Here we go again....
The state's 1988 presidential test came just behind the prestigious Iowa caucuses and the traditional first primary in New Hampshire.Read it all here.
Early presidential primaries were held here again in 1992 and 1996.All were in February.
Then money got in the way. Concerns by state legislators and county commissioners focused on the estimated $400,000 bill for having an early primary season - thinking it was a bit steep and outweighed benefits of the early process.Decisions on whom voters wanted to run for president were shifted from February back to June, where they were again combined with primaries for other federal, state and local offices.
Cost is overstated as an issue, says Krebs.
The state's presidential primary voting is often among the final primary tests in the country.
Now, state Rep. Shantel Krebs, R-Sioux Falls, wants the early presidential primary restored, saying it gives South Dakotans a chance to showcase their strengths and lets would-be presidents get a better understanding of the state.
I've got to scurry off to work, but at noon I'll try to write more on this. I was in the legislature as an intern during the 1988 primary (and actually got to do stuff with Presidential candidates).
Comments
I think you might be forgetting something. While it is true that we are a red-state and it would take a mighty fine Democrat to win in November, only Democrats would vote in a Democrat primary. We are a small enough state that all candidates might believe they could win us and give them some momentum. I would still prefer to see some sort of regional primary system set up in 5 - 8 regions spread over 2 - 3 months. We could regionalize with ND, NE, MN, WY, MT, CO. Just an idea, but I think something needs to change int he primary system, because it isn't about ideas, intelligence, or capability, it's about money and staff. It's about John Kerry getting a loan on his house to fund his campaign and George Bush having enough money to outlast people like John Kasich.
Tacky but effective.
Even if it costs a half million to hold the primary, it would, if nothing else, be a great marketing ploy for the state. Name one thing you know about New Hampshire.
However, just like check off funds, most South Dakotans either don't understand, or aren't willing to risk marketing dollars.
Good idea Shantel... Keep pushing it.
Not sure I agree with 7:40's post either. Coverage of a presidential primary does not translate into tourists coming to the state. Who goes to New Hampshire because they heard about the state through primary coverage??
The news coverage of the primary itself wouldn't drive much, if any, tourism to South Dakota. But the top of mind awareness it would create, coupled with our tourism department's advertising would certainly have a positive impact.
New Hampshire holds its primary in February. If SD wanted to be among the first, we would also need to hold our primary at that time. Anyone familiar with the tourism industry knows most of the tourism dollars are spent on summer buys. In fact, with poor weather, the effort could completely backfire.
To say people are going to hear about SD in February and still have "top of Mind" awareness on an entirely different topic when the advertising blitz starts a few months later is stretching.
I'm personally a fan of an early primary, but not for trying to tie tourism into the argument for supporting it.
Also, they target their market, so using the "top of mind" theory would only reach those people who are politically interested and tuned in to the presidential primaries in those states where tourism makes media buys (SD, ND, IA, NE, KS, Co, MN, WI, IL and TX).
Additionally, the repetition refered to in an earlier post really isn't all that consistant when you only have a pres. prim. every four years.
I'm sure by now, everyone else is bored with this, so this will be my last post on the subject.
I have enjoyed the back and forth though! If you are who I think you are, we usually agree on most things! I'll be in the office Friday - give me a call.