric politicos of those two tiny states (proving their self-importance whenever any other state sets primaries too close to theirs that they throw a hissy fit and cry that they'll move their dates as far back as November in order to keep their precious stature and importance in determining/crowning who they think should be prez).

The more that the process can change so that a wider variety of citizens from a larger swathe of the country can choose who are the best candidates for their respective parties (rather than handing that power to a select few) all the better. Anybody from the majority of the states knows that, unfortunately, their votes rarely count in the primaries because the nominees for both parties are already decided well before they ever get the chance to vote.

The general election is done on one day without any logistic problems for the candidates or the voters. There is absolutely no reason why the primaries cannot be held all on one day as well.... or, at most, on four/five dates over a two-month or less period.