Elections or Confirmations
I’ve mentioned before I was concerned about state parties putting their thumbs on the scale of primary elections. I well understand that parties dislike costly primaries that not only are expensive, but potentially give the opposition party stuff to use against them in a general election.
But voters do need to have some vested interest, beyond simply accepting the nominee strongly favored by the party.
There are two people running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Iowa…and three declared candidates so far for governor, plus one certain to jump in, and perhaps another.
At this past Saturday’s “Iowa’s Roast and Ride” event, I noted that while the official talk presumed a certain person would win the Senate nomination…all the talk about the nomination for Governor was neutral and generic—as in, “we have to have a strong nominee for governor”.
Is that because the candidate who is presumed to be the choice of those running the party has not yet formally announced his candidacy? Or is it because there’s a bit of concern about who the party regulars should back and they are sticking with the normal pledge of neutrality?
I certainly don’t have an issue with folks in office or party leaders making endorsements if they feel comfortable doing so. It’s when it seems like a foregone conclusion that I have concerns. And why I raise the issue of why be presumptive about the senate race, but not the race for governor?
With all the churn of candidates coming and going in these major races…and it’s not even the year of the election…keeping one’s powder dry until seeing who all will be in the race may be smart. And it at least suggests there’s an interest in how actual voters feel come the June primary.
