More Primary Silliness

I just want to remind everyone how incredibly stupid and protracted the primary process has become in this country.

On this February morning, nine months before the actual general election, voters in 24 states are heading to polls. For the Democrats it’s a two-person race; for the Republicans, there’s probably three people legitimately hanging around. Just a month ago, the fields for both parties were considerably more crowded. But today a little under half the states in the nation are choosing between two or three candidates, largely because of how four to seven states voted, depending on your party.

Think about it: because of how people voted in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina voted, registered Democrats in these states essentially can either vote for Clinton or Obama. It’s slightly better for Republicans, because they’ve got Michigan, Wyoming, and Florida in the mix. But I’m uncomfortable with states like f%^&ing Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada being so instrumental in thinning the herd. Just because a candidate can’t get votes in Wyoming, Michigan, and New Hampshire doesn’t mean he or she shouldn’t get a chance to campaign in Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and yes California. And it’s not fair that both races could essentially be over after today, a full month before voters in Texas and Ohio get their say.

And let me reiterate that because every state in the nation moved up their primaries so that they could “matter,” both nominations could be decided nine months before the general election. That means a woman could get knocked up tonight, carry the pregnancy to full term, and conceivably have a bouncing baby boy or girl on the morning of Election Day. That is a long f@#$ing time that this nation is going to have to deal with General Election rhetoric. And general-election rhetoric is one of the true banes of my existence. Please, someone stop the madness.