Perhaps it's been covered but it seems to me the states seeking to have the earliest primaries are doing so for the money.

Sure, there's the prestige but I think it's no coincidence that these are poorer or lower population states. If tourism is a big income for some states, I'm curious about what the impact financially is of an influx of reporters, political campaign workers, consultants, etc. does for a state. I'm sure this is a significant factor.

A state like New Hampshire which loses its place as an early primary would probably also lose a great deal of money. Yes, this would be true anywhere but I'm suggesting that the percentage of money the primary brings into the state might be more than a slight boost; it might be significantly warping the motivations of the pols.

Is this wrong or bad? I don't know, but it feels like bipartisan decision-making for cash rather than for the good of the body politic. I just have difficultly grasping the usefulness of this extended period between primaries and conventions.

Labels: politics, Prez race 2008